John Kozlowsk ● June 11

“Where in the Gospels are you getting this…”? This is a superb question, but don’t anyone dare answer it out loud if you want to stay in the institutional church.

I point out what I think is obvious in Romans 9:6 “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel…” It is clear that the word “Israel” has multiple meanings, but again, do not strive for a rational dialog on that. The same can be found for the word “Jew”. Similar issues apply to the words “synagogue” and “church”, but this is already too much for the institutional Christian.

Reasonable answers can be discussed, but it seems not in public. Most tend to look at the word “Israel” or “Jew” and have their predefined single meaning and no other thought is allowed. The number of people I have had serious in depth dialogs on this can be counted on one hand.

Steve McCormick ● June 11

I think it’s high time to do a critique and analysis of Joseph Atwills’ “Caesar’s Messiah”. As a long time listener of Tim Kelly’s podcast I’ve avoided looking into it. Probably a result of my thinking that his association with Tim might give rise to some kind of conversion on his part. It doesn’t look like one is coming so I thought I’d finally take a look at the ‘movie’ version of the book Caesar’s Messiah. It’s on Youtube. It’s time that we give his theory a good hard look and break it down for him. I was surprised at the level of naïveté contained in the “documentary”. He needs to be disabused of these ideas, not to mention that they directly mislead souls and harm the Church. I say we should take it on and set the record straight on this historical jibber jabber nonsense. Ideas anyone? I’ll be refuting his heretical Judaizing in the weeks to come and invite anyone else of good will to join in. It’s despicable what he’s done.

Jb ● June 11

I think the United States really missed its chance to do something about the Jewish criminal element on November 24, 1963. When Jacob Rubenstein, a known Jewish gangster, shot Oswald on live TV, there should have been immediate outrage, maybe even pograms to take this element out of power right then and there. I think we are still suffering the effects of that lack of action.

Steve McCormick ● June 11

One possibly potent outcome of these legal hassles is a message that I can’t get out of my head. It doesn’t matter if Trump’s convicted, it’s a loud and clear message that they’ll hassle him from his swearing in day in and day out to hobble him if he were in office. Can Trump prevent that if he were in the Oval Office? He didn’t fare so well during his first term. Who wants that? Four years of legal challenges with no progress on his platform.

Steve McCormick ● June 11

Jb - what are you saying? It was not a time for what you are suggesting at all. Most upset citizens were pleased that the “Russian scum that murdered our president “ got what he deserved. The press was ecstatic with the hair raising front page material they’d been provided and my impression was that the population was generally happy about Oswald’s murder. Nobody then knew anything much at at all, if even that, about “Jack Ruby” being one Jacob Rubinstein. The hint of scandal about his bar kept all our imaginations focused on b-girls and strippers when it came to Ruby…..Having a proverbial hard-on for Jacob Rubinstein with anti-Jewish thoughts was/were the furthest thing from most people’s thoughts. If there were any at all in that area I’d guess they’d have been “good for the Jew. He did what I’d have done. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

lambchops21 ● June 11

Steve I agree, the Caesar’s Messiah thing has troubled me for years—I have never heard them touch the subject together on this show, though. I assume they both agree to disagree & respect Tim’s beliefs/Catholicism by avoiding the subject, but it’s a pretty gargantuan elephant in the room, isn’t it..?

John Kozlowsk ● June 14

Steve, I agree that the issue of the differing foundations of Atwell and Kelly is worth dialog. However, what I respect the most about the two of them is the willingness to have a public dialog with the differing foundations. If there is any real criticism, it would be that their foundations don’t seem to be articulated when clear opportunities arise.

While I have friends with a shared foundation of being a follower of Christ, I also have friends where our foundation is rather different. This is to be celebrated, but dialog on our foundations should also be constant.

I am reluctant to add a comment, as it appears only recent comments are displayed and this might kick yours off. My earlier comment on Atwell’s question “Where in the Gospels are you getting this…” seems to have disappeared.

As to engaging others in serious dialog, I am more than willing. However, since I can demonstrate censorship in other arenas, I will be careful here. You want engage me in dialog, my website is simply my last name with a dot org. I won’t give the link as that may be offensive. For contact, simply use my first name at my site. You might find I take some positions that obviously make me a bad person, as I have the habit of striving to be consistent with the Bible and defending its veracity. I will be in contrast with both Kelly and Atwell.

Steve McCormick ● June 15

It’s one thing to have respectful differences of opinion but there is no respect in Caesar’s Messiah. The contention is that the whole thing was a made fabrication, a tool for political control. Bottom line is Atwill is saying Christianity is totally false and its followers are duped morons. I say let’s dissect the foundational presuppositions of the drivel that guides his bankrupt ideology. Ideologies like his have such little potential to offer any real resistance to the technocratic mandates that we’re being ordered about that it’s a laugh. If he came to a rock and a hard spot he’d fold like a cheap suit. There’s nothing to die for by such people. He’s nothing more than a blob of atoms banging around clanging against one another. Let’s face it.

John Kozlowsk ● June 15

Steve, Atwill does have foundational issues as Caesar’s Messiah refutes a strawman rather than the real Jesus. However, what was built in Rome, especially during the time of Constantine, was institutionalization of what it is to be a follower of Christ, which I contend Christ does not call for. In other words Peter was not the first Pope, and Roman Catholicism is a distortion of what it is to follow Christ.

I set before many the thesis: “The Bible is true and the institutional church is a fraud.” For some reason it has been hard to find an atheist, Roman Catholic, or Protestant to take me up on that. A modest attempt using the Bible to back that up is on my website. Any takers on serious dialog? You can still be the first!