The Colosseum as it is today. No Christians were ever thrown to lions there.

Medieval chess joke
Mediaeval chess joke. [Brother Jews advising the kings of opposite sides; and religion split between nominal Christians and nominal Jews.]

Was early Christianity Hijacked by Jews?

Quick Summary of this Article's 2000 Years
Modern-day unremitting pushing by Jews worldwide for the fraud of 'Holocaustianity' suggests the same process may have been used in ancient times to push another Jewish fraud, 'Christianity'.
It must be understood that 'Christianity' originally was a Greek expression, probably NOTHING to do with the Jewish 'Yeshua' fiction. Most of the documents relating to the period were destroyed; critics attributed the destruction to Christians, but destruction is a Jewish modus operandi.
Palestine is geographically near Greece, and Greek colonies in Turkey.
The attempt to insert crude Jewish literary junk into Greek areas, civilised for centuries, failed.
Whenever possible (Egypt; Babylon; some aspects of Rome; Europe; modern Germany, modern Iraq ...) Jews malign and destroy with complete disregard for truth. For this reason, serious historians must separate out the influence of Jews—for example, Nero vs rich Romans, the 'black legend' of Spain, the 'glorious Revolution' in England, Napoleon moving east, Holland and Britain moving west, India, the opium wars, both world wars ...) if they are to have any hope of understanding events.
The forced conversion of Rome took centuries; helped by the fraud of the Donation of Constantine.
Islam appears to have been invented by Jews, who by then were at their last gasp, having sucked Rome dry.
One might speculate that Cohen, Kahan, Khan, Kuhn... were opposed to Caerars, Kaisers, Tsars...
Islam was probably designed to convert indolent Arab masses into a force of thugs. Jews used them and manipulated them to suck parts of the Roman empire (such as Spain) and also to attack east though there were geographical obstacles.
Khazaria seems to have been targetted by colonisation, or conversion, or both, for Jew alliances.
The Roman Church was heavily Jew-influenced. Probably (1) the idea of Jews hating Yeshua was inserted to pretend the Church was a defence against Jews; (2) the supposed attack on usury was probably to keep the monopoly for Jews; (3) burnings of the Talmud, reported fairly often, were probably designed to remove the Talmud from inspection; (4) the Church propagandised poor people to damp down criticism of Jews; (5) the Church often aided Jews—possibly the reason Jews in the USA propagandise 'sanctuaries'; (6) the Roman Church was far harsher and cruel than many people can easily understand now.
Jews probably had a centuries-old hatred for Byzantine Christianity, culminating in its invasion and massacres by Muslim thugs. Much of the manoeuvring of alliances, weapons, and so on must be viewed as Jew-controlled.
19th-20th century westerners were influenced to an almost infantile level by Biblical Jewish nonsense, leading to disasters such as the US Civil War, and the World Wars in Europe and elsewhere.
Many 19th-20th century writers, not understanding Jews, believed tolerance of Jews to be a mark of enlightenment, which is why they were unable to understand the threat of Islam. They thought Islam was a tolerant religion, because it was thought to be fairly kind to Jews—without understanding that Islam had been set up by Jews, with the Quran as a military-style manual.

Below: Importance of the Greeks as Target
Below: Consequences, including Islam.
Below: Variations on the theme - Joseph Atwill and Rome. And Greece.
Below: United Nations as A Jew 'Religion'

This is an idea new to me, and perhaps genuinely new.
Here are a few starting-point puzzles – A popular religion, perhaps Roman-slave-based, or perhaps more generally based, which professed to enlighten people, might reasonably be expected to include elements from Roman, perhaps with other tribal and national elements. There might (for example) have been books of Persian beliefs, of Babylonian beliefs, of Egyptian beliefs, and other long-established written sources. No doubt with Christian material showing why they were wrong or obsolete or unenlightened.

I'd like to suggest there may have been a process, over several centuries, in which Jews made up their own stories about 'Yeshua', also known as 'the Christ', or 'Jesus Christ', and insisted upon them in their Jewish group way, redefining 0 A.D. as a starting-point for their own purposes. Three centuries is about the length of time taken for Jews to take over England, then the USA, and invent and promote bogus histories, so the time scale seems plausible enough.

In short, I suspect the 'Old Testament' progressively was forced into Christianity, despite having no connection whatever with the origins of Christianity. And the 'New Testament' itself was Judaised, replacing genuine early Christian works.

The idea is reinforced by plenty of examples of bogus religions fostered by Jews, including many aspects of the Reformation, Quakers, Mormonism, and Christian Science.

It's important to understand that early Jewish efforts seems to have been directed to Greece, not Rome. Latin Christianity was accidental, dependant on Constantine's victory. Consider that:

Last Supper

REPRISE... same idea, different wording
After a few tests, I realise many people can't understand the new view of the New Testament I'm making. So I'll retry...

[1] Bear in mind that Jesus NEVER EXISTED; see abundant material on this point. The 'Acts' are not a historical record. The 'Gospels' are self-contradictory and ridiculous.

Put this together with
[2] Jews, today, TELL LIES ALL THE TIME.
These are joint, collective lies, which persist over long stretches of time. And clearly have intention behind them. Motives include promoting wars, getting the Fed for Jews, changing propaganda schemes to face new enemies or to work for new wars for Jews, continual statistical lies on e.g. black crime, retrospective lies for example on the history of the Soviet Union, and the history of science, with a view towards skewing things to what they evidently think are Jewish interests.

So we have hypothesis
[3] I'm saying the NT was just another set of Jewish lies.
Not stories, not history, not an honest attempt at a record. But purely for Jewish aim(s). Perhaps heading off an early religion in the Roman Empire, which looked likely to form a new composite religion. I won't name it, as that will confuse people. Jews may have seen this, and thought "Oy vey, we can make money from this" or "Oy veh, God chose us to lead these stupid goyim" or "Oh vey, papyrus is cheap these days & we'll hire Greek scribes to write out our stories" or "We are the experts in official religion, so we're entitled to tell lies" or all four. So they wrote a whole set of stories, based around 'Yeshua', almost as Spielberg composed his absurd films, Weisel orated his lies for a lifetime, or Jewish 'historians' of the holohoax orchestrate and embroider their lies. The main point was to get them out, published, available to be forced onto people; further detail could come after. After a few centuries of intimidation and/or repetition and/or bribery and/or selection of fake leaders, they added the OT to the NT to reinforce their claims. This time frame is similar to e.g. forcing Jewish history over whites for the last four centuries or so.
    I've seen the argument that US Jewish-controlled 'Universities' now all accept the Bible as reliable 'proof'—since even Marxists accept this! But of course if the whole thing was just a Jewish set of stories, like the 'mainstream media', Marxists would be likely to support it, whatever the evidence, just as Jews would.

NOTE THAT it doesn't even matter if there was a genuine, new, morally original figure, for example Lucius Calpurnius Piso. All they had to do was put forward their own lies and—provided there was sufficient promotional push and destruction of opposition—Piso would be forgotten. Jews often do this; for example, the leading physicist over the last few centuries was Newton, so Einstein was manufactured as a substitute. To take a totally different example, the Beatles were one of the most influential music groups of the 20th century. If Jews started a promotional myth that 'The Bagels' were the best ever, with their famous 'Abbey Schul' and 'Light Blue Album' achievements, who can tell whether this would be accepted in 300 years' time?

NOTE ALSO that the Bible uses many techniques which show in Jewish films. For example, scene-setting and opinion-setting. Many Jewish films start with fictional stuff on how actress X is the most beautiful woman in the world, collecting her beauty award, and gasped at by big crowds. In the same way, the 'Jesus' figure is supported by miracles, impossible events, epigrams supposed to suggest wisdom, marvels, scatterings of enemies, etc etc. Rather oddly, this feature seems to be the basis of many people's reaction, which is that the Bible is full of reliable and accurate material—something like the opposite of the truth.

AND NOTE that the Catholic Church of course was fronted by non-Jews, most of the time, but they had their own views on what mattered, leading to interminable cryptic disputes. No doubt the Roman Empire's collapse was helped by such rented people diverting assets away from the state, and ordinary people. A situation recognisably similar to the present day.

If you see my point, I'd welcome serious comments. I'd particularly welcome comment on Churches post- about 500 AD, and interactions between Jews and non-Jews, and on e.g. money - Gold? Silver? paper money promotion? And the invention of Islam, and the Khazar issue. And of course promotion of wars and invasions, as parallels with modern times. Discoveries of new territories and the corresponding increases in ease of travel. Venice? Trade routes? William the Conqueror, Cromwell, Napoleon, the Reformation, Renaissance, Thirty Years War, 20th century .... Any insights, based on the idea that the Bible was a Jewish promo job; what were they trying to promote, in different eras? There may well be insights waiting to be seen and outed! [Added 21 Sept 2016)

ANOTHER NOTE: The New Testament does not mention Christianity at all—understandably, as the Church did not exist at the time. Only the fictional Jesus/Yeshua. So if some other religion (say, Mithraism, or Gnosticism, or RomanEmpirism, or Anythingism, or pan-Paganism, or revivedBabylonism) had emerged, the NT could be used against them, so Jews could muscle in. They may have prepared stories, later dropped, to plan for these eventualities—in the same way modern 'Jews' prepare media campaigns against Germans, Vietnamese, whites, Iraqis, Moslems etc. [Added 22 Sept 2016]

SECOND REPRISE... same ideas, reworded
Here's a review of a little-known but forceful small book on Jesus as a myth.

A longer and more detailed book is Prof. G A Wells' The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1982; published by Prometheus Books in the USA). Neither of these authors, Robertson or Wells, has any concept of 'Kosher' forces which successfully agitated for, then imposed, 'Jesus Christ' on top of early Christianity, which, if it even existed as a genuine non-Jewish movement, had no place for a 'Yeshua'. Prometheus Books is an arm of the 'skeptics', US people funded by Jews; Wells would not have been published, had he been Jew-aware.

archibald-robertson-jesus   Review of   Archibald Robertson: Jesus: Myth or History?

Valuable, Condensed, Thorough, and Little-known Measured Criticism of 'Jesus' Considered as a Genuine Personage. Helps Pave the Way for Future Understanding.
  Review by Rerevisionist, Jan 7th, 2017
I have a copy of this book, in the original small-format red hardback of the 'Thinker's Library'. First printed 1946, second edition 1949. Most Thinker's Library volumes were bound in brown, with black printing, and with a one-colour on white dust-jacket in their Watts & Co. house style. There are other editions, some, I think, more or less pirated; or perhaps the copyright situation isn't clear. Whether these are accurate, I don't know; for interested readers I'd recommend an original copy, just in case.

The contents are more or less chronological, with Chapter 1 containing Christian writings, Chapter 2 writings by everyone else—with some overlap—and Chapter 3 leaping forward to post-Reformation times, no doubt because criticism of the Bible in the Middle Ages is difficult to find. I'd guess Robertson—British son of a theologian in Durham, and impeccably public-schooled and degreed—absorbed much of the material in his father's house. I haven't found any supposed texts showing the existence of Jesus, not found in Robertson. (The book has a fairly detailed helpful index).

My view is that, at the time of the various commentators, nobody influential appreciated the fact the Jews, who were, presumably, behind the Jesus promotion, seem to have a genetic tendency to lie—something which may go back to the days when language was still developing, in the remotest depths of time. Much as visual camouflage would not have evolved until sight had developed, modes of use of language could not predate speech. It's now clear that Jews have an exceptional tendency to lie—this may be compared to some creatures which lie [pun not really intended!] rather than fly, when in danger. Before the days of technological aids, such as writing, and, now, photographs and fingerprints and videos etc etc etc, convincing liars must have been hard to detect. It's now plausible that Jews made up the 'New Testament' as a Jewish fantasy, or film script, or advertisement, or promotion of a Jewish 'hero' aimed at gullible goyim. It's what they do. People who describe Christianity as a 'Jewish Trojan horse' are no doubt correct.

The idea that there was a ferment of religious ideas in the Roman Empire may also be untrue. It's now known that Jewish strategies include defaming and subverting and critiquing rival societies; it's entirely likely the supposed unease leading to religious change was a Jewish manufacture.

The remaining problem is how Jews could have done this; they didn't have the Federal Reserve to print them endless money. They may have had the ear of prominent Romans. They may have used unreliable, dysfunctional, disgruntled people to spread the world, much as non-Jewish 'Marxists' now, and in the past, often fit this description, and often co-operate in treachery which is mildly profitable to them.

A modern question which may occur to the reader is why a Jew-based publishing house should risk subverting their racial group with a serious presentation of the idea of the non-existence of 'Yeshua'. There have been alternations in self-images of Christians, and I'd guess their feeling was that Christians in 1945 were a bit too independent. The story of Jewish collaborators through the centuries hasn't begun to be described yet.

Fairly modern map; the Aral Sea was once larger. Showing likely areas of religious takeovers by Jews.

Very roughly (places & names change):
UA=Ukraine, AM=Armenia. R=Rome. C=Constantinople. J=Jerusalem. M=Medina.

Arabs occupied a large area, and were well positioned to take over the remains of the Roman Empire, much of it around the Mediterranean Sea.
Note: ‘The established presence of Islam in the region that now constitutes modern Turkey dates back to the latter half of the 11th century, when the Seljuks started expanding into eastern Anatolia’ says Wikipedia.
Note: a silk route between Europe and China went north of the Khazar enclave, marked K. The Khazars had mountain and water barriers to the south, and were well-positioned to act with (or against) Silk Route merchants—and Huns, and Mongols, and the Chinese. And the Kaifeng Jews, visually indistinguishable from Chinese.

ISLAM can convincingly be claimed to have been a Jewish invention. This is written up at Jews, Christianity, Abrahamic and I won't repeat it here, but it is entirely possible Islam was assembled, over a long time, by people who could write, and who wanted to marshal the bands of miscellaneous desert dwellers and traders into a violent unintelligent force, for theft, conquest, and subjugation. Hence the difference in style between Christian and Islamic writings—they were designed for different purposes, like romantic movies vs violent movies. Various Hadiths might be compared to Judaic commentaries and Gospels and Apocrypha—extra writings regarded as supplementing the 'holy' texts, and of course allowing insertion of later updates or changes or policies.

A Jewish motive for inventing and passing off a new religion to Semites would have been to take over what's now Turkey, using allies less clever than Greeks; see the notes above. This of course happened after Mohammed. At the present day, bear this in mind when looking at Russia (hated by Jews) and Islamic invasion.

On CHINA and Mongolia and the Far East, note the fact that the Khazar area, on the extreme east of Europe, was along a route to/from China. It may have developed, as another Jewish enclave, to control that route, or as a half-way safe territory, or tax point.

In EUROPE, cities may have been partly under Jewish influence. Jews have a tradition of living in ghettoes in cities, probably a genetic inheritance from millennia of city parasitism. There is a relation between cities and cathedrals; and between smaller towns and parish churches. It's tempting to suggest that Christian parasitism was packaged out—Cathedrals and Bishops in cities providing protection for Jew monopolists; with country land ownership going to the Church, and country-dwellers still thought of as pagans.
    There are astonishing numbers of churches in Europe, and it's possible they absorbed labour, skill, and materials in a similar way to the pyramids, or to modern arms and bases: productivity arranged under the control of elites, which preferred waste and impressiveness to anything useful to ordinary people.
    Are Christians in any way sincere about their beliefs? Briefly, I'd suggest not. There have of course been creeds and Councils; and Heretics. But at times of important change, influence and money trumps beliefs, with The Vicar of Bray as the English exemplar. The Great Schism was regarded at the time as important; but most Catholics have no clue what the points at issue were. During the Reformation in England, almost all the clergy changed sides, apart from a handful of recusants, though Henry VIII's treatment of the Pilgrimage of Grace must have discouraged the others from not converting. During the entire 19th century, the English clergy must have had lives easier than ever before, with guaranteed livings in numerous parishes all around the country. The might have raised questions about Jews; they might have probed into such events as the Opium Wars; but almost all did nothing to help civilisation. They contributed nothing to the understanding of both world wars. They resembled the BBC, but before radio and recordings were invented. Now, they promote immigration, without the slightest understanding of its effects, and they continue to say nothing about wars.
    On Wars, Christendom, since 1914, has been a dead letter, probably because Jews split it very successfully and very disastrously. When Rome, then the Roman Empire, became officially Christian, they fought wars until exhaustion, very likely for the reason the USA has wars now, at the instigation of Jews. Jews switched to Islam, making it very warlike (with peaceful bits—as with Christianity, all options were covered). Muslims became the new model thug armies. The way to examine history since Christianity is to assume it was covertly Jewish, and wars would have been covertly pro-Jew, just like modern wars. Possibly the Vikings et al did not wish to pay a percentage to Jews and/or the Church; certainly they seem to have combined trading with anti-Church violence. People influenced by Victorian historical teaching regard Alfred as uniting England under Roman Catholicism (he learned Latin) and fighting Vikings, seem to forget that 150 years or so later William the Bastard of Normandy was funded for his own Christian invasion. Many people by now realise wars and civil wars with Holland, Spain, England, Ireland, Scotland, France, Russia and endless more cannot be understood without the Jewish covert operations. Wars between Christians (including of course 'wars of religion') have been common enough, though they seem to have not been examined as a separate category, probably because of the difficult issues raised.
[ Back to top of this page ]


Joseph Atwill is the author of 'Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus' (2005 1st edition). It's described as 'speculative non-fiction'. His other books and broadcast aren't (in my view) very impressive. He seems to have been a journalistic-style author, but his back-up researchers seem weighty enough. I had not heard of him; my personal desktop search reveals nothing. His surname is possibly Jewish; his book may indeed be a diversion from the attribution of fakery to Jews. The following notes I think are more or less correct, though the chronology needs adjustment:–

His work model is that, as far as Jews/Israelites/whatever were concerned, the thirty-plus years assigned to Jesus were wartime, a time of wars with Rome. The Gospels/ Acts and so on were circulated at the end of that period, as though written about forty years earlier, and ignoring war actions. Any prophecies within them could accurately 'predict' such events as a Roman wall around Jerusalem, and destruction of the Temple—they had already happened!
    [Propaganda often ignores wars, however obvious they were to people at the time: Elizabethan England is presented as a merry time, despite a huge war with Spain. The Second World War is presented by propagandists as the 'finest hour', 'good war'].

Copying of symbols and stories (as many anthropologists and others have noted) by Christianity are frequent. The ascension to heaven, the virgin birth, vague ethical ideas, death of a God, are examples. Christian symbols include the anchor, boat, fish, olive branch, and star—and these were symbols on Flavian dynasty coins. Atwill's etymology of 'Christ' is not from the Greek.

Atwill says the Maccabean dynasty was ended by the Herods. And he says the Flavian emperors of Rome replaced the previous dynasty, which ended with Nero. After these replacements, rich and influential families included the Flavians, the Herods and the Alexanders.
    [Atwill seems to accept the blackwashing of Nero, and seems unaware of the possibility that Nero was a reformer, somewhat like Hitler, who was removed and denigrated by the Flavians and their supporters after their coup].

Titus Flavius Vespasianus (son of Vespasian) though emperor for only a few years is central to Atwill's revision. Vespasian had been advertised as a God, Titus therefore being the Son of God. Josephus (renamed Titus Flavius Josephus) wrote his Jewish Wars history, essentially under Roman patronage; how much (if any) is true, is not known to me, but Josephus and the Flavians must have presented a unified view—if they were on good terms.

Atwill uses the word 'typology' to cover stereotyped stories, with sequential passages copied with modifications into a 'new' work, relying on an 'idealised prototype'. A rather clumsy expression. One example is Matthew, which is taken from the Moses story, with about ten sequential parallel passages linked by unimportant material. Or so Atwill maintains. There is of course plenty of scope for linguistic problems, abbreviations and incomprehensible words, puns, jokes, double meanings, and long-disused expressions familiar at the time.
    [Fomenko uses a technique of analysing lengths of reigns to suggest a lot of dynastic history was simply made up to conform to a known, or believed, pattern. And computerised examination of texts and their structures and vocabularies has been tried, I hope with genuine texts.]

[ Back to top of this page ]


This idea occurred to me as I wrote a review of Alex Comfort's Authority and Delinquency (1950; 1970)
Comfort's introduction begins: In 1948 the Beirut conference of UNESCO initiated a large-scale international research team ... on the causes of international and intranational hatreds and tensions. ... [including] a study of the methods by which Fascism was established, and ... the presence of psychopathic or criminal elements in the government of states. ... followed by the inevitable unfocussed discursive comments on research, psychiatry, criminology, and the 'Unesco Tensions Project'.

Note Comfort's assumption that 'Fascism' involved psychopaths or criminals, the omission of Jews, and the conference site, in Lebanon in 1948, where Jews were starting wars—as usual. The UN deserves study; and of course has an intimate connection with Jews—Ashley Montagu, real name Israel Ehrenberg, in effect a founder of 'anti-racialism', being a typical specimen. 'Anti-racialism', obviously something Jews never believed in, was a plank of the UN, in effect part of its new religion, intended to appeal to all races, except perhaps whites and Asians. My reviews include Gunnar Dahlberg and Martin Gardner as just two writers of the 'anti-racialist' dogma; Gunnar Myrdal was another.

But as with other religions, Jewish control was never complete, and the equivalents of heretics and reformations and national orthodox variations would be expected.

[ Back to top of this page ]
Click here to e-mail
Updates to this brief version will be added to my articles on Jews, here.
Click for Index to all my general interest items collected in one file
Click for Home page of entire site
© Rae West - First upload 2016-08-17. This version 2016-09-22, but-- Another reprise added 2017-01-07. Consequences and Possibilities added 2017-03-22. Islamic addenda by 1 May 2017. Greek addenda 5 Apr 2017. Khans vs Kaisers 2017-04-20. United Nations note 2017-06-25. Turkey invasion by Seljuks 2017-08-07