10- (6) These are the times of Christ
“Then, leaving Cleopatra on the throne of Egypt (a little later she had a son by him whom the Alexandrians called Caesarion), he (Julius Caesar) set out for Syria”. - The Parallel Lives by Plutarch published in Vol. VII of the Loeb Classical Library 1919 edition
Before we continue I think a short recap of the history just before the work and life of Jesus Christ would be helpful.
On January 10, 49 BC, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River leading an army of a popular uprising which would take Rome by force. June 23, 47 BC Caesarion was born, the son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. February 44 BC, Julius Caesar was appointed dictator in perpetuity, and was promptly assassinated on the 15th of March 44 BC. After the death of Caesar, a battle for control of the empire culminates with Mark Anthony and Cleopatra combining forces. In 34 BC, Caesarian, the son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, then thirteen years of age, was formally made " King of Kings'' by Antony and Cleopatra. 32 BC, the Roman Senate declared war against Cleopatra. The battle of Actium is lost in 31 BC, Mark Antony takes his life and then Cleopatra commits suicide on August 12, 30 BC.
As head of the victorious Roman army, and as the adoptive son of Julius Caesar, Octavian will claim the title of Divi Filius (Son of a God), and rename himself to Augustus "first citizen" Caesar. Yet, there is left the question, where is the true “Son of God” the legitimate son of Julius Caesar, and Egyptian Pharaoh Cleopatra, the thirteen year old boy Caesarian.
The Egyptian priests and Pharisees of the Israelites have new masters, and they are Roman. The Pharisees will once again serve who is in power. A new religion will be given to the Egyptian slaves as well as to the common Greek and Roman subjects of the empire. The Pharaoh is dead and will not return, he has become Augustus Caesar, Pontifex Maximus.
Extraordinary times for the birth of a carpenter that will put into place a belief that will persist for more than 2000 years. A work of words, a Logos that will first oppose Rome, and later be adopted by Rome in 325 AD by Constantine as the new religion of conquest.
Lets return to the son of two Gods
I am not saying that Caesarion was Christ, nor do I think it is important today, but I do think he was important to the people of his time. As he was considered the "Son of God," if you were to create a religion for the Romans of the new empire, a secret attachment to their God Caesar would certainly be useful.
Consider the following...
1. Why would the lost years of Jesus Christ match so well with a Caesarion period of exile. In the time of Christ, people who knew, would have taken notice of those lost years. They would wonder if the missing Caesarion had escaped and not been killed by Rome.
2. For the most part first century Jews did not use surnames, they were most often known by their name and their father’s name. But, for a personage as important as Christ, who was being evangelized to the Roman, Egyptian and Greek world, why no real name? When a name is how you denote who you are, where you come from, and who your family is, you would think someone would attach a surname. You may get away with believing in Jesus Christ... but it would be a problem if you were to tell people Caesarion or Caesar was still alive. The name Jesus Christ is not how people were named, Jesus is “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua, and Christ is a title that signifies savior or redeemer, whereas Caesarion is a nickname for a real name, Ptolemy Caesar Philopator Philometor.
3. The New Testament conflict in Palestine is between the Pharisees and Jesus. His anger at the temple and his concerns with money and wealth, is an economic message. The Pharisees are a problem because they side with the Roman governance of Judea. The message of Jesus can be seen as a political-economic plan to eliminate the power of the Pharisees.
4. Considering how important the calendar and dates were for the Romans and Egyptians, why so few historical dates.
5. Christ comes to the poor and the disadvantaged. It is the carpenters and fishermen that feed and house the people, this is where the real power of humanity is, in its economic production. The rich do not produce, they supply nothing, and disproportionately consume. The meek will one day inherit the earth, and the truth is what will set man free. This is the economic, and social lesson which is in the new Christian religion, a beautiful concept that can never be when your "Ekklesia" is a tyranny.
6. The apostle Paul would be able to rally many followers because influential people know the political realities, and understand that religion governs the masses. They may have known Christ as Caesarian, the Pharaoh, son of Caesar. Especially for the Greek populations that Paul was speaking to, the restoration of Greek rule would have been an important cause. For the Greeks that believed great hero's came from the Gods, like Hercules or Agamemnon, born from Gods…this story would be the greatest Greek heroic myth of all. This is the son of Isis, the human incarnation of Horus, his mother Cleopatra, who was the Greek incarnation of Isis.
If we view Christianity as a revolutionary movement, its effectiveness becomes clear. Rome tolerated various religions but persecuted Christians, notably under Nero, who blamed them for the Great Fire of Rome. Nero, the last Julian Caesar, saw Christianity facilitate the Flavians' rise to power, replacing the Julian dynasty as the new Caesars. In 325 AD, the Neo-Flavian Caesar Constantine established the Catholic Church and founded Constantinople, effectively shifting Rome's center to the East. By 410 AD, the Visigoths, Arian Christians, sacked Rome. This history highlights Christianity's utility as a revolutionary force, or as Constantine described it, a religion for conquerors.
7. In the New Testament, Jesus asks his disciples, "But who do you say that I am?" This question appears in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 16:15), Mark (Mark 8:29), and Luke (Luke 9:20) in slightly different forms.
Jesus asks this question to prompt his disciples to declare their understanding of his identity. Often referred to as the "Confession of Peter," as Peter responds by saying, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16, NIV).
Especially at this time in Palestine, the living God Caesar. If the message was coming from Caesarion, it would be crucial for nobody to know who he was, they would be sure to never actually say who. If he were the son of Caesar, that would get you killed. Most would never know who he really was, and if Rome knew they would re-kill him.
“Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.” (Matthew 16:20) Other than to say he was the Son of God, Christ never actually says who he is.
In addition this is a strange and cryptic question, Christ had been baptized by John the Baptist, at that point he was declared the Son of God, then in John 4:25–26 he tells a woman he is the Messiah. So why keep asking this question when the fact that he is the Son of God and the Messiah is common knowledge.
8. He knows more than the Pharisees. If he was Caesarion, he would have been very well taught in all the mysteries and religions, especially his own.
9. Caesarion's parents were killed over money and power. Wealth is not the way to salvation, rather, it is absurd and opposes salvation, every good Platonist, Stoic, and Cynic knows this.
It does beg the question, why has Caesarion been omitted from our common history, since it is so fitting to the history of Christ. In Church we are never told of the geopolitical elements of the period, this is similar to telling a story about Winston Churchill without mentioning Hitler, or a World War.
Consider the political thinking within the early first century Roman empire. Julius Caesar had been killed, Cleopatra, and the Greek Macedonian Ptolemaic Pharaohs were also dead, Caesar Augustus had made Egypt his personal property, and taken control of Israel. He had installed Herod Antipas as Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Israel would become a client state of the Romans. As before, Herod rules through the Pharisees, the priest class would control the population for the ruling power as was done for the Greek Macedonian rulers, and before that of the Persians, and before that for the Egyptians.
What is obvious if you read the Old Testament, is that Abraham and his men are mercenaries, and that Israel is a military institution that will defend whosoever is in power. We will see Israel fight for Greek interests until it turns sides in favor of Rome, supporting the new line of Caesars, the Flavians. Today Israel remains in support of Rome, rather a Roman Catholic Secret Western Corporate Alliance.
These three truths can explain much about the military purpose of Israel, and may explain why the Jews are so central to the Roman Catholic message …
1. If God gives land to the Jews, then Egypt, or the Empire of the day must permit the transfer. .
2. Unless Israel is supported by a larger outside economy, Egypt will dominate over Israel.
3. Israel is an ideally located military defensive position to protect the wealth generated by the Nile River valley, and today to control the wealth generated by the oil in the Middle East .
Since most people don't read, and history is a story told by those in power, it is not difficult to obscure important facts.
In the conflict between Greek and Roman rule, the child Caesarean, with his dual Roman-Greek parentage would be the most logical historical person to fill the shoes of Christ. After all, in the eyes of many people within the empire, he is the "son of god," regardless if Christ was, or was not the son of God, Caesarean was the son of two gods, Caesar and Cleopatra, at least people of that time would surely think so. If people were looking for a ruler, a divine ruler, that would bring back the Greek status quo to the entire region, this boy would have been their first choice. Nonetheless, Caesarean is not mentioned in history, at least not the history we are told today.
Today the message we hear in Church omits this monumental Greek-Roman conflict. But to the known world at the time of Christ this conflict would have been most important to everyone. Also take into account that in the ancient world everything is viewed and understood through a religious or theological point of view.
Although little is known of Jesus Christ in the first century, the Apostle Paul, and a rising Christian movement will definitely make Christ a key figure for this period of history.
In light of how useful religion is to tie an empire together, here are three possibilities for the story of Jesus...
1. It is exactly true as written in the Bible. Three wise men, Magi, (Persian Zoroastrian Priests) who foretell through astronomical events, or astrological omens the birth of Christ, the king of the Jews. Christ was the virgin birth son of God, and was God. He was the son of a carpenter and was self taught. He became the teacher for a non-violent political movement that ended with its leader's crucifixion, and the destruction of the Jewish Temple, this is an account that must be accepted by faith. Matthew 2:1-12
2. It never happened and was invented by Paul and other co-conspirators. Invented to effect change in these troubled times. Paul was a Roman citizen, a Jew, and from Tarsus. He would have had cause to do this. As a Roman citizen the new political changes would mean that the populations that were once the Hellenistic and Aramaic world of Egypt, Persia, and Greece would now be under the Latin control of Rome. Paul as a Roman would have had good reason to formulate a Jewish centered religion for the new empire, a religion that would incorporate the Greek Platonic concept of an unknowable God, the Soul, and the Trinity.
These words describe the Platonic concept of the "ONE," the unknowable God, and certainly do not agree with Genesis:
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:15-17
The Jews of his time had been in a long war against the Romans. St. Paul's home of Tarsus, where Anthony and Cleopatra had come together to fight for the control of Rome, had also been conquered by the Romans. Nero was the last Caesar of the Julian family, and tradition holds that St. Paul's death was perhaps part of the executions of Christians ordered by the Roman emperor Nero following the great fire in the city in 64 CE. The dynasty that comes after Nero are the Flavians who like St. Paul would have had cause to produce anti-Nero propaganda. It is also curious that Constantine who consolidated Christianity in 325 AD would take the mantle of Neo-Flavian, suggesting that the acceptance of Christianity in 325 AD had a connection to the Flavian Caesars of the first century.
A unique aspect of the Jesus Logos, is that it is very similar to that of Zoroastrianism, the religion of St. Paul's birthplace, Tarsus. This is the same religion of the Persian, Cirus the Great, who was the first messiah of the Jews. As in Christianity, Zoroastrianism consists of one God Ahura Mazda, an evil Satan figure named Angra Mainyu, a Pleroma of angels, an end time battle between good and evil, and with Mithra, a Christ like figure, as the mediator. The cult of Mithra, a Zoroastrian sect, will become the dominant mystery religion of first century Roman soldiers and bureaucrats.
3. It is the return of the child of Caesar and Cleopatra. The actual son of God, in fact the son of two Gods... Cleopatra and Julius Caesar, the son of God, and God, if you will. Cleopatra was the personification of Isis and her son was that of Horus, so he would have been Horus to the Egyptians, Sophia to the Greek Platonists, Caesar to the Romans, and Christ the Messiah to the Jews.
He returns to teach others to love their enemies, and rebuilds his kingdom based on love of neighbor. A God incarnate, who has renounced his wealth, and comes to love the oppressed. Comes to teach and rebuild the soul of man... to set mankind free... to tell all the truth. He professes that people must know the truth, for if they do, the world will change and will bring forth a new era. This could be the explanation for the Q source , and the "Teacher of Righteousness" spoken of in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Power is maintained through the alliances of families and their children, and it would stand to reason that the royal family of Cleopatra would have intermarried with the Jewish Kings to maintain alliances. This child would also be a descendant of King David. That would make his mother Jewish and he would be Jewish as well.
When Herod Antipas became king of Judea in 4 BC, Caesarian would have been 51, just entering his years of wisdom. If, as his mother had ordered, he was sent to India, he would have spent his teenage years on the far edge of the old Persian Empire, where the belief in one God, central to Zoroastrianism, was deeply rooted.
Zoroastrianism, the Persian faith, was a monotheistic religion centered around a single creator God, with a dualistic view of good and evil and an eschatology foretelling the ultimate destruction of evil in a final battle. This concept later influenced the Book of Revelation, which was included in the New Testament canon by the Council of Hippo in 393 AD and the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.
11-
Mithra and Platonism
The Biblical Magi or "Three Wise Men" were Zoroastrian priests. The wise men, along with all the references to Satan can point to a Zoroastrian influence within the New Testament. Christianity is an independent Jewish Minyan, based on an Old Testament which was not dualistic, and has little concern for an evil demigod. Yet the New Testament is filled with references to Satan which sound very similar to the Zoroastrian enemy of Ahura Mazda, Angra Mainyu (meaning 'destructive spirit'). For the Zoroastrians, Angra Mainyu is the originator of death and all that is evil in the world. The Persian, Zoroastrians, were also the people of Cyrus the Great who had rebuilt the Jewish temple, and returned the Jews to Israel from Babylonian captivity in 539 BC.
It would be incomprehensible that the Apostles who wrote in Greek, or in particular Paul who was from the Greek/Persian city of Tarsus where Mithraism was practiced, would have been unaware of these striking similarities to the Zoroastrian faith, and its secretive sect the Cult of Mithra.
The city of Tarsus was located in the Roman province of Cilicia. Plutarch, a Greek historian who lived from 46 to 120 AD, wrote that the Cilician pirates in 68 BC worshiped Mithras, however, it is not clear whether this refers to the Persian god Mithras or to a local deity. There is no archaeological evidence to support the claim that Mithraism originated in Tarsus, but we know it was prevalent there. Some scholars believe that Mithraism originated in Persia and spread to the Roman Empire through trade routes. Others believe that it originated in the Roman Empire and spread to Persia.
In any case St. Paul of all people must have known the similarity of the Christian apocalyptic logos to that of the Zoroastrian end times, seen Satan as Angra Mainyu, and God as Ahura Mazda.
Mithraism stands out as the most secret and least known religion, and as secrecy is the best tool for those who wish to hold power. If we hope to understand the origins of Christianity, we should look at this one cult most carefully.
Prior to the first century we understood the stars as fixed in the sky within 12 constellations that move with the seasons. We only knew of 7 objects that moved separately to the heavens, 5 planets, plus the moon and the sun. These were Gods to most people on earth, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, etc… The fixed stars on the other hand were Souls, what motivated the material world, inhabited each of us and gave us life. When we died our Soul would return to the heavens.
In Nicaea, the same village that will give us the Council of Nicaea, and the Catholic Church, around 150 BC, Hipparchus, a Greek astronomer and mathematician discovers something very unusual about the stars above; they are not fixed, they move in what we call precession of the equinox. In a world who's only science is the study of the heavens, this new information would have been transformative.
I believe that the Cult of Mithra was a secret religion that developed from the observations of Hipparchus, and combined elements of the Roman cult of Sol Invictus, and Zoroastrianism.
This new observation makes not only a new religion, but a new calendar which will have some 26,000 years, that will repeat on the anniversary of what? Of course for first century Rome, it must be the deification of Augustus, or could it be the birth of Christ as we generally believe.
This new calendar is divided into 12 zodiac ages, each lasting 2,166 years, marking the 26,000-year cycle of the precession of the stars. As we approach 2024, it's clear why some rabbis and priests now claim that Revelation is near, with the current 2,166-year epoch coming to an end.
Mithra is the mediator between good and evil, the conflict between the Zoroastrian God Ahura Mazda and Angra Manyu. Mithra is the deity that controls the precession of the equinox along with the astrological destiny of humanity. It is likely that it was the influence of the Cult of Mithra that gave us the three wise men or Zoroastrian Magi, who astrologically foretold the birth of Christ. It is also likely that the apocalypse that is foretold in the New Testament also came from this cult.
For the Greek Platonists, the Roman cult of Sol Invictus, and Persian Zoroastrians, the secret cult of Mithra along with this new interpretation of the heavens would be very attractive. The Roman Cult of Mithra, working in secret could easily be the underpinning of Christianity.
There are several instances where Mithraic temples have been repurposed or converted into Christian churches. One of the most famous examples is the Basilica of San Clemente in Rome, Italy. The current church sits atop an earlier 4th-century basilica, which was built over a Mithraic temple dating back to the 2nd century. Archaeological excavations beneath the basilica have revealed the remains of the Mithraic temple, providing evidence of the site's earlier use.
Other examples of churches built upon or near former Mithraic sites include the Church of Santa Prisca in Rome and the Church of Santa Maria Capua Vetere in Italy. In these cases, the presence of Mithraic artifacts or inscriptions in the vicinity of the churches suggests a connection to the earlier Mithraic cult.
Overall, while it is difficult to provide a precise number, it is clear that there were instances where Mithraic temples were repurposed or incorporated into Christian churches during the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire.
If you wish to go down a rabbit hole, then consider that the cult of Mithra is still around, and that it is the bases of all modern Secret Societies, including the Catholic Church. It pretends to see in the precession of the heavens astrological markers for determining the timing of the apocalypse, and finds signals in astrology prior to acts of great importance. Nancy Reagan is not alone in seeking astrological advice, astrology is still an important and wide spread mystical belief.
By 325 AD, Christianity was divided into many separate beliefs, each influenced by different aspects of Jewish, Gnostic, and Platonic concepts. All with one core belief in Christ, a savior, with a Logos which was expected to transform humanity, yet never did.
To me, power is best held in secret, and through a religious eschatology. In The Prince, Machiavelli refers to religion as a tool of the ruler, to be used as a method by which he can convince the masses of his goodness.
“They are sustained by the ancient institutions of religion, which are so powerful and of such a quality that they keep their princes in power no matter how they act and live their lives.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince.
Of all the first century religions, Mithraism is the most Roman, and the exact cult I would expect the Roman Emperor Constantine to have been initiated into. It is too similar to Catholicism, too centered on power, for me not to expect that it is this religion, and the society behind it that gave us the Catholic Church through the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.
It is likely that the Apostle Paul was a good Roman, was a loyal initiate of the Cult of Mithra, and the communities he would write to were of that same Cult. He promoted Christianity in order to support the new Flavian Caesars, Vespasian (69–79 AD) and his son Titus (79–81 AD), as well as to make both Jews and gentiles more servile Romans within the newly conquered territories.
The Jews have no word for religion. The Hebrew word for religion is yahadut, which means "Judaism," and first appeared in the Middle Ages. The word 'religion' itself comes from a Latin word religare, “to re-tie, or re-bind”or to "unite." The primary job of a religion is to unify people under a ruler, as was the Kingdom of David and Solomon unified under Judaism. Later the Persians under Ezra would reintroduce Judaism to the land of Israel to unify the faith for the Persian rulers. It would be reasonable to consider the Christ story was created, or later managed and promoted for political reasons, to serve Roman Caesars, as was clearly the case for the Neo-Flavian Emperor Constantine, who gave us the Council of Nicea in the 4th century, as well as the term "In hoc signo vinces."
From a political perspective, religion is a tested method for ruling a state, and one should notice that the Christian gospel has striking similarities to many of the pre-existing belief systems of the time. There are common motifs with those of Krishna, the Avatars of Vishnu, the Greek Platonic Trinity, the Persian deity Mithra, and the Egyptian God Horus, the list goes on. In order for Christianity to have the religious effect of binding people under a common belief, then, a common symbolic thread to the preexisting beliefs of the region you hope to rule would be essential.
The first century Romans under Augustus have conquered the Egyptians, Persians, and Greeks. Christianity melds the belief of all religious beliefs, it has Egyptian, Zoroastrian, Gnostic, Jewish and Platonic elements.
The more I study first-century Christianity alongside the Flavian takeover of Rome, the harder it is not to view the Apostle Paul as a Christian propagandist. It seams to me that he was working within the secret Mithraic cult, to develop a religion that rallied a revolutionary following, ultimately unseating the Julian family and installing the Flavians as the new Caesars, all while unifying the empire’s diverse religions under one faith centered on a Jewish Messiah and its Old Testament God.
12-
John the Baptist
According to the Gospel of Luke, around 28 AD, John the Baptist began his ministry of preaching and baptizing by the Jordan River, which marked the western edge of Herod Antipas’ territory of Perea. John condemned Herod’s marriage to Herodias as incestuous and contrary to Jewish law, since Herodias was both Herod’s niece and his brother’s former wife. John’s growing influence among the people made Herod fearful of potential rebellion. Consequently, John was imprisoned and later executed. However, before his imprisonment, John baptized Jesus Christ, marking the beginning of the ministry of Jesus Christ.
Jesus continued to preach a message of repentance and the coming Kingdom of God, which further threatened Herod’s rule. His growing following and the radical nature of his teachings added to Herod’s fear of unrest and rebellion.
Consider this phrase:
"then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32
But what is this truth, and what freedom does it offer? Could it have referred to freedom from Roman rule? Such a notion would certainly have been problematic for Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea.
We are often told that the ministry of Jesus Christ had undertones of resistance against Rome.
However, the New Testament barely touches upon the many violent Jewish rebellions of the first century or the political struggles between the Jews, Egyptians, and the Roman Empire.
There is significant uncertainty regarding the true intent behind the Apostle Paul’s vision of Christianity. Was it a revolutionary doctrine meant to liberate the world from Roman oppression, or was it, in fact a construct of the Roman Empire itself? Consider how Paul's teachings cleverly merge Zoroastrian apocalyptic beliefs, Greek platonic-philosophical ideas, within a Jewish scriptural context, creating an ideal new faith for the Empire, designed to pacify not only the Jewish people, but also all the Greek territories Rome now held. A religion urging them to "turn the other cheek" and "love their enemies."
Furthermore, this vision did lay the groundwork for a Catholic Church that later became the State religion of Rome, and bolstered Roman authority to this day. Consider this new faith as a sophisticated tool for controlling the recently subjugated Greek populations, ultimately benefiting the new Caesars, particularly the Flavians.
With so much history omitted from the New Testament, we are left to wonder: what is the real truth behind Christianity, and what was its intended message?"
The Apostle Paul's vision of the Christian religion may be a revolution to liberate the world from Roman tyranny by the incorporation of a Zoroastrian Apocalypse, Greek Platonic concepts, into a Jewish democratic call for revolt. Or , it may be the foundation of a tyrannical Catholic Church. A clever, occult, and strategic method of control for a newly conquered Greek population, in support of the new Caesars, the Flavians.
A New Religion for the New Empire
I’ve previously explored the idea of Caesarian as a potential historical figure for Christ, which, while intriguing, remains ultimately irrelevant to the core of Christianity. What truly matters is the message itself. The Logos presented in Christian texts mirrors essential themes from Egyptian, Greek, and Persian religious traditions, all within a Jewish framework. Christianity arose as the perfect faith to unify the diverse peoples of the Roman Empire, especially those recently subjugated under what was once Greek rule. This Logos, expressed in Greek, reflects motifs familiar to a newly conquered Greek population, binding them to the emerging Roman order.
There is no historical doubt that violent revolts against Roman rule occurred in Israel during the first century. The First Jewish Revolt (66–70 CE) began with a major uprising in Judea, culminating in the destruction of the Second Temple and the widespread dispersal of the Jewish people. However, Jewish resistance to Roman authority extended far beyond Judea.
Kitos War (115–117 CE), saw revolts erupt in Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire, including in Cyrene, Alexandria, Cyprus, and Mesopotamia. In Cyrene, Jewish rebels, led by Lukuas, ravaged the city, and similar insurrections took place in Alexandria. Cyprus also saw significant bloodshed, prompting the Roman government to ban Jews from the island. The unrest even reached Mesopotamia, where Jewish communities rebelled against Roman forces during Emperor Trajan's campaign in the region.
These uprisings were followed by the Bar Kokhba revolt (132–136 CE), which sought to overthrow Roman authority once more but ended in a brutal crackdown, leaving Judea devastated. This widespread pattern of resistance illustrates that Jewish opposition to Rome was not an isolated phenomenon, but part of a larger and enduring conflict, deeply intertwined with the political and religious upheavals of the time.
Amid these upheavals, the Roman general Titus, who led the siege of Israel, replaced the Julian family of Caesar Augustus as the ruling dynasty of Rome. One can imagine how useful Jewish revolutionaries might have been to the Flavians as they seized control of the empire. Just as Josephus switched sides to become an ally of the Flavians, it's likely that other Jews also saw an opportunity to align themselves with the new regime.
The Flavians, with Titus at the helm, would preside over an empire that was predominantly Greek in culture and population. Titus would have disseminated the Christian doctrine almost as propaganda, written in Greek, embracing multiple faiths and promoting non-violence to serve as a tool for pacifying unrest in the empire.
Joseph Atwill, in his book Caesar's Messiah, presents a provocative theory: that Christianity was a deliberate creation by Titus to quell the ongoing Jewish revolts. While this idea is interesting, it requires the belief that Titus, or those around him, had immense foresight. The revolutionary nature of the Christian "Logos" would not typically be something a ruler would desire his subjects to adopt, unless its design had a specific purpose, such as undermining the influence of the Julian dynasty, particularly the reign of Nero, to solidify the rise of the Flavians.
The struggle between the Julian and Flavian dynasties for control of Rome lends credence to the theory that a revolutionary religious text like Christianity could be a tool for destabilizing the Julians. Once in power, the Flavians could have used a priestly class to guard the true meaning of the text, offering only a controlled and diluted interpretation to the masses. Titus and his advisors, assuming this theory holds, would have had to trust that the general populace would never fully understand the radical demands of the Christian Logos, while the priesthood maintained its congregants within a belief that served the Roman Rulers interest..
I don't believe that the Apostles or Christ were simply created by Titus and his conspirators. I think that it is more plausible that there was a Christ, rather I think there were many Christs, the Platonic, Zoroastrian and Jewish religions were already intermixed within this new empire, there were many with messianic concepts, new concepts were exchanging from one religion to the other. From before the time of the Maccabees, Greek philosophy and religion had been infiltrating Jewish thinking.
Philo of Alexandria, also known as Philo the Jew, an Egyptian who wrote in Greek, lived between 15 BCE and 41 CE, is considered a Church father, and is also one of the best sources for Platonism. Philo would have been a contemporary of Christ, yet the fact that he never mentions Christ only demonstrates Christian thinking was prevalent in the absence of Christ, and that Christ was mostly unknown in the first century.
Titus and company converted these messages into one that would be more suitable to Roman interests, and the Council of Nicaea later consolidated the dogma, for example:
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves ...” Romans 13
It could be that it was all carefully considered by Rome, and then evangelized by the Apostles, but I don't think so, rather I think there was a Christ that started a word, a logos that began to spread, then taken up by the Apostles and later tweaked to better apply to the Roman Empires interests.
Besides the obvious insertions to benefit Roman rule, the Logos of Jesus Christ appears to describe a way of life by which Rome can not subjugate Christians. A path that will work if you follow it, but one that most people will not apply to their lives.
If you give away your wealth, there is no wealth to tax
If you "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemy," you don't fight, and if killed you have eternal life.
If you beg you take resources from Rome, enough beggars and you have destroyed the economy of the state.
If you keep these practices within a community of like minded people you will have an ideal economy of free people.
With an empire of Christians how can Rome tax or make war? But, if you include the Old Testament you will have essentially contradicted the Christian message.
The obvious may have been known, that very, few people want to be poor, are unafraid of death, or can love their enemies. This would make the Christian Logos beautiful words, but impractical.
To become free, the Jews are told not to confide in the Pharisees who have been governing them on behalf of their Roman client. Do the Jews now know they have always been trapped within an illusion of freedom, with their kings, and their priests always as subjects of the ruling power of the day. That ever since Moses took them from Egypt their priests have projected an illusion and been the tool used to dominate them.
The Pharisees and Rome would lose grip if the Jews were told this truth. This failure of the Pharisees and the Temple, is the basis of Stevens' defense to the High Priest.
Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,
Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest?
Did not my hand make all these things?’
You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.
(Acts 7: 48-51)
The passage that ends with "you always resist the Holy Spirit" suggests that the Holy Spirit is a divine force acting upon the soul, resembling the Platonic concept of the Trinity. However, this idea isn't Jewish, as Judaism has no Trinity. Scholarly consensus also holds that the Old Testament makes no mention of an immortal soul independent of the body. The fact that the Pharisees "always" resist the Holy Spirit suggests that the Platonic notions of the soul and the Trinity had been resisted for some time—understandable given that Israel had been under Greek dominion since Alexander, for over 300 years.
In Christian theology, the Holy Spirit is the third part of the Trinity, while the soul is distinct yet interconnected. The soul is often seen as the essence of an individual—their mind, will, emotions, and spiritual core. The Holy Spirit, by contrast, is viewed as God's presence within and around believers, guiding, empowering, and transforming their lives.
Another clearly Cynical, Stoic and Platonic aspect of the Christian logos is that it makes clear that wealth, and our attachment to material things is a serious problem ...
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Mark 10:25
Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Luke 18:25
People who love their enemies, and accept poverty are ideal for any tyrant, but if they govern themselves that may be a problem, since the tyranny falls apart if they go to Ekklesia to govern themselves, like the Amish!
Of course the Christian message must be ignored by those in power, rulers will still rule over their servants and slaves.
Christianity remains an excellent message for tyrants, it gives slaves a sense of power in the afterlife, acceptance of their poverty, and eternal life as long as they are good servants.
The Christian message is one of equality, and since equality is the enemy of Tyrants, I don't think that when Constantine gives us the Nicene Creed in 325 AD, he personally adopts this belief, rather he sees this Creed as the ideal religion for dominion within a master/slave social paradigm. Therefore his famous expression, "In hoc signo vinces." Christianity would become the State religion for conquest, and has worked very well to this day.
Even today, those who seek to rule or wield influence over others understand these principles as undeniable truths:
One should not embellish or dress up Christianity: it has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man, it has excommunicated all the fundamental instincts of this type, it has distilled evil, the Evil One, out of these instincts — the strong human being as the type of reprehensibility, as the ‘outcast’. Christianity has taken the side of everything weak, base, ill-constituted, it has made an ideal out of opposition to the preservative instincts of strong life; it has depraved the reason even of the intellectually strongest natures by teaching men to feel supreme values of intellectually as sinful, as misleading, as temptations. Nietzsche: The Anti-Christ
“Thus it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, sincere, religious, and also to be so; but you must have the mind so disposed that when it is needful to be otherwise you may be able to change to the opposite qualities. And it must be understood that a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things which are considered good in men, being often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion. And, therefore, he must have a mind disposed to adapt itself according to the wind, and as the variations of fortune dictate, and, as I said before, not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if constrained.” ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince