Scragged Again

Scragged Again

[Reprint of August 8, 2011 article on COTO]

“Those who control the Past control the Future. Those who control the Present control the Past.” ~ George Orwell

The authenticity of the Protocols is contained in their predictive or prophetic capacity. 
The only way to successfully predict the future is to engineer it. ~Willy Whitten
. . . .

“The Editors said:
OK Willy, we’ve put up with your increasingly   lunatic rants for quite some while now, but we will not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, and the vicious blood libel of the proven forgery you refer to has absolutely no place on Scragged.

You’re on very thin ice.
August 6, 2011 12:07 AM”

I replied; You are liars. I already told you I quit, and you know it.

“anti-Semitism” my ass, if you read it you know the whole thing was an explanation of why the Protocols are NOT from Jews and had nothing to do with Judaism.

The way you have handled this is to purposely defame me – because the public does not know what you left out. And now you boldly pronounce it “antisemitic”…[ “gee what horrible things did he say??”]

You are dishonest and delusional if you interpret what I said as a liable to Judaism, or the Jewish people.

I’ve seen this JDL style reverse defamation job many times over.

Claiming anything is ‘taboo’ information and beyond the realm of discussion shows the narrow width of your grasp of freedom of ideas and interpreting ideas.
It is purposely burying a manuscript – no matter how ‘fictional’ you may determine it to be, is what grows the canker on the whole subject.

The thesis of it’s supposed falsehood fails in that it is obviously predictive of the present political architecture of the world. dismissing this out of hand is in no manner a valid search for truth, it is bare and obvious censorship. How do you explain that the world is and is becoming more a If you have read it and will not admit that, and at the same time denying others any information that would be revealed in my critique is a plain deceit in itself.

There is no rational excuse, you want to hide this thing. Your audience is supposed to be adults capable of thinking things through for themselves, this dogmatic intolerance has no real transparency to it, there is no rational excuse for burying the topic without discussion. This tactic only illustrates an agenda to deceive.

If the truth be known about this event in a larger public forum you would be judged as fools to believe your motives aren’t obvious.

You repeat the same old script verbatim, it is a mantra…you should fondle beads while you chant it. This mindset can only take place in a mythical make-believe paradigm. Oh yes, a charge that you will dismiss with a hand-wave, uttering another trite piece of dialog, that “it has been proven” – but YOU haven’t proven. Because it cannot be proven by rational argument, that is why the argument is forbidden.

Never discussed is the ‘content’. It is never analyzed in the context of the manuscript, but rather a “comparison” that is contextualized in the narrow aspect of how one sentence or section is similar to another. And not focusing on what the manuscript actually says. Every ‘debunking’ I have ever read fits the same template, and that is to distract from what the document says, by playing puzzle with the words and sentences. Why? It is because of that which is revealed in a reading of the document in it’s stated context.

You can reply with the same empty excuses as, you are entitled to your own opinion bla bla, and that you have the right to make such editorial decisions, and other such excuses, however the fact remains that does not address the issues I raised above. This editorial decision is based in a spurious and flaccid argument. The opinion is certainly yours as a right, but it is not a reasonable opinion. You are within your full right to enforce this opinion through your policy. That is simply not the issue I speak to. I have no desire to post on Scragged anymore. I don’t want any association whatsoever. I wrote this simply to call you on your bullshit.

You say:
“..your increasingly lunatic rants,” this is quite obviously direct liable to characterize my thoughts such. That you cannot grasp the internal consistency of my narrative is not because it makes no sense, it is that you are conditioned to reject that very consistency by the engineering of your perceptions, one of the very topics discussed in the Protocols.

Bring aware of the techniques that are disclosed as levers for carrying out the agenda, is being aware that these techniques are in open use, but dismissed by the popular myth by a variety of rhetorical distractions to confuse the issue of techniques and the signs of their application.
The manuscript is a textbook of social engineering technique. And if the average person understood this fact they would grasp why and who is trying to keep it a secret.

And the slur of being a lunatic, of being a “Jew Hater,” is one of the techniques spoken to in the manuscript itself. That being the case it is especially imperative for the system to keep that point hidden. This is in fact a keystone issue. The technique is essentially stated: “nothing to see here, move on he’s just crazy.” But as I have described in detail , this is a cheap ploy, and I have pointed out the essential importance to the system constructed by the template of this agenda, to keep this information from propagation.

Every essential sociopolitical manifestation happening without, as to this paradigm, is explained within the Protocols. And there is the real danger: That they will be understood.
Whether you participate willingly, consciously, and of your own free will is a matter you will have to figure out for yourself. But you will not, save for some extraordinary epiphany. Because this issue has been manipulated through your perception with all the weight of any dogmatic social taboo. And all such taboos are emotionally based conditioning. This has been known to cultural anthropology for more than two hundred years, and the more modern social sciences evolving from that. Only the techniques for enforcement of such taboos are new. These superstitious social strictures are as old as humanity itself. It is as old as the neurosis of superstitious societies.

Thinking that you are much to clever to be caught up in anything so seemingly silly is to misconceive the fact that the rational mind is overwhelmed by the emotional mind when habituated to a society wide attitude. All of us have been conditioned and socialized. It is those who have discovered the use of and understand the techniques of such mind control who have the opportunity overcome it.

I know, it is at this point in the argument that the dreamworld begins to push in on you emotionally, and you are compelled to deny that emotions are a bad thing. But that of course is not my message. I am not saying emotions are bad; I am saying that the baggage attached to and driving those emotions is an implant – these are not your own thoughts. And that is the mind blowing sentence for the enchanted to hear. The urge to leap into full-blown denial is too often overwhelming. This is why the epiphany is so important even if too rare.
Although I have used reason in this argument, it is always with the recognition that the receiver will have to be in a receptive state already, to be aware enough for the switch to be pulled by their own will to say, “wait, I am curious about this.” Those who are so habituated to a defensive mode, will never see the logic, there is an interrupting emotional static pulsing through their minds. It is a type of jamming of our signal-recognition. This is called cognitive dissonance. ‘Context’ and ‘aspect’ merge and, warp and woof within the mind. These are micro and macro concepts, that when merged puts the thinking out of focus. {An analog would be. looking through the wrong end of a telescope}

>’Context ‘is the general conceptualization. {The wide end of the telescope}

>’Aspects’ are specific points in the matrix of that conceptualization.{the eyepiece – attention}

In the holographic construct of the mind, a strong emotion can ‘light up’ a section of conceptual aspects, isolating them from the general contextual conceptualization, to present an incomplete conceptualization mistaken for the actual context one is attempting to determine. This is interpreted as error by the overall mental system as a bad feeling, but the rational mind is unaware of the cause and will reject a proposed concept because of emotional and not rational confusion. Habits are in this sense excited established paths of emotional memory.

Grasping the mechanics of this structure, we see that it is our thoughts that generate our emotions. It is an electrochemical process that the aware conscious mind can control, or the subconscious mind will drive when you go into programmed mode.

All of this is to address what is meant by the phrase ‘wake up’ when the subjects of perception manipulation, emotional conditioning and mind control are discussed. It is possible to jump start the epiphany through rational dialog, but one must follow such arguments as I have made out here. This is painful for those most deeply in trance. But a clearer, more constant conscious awareness can be developed by practice of attention.

Now this all began on the comments section on a story on Scragged attempting to debunk “conspiracy theory:

“The more that we assume that the ruling elites are dominated by the Jewish Rothschilds, the more bone-headed that move seems.”~Scagged Author

Here is a key to this mystery and it is based on presumption, a presumption based on mere perception.

“Jewish Rothschilds”?~ww

So I went on to post this:

A strong opinion is not a mistake. It is having nothing else that is the mistake.


To Take The Romance From The Philosopher’s Stone
By Willy Whitten
The very first thing to consider when one reads or hears the title of the manuscript known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is that this protocol has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism, but to cloak itself from what it is in naked relief underneath – psychopathic lust for political power. It is a grimoire of megalomania, the authors are worshipers of mammon, and they hold themselves up as gods. The combination is a mix of breed and creed, neither Jewish, Christian, Muslim or any other religious faith. Even attempts to characterize them as literal ‘Satanists’ is a misconception, they care nothing for anything but power and the wealth it brings. They are immoral, so Christians consider them ‘Satan Worshipers’. It is the Christians who believe in Satan, not this power elite. So they leak out fraudulent garbage to further the myths and hang up researchers in endless details of fantastical intrigue – the stuff of comic books.

The most predictable thing results in this, hangers on, wannabe’s and charlatans take up such nonsense and propagate it to appear important. And those who are successful to a point to get noticed and receive promotion and often financing from the mid level oligarchy that understands the importance of PR, and propaganda in perception manipulation. It is a veritable industry and the symbolism is cleverly used in logos and advertizing to further the mythology. Everybody climbs aboard because it is hip, cool, “fraught with meaning.” Art directors, movie execs, science fiction authors, comic artists, fashion designers, and wanna be vampires, parade the charade.

And the Elite laugh all their way to his banks and estates. Some of this iconography is even done in fine arts, and the Elites may own and promote these tools as well. Some of the blue blood youth of these Elites may see it as a romantic persona for a time – until they are tapped for responsibilities. The “All Seeing Eye of Horus” is put on the shelf and real business is attended to.

Another thing to remember that much of this symbolism is secular and has meant different things to different philosophies throughout the centuries. The Romantic period of art, and sculpture, and architecture adopted many symbols and myths from classical Roman motifs, as an appreciation of technique and craft as well as subject. The fanatical “Christian” view of all of this as having to do with the devil is again, psychological projection on their part. The artists and philosophers of that era related to an entirely different paradigm one breaking the trail for an expression of their ideals of Liberty, Justice, and Reason.

These Ideals themselves were then co-opted by the powers that be, the chic and popular thing of the day, and it’s rhetoric taken and spun for their own means. And as this movement in the minds of men, educated in greater numbers than any generation yet began to discover that Liberty was the rightful and natural state of the human being, the Elites became more determined to steal their thunder, and this is where and when the of the penning of the most referenced form of these Protocols, which had been around evolving through the ages, took shape this is the version penned by Weishaupt, the Illuminati version. This version evolved further with reference to technological advances by the early 1900s.

As an age of information developed, it was more difficult to remain behind the scenes, since their operations affect all of commerce, so distractions became more important, and were developed accordingly. Control of general education became a primary goal. If there was to be education, and that was quickly becoming a given, then they had to have a great influence upon it. Their interests are opposed to the general interest in the most extreme manner. The general population must not be allowed to comprehend this. This is why philanthropy became such and important cloak, and the “Humanities” had to be understood as their bastion of high moral fortitude in the eyes of the common people. Yes “the devil” is a liar and a tempter, and so are they, but it is a technique of the soulless, not those who believe in a supernatural power or force. They have no faith in anything but their own cunning. But they are not atheists, all humans have a belief system of some form or another, it is an epistemic necessity. This deep faux “Zionism” is far from agnostic – they believe themselves to be materially divine. After all they reason they are the puppet masters of the world. What else can divinity mean but that?

A more complex understanding of this will come in a later chapter, for the creed does have its beginnings in the Babylonian Talmud and the Kaballah, but these are not strictly Judaic either, having Babylonian, Canaanite and Egyptian roots in them as well as the Levites, a rejected tribe of the true Israelites, and their Torah.

It was at this point that Scragged “excised” everything but the sentence mentioning the Protocols, and claimed that it was an “Antisemitic rant.”

Who is Will Offensicht?
“Will Offensicht is a staff writer for and an internationally published author by a different name. Read other articles by Will Offensicht or other articles on Society.”
“Offensicht” is German for, “open view.”

He believes in the psychotic meme of ‘American Exceptionalism’.
“American exceptionalism still makes a difference.”
By Will Offensicht | August 8, 2011

Scragged is psychological warfare – it is the Hegelian Right dialectic in action. And should be scragged [strangled] in open view.

©2011 Willy Whitten

“I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power. I am
naturally very jealous for the rights and liberties of my country, and
the least encroachment of those invaluable privileges is apt to make
my blood boil.” — Ben Franklin

“Know Thine Enemy”

All need to grasp that at the heart of this, the real enemy is the International Banking Cabal and the International Corporations that have grown up around them.

All who cherish freedom need to identify who the real culprits are.

The Skills of Long Range Strategy In Building a Controlled Opposition

>Marrano Judaism and the infiltration of Catholic Europe

>Scofield and Radicalized Fundamentalist “Christians” in the West
*Christian Zionism

>Brzezinski and Radicalized Fundamentalist “Muslims” in the Middle East
* Mujahedin
*Al qaeda Mujahedin


A Scragging Example:

“Wikleaks expected strong protest when they released manuals teaching soldiers how to prevent overthrow of governments friendly to the US, but the reaction was negligible. Americans were mildly surprised that our government was smart enough to plan how to support friendly governments in dicey places. That’s something we’re not usually good at, but the basic goal was fine.”~Offensicht

Frankly, the cold blooded Machiavellian ruthlessness in the subtext of this paragraph is barely submerged, in fact just slightly glossed. In my opinion this is Ayn Randian depth psychopathy banal and mundane, perhaps the most terrifying type.
He says “friendly governments: out as if the historical reality of the nature of their “friendliness” is hardly a secret, but merely drifting on a cloud of rank apologia.
“He’s a son-of-a-bitch but he’s OUR son-o-a-bitch,” rings nostalgic and romantic to the ears of deluded crackpots who’s minds have been mixmastered by propaganda and conditioning.

It is not a stretch whatsoever to place this attitude akin to, “it’s a hard job but we’ve got to do it.”
This is ‘ends justify the means” twisted pathology. Any sane reasonable person knows that ‘ends DEFINE the means’. The “ends justify means” school is situational ethics stretched to fanatical extreme.

It is bizarre that one holding such attitudes would consider themselves “Christian.” And this swings us back into the body of the essay and the premises of “Christian Zionism,” and it’s signal character as the worship of Mammon. This is the principle that spawns the maxim of “Might Makes Right.”

And any sane human knows that aggressive might does not make right – but brings death and destruction.

. . . . .

“While many will dismiss the idea of a Zionist-Masonic alliance as laughable, delusional or the all-time favorite, “conspiracy theory,” there is an undeniable link that exists between the Talmudic enclave built upon ethnically cleansed Palestinian land and the satanic secret society that has had a prominent, clandestine hand in world events for centuries. One needs to look no further than the buildings and lodges donated to the Zionist entity by its founders, the international banking giants and originators, the Rothschild family, who are rumored to “own” 80% of historic Palestine. Literally, Freemasonry is written all over each massive structure. The reason why this connection needs to be discussed is painfully significant. The Zionist regime is exceedingly precise in carrying out its intelligence operations of death and destruction on anniversaries, on Jewish holidays or on days with deeper, “spiritual” meaning in the Kabbalist-Masonic context of “sacred geometry.”
Examples: Mossad’s false flag attack on September 11th, 2001; in Kabbalistic teaching, the numbers (9/11) represent the day in which the religion of the world becomes one of which that requires its followers to disbelieve in ‘God’ on earth and believe that all life on earth should be annihilated (71). Leading 9/11 researcher, journalist, writer, professor and scholar Kevin Barrett described the September 11th attacks as “a mass human sacrifice designed to ritually inaugurate a New World Order of global government by Satanists and atheists (72).” It is also 11 years to the day that George Bush’s father called for such a ‘New World Order.’ Next, one of Mossad’s false flag attacks in Mumbai and the infamous train bombings in Madrid; the events of both attacks were overwrought with Kabbalistic numerology, the destructive number 11 in particular (73). Also, the criminal, genocidal, Zionist invasions of Iraq and Libya; both nations were invaded on the twisted Jewish revenge holiday of Purim, in which the blood of the Amalekites (in this case, Arabs) must be spilled for the ‘Jewish people’ to rejoice in victory (74).

And now: the 7/22 (‘oddly enough,’ the sum of the numbers is Kabbalistic 11) atrocities in Norway; 65 years to the day that terrorism in the Middle East was born, when the deranged and mass murdering Irgun militia, led by future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, bombed the King David Hotel in al-Quds, killing at least 92 people. This sanguinary operation paved the way for the Zionist entity to be established. It is an event that is celebrated to this day by Zionists, including the butcher of Gaza himself and current leader of the occupation, Benjamin Netanyahu”
~Jonathan Azaziah

Original article at COTO:

68 thoughts on “Scragged Again


    The most recent article of twisted bullshit on Scragged:

    Our Fatally Wounded First Amendment Homosexual unions hole the Constitution below the waterline.

    “What’s new as of today is that, as with the infamous Roe v Wade decision, the Court has somehow ferreted out a new right that’s been hiding unsuspected deep in the Constitution for all these years without anyone ever noticing. Not the right for states to choose to allow same-sex marriage; now, homosexuals have that as an absolute right regardless of what the state they’re in prefers. Just as the homosexual activists have been demanding for years, their behavior is now a protected class we all must bow down to – or else!

    Don’t believe this, amidst all the celebrating? Let’s take a look at what happened after the civil rights case homosexuals love to point to as a precedent, the 1967 Loving v Virginia decision that struck down state bans on interracial marriage.

    The Cost of Unpopular Faith

    For all of American history, some states had chosen to forbid blacks from marrying whites, while others didn’t care. Suddenly, the Supreme Court ruled that this represented an unlawful infringement of basic rights, despite the fact that marriage is never once so much as mentioned in the Constitution.”~Petrarch
    . . . .

    I will not say much about this insane and twisted point of view presented by Petrarch in the article from the fascist site Scragged. But I will point out that this quote that, “marriage is never once so much as mentioned in the Constitution” is illustrative of someone who thinks that rights are ‘granted’ by authority. At the same time, Petrarch dismisses the 9th Amendment by claiming that “a new right that’s been hiding unsuspected deep in the Constitution for all these years without anyone ever noticing.”

    What are these so-called “Conservatives” conserving? Clearly they are conserving bigotry and intolerance.
    Patriarch continues with this statement:

    “Now, let’s be clear: we are not saying that interracial marriage ought to be against the law. We are simply pointing out that the Constitution says nothing whatever about it.”

    Utter bullshit! Of course this fascist bastard thinks interracial marriage ought to be against the law, just like he thinks homosexual marriage ought to be against the law. That is what his entire article is about. He is a lying son-of-a-bitch, none of his smarmy rhetoric can hide that fact.

    • Inalienable vs. Unalienable

      English has changed since the founders of the United States used unalienable in the signed final draft of their 1776 Declaration of Independence (some earlier drafts and later copies have inalienable). Inalienable, which means exactly the same thing—both mean incapable of being transferred to another or others—is now the preferred form. Unalienable mainly appears in quotes of or references to the Declaration. Inalienable prevails everywhere else.

      Although English usage rarely takes etymology into account, it’s worth noting that inalienable is truer to the word’s Latin and French roots, for what that’s worth. In- is a Latin negative prefix, and un- is an English one. While the founders’ Anglicized word remains an accepted variant, the more Latin form became more common around the beginning of the 19th century and has remained ascendant ever since.

      This ngram, which graphs occurrence of the two forms in a large number of English-language books and periodicals published from 1700 to 2000, renders the history visually (note the large spike after 1776)…
      . . . .
      There is a counter argument put here claiming that there is a distinction between ‘Inalienable’ and ‘Unalienable’. I disagree with this argument and agree with the Grammarist contention.
      . . . .
      Regardless of the spellings, one thing is clear, the rights of Liberty are not granted by authority, by governments nor by constitutions, they are natural rights by virtue of birth as a human being.

      To address the homophobic assertions of the article by Petrarch on Scragged, I will now point out that the right to do as one sees fit with ones own body, to have sex with who one sees fit, to love and cherish who one sees fit personally is an unalienable right of liberty. One has the right to believe or not believe in gods or religions, the state has no legitimate interest in these issues.

      The concept that homosexual unions can in some way disparage or defile heterosexual unions is a false framing of the principles of Liberty. It is simply not the business of authority, a majority, or anyone but the individuals involved in a relationship of mutual consent. It is the individual’s unalienable right to make such choices, and no others have the right to interfere.

      There is no moral distinction between marriages of mixed race and marriages of same genders. It is self evident that it is an individual’s right to love and live with whoever they chose for themselves. Arguments against these rights are spurious and based in forced rhetorical nonsense. The collective has no legitimate power to interfere with unalienable individual rights of any description.

  2. Krishna or Christ The Name Is the Same

    His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and several of his disciples were joined by Father Emmanuel Jungclaussen, a Benedictine monk from Niederalteich Monastery. Noticing that Srila Prabhupada was carrying meditation beads similar to the Catholic rosary, Father Emmanuel explained that he also chanted a constant prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, be merciful unto us.” The following conversation ensued.

    Srila Prabhupada: What is the meaning of the word Christ?

    Father Emmanuel: Christ comes from the Greek word Christos, meaning “the anointed one.”

    Srila Prabhupada: Christos is the Greek version of the word Krishna.

    Father Emmanuel: This is very interesting….

  3. Introduction
    “Of the Protocols themselves little need be said in the way of introduction. The book in which they are embodied was first published in the year 1897 by Philip Stepanov for private circulation among his intimate friends. The first time Sergyei Nilus published them was in 1901 in a book called The Great Within the Small and reprinted in 1905. A copy of this is in the British Museum bearing the date of its reception, August 10, 1906. All copies that were known to exist in Russia were destroyed in the Kerensky regime, and under his successors the possession of a copy by anyone in Soviet land was a crime sufficient to ensure the owner’s of being shot on sight. The fact is in itself sufficient proof of the genuineness of the Protocols. The Jewish journals, of course, say that they are a forgery, leaving it to be understood that Professor Nilus, who embodied them in a work of his own, had concocted them for his own purposes.

    Mr. Henry Ford, in an interview published in the New York WORLD, February 17th, 1921, put the case for Nilus tersely and convincingly thus:

    “The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it now.”

    Indeed they do!

    The word “Protocol” signifies a precis gummed on to the front of a document, a draft of a document, minutes of proceedings. In this instance, “Protocol” means minutes of the proceedings of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion. These Protocols give the substance of addresses delivered to the innermost circle of the Rulers of Zion. They reveal the converted plan of action of the *Jewish Nation developed through the ages and edited by the Elders themselves up to date. Parts and summaries of the plan have been published from time to time during the centuries as the secrets of the Elders have leaked out.”
    . . .

    * I disagree that the Protocols are exclusively “Jewish”. Zionism is not based in religious ideals or principles, it is a strategy for conquest and political power. It is Realpolitik manifest under the cover of religion, it’s only principles are “Might is Right” & “Ends Justify Means”; Two of the most irrational concepts ever devised by the mind of man.~ww

    The mainstream “official story” of the Protocols:

    • “In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to brutal and blind force; after words – to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.”~Protocol I

      The “Might is Right” meme, boldly put. An aspect of ‘Cultural Darwinism’, as promoted by the British Fabians who were drawn from the Aristocracy, of which there were very few open Jews.

      • “Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one’s party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier of the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism.”~Protocol I, point 6
        . . . .
        This is a falsehood drawn from the error of “Might is Right”. The Truth is that Political freedom is a fact based on eternal Universal Principles. The “authority” of the state is a phantom, a lie of mortal men. It is the State that is an idea but not a fact.

        As far as written law & statute, they are only legitimate which align with the principles of Unalienable Liberty, and the Individual Rights thereof. Knowing the Rights of Liberty are the individual’s Responsibility. One must acknowledge that they are universal among all of humankind. It is irresponsible to infringe upon another’s rights.

        And I do hold these truths to be Self-Evident.

    • “Yet the highest ambition of the integrated spectacle is still to turn secret agents into revolutionaries, and revolutionaries into secret agents.” ~Debord

  4. Omerta
    Key to the concept of Omerta is that any member of the organization must maintain absolute silence when questioned by law enforcement or any outsider on the subject of alleged illegal activities by other members of the organization. This can result in one member “taking the fall” for others, facing criminal contempt of court charges or even taking sole responsibility for a crime that others committed. He does this with the assurance that he and his family will be supported by the organization during and after his imprisonment.

  5. “Such a perfect democracy constructs its own inconceivable foe, terrorism. Its wish is to be judged by its enemies rather than by its results. The story of terrorism is written by the state and it is therefore highly instructive.
    The spectators must certainly never know everything about terrorism, but they must always know enough to convince them that, compared with terrorism, everything else must be acceptable, or in any case more rational and democratic.”~Debord

    • Historical Jesus Theories
      The purpose of this web page is to explain and explore some of the theories offered up by contemporary scholars on the historical Jesus and the origins of the Christian religion. Issues include the nature of the historical Jesus, the nature of the early Christian documents, and the origins of the Christian faith in a risen Jesus Christ. An attempt has been made to include historical Jesus theories across the spectrum from Marcus Borg to N.T. Wright and to describe these historical Jesus theories in an accurate and concise way.

      “There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All the sources we have are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.”

    • The second comment by Judy Weismonger is actually the whole book by Atwill…

      I copied some of it to this page…but it’s a huge amount of text. You can read the rest on the YouTube page.

  6. Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus: Flavian Signature Edition Paperback – by Joseph Atwill (Author)
    Full text of ” The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus –THE AUTHORS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

    In the popular mind, and in the minds of most scholars, the origin of Christianity is clear: The religion began as a movement of the lower-class followers of a radical Jewish teacher during the first cen-
    tury C.E. For a number of reasons, however, I did not share this cer-
    tainty. There were many gods worshiped during Jesus’ era that are
    now seen as fictitious, and no archeological evidence of his exis-
    tence has ever been found. What contributed most to my skepticism
    was that at the exact time when the followers of Jesus were pur-
    portedly organizing themselves into a religion that urged its mem-
    bers to “turn the other cheek” and to “give to Caesar what is Cae-
    sar’s,” another Judean sect was waging a religious war against the
    Romans. This sect, the Sicarii, also believed in the coming of a Mes-
    siah, but not one who advocated peace. They sought a Messiah who
    would lead them militarily. It seemed implausible that two diamet-
    rically opposite forms of messianic Judaism would have emerged
    from Judea at the same time.

    This is why the Dead Sea Scrolls were of such interest to me,
    and I began what turned into a decade-long study of them. Like so
    many others, I was hoping to learn something of Christianity’s ori-
    gins in the 2,000-year-old documents found at Qumran.

    I also began studying the other two major works from this era,
    the New Testament and War of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, an
    adopted member of the imperial family; I hoped to determine how
    the Scrolls related to them. While reading these two works side by
    side, I noticed a connection between them. Certain events from the
    ministry of Jesus seem to closely parallel episodes from the military
    campaign of the Roman emperor Titus Flavius as he attempted to
    gain control of the rebellious Jews in Judea. My efforts to understand
    this relationship led me to uncover the amazing secret that is the
    subject of this book: This imperial family, the Flavians, created
    Christianity, and, even more incredibly, they incorporated a skillful
    satire of the Jews in the Gospels and War of the Jews to inform pos-
    terity of this fact.

    The Flavian dynasty lasted from 69 to 96 C.E., the period when
    most scholars believe the Gospels were written. It consisted of three
    Caesars: Vespasian and his two sons, Titus and Domitian. Flavius
    Josephus, the adopted member of the family who wrote War of the
    Jews, was their official historian.

    The satire they created is difficult to see. If it were otherwise, it
    would not have remained unnoticed for two millennia. However, as
    readers may judge for themselves, the path that the Flavians left for
    us is a clear one. All that is really needed to walk down it is an open
    mind. But why then has the satirical relationship between Jesus and
    Titus not been noticed before? This question is especially apt in light
    of the fact that the works that reveal their satire — the New Testa-
    ment and the histories of Josephus — are perhaps the most scruti-
    nized books in literature.

    The only explanation I can offer is that viewing the Gospels as
    satire — that is, as a literary composition (as opposed to a history) in
    which human folly is held up to ridicule — requires the reader to
    contradict a deeply ingrained belief. Once Jesus was universally
    established as a world-historical individual, any other possibility
    became, evidentially, invisible. The more we believed in Jesus as a
    world-historical figure, the less we were able to understand him in
    any other way.

    To understand why the Flavians decided to create Christianity,
    one needs to understand the political conditions that the family
    faced in Judea in 74 C.E., following their defeat of the Sicarii, a
    movement of messianic Jews.

    The process that ultimately led to the Flavians’ control over
    Judea was part of a broader and longer struggle, that between Juda-
    ism and Hellenism. Judaism, which was based upon monotheism and faith was simply incompatible with Hellenism, the Greek culture that promoted polytheism and rationalism.

    Hellenism spread into Judea after Alexander the Great con-
    quered the area, in 333 B.C.E. Alexander and his successors estab-
    lished cities throughout their empire to act as centers of commerce
    and administration. They set up more than 30 Greek cities within
    Judea itself. The people of Judea, in spite of their historical resist-
    ance to outside influences, began to incorporate certain traits of the
    Greek ruling class into their culture. Many Semites found it desir-
    able, if not necessary, to speak Greek. Wealthy Jews sought a Greek
    education for their young men. Gymnasia introduced Jewish stu-
    dents to Greek myths, sports, music, and arts.

    The Seleucids, descendants of Seleucus, the commander of Alex-
    ander’s elite guard, gained control over the region from the Ptolemies,
    the descendants of another of Alexander’s generals, in 200 B.C.E.
    When Antiochus IV (or as he preferred, Epiphanes — that is, god
    manifest) became the Seleucid ruler in 169 B.C.E., he began Judea’s

    Antiochus was openly contemptuous of Judaism and wanted to
    modernize Jewish religion and culture. He installed high priests who
    were supportive of his policies. When a rebellion against Helleniza-
    tion broke out, in 168 B.C.E., Antiochus ordered his army to attack
    Jerusalem. Second Maccabees records the number of Jews slain in
    the battle as 40,000, with another 40,000 taken captive and enslaved.

    Antiochus emptied the temple of its treasury, violated the holy
    of holies, and intensified his policy of Hellenization. He ordered the
    observances of the Hebrew cult be replaced with Hellenistic wor-
    ship. He banned circumcision and sacrifice, instituted a monthly
    observance of his birthday, and placed a statue of Zeus on the Tem-
    ple Mount.

    In 167 B.C.E., the Maccabees, a family of religiously zealous
    Jews, led a revolution against Antiochus’ imposition of Hellenistic
    customs and religions. They sought to restore to power the religion
    that they believed was mandated by God in his holy land. The Mac-
    cabees compelled the inhabitants of the cities they conquered to
    convert to Judaism. Males either permitted themselves to be circumcised or were slain. After a 20-year struggle, the Maccabees eventually prevailed against the Seleucids. To quote 1 Maccabees, “the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel” (13:41).

    Though the Maccabees went on to rule Israel for more than 100
    years, their kingdom was never secure. The Seleucid threat to the
    region was replaced by an even greater one from Rome. Roman
    expansionism and Hellenistic culture constantly threatened to
    engulf the religious state that the Maccabees had established. In 65
    B.C.E., a civil war broke out between two Maccabean rivals for the
    throne. It was at this time that Antipater the Edomite, the wily father
    of Herod, appeared on the scene. Antipater helped bring about a
    Roman intervention in the civil war, and when Pompey sent his
    legate Scaurus into Judea with a Roman army, it marked the begin-
    ning of the end of the Maccabean religious state.

    For the next 30 years (65-37 B.C.E.), Judea suffered through
    one war after another. In 40 B.C.E., the last Maccabean ruler, Mat-
    tathias Antigonus, seized control of the country. By this time, how-
    ever, the Herodian family was firmly established as Rome’s surrogate
    in the region and, with Roman support, defeated Mattathias’ army
    and gained control of Judea.

    Following the destruction of the Maccabean state, the Sicarii, a
    new movement against Roman and Herodian control, emerged. This
    was a movement of lower-class Jews, originally called Zealots, who
    continued the Maccabees’ religious struggle against the control of
    Judea by outsiders and sought to restore “Eretz Israel.”

    The efforts of the Sicarii reached a climax in 66 C.E. when they
    succeeded in driving the Roman forces from the country. The
    Emperor Nero ordered Vespasian to enter Judea with a large army
    and end the revolt. The violent struggle that ensued left the country
    devastated and concluded when Rome captured Masada in 73 C.E.

    In the midst of the Judean war, forces loyal to the Flavian fam-
    ily in Rome revolted against the last of the Julio-Claudian emperors,
    Vitellius, and seized the capital. Vespasian returned to Rome to be
    proclaimed emperor, leaving his son Titus in Judea to finish off the

    Following the war, the Flavians shared control over this region
    between Egypt and Syria with two families of powerful Hellenized Herods and the Alexanders. These three families shared a
    common financial interest in preventing any future revolts. They
    also shared a long-standing and intricate personal relationship that
    can be traced to the household of Antonia, the mother of the
    Emperor Claudius. Antonia employed Julius Alexander Lysimarchus,
    the abalarch, or ruler, of the Jews of Alexandria, as her financial
    steward in around 45 C.E.

    Julius was the elder brother of the famous Jewish philosopher
    Philo Judeaus, the leading intellectual figure of Hellenistic Judaism.
    Philo’s writings attempted to merge Judaism with Platonic philoso-
    phy. Scholars believe that his work provided the authors of the
    Gospels with some of their religious and philosophical perspective.

    Antonia’s private secretary, Caenis, was also the long-term mis-
    tress of Vespasian. Julius Alexander Lysimarchus and Vespasian
    would therefore have known one another through their shared con-
    nection with the household of Antonia.

    Julius had two sons. The elder, Marcus, married Herod’s niece
    Bernice as a teenager, creating a bond between the Alexanders and
    the Herods, the Roman-sponsored ruling family of Judea. Marcus died
    young and Bernice eventually became the mistress of Vespasian’s son
    Titus. Bernice thereby connected the Flavians and the Alexanders,
    the family of her first husband, to her family, the Herods.

    Julius’ younger son, Tiberius Alexander, was another important
    link between the families. He inherited his father’s entire estate after
    the death of his brother Marcus, making him one of the richest men
    in the world. He renounced Judaism and assisted the Flavians with
    their war against the Jews, contributing both money and troops, as
    did the Herodian family. Tiberius was the first to publicly declare his
    allegiance to Vespasian as emperor and thereby helped begin the Fla-
    vian dynasty. When Vespasian returned to Rome to assume the man-
    tle of emperor, he left Tiberius behind to assist his son Titus with the
    destruction of Jerusalem.
    . . . . . .

  7. Though the three families had been able to put down the revolt,
    they still faced a potential threat. Many Jews continued to believe
    that God would send a Messiah, a son of David, who would lead
    them against the enemies of Judea. Flavius Josephus records that
    what had “most elevated” the Sicarii to fight against Rome was their
    belief that God would send a Messiah to Israel who would lead his
    faithful to military victory. Though the Flavians, Herods, and Alexan-
    ders had ended the Jewish revolt, the families had not destroyed the
    messianic religion of the Jewish rebels. The families needed to find
    a way to prevent the Zealots from inspiring future uprisings through
    their belief in a coming warrior Messiah.

    Then someone from within this circle had an inspiration, one
    that changed history. The way to tame messianic Judaism would be
    to simply transform it into a religion that would cooperate with the
    Roman Empire. To achieve this goal would require a new type of
    messianic literature. Thus, what we know as the Christian Gospels
    were created.

    In a convergence unique in history, the Flavians, Herods, and
    Alexanders brought together the elements necessary for the creation
    and implementation of Christianity. They had the financial motiva-
    tion to replace the militaristic religion of the Sicarii, the expertise in
    Judaism and philosophy necessary to create the Gospels, and the
    knowledge and bureaucracy required to implement a religion (the
    Flavians created and maintained a number of religions other than
    Christianity). Moreover, these families were the absolute rulers over
    the territories where the first Christian congregations began.

    To produce the Gospels required a deep understanding of Judaic
    literature. The Gospels would not simply replace the literature of the
    old religion, but would be written in such a way as to demonstrate
    that Christianity was the fulfillment of the prophecies of Judaism
    and had therefore grown directly from it. To achieve these effects,
    the Flavian intellectuals made use of a technique used throughout
    Judaic literature — typology. In its most basic sense typology is sim-
    ply the use of prior events to provide form and context for subse-
    quent ones. If one sits for a painting, for example, he or she is the
    “type” of the painting, the thing it was based upon. Typology is used
    throughout Judaic literature as a way of transferring information
    and meaning from one story to another. For example, the Book of
    Esther uses type scenes from the story of Joseph in the Book of Gen-
    esis, so that the alert reader will understand that Esther and Morde-
    cai are repeating the role of Joseph as an agent of God.

    Rises to high position in the Egyptian government through his
    beauty and wisdom

    Josephs good deed (interpreting the butler’s dream) is forgotten for a
    long time. A character refuses to listen —
    “she spoke to Joseph every day but
    he refused to listen” (Gen 38:10)

    Pharaoh’s chief servant is hanged and Joseph reveals his identity to
    Pharaoh after a feast

    Esther rises to high position in the
    Persian government through her
    beauty and wisdom

    Mordecai’s good deed (saving the king’s life) is forgotten for a long time

    Character refuses to listen — “they told him every day but he refused to listen” (Est. 3:4)

    The king’s chief servant is hanged and Esther reveals her identity to
    the king after a feast

    The authors of the Gospels used typology to create the impres-
    sion that events from the lives of prior Hebrew prophets were types
    of events from Jesus’ life. In doing so, they were trying to convince
    their readers that their story of Jesus was a continuation of the divine
    relationship that existed between the Hebrew prophets and God.

    At the very beginning of the Gospels, the authors created a crys-
    tal-clear typological relationship between Jesus and Moses. The
    authors placed this sequence at the beginning of their work to show
    the reader how the real meaning of the New Testament will be

    The sequence begins in Matthew 2:13, where Joseph is described
    as bringing Jesus, who represents the “new Israel,” down to Egypt.
    This event parallels Genesis 45-50, where a previous Joseph brought
    the “old Israel” down to Egypt.

    The authors of the Gospels associated their Joseph with the
    prior one by means of more than just a shared name and a journey
    to Egypt. The New Testament Joseph is described, like his counter-
    part in the Hebrew Bible, as a dreamer of dreams and as having
    encounters with a star and wise men.

    Both stories regarding the journey of a Joseph to Egypt are
    immediately followed by a description of a massacre of innocents.
    The stories concerning the massacre of innocents are not exactly
    parallel. Jesus is not, for example, saved by being put in a boat on
    the river Jordan and then by being adopted by Herod’s daughter. The
    typology used within Judaic literature does not require verbatim
    quotations or descriptions; rather, the author takes only enough
    information from the event that is being used as the type to allow
    the reader to recognize that the prior event relates to the one being
    described. In this case, each massacre of the innocents’ story depicts
    young children being slaughtered by a fearful tyrant, but the future
    savior of Israel being saved.

    The authors of the New Testament then continue mirroring
    Exodus by having an angel tell Joseph, “They are dead which sought
    the young child’s life” (Matt. 2:20). This statement is a clear parallel
    to the statement made to Moses, the first savior of Israel, in Exodus
    12: “All the men are dead which sought thy life.” The parallels then
    continue with Jesus receiving a baptism (Matt. 3:13), which mirrors
    the baptism of the Israelites described in Exodus 14. Next, Jesus
    spends 40 days in the desert, which parallels the 40 years the
    Israelites spend in the wilderness. Both sojourns in the desert
    involve three sets of temptations. In Exodus, it is God who is
    tempted; in the Gospels, it is Jesus, the son of God.
    . . . . .

  8. In Exodus, it is the Israelites who tempt God. They first tempt
    him by asking for bread, at which time they learn that “man does not
    live by bread alone” (Ex. 16). The second time is at Massah, where
    they are told to not “tempt the Lord” (Ex. 17). On the third occa-
    sion, when they make the golden calf at Mount Sinai (Ex. 32), they
    learn to “fear the Lord thy God and serve only him.”

    Jesus’ three temptations are by the devil and are a mirror of
    God’s temptations by the Israelites, as his responses show. To his first
    temptation (Matt. 4:4) he replies, “Man shall not live by bread
    alone.” To the second (Matt. 4:7) he replies, “Thou shalt not tempt
    the Lord thy God.” And to the third (Matt. 4:10) he replies, “Thou
    shalt worship the Lord thy God, and only him shalt thou serve.”

    Though the parallels between Jesus and Moses are typological
    and not verbatim, the sequence in which these events occur is. This
    is surely no accident but proof that Moses, the first savior of Israel,
    is used as a type for Jesus, the second savior of Israel.


    Gen. 45-50 Joseph takes old Israel 2: 13 Joseph brings new Israel down to Egypt down to Egypt

    Ex. 1 Pharaoh massacres boys 2:16 Herod massacres boys

    Ex. 4 “All the men are dead …” 2:20 “They are dead …”

    Ex. 12 From Egypt to Israel 2:21 From Egypt to Israel

    Ex. 14 Passing through water (baptism)3: 13 Baptism

    Ex. 16 Tempted by bread 4:4 Tempted by bread

    Ex. 17 Do not tempt God 4:7 Do not tempt God

    Ex. 32 Worship only God 4:10 Worship only God

    The typological sequence in Matthew that establishes Jesus as
    the new savior of Israel is well known to scholars. What has not
    been widely recognized is that the story also reveals the political per-
    spective of the authors of the New Testament. In the Hebrew Bible it
    is the Israelites who tempt God, but notice that the devil takes their
    place in the parallel New Testament story. This equating of the
    Israelites with the devil is consistent with what the Flavians thought
    of the messianic Jews, that they were demons.

    Moreover, the parallel sequences demonstrate that the Gospels
    were designed to be read intertextually, that is, in direct relationship
    to the other books of the Bible. This is the only way that literature
    based on types can be understood. In other words, as the example
    concerning Jesus’ infancy illustrates, to understand the Gospels’
    meaning a reader must recognize that the concepts, sequences, and
    locations in Matthew are parallel to the concepts, sequences, and
    locations in Genesis and Exodus, where their context has already
    been established.

    By using scenes from Judaic literature as types for events in
    Jesus’ ministry, the authors hoped to convince their readers that the
    Gospels were a continuation of the Hebrew literature that had
    inspired the Sicarii to revolt and that, therefore, Jesus was the Mes-
    siah whom the rebels were hoping God would send them. In this
    way, they would strip messianic Judaism of its power to spawn
    insurrections, since the Messiah was no longer coming but had already come. Further, the Messiah was not the xenophobic military leader that the Sicarii were expecting, but rather a multiculturist
    who urged his followers to “turn the other cheek.”

    If the Gospels achieved only the replacement of the militaristic
    messianic movement with a pacifistic one, they would have been
    one of the most successful pieces of propaganda in history. But the
    authors wanted even more. They wanted not merely to pacify the
    religious warriors of Judea but to make them worship Caesar as a
    god. And they wanted to inform posterity that they had done so.

    The populations of the Roman provinces were permitted to
    worship in any way they wished, with one exception; they had to
    allow Caesar to be worshiped in their temples. This was incompati-
    ble with monotheistic Judaism. At the end of the 66-73 C.E. war
    Flavius Josephus recorded that no matter how Titus tortured the
    Sicarii, they refused to call him “Lord.” To circumvent the Jews’ reli-
    gious stubbornness, the Flavians therefore created a religion that
    worshiped Caesar without its followers knowing it.

    To achieve this, they used the same typological method they had
    used to link Jesus to Moses, creating parallel concepts, sequences,
    and locations. They created Jesus’ entire ministry as a “type” of the
    military campaign of Titus. In other words, events from Jesus’ min-
    istry parallel events from Titus’ campaign. To prove that these typo-
    logical scenes were not accidental, the authors placed them in the
    same sequence and in the same locations in the Gospels as they had
    occurred in Titus’ campaign.

    The parallel scenes were designed to create another story line
    than the one that appears on the surface. This typological story line
    reveals that the Jesus who interacted with the disciples following the
    crucifixion, the actual Jesus that Christians have unwittingly wor-
    shiped for 2,000 years, was Titus Flavius.

    The discovery of the Flavian invention of Christianity creates a
    new understanding of the entire first century C.E. Such a revelation
    is disorienting, and the reader will find the following points useful
    in understanding the new history that this work presents.

    • Christianity did not originate among the lower classes in Judea.
    It was a creation of a Roman imperial family, the Flavians.

    • The Gospels were not written by the followers of a Jewish
    Messiah but by the intellectual circle surrounding the three
    Flavian emperors: Vespasian and his two sons, Titus and

    • The Gospels were written following the 66-73 C.E. war
    between the Romans and the Jews, and many of the events of
    Jesus’ ministry are satirical depictions of events from that war.

    • The purpose of Christianity was supersession. It was designed
    to replace the nationalistic and militaristic messianic move-
    ment in Judea with a religion that was pacifistic and would
    accept Roman rule.

    I developed these findings over the past few years, but delayed
    publishing them for a number of reasons. Though I am no longer a
    Christian, I see Christianity, on the whole, as valuable to society. I
    certainly did not wish to publish a work that might cause it sub-
    stantial damage. Further, I was aware that the nature of the discov-
    eries might have some negative effect even on some non-Christians.
    I did not want to contribute to the cynicism of our age.

    At the same time, I knew that this information would be valu-
    able to many. Eventually, my concern about not disclosing these
    findings simply overcame my fear of the possible impact. So, after
    2,000 years of misunderstanding, a new meaning of the Gospels is
    revealed within this work. By turning this page, readers will enter a
    new world. I do not know if it is a better world. I only know that I
    believe it is a truer one.
    . . . . .

  9. This book provides a new approach to understanding what the Gos-
    pels are and who composed them. I shall show that intellectuals
    working for Titus Flavius, the second of the three Flavian Caesars,
    created Christianity. Their main purpose was to replace the xeno-
    phobic Jewish messianism that waged war against the Roman Empire
    with a version of Judaism that would be obedient to Rome.

    One of the individuals involved with the creation of the Gospels
    was the first-century historian Flavius Josephus, who, as he relates
    it, led a fabulous life. He was born in 37 C.E. into the royal family
    of Judea, the Maccabees. Like Jesus, Josephus was a child prodigy
    who astounded his elders with his knowledge of Judaic law. Jose-
    phus also claimed to have been a member of each of the Jewish sects
    of his era, the Sadduccees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes.

    When the Jewish rebellion against Rome broke out, in 66 C.E.,
    though he had no described military background and believed the
    cause hopeless, Josephus was given command of the revolutionary
    army of Galilee. Taken captive, he was brought before the Roman
    general Vespasian, to whom he presented himself as a prophet. At
    this point, God, rather conveniently, spoke to Josephus and informed
    him that his favor had switched from the Jews to the Romans. Jose-
    phus then claimed that Judaism’s messianic prophecies foresaw not
    a Jewish Messiah, but Vespasian, whom Josephus predicted would
    become the “lord of all mankind.”

    After this came to pass, so to speak, and Vespasian was pro-
    claimed emperor, he rewarded Josephus’ clairvoyance by adopting
    him. Thus, the Jewish rebel Josephus bar Mattathias became Flavius
    Josephus, the son of Caesar. He became an ardent supporter of
    Rome’s conquest of Judea, and when Vespasian returned to Rome to
    be crowned emperor, Josephus stayed behind to assist the new
    emperor’s son Titus with the siege of Jerusalem.

    Once the city had been destroyed, Josephus took up residence
    within the Flavian court at Rome, where he enjoyed the patronage
    of Vespasian and the subsequent Flavian emperors, Titus and
    Domitian. It was while he was living in Rome that Josephus wrote
    his two major works, War of the Jews, a description of the 66-73 C.E.
    war between the Romans and the Jews, and Jewish Antiquities, a his-
    tory of the Jewish people.

    Josephus’ histories are of great significance to Christianity. Vir-
    tually all that we know regarding the social context of the New Tes-
    tament is derived from them. Without these works, the very dating
    of the events of the New Testament would be impossible.

    Josephus’ histories provided Jesus with historical documenta-
    tion, a fact that is widely known. They also provided Jesus with
    another kind of documentation, a fact largely forgotten. Early Chris-
    tians believed that the events Josephus described in War of the Jews
    proved that Jesus had been able to see into the future. It is difficult
    to find even one early Christian who taught another position.
    Church scholars such as Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and Cyprian were
    unanimous in proclaiming that Josephus’ description of the con-
    quest of Judea by Titus Flavius in War of the Jews proved that Jesus’
    prophecies had come to pass. As Eusebius wrote in 325 C.E.:

    If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other
    accounts of the historian [Josephus] concerning the whole
    war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the fore-
    knowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly
    divine and marvelously Strange.

    One example of the foreknowledge that so impressed Eusebius
    was Jesus’ prediction that the foes of Jerusalem would encircle it with
    a wall, demolish the city and its temple, and level its inhabitants.

    And when He was now getting near Jerusalem . . . He came into full view of the city, He wept aloud over it,
    and exclaimed: For the time is coming upon thee when thy foes will
    throw up around thee earthworks and a wall, investing thee
    and hemming thee in on every side, and level you and your
    children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon
    another in you; because you did not know the time of your

    Luke 19:37-43

    Josephus recorded in War of the Jews that all the precise details
    Jesus foresaw for Jerusalem did indeed come to pass. Titus ordered
    his soldiers to “build a wall round about the whole city.” 3 Titus, like
    Jesus, saw the encircling of the city as an event sanctioned by God,
    who inspired his soldiers with a “divine fury.”

    Josephus also recorded that Titus did not merely burn Jerusalem
    and defile its temple, but ordered that they should be left exactly as
    Jesus has foreseen, with “not one stone upon another.”

    [Titus] gave orders that they should now demolish the
    entire city and Temple . . .

    Jesus stated that these calamities would befall Jerusalem’s inhab-
    itants because they did not know the “time of your visitation.” The
    coming visitation was to be made by someone he called the “Son of
    Man,” a title used by the prophet Daniel for the Jewish Messiah. 3
    While it has been universally believed that Jesus was referring to
    himself when he used the expression the “Son of Man,” he usually
    spoke of this individual in the third person and not as himself.

    Jesus repeatedly warned the Jews that during the Visitation of the
    Son of Man various disasters, like those he foresaw above, would occur.

    Be on the alert therefore, for you do not know the day on
    which your Lord is coming.

    Therefore you also must be ready; for it is at a time
    when you do not expect Him that the Son of Man will come.

    Matt. 24:42-4

    Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour
    in which the Son of Man is coming.

    Matt. 25:13

    Though Jesus did not say exactly when the visitation of the Son
    of Man would occur, he did state that he would come before the gen-
    eration alive during his ministry passed away.

    So you also, when you see all these signs, may be sure that
    He is near — at your very door.

    I tell you in solemn truth that the present generation
    will certainly not pass away without all these things having
    first taken place.

    Matt. 24:33-34

    Jews of this era saw a generation as lasting 40 years, so Titus’
    destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. fit perfectly into the time frame
    Jesus gave in his prophecy. However, while Jesus did accurately pre-
    dict events from the coming war, there was a flaw in his foreknowl-
    edge — that is, that the person whose visitation actually brought
    about the destruction of Jerusalem was not Jesus but Titus Flavius.
    If his prophecy did envision (as Eusebius and other church scholars
    have maintained), events from the coming war between the Romans
    and the Jews, then the “Son of Man” Jesus warned of seems not to
    have been himself but Titus, a point that I shall return to.

    There was little written between the fifth and the 15 th centuries
    commenting on the numerous parallels between the events Josephus
    recorded in War of the Jews and Jesus’ predictions. This is not sur-
    prising, as the church is known to have actively discouraged scrip-
    tural analysis during this time. What evidence was left, however,
    suggests that during the entire Middle Ages Christians viewed Jose-
    phus’ depiction of the war between the Romans and the Jews as proof
    of Christ’s divinity. Icons, carvings on caskets, and religious paint-
    ings from this era all portrayed the 70 C.E. destruction of Jerusalem
    as the fulfillment of Jesus’ doomsday prophecy.

    The importance of Josephus’ works to Christians during this
    period can also be gauged by the fact that some of the Eastern Chris-
    tian churches of Syria and Armenia actually included his books as
    part of their handwritten Bible. In Europe as well, following the
    invention of the printing press, Latin editions of the Bible included
    Antiquities and War of the Jews.

    Following the Reformation, scholars were able to record their
    opinions, and their writings show that they continued to view the
    relationship between the New Testament and War of the Jews as proof
    of Christ’s divinity. On the significance of 70 C.E., for example, Dr.
    Thomas Newton wrote in his 1754 work, Dissertations on the Prophecies:

    As a general in the wars [Josephus] must have had an exact
    knowledge of all transactions … His history was approved
    by Vespasian and Titus [who ordered it to be published]. He
    designed nothing less, and yet as if he had designed noth-
    ing more, his history of the Jewish wars may serve as a
    larger comment on our Saviour’s prophecies of the
    destruction of Jerusalem.
    . . . . .

  10. Newton’s position was the same as Eusebius’. Both scholars
    believed that Josephus “designed nothing less” than to honestly record
    the war between the Romans and the Jews. The events that Josephus
    recorded seemed to be the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy and did not
    strike them as in any way suspicious. On the contrary, they saw the
    relationship between the two works as proof of Jesus’ divinity. They
    were in no way unusual in holding this view; it was held by the
    majority of Christian scholars until the end of the 19th century.

    The belief that Josephus’ depiction of the destruction of
    Jerusalem proved that Jesus had seen into the future was largely for-
    gotten during the 20th century. Only one denomination of Chris-
    tians, the Preterists, still cites the parallels between War of the Jews
    and the New Testament as a proof of Jesus’ divinity. Currently, most
    Christians either believe that the apocalypse Jesus envisioned has
    not yet occurred or they ignore these prophesies altogether. As Chris-
    tianity’s third millennium begins, few of its members are even aware
    of the parallels that were once of such importance to the religion.

    However, I believe that Eusebius was correct in stating that
    when one compares War of the Jews to the New Testament, one must
    admit to a relationship that, if not divine, is at the least strange. The
    parallels between Jesus’ prophecies and Titus’ campaign do indeed
    seem too precise to have been the result of chance. If one accepts the
    traditional understanding, that the New Testament and War of the
    Jews were written at different times by different authors, then the
    only explanation for the parallels would seem to be the one given by
    Eusebius, that they were caused by something truly divine. Of course,
    before accepting any phenomenon as miraculous, one should first
    determine if a nonsupernatural explanation for it exists. The pur-
    pose of this work is to present such an explanation.

    All scholars have faced the same difficulty in trying to under-
    stand first-century Judea: a lack of source material. Before the Dead
    Sea Scrolls were discovered, the important literature describing first-
    hand the events of first-century Judea were the New Testament and
    the works of Josephus. For two millennia, only these two works illu-
    minated an era so seminal to Western civilization.

    This absence is unusual. In Greece, thousands of pieces of writing
    from the same era have been discovered. Jesus constantly complained
    about scribes, who, one must assume, were writing something.

    Jesus began to explain to His disciples that He must go to
    Jerusalem, and suffer much cruelty from the Elders and
    the High Priests and the Scribes.

    Matt. 16:21.30

    Rome’s occupation of Judea spanned the entire first century.
    Josephus records that during this period a movement of Jewish
    Zealots called the Sicarii continually staged insurrections against the
    Empire and its surrogate, the family of Herod. The Sicarii, like the
    Christians, were messianic and looked forward to the arrival of the
    son of God, who would lead them against Rome. Josephus dates the
    origin of this messianic movement to the census of Quirinus, curi-
    ously also given in the Gospels as the date of the birth of Christ. This
    movement existed for over 100 years, but until the Dead Sea Scrolls
    were discovered, no document that could possibly have been part of
    its literature had ever been found.

    The literature of the Sicarii movement is most likely missing
    because the Romans destroyed it. A number of the Dead Sea Scrolls
    (found hidden in caves) describe an uncompromising sect that
    awaited a Messiah who would be a military leader. Messianic literature
    of this sort was surely a catalyst for the Sicarii’s rebellion and would
    have been targeted for destruction by the Romans, who are known
    to have destroyed Judaic literature. The Talmud, for example, records
    the Roman practice of wrapping Jews in their religious scrolls and
    lighting them afire. Josephus notes that following their war with the
    Jews, the Romans took the Torah scrolls and other religious litera-
    ture and locked them up inside the Flavian palace in Rome.

    The only works to have survived this century of religious war-
    fare, the Gospels and the histories of Josephus, had a pro-Roman
    perspective. In the case of Josephus’ histories this is hardly surpris-
    ing, as he was an adopted member of the imperial family. It is
    notable, however, that the New Testament also has a point of view
    positive to the Romans. The first century was not a time when one
    would expect that a Judaic cult with a viewpoint favorable to the
    Empire would have emerged. Yet the New Testament texts never
    portray Roman soldiers in a negative light, and actually describe
    them as “devout” and God-fearing.

    There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a
    centurion of the band called the Italian band, a devout man,
    and one that feared God with his entire house, which gave
    much alms to the people, and prayed to God always.

    Acts 10:1-2

    The New Testament also presents tax collectors, who would
    have been working for the Romans, in a favorable light. The Apos-
    tle Matthew, for example, is actually described as a publican, or tax

    The citizenship espoused in the works of Josephus and the New
    Testament would have been seen favorably by Rome. Each work pro-
    claims the holiness of subservience. And each takes the position that
    as it is God who has given the Romans their power, it is therefore
    against God’s will to resist them. For example, the Apostle Paul teaches
    that Roman judges and magistrates were a threat only to evil-doers.

    Therefore the man who rebels against his ruler is resisting
    God’s will; and those who thus resist will bring punishment
    upon themselves.

    For judges and magistrates are to be feared not by
    right-doers but by wrong-doers. You desire — do you not? —
    to have no reason to fear your ruler. Well, do the thing that
    is right, and then he will commend you. For he is God’s servant for your benefit. But if you do what is wrong, be afraid. He does not wear the sword to no purpose: he is God’s servant — an administrator to inflict
    punishment upon evil-doers.

    We must obey therefore, not only in order to escape
    punishment, but also for conscience’s sake.

    Why, this is really the reason you pay taxes; for tax-
    gatherers are ministers of God, devoting their energies to
    this very work.

    Rom. 13:2-6

    Josephus shared Paul’s belief that the Romans were God’s ser-
    vants and only inflicted punishment upon evil-doers.

    Indeed what can it be that hath stirred up an army of the
    Romans against our nation? Is it not the impiety of the
    inhabitants? Whence did our servitude commence? Was it
    not derived from the seditions that were among our forefa-
    thers, when the madness of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, and
    our mutual quarrels, brought Pompey upon this city, and
    when God reduced those under subjection to the Romans
    who were unworthy of the liberty they had enjoyed?

    Thus, the only works that describe first-century Judea share a pos-
    itive viewpoint toward Rome. Why is it that only they have survived. Therefor, there is good evidence that the New Testament and the works of Josephus survived because they were both created and promulgated by Rome.
    This work presents evidence indicating that the Gospels were cre-
    ated by Titus Flavius, the second of the three Flavian emperors.
    Titus created the religion for two reasons, the most obvious being to
    act as a theological barrier against the spread of the militant mes-
    sianic Judaism of Judea to other provinces.

    Josephus mentions this threat in War of the Jews:
    … the Jews hoped that all of their nation, which were
    beyond Euphrates, would have raised an insurrection with

    Titus had another, more personal, reason for creating the Gos-
    pels — this being that the Jewish Zealots refused to worship him as a god. Though he was able to crush their rebellion, Titus could not force the Zealots, even through torture or death, to call him Lord.

    Josephus noted the staunchness with which the Zealots adhered
    to their monotheistic faith, stating that the Sicarii “do not value
    dying and any kind of death, nor indeed do they heed the dying of
    their relations, nor can any fear make them call any man Lord.”

    As I noted in the Introduction, to circumvent the Jews’ stub-
    bornness, Titus designed a hidden message within the Gospels. This
    message reveals that the “Jesus” who interacted with the disciples
    following the crucifixion was not a Jewish Messiah but himself.
    Unable to torture the Jews into forgoing their religion and worship-
    ing him, Titus and his intellectuals created a version of Judaism that
    worshiped Titus without its followers knowing it. When his clever
    literary device was finally discovered, Titus would be able to show
    posterity that he had not failed in his efforts to make the Jews call
    him “Lord.” Though always seen as a religious document, the New
    Testament is actually a monument to the vanity of a Caesar — one
    that has finally been discovered.

    Titus backdated Jesus’ ministry to 30 C.E., thereby enabling him
    to foresee events in the future. In other words, Jesus was able to
    accurately prophecy events from the coming war with the Romans
    because they had already occurred. As part of this scheme, the ficti-
    tious histories of Josephus were created so as to document the fact
    that Jesus had lived and that his prophecies had come to pass.

    While the above claims will, and should, trigger skepticism, one
    needs to remember that as Christianity describes its origins, it was
    not only supernatural but also historically illogical. Christianity, a
    movement that encouraged pacifism and obedience to Rome, claims
    to have emerged from a nation engaged in a century-long struggle
    with Rome. An analogy to Christianity’s purported origins might be
    a cult established by Polish Jews during World War II that set up its
    headquarters in Berlin and encouraged its members to pay taxes to
    the Third Reich.

    When one looks at the form of early Christianity, one sees not
    Judea, but Rome. The church’s structures of authority, its sacra-
    ments, its college of bishops, the title of the head of the religion —
    the supreme pontiff — were all based on Roman, not Judaic,
    tions. Somehow, Judea left little trace on the form of a religion that
    purportedly originated inside of it.

    Early Christianity was also Roman in its worldview. That is, like
    the Roman Empire, the movement saw itself as ordained by God to
    spread throughout the world. Before Christianity, no religion is
    known to have seen itself quite so destined to conquer, to become
    the religion of all mankind. The type of Judaism described in the
    Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, was very selective as to who was
    allowed to join its community, as the following passage from the
    Damascus Document shows:

    No madman, or lunatic, or simpleton, or fool, or blind man,
    or maimed, or lame, or deaf man, and no minor shall enter
    into the community for the Angels of Holiness are with
    them . . .This exclusionary approach was the mirror opposite of Chris-

    And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those
    that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others,
    and cast them down at Jesus’ feet; and he healed them. 10
    . . . . .

  11. To try to understand how Christianity established itself within
    the Roman Empire is to sift through mysteries piled atop the
    unknown. For example, how did a religion that began as verbal tra-
    ditions in Hebrew or Aramaic change into one whose surviving
    scripture is written almost entirely in Greek? According to Albert

    The great and still undischarged task which confronts
    those engaged in the historical study of primitive Christian-
    ity is to explain how the teaching of Jesus developed into
    the early Greek theology.

    The most historically illogical aspect of Christianity’s origin,
    however, was its Messiah. Jesus had a political perspective that was
    precisely the opposite of the son of David, who was awaited by the
    Jews of this era. Josephus records that what most inspired the Jew-
    ish rebels was their belief in the Judaic prophesies that foresaw a
    world ruler, or Messiah, emerging from Judea — the same prophecies
    that the New Testament claims predicted a pacifist.

    But now, what did the most to elevate them in undertaking
    this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in
    their sacred writings, how, “about that time, one from their
    country should become governor of the habitable earth.”
    The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in
    particular …”

    The Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed that Jews of this era indeed
    “took this prediction to belong to themselves” and awaited a Mes-
    siah who would be the son of God.

    Son of God he will be called and Son of the Most High they will
    name him … His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom
    … he will judge the earth in truth . . . The Great God . . .
    will give people into his hand and all of them will be cast
    down before him. His sovereignty is everlasting sovereignty. 12

    In the following passage from the Damascus Document, notice
    that the Messiah envisioned by the author was, like Jesus, a shep-
    herd, though not one who would bring peace.

    “Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered;
    but I will turn my hand upon the little ones” (Zechariah

    Now those who hear him are the flock’s afflicted,

    these will escape in the period of [God’s] visitation. But
    those who remain will be offered up to the sword,

    when the Messiah of Aaron and Israel comes, as it was
    in the period of the first visitation, as he reported by the
    hand of Ezekiel:

    “A mark shall be put on the forehead of those who sigh
    and groan” (Ezek 9:4).

    But those who remained were given up to the sword of
    vengeance, the avenger of the Covenant. 13

    The following passage from the Targum (Aramaic versions of the
    Old Testament) also describes a warrior Messiah. Clearly, this would


    have been the nature of the “king Messiah” of the Jews who would,
    in Josephus’ words, “most elevate them in undertaking this war.”

    How lovely is the king Messiah, who is to rise from the
    house of Judah.

    He girds his loins and goes out to wage war on those
    who hate him,

    killing kings and rulers . . .

    and reddening the mountains with the blood of their

    With his garments dipped in blood,

    he is like one who treads grapes in the wine press. 14

    However, the New Testament and the histories of Josephus each
    imply that the Messiah was not this nationalist leader who had been
    foreseen, but rather a pacifist who encouraged cooperation with
    Rome. For example, consider Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 5:41:
    “when anyone conscripts you for one mile, go along two.”

    Roman military law permitted its soldiers to conscript, which is
    to demand that civilians carry their 65-pound packs for a length of
    one mile. Roman roads had mile markers (milestones), so that there
    would be no dispute over whether or not this requirement had been
    met. Why would the Messiah foreseen by Judaism’s xenophobic world-
    ruler prophecies urge Jews to “go the extra mile” for the Roman army?

    When one compares the militaristic Messiah described in the
    Dead Sea Scrolls and other early Judaic literature with the pacifistic
    Messiah described in the New Testament and Josephus’ Testimonium,
    one aspect of the lost history of Judea seems visible. An intellectual
    battle was waged over the nature of the Messiah. The New Testa-
    ment and Josephus stood together on one side of this struggle,
    claiming that a pacifistic Messiah had appeared who advocated
    cooperation with Rome. On the other side of this theological divide
    stood the Jewish Zealots who awaited a militaristic Messiah to lead
    them against Rome.

    Among Christianity’s oldest surviving records is the Epistle of
    Clement to the Corinthians, dated to 96 C.E. The letter was pur-
    portedly written by (Pope) Clement I to a congregation of Christians
    who had apparently rebelled against the church’s authority. It shows that even at the onset of the religion the bishop of Rome was able to
    give orders to the church of Corinth, and that the church of Rome
    used the Roman army as an example of the kind of discipline and
    obedience that it expected from other churches and their members.

    The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church
    of God which sojourneth in Corinth, Let us mark the sol-
    diers that are enlisted under our rulers, how exactly, how
    readily, how submissively, they execute the orders given
    them. All are not prefects, nor rulers of thousands, nor
    rulers of hundreds, nor rulers of fifties, and so forth; but
    each man in his own rank executeth the orders given by the
    king and the governors.

    But how did the church’s authority structure come into exis-
    tence resembling the Roman military? Who established it and who
    gave the bishops such absolute control? Cyprian wrote . . . “The
    bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop . . . and if
    anyone is not with the bishop, that person is not in the Church.”
    And why was Rome, supposedly the center of Christian persecution,
    chosen as the church’s headquarters?

    A Roman origin would explain why the bishop of Rome was
    later made the supreme pontiff of the church. And why Rome be-
    came its headquarters. It would explain how a Judean cult eventu-
    ally became the state religion of the Roman Empire. A Roman origin
    would also explain why so many members of a Roman imperial fam-
    ily, the Flavians, were recorded as being among the first Christians.
    The Flavians would have been among the first Christians because,
    having invented the religion, they were, in fact, the first Christians.

    When considering a Flavian invention of Christianity, one
    should bear in mind that the Flavian emperors were considered to
    be divine and often created religions. The oath that they swore when
    being ordained emperor began with the instruction that they would
    do “all things divine … in the interests of the empire.” The Arch of
    Titus, which commemorates Titus’ destruction of Jerusalem, is
    inscribed with the following statement:


    [The Senate and People of Rome, to the divine Titus, son of
    the divine Vespasian]

    Fragments of the written pronouncement, given in 69 C.E. by
    the prefect of Egypt, Tiberius Alexander, in which he recognized
    Vespasian as the new emperor, are still in existence. Vespasian is
    referred to in them as “the divine Caesar” and “lord.”

    Josephus also believed that Vespasian was a divine person. He
    claimed that Judaism’s messianic prophecies foretold that Vespasian
    would become the lord of all mankind. This indicates that in the
    eyes of Josephus, Vespasian was not only the “Jesus,” or savior of
    Judea, but that he was also the “Christ,” the Greek word for the Mes-
    siah that was foreseen in the prophecies of a Judaic world-leader.

    Thou, O Vespasian, thinkest no more than that thou hast
    taken Josephus himself captive; but I come to thee as a
    messenger of greater tidings; for had not I been sent by
    God to thee … Thou, O Vespasian, art Caesar and emperor,
    thou, and this thy son. Bind me now still faster, and keep
    me for thyself, for thou, O Caesar, are not only lord over me,
    but over the land and the sea, and all mankind. 17

    Josephus, in proclaiming himself God’s minister, also described
    an ending of God’s “contract” with Judaism that was quite similar to
    the position that the New Testament takes concerning Christian-
    ity — the only difference being that Josephus believed that God’s
    good fortune had gone over not to Christianity but to Rome and its
    imperial family, the Flavians.

    Since it pleaseth thee, who hast created the Jewish nation,
    to depress the same, and since all their good fortune is
    gone over to the Romans, and since thou hast made choice
    of this soul of mine to foretell what is to come to pass here-
    after, I willingly give them my hands, and am content to live.
    And I protest openly that I do not go over to the Romans as
    a deserter of the Jews, but as a minister from thee.

    Scholars have dismissed Josephus’ application of Judaism’s mes-
    sianic prophecies to Caesar as simple flattery. I disagree, and shall
    show that not only did Josephus “believe” Vespasian to be “god,”
    and Titus therefore the “son of god,” but that his histories were
    entirely constructed to demonstrate that very fact.

    There was nothing unusual in Josephus’ recognition of Ves-
    pasian as a god. The Flavians merely continued the tradition of
    establishing emperors as gods that the Julio-Claudian line of Roman
    emperors had begun. Julius Caesar, the first diuus (divine) of that
    line, claimed to have been descended from Venus. The Roman Sen-
    ate is said to have decreed that he was a god because a comet
    appeared shortly after his death, thus demonstrating his divinity.

    In 80 C.E., Titus established an imperial cult for his father, who
    had passed away during the previous year. The cult was politically
    important to Titus because Vespasian’s deification would break the
    Julio-Claudian line of divine succession and thereby secure the
    throne for the Flavians.
    . . . . .

  12. Because only the Roman Senate could bestow the title of diuus,
    Titus first needed to convince them that Vespasian had been a god.
    There was evidently some difficulty in arranging this, however; Ves-
    pasian’s consecratio did not occur until six months after his death, an
    unusually long interval. 19 Titus also created a priesthood, the flamines, to administer the cult. The cult of Vespasian was not isolated to Rome, and appointments were made throughout the provinces. In
    the areas surrounding Judea, a Roman bureaucracy called the Com-
    mune Asiae oversaw the cult. Notably all seven of the Christian
    “churches of Asia” mentioned in Revelation 1:11 had agencies of the
    Commune located within them.

    Upon her death, Titus also secured the deification of his sister,
    Domitilla. In going through the process of deifying his father and
    sister and establishing their cults, Titus received an education in a skill
    few humans have ever possessed. He learned how to create a religion.

    Titus not only created and administered religions, he was a
    prophet. While emperor, he received the title of Pontifex Maximus,
    which made him the high priest of the Roman religion and the offi-
    cial head of the Roman college of priests — the same title and office
    that, once Christianity had become the Roman state religion, its popes would assume. As Pontifex Maximus, Titus was responsible
    for a large collection of prophecies (annales maximi) every year, and
    officially recorded celestial and other signs, as well as the events that
    had followed these omens, so that future generations would be able
    to better understand the divine will.

    Titus was unusually literate. He claimed to take shorthand faster
    than any secretary and to be able to “forge any man’s signature” and
    stated that under different circumstances he could have become “the
    greatest forger in history.” 20 Suetonius records that Titus possessed
    “conspicuous mental gifts,” and “made speeches and wrote verses in
    Latin and Greek” and that his “memory was extraordinary.” 21

    Titus’ brother Domitian, who succeeded him as emperor, also
    used religion to his advantage. In addition to deifying his brother,
    Domitian attempted to link himself to Jupiter, the supreme god of
    the Roman Empire, by having the Senate decree that the god had
    mandated his rule.

    Not only did the Flavians create religions, they performed mir-
    acles. In the following passage from Tacitus, Vespasian is recorded as curing one man’s blindness and another’s withered limb, miracles
    also performed by Jesus:

    One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his
    blindness . . . begged Vespasian that he would deign to
    moisten his cheeks and eyeballs with his spittle. Another
    with a diseased hand prayed that the limb might feet the
    print of a Caesar’s foot. And so Vespasian . . . accomplished
    what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its
    use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. 22

    The Gospels record that Jesus also used this method of curing
    blindness, that is by placing spittle on a blind man’s eyelids.

    After thus speaking, He spat on the ground, and then,
    kneading the dust and spittle into clay, He smeared the clay
    over the man’s eyes and said to him,

    “Go and wash in the pool of Siloam” — the name means
    “sent.” So he went and washed his eyes, and returned able
    to see.

    John 9:6-7
    Other stories were circulated about Vespasian that suggested his
    divinity. One involved a stray dog dropping a human hand at Ves-
    pasian’s feet. The hand was a symbol of power to first-century Romans.
    Another tale described an ox coming into Vespasian’s dining room
    and literally falling at the emperor’s feet and lowering his neck, as if
    recognizing to whom its sacrifice was due.

    Circulating tales that suggested they were gods was no doubt
    thought by the Flavians to be a good tonic for hoi polloi. The more
    an emperor was seen by his subjects to be divine, the easier it was
    for him to maintain his control over them. The Flavians certainly
    focused on manipulating the masses. To promote the policy of
    “bread and circuses” they built the Coliseum, where they staged
    shows with gladiators and wild beasts that involved mass slaughter.

    Imperial cults that portrayed Roman emperors as gods and
    workers of miracles appear to have been created solely because they
    were politically useful. The cults seem to have evoked no religious
    emotion. No evidence of any spontaneous offerings attesting to the
    sincerity of the worshipers has ever been discovered.

    The advantage of converting one’s family into a succession of
    gods appealed to many Roman emperors: 36 of the 60 emperors
    from Augustus to Constantine and 27 members of their families
    were apotheosized and received the title diuus.

    Of course, inventors of fictitious religions must have a certain
    cynicism in regard to the sacred. Vespasian is quoted on his death-
    bed as saying, “Oh my, 1 must be turning into a god!” 23

    Pliny commented on the cynicism that the Flavians felt toward
    the religions they had created. Notice in the following quote Pliny’s
    understanding that Titus had made himself a “son of a god.”

    Titus deified Vespasian and Domitian Titus, but only so that
    one would be the son of a god and the other a brother of a

    The cynicism that the patrician class felt toward religion was a
    subject of the satires of the Roman poet Juvenal. While the exact
    dates of Juvenal’s birth and death are unknown, it is believed that he
    lived during the era of the Flavians. One of his satires concerns
    Agrippa and Bernice, the mistress of Titus. Tradition has it that
    Juvenal was banished from Rome by Domitian.
    Sophisticated Romans like those Juvenal wrote about did not
    believe in the gods but rather in fortune and fate. The prevailing
    ethos of the patrician class was that the world was either ruled by
    blind chance or immutable destiny:

    Fortune has no divinity, could we but see it: it’s we, we our-
    selves, who make her a goddess, and set her in the

    Judging from the works of Juvenal, many Romans saw all reli-
    gious belief, including their own, as ridiculous.

    Just hark at those loud denials, observe the assurance of
    the lying face

    He’ll swear by the Sun’s rays, by Jupiter’s thunder-
    bolts, by the lance of Mars, by the arrows of Delphic Apollo,
    by the quiver and shafts of Diana, the virgin huntress,
    by the trident of Neptune, Our Father of the Aegean:
    he’ll throw in Hercules’ bows and the spear of Minerva,
    the armories of Olympus down til their very last item:
    and if he’s a father, he’ll cry; “May I eat my own son’s
    noodle — poor child! — well boiled and soused in a vinaigrette

    Juvenal was also cynical toward Judaism. His attitude regarding
    the religion suggests that many within the patrician class saw the
    religion and, no doubt, its offspring Christianity, as barbaric cults.

    … A palsied Jewess, parking her haybox outside, comes
    begging in a breathy whisper. She interprets Jerusalem’s
    laws; she’s the tree’s high priestess . . . She likewise fills
    her palm but more sparingly: Jews will sell you whatever
    dreams you like for a few coppers.

    Given this patrician cynicism, it is odd that so many members
    of the Flavian family were recorded as having been among Chris-
    tianity’s first members. Why was a Judaic cult that advocated meek-
    ness and poverty so attractive to a family that practiced neither? The
    tradition connecting early Christianity and the Flavian family is
    based on solid evidence but has received little comment from scholars.
    The best known of the “Christian Flavians” was (Pope)
    Clement I. He is described in The Catholic Encyclopedia as the first
    pope about whom “anything definite is known,” and was
    recorded in early church literature as being a member of the Flavian
    . . . . .

  13. Pope Clement was the first pope who had individuals known to
    history refer to him and who left behind written works. He purport-
    edly wrote the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, quoted previ-
    ously. Thus, Clement is of great significance to the church’s history.
    In fact, while The Catholic Encyclopedia currently lists Clement as
    the fourth “bishop of Rome,” or pope, this was not the assertion of
    many early church scholars. St. Jerome wrote that in his time “most
    of the Latins’ held that Clement had been the direct successor of
    Peter. Tertullian also knew of this tradition; he wrote, “The church
    of Rome records that Clement was ordained by Peter.” Origen,
    Eusebius, and Epiphanius also placed Clement at the very beginning
    of the Roman church, each of them stating that Clement had been
    the “fellow laborer” of the Apostle Paul. (Note: Clement was also a Flavian).

    Scholars have seen that the list of popes given by Irenaeus (circa
    125-202) that names Clement as the fourth pope is suspect and it is
    notable that the Roman Church chose to use it as its official history.
    This list names “Linus” as the second pope, followed by “Anakletus”
    and then Clement. The list comes from Irenaeus, who identifies
    “Linus the Pope” as the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21. Schol-
    ars have speculated that Irenaeus chose Linus simply because he was the last male that Paul mentioned in the epistle, which supposedly
    was written immediately before Paul’s martyrdom. The provenance
    of Pope Anakletus may be no better. In Titus, the epistle that imme-
    diately follows Timothy in the canon, it is stated, “the bishop shall
    be irreproachable.” In Greek, “irreproachable” is anenkletus. 32

    Irenaeus may not have known who the popes between Peter and
    Clement were and therefore had to invent names for them. If this
    was the case, then after creating “Linus” as Peter’s successor, “Irre-
    proachable” as the next bishop of Rome, his imagination may have
    become strained, because the name he chose for the sixth pope in
    his list was “Sixus.”
    It also seems strange that the Roman church chose to use Ire-
    naeus’ list, considering that it originated in the East. The idea that
    Clement was the second pope is no weaker historically and reflects
    the papal sequence that was known in Rome. Perhaps early church
    officials preferred not to use a list stating that Clement was Peter’s
    direct successor, because of the traditional view that he was a mem-
    ber of the Flavian family.

    The notion that Pope Clement was a Flavian was recorded in
    the Acts of Saints Nereus and Achilleus, a fifth- or sixth-century work
    based on even earlier traditions. This work directly linked the Fla-
    vian family to Christianity a fact that is noted in The Catholic Ency-

    Titus Flavius Sabinus, consul in 82, put to death by Domit-
    ian [the Emperor Titus’ brother], whose sister he had mar-
    ried. Pope Clement is represented as his son in the Acts of
    Saints Nereus and Achilleus.

    Titus Flavius Sabinus’ brother, Clemens, was also linked to
    Christianity. The Acts of Saints Nereus and Achilleus states that
    Clemens was a Christian martyr. Clemens is believed to have mar-
    ried Vespasian’s granddaughter and his first cousin, Flavia Domitilla,
    who was yet another Christian Flavian. In the case of Flavia Domi-
    tilla there is extant evidence linking her to Christianity. The oldest
    Christian burial site in Rome has inscriptions naming her as its

    The catacomb of Domitilla is shown by existing inscriptions
    to have been founded by her. Owing to the purely legendary
    character of these Acts, we cannot use them as an argu-
    ment to aid in the controversy as to whether there were two
    Christians of the name of Domitilla in the family of the
    Christian Flavians, or only one, the wife of the Consul Flav-
    ius Clemens. 34

    The Talmud records the genealogy of Christianity’s purported
    first pope differently than does the Acts of Saints Nereus and
    Achilleus. It records that the Flavia Domitilla who was the mother of
    Clemens (Kalonymos) was not Titus’ niece but rather his sister. This

    links Peter’s purported successor a generation closer to Titus, per-
    haps placing him within his very household.

    Nereus and Achilleus, the authors of their Acts, are listed within
    The Catholic Encyclopedia as among the religion’s first martyrs and
    were also linked to the Flavian family.

    The old Roman lists, of the fifth century, and which passed
    over into the Martyrologium Hiernoymianum, contain the
    names of the two martyrs Nereus and Achilleus, whose
    grave was in the Catacomb of Domitilla on the Via Ardeatina…

    The acts of these martyrs place their deaths in the end
    of the first and beginning of the second centuries. Accord-
    ing to these legends Nereus and Achilleus were eunuchs
    and chamberlains of Flavia Domitilla, a niece of the
    Emperor Domitian. The graves of these two martyrs were
    on an estate of the Lady Domitilla; we may conclude that
    they are among the most ancient martyrs of the Roman
    Church, and stand in very near relation to the Flavian fam-
    ily, of which Domitilla, the foundress of the catacomb, was
    a member. In the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul mentions
    a Nereus with his sister, to whom he sends greetings.

    This reference by Paul to a Nereus and his sister is interesting.
    Tradition maintains that Domitian killed several family members
    who were Christians, as well as someone named Acilius Glabrio,
    whom a tradition also claims was a Christian, all of which permits
    the conjecture that the Nereus mentioned by Paul may have been
    the author of the Acts, and that the Achilleus Domitian slew may
    have been Nereus’ literary partner.

    Another individual linked to both Christianity and the Flavian
    family was Bernice, the sister of Agrippa, who is actually described
    in the New Testament as having known the Apostle Paul. She
    became Titus’ mistress and was living with him at the Flavian court
    in 75 C.E., the same time Josephus was purportedly writing War of
    the Jews.

    Flavius Josephus, an adopted member of the family, also had a
    connection to the beginnings of Christianity. His works provided the
    New Testament with its primary independent historical documentation and were certainly read by his imperial patrons. In fact, Titus
    ordered the publication of War of the Jews. In his autobiography,
    Josephus writes that Titus “was so desirous that the knowledge of
    these affairs should be taken from these books alone, that he affixed
    his own signature to them and gave orders for their publication.”

    Perhaps the most unusual connection between Christianity and
    the Flavians, however, is the fact that Titus Flavius fulfilled all of
    Jesus’ doomsday prophecies. As mentioned above, the parallels
    between the description of Titus’ campaign in War of the Jews and
    Jesus’ prophecies caused early church scholars to believe that Christ
    had seen into the future. The destruction of the temple, the encir-
    cling of Jerusalem with a wall, the towns of Galilee being “brought
    low,” the destruction of what Jesus described as the “wicked gener-
    ation,” etc. had all been prophesied by Jesus and then came to pass
    during Titus’ military campaign through Judea — a campaign that,
    like Jesus’ ministry, began in Galilee and ended in Jerusalem.

    Thus the Flavians are linked to Christianity by an unusual num-
    ber of facts and traditions. Early church documents flatly state that
    the family produced some of the religion’s first martyrs, as well as the
    pope who succeeded Peter. The Flavians created much of the litera-
    ture that provides documentation for the religion, were responsible
    for its oldest known cemetery and housed individuals named in the
    New Testament within their imperial court. Further, the family was
    responsible for Jesus’ apocalyptic prophecies having “come to pass.”

    These connections clearly deserve more attention than they
    have received. Some explanation is required for the numerous tradi-
    tions linking an obscure Judean cult to the imperial family — con-
    nections that include not merely converts to the religion, but, if the
    Acts of Nereus and Achilleus and Eusebius are to be believed, the
    direct successor to Peter.

    If Christianity was invented by the Flavians to assist them in
    their struggle with Judaism, it would merely have been a variation
    upon a long-established theme. Using religion for the good of the
    state was a Roman technique long before the Flavians. In the fol-
    lowing quote, which could well have been studied by the young
    Titus Flavius during his education at the imperial court, Cicero not
    only prefigures much of Christian theology but also actually advocates for the state to persuade the masses to adopt the theology most
    appropriate for the empire.

    We must persuade our citizens that the gods are the Lords
    and rulers of all things and what is done, is done by their
    will and authority; and they are the great benefactors of
    men, and know who everyone is, and what he does, and
    what sins he commits, and what he intends to do, and with
    what piety he fulfills his religious duties.

    Cicero, The Laws, 2:15-16

    Rome attempted not to replace the gods of its provinces but to
    absorb them. By the end of the first century Rome had accumulated
    so many foreign gods that virtually every day of the year celebrated
    some divinity. Roman citizens were encouraged to give offerings to
    all these gods as a way of maintaining the Pax Deorum, the “peace
    of the gods,” a condition that the Caesars saw as beneficial to the

    The Romans also used religion as a tool to assist them in con-
    quest. The leader of the Roman army, the consul, was a religious
    leader capable of communicating with the gods. The Romans devel-
    oped a specific ritual for inducing the gods of their enemies to defect
    to Rome. In this particular ritual, the devotio, a Roman soldier sacri-
    ficed himself to all the gods, including those of the enemy. In this
    way the Romans sought to neutralize their opponents’ divine assis-

    Thus, when Rome went to war with the Zealots in Judea it had
    a long tradition of absorbing the religions of its opponents. If
    Romans did invent Christianity, it would have been yet another
    example of neutralizing an enemy’s religion by making it their own,
    rather than fighting against it. Rome would simply have transformed
    the militant Judaism of first-century Judea into a pacifist religion, to
    more easily absorb it into the empire.

    In any event, it is certain that the Caesars did attempt to control
    Judaism. From Julius Caesar on, the Roman emperor claimed per-
    sonal authority over the religion and selected its high priests.
    . . . . .

  14. Caius Julius Caesar, imperator and high priest, and dicta-
    tor sendeth greeting… I will that Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander, and his children . . . have the high priesthood of the Jews for ever .. . and if at any time hereafter there arise any questions about the Jewish customs, I will that he determine the same Roman emperors appointed all the high priests recorded within the New Testament from a restricted circle of families who were allied to Rome. By selecting the individual who would determine any issue of “Jewish customs,” the Caesars were managing Jewish theology for their own self-interest. Of course, what other way would a Caesar have managed a religion?

    Rome exercised control over the religion in a way that was
    unique in the history of its provincial governments. Rome micro-
    managed Second Temple Judaism to the extent of even determining
    when its priests could wear their holy vestments.

    … the Romans took possession of these vestments of the
    high priest, and had them reposited in a stone-chamber,
    and seven days before a festival they were delivered to . . .
    the high priest. . .

    In spite of these efforts, Rome’s normal policy of absorbing the
    gods of its provinces did not succeed in Judea. Judaism would not
    permit its God to be just one among many, and Rome was forced to
    battle one Jewish insurrection after another. Having failed to control
    Judaism by naming its high priests, the imperial family would next
    attempt to control the religion by rewriting its Torah.

    I believe they took this step and created the Gospels to initiate
    a version of Judaism more acceptable to the Empire, a religion that in-
    stead of waging war against its enemies would “turn the other cheek.”

    The theory of a Roman invention of Christianity does not orig-
    inate with this work. Bruno Bauer, a 19th-century German scholar,
    believed that Christianity was Rome’s attempt to create a mass reli-
    gion that encouraged slaves to accept their station in life. In our era,
    Robert Eisenman concluded that the New Testament was the litera-
    ture of a Judaic messianic movement rewritten with a pro-Roman
    perspective. This work, however, presents a completely new way of
    understanding the New Testament.

    I will show that the Gospels were created to be understood on
    two levels. On its surface level they are, of course, a description of
    the ministry of a miracle-working Messiah who rose from the dead.
    However, the New Testament was also designed to be understood in
    another way, which is as a satire of Titus Flavius’ military campaign
    through Judea. The proof of this is simply that Jesus and Titus share
    parallel experiences at the same locations and in the same sequence.
    Those parallels are both too exact and too complex to have occurred
    by chance. That this fact has been overlooked for two millennia rep-
    resents a blind spot in scholarship as large as it is long.

    The Gospels were designed to become apparent as satire as soon
    as they were read in conjunction with War of the Jews. In fact, the
    four Gospels and War of the Jews were created as a unified piece of
    literature whose characters and stories interact. Their interaction
    gives many of Jesus’ sayings a comical meaning and also creates a
    series of puzzles whose solutions reveal the real identities of the
    New Testament’s characters. Understanding the New Testament’s
    comic level reveals, for example, that the Apostles Simon and John
    were cruel lampoons of Simon and John, the leaders of the Jewish

    Throughout this work I refer to Jesus’ ministry as a satire of
    Titus’ military campaign. I do so because the ministry was based on
    the campaign and was intended to be seen as humorous when
    viewed from that perspective. However, the relationship between
    these two “ministries” was not simply satirical. I shall show that
    Jesus’ ministry was designed to prove that he was the Malachi, or
    messenger, of the “true” Messiah — Titus Flavius.

    Malachi means “my messenger” in Hebrew and was used as a
    cognomen for the prophet Elijah. This is because Judaic prophecy
    foretold that the Messiah would be preceded by the appearance of
    Elijah, who would act as the messenger of his imminent coming.

    But I shall send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of
    the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

    Malachi 4:5

    To show that Jesus’ ministry was a forerunner of Titus’ cam-
    paign the authors of the New Testament and War of the Jews used
    typology, a technique that runs throughout Judaic literature. Key
    incidents in Jesus’ ministry were created to be seen as the “type,” or
    prophetical basis, for events from Titus’ campaign and thereby
    “prove” that Jesus had been the Malachi of Titus.

    I will also show that Josephus falsified the dates of events in War
    of the Jews to create the impression that the prophecies of Daniel
    came to pass during the war between the Romans and the Jews. This
    was done to provide “proof for the New Testament’s claim, on its
    surface level, that the “son of God” foreseen by Daniel was Jesus.

    The histories of Josephus and the New Testament are perhaps
    the most scrutinized works in literature and 1 encourage skepticism
    of my claim to have discovered a new, “true” way of understanding
    them. Throughout the ages, the New Testament has been an intel-
    lectual kaleidoscope within which fantastic prophecies and codes
    have often been “discovered.” Extraordinary claims require extraor-
    dinary evidence, and I would not be presenting this work if I could
    not meet that criterion.

    However, it was the case that the Flavians possessed both the
    motivation and the capacity to create a version of Judaism aligned
    with their interests. Any honest seeker of Christianity’s origin must,
    therefore, at least consider the possibility that the Flavians produced
    the Gospels. Further, the core of Jesus’ prophecies — the Galilean vil-
    lages “laid low,” Jerusalem encircled with a wall, the temple left with
    not a single stone atop another, and the “wicked generation”
    destroyed — all share one characteristic. Each is a military victory of
    the Flavian family. Thus, the oft-cited principle that history is writ-
    ten by the victors suggests that that family should be the first group
    we investigate.

    This is why we should attempt to understand the Gospels as
    they would have been understood by someone familiar with the
    conquest of Judea by Titus Flavius, emperor of Rome. And with this
    perspective, a completely different meaning of the Gospels becomes

    They proclaim the divinity of Caesar.
    Fishers of Men:
    Men Who Were Caught Like Fish

    To begin to explain the relationship between Jesus’ ministry and
    Titus’ campaign that my analysis indicates is a satire, I point to the
    following passages.

    In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is described at the onset of his
    ministry asking Simon and Andrew and the “sons of Zeb’edee” to
    “follow me” and to become “fishers of men.”

    From that time Jesus began to preach. “Repent,” He said,
    “for the Kingdom of the Heavens is now close at hand.”

    And walking along the shore of the Lake of Galilee He saw
    two brothers — Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew-
    throwing a drag-net into the Lake; for they were fishers.

    And He said to them, “Come and follow me, and I will
    make you fishers of men.”

    Matt. 4:18-19

    The same story is represented in the Gospel of Luke as follows:
    While the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God,
    he was standing by the lake of Gennes’aret.

    And so also were James and John, sons of Zeb’edee,
    who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon,
    “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.”

    Luke 5:9-10

    In another passage from the New Testament, Jesus foresees that
    cities on Gennesareth Lake (better known as the Sea of Galilee) will
    face tribulation for their wickedness.

    Woe to you Chorazain! Woe to you Bethsaida!

    And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will
    be brought down to Hades.

    Matt. 1 1 :23

    In War of the Jews, Josephus describes a sea battle where the
    Romans caught Jews like fish. The battle occurred at Gennesareth,
    where Titus attacked a band of Jewish rebels led by a leader named

    This lake is called by the people of the country the Lake of
    Gennesareth . . . they had a great number of ships . . . and
    they were so fitted up, that they might undertake a Sea-
    fight. But as the Romans were building a wall about their
    camp, Jesus and his party . . . made a sally upon them.

    . . . Sometimes the Romans leaped into their ships,
    with swords in their hands, and slew them; but when some
    of them met the vessels, the Romans caught them by the
    middle, and destroyed at once their ships and themselves
    who were taken in them. And for such as were drowning in
    the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they
    were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels; but if,
    in the desperate case they were in, they attempted to swim
    to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or
    their hands . . .

    A first-century peasant who heard Jesus’ doomsday prophecy,
    which describes what would become of the inhabitants of the cities
    on Gennesareth Lake, and also heard the passage above from War of
    the Jews, which describes their destruction, would have understood
    the juxtaposition as evidence of Christ’s divinity. What Jesus had
    prophesied, Josephus recorded as having come to pass.

    But an uneducated peasant could not have understood that
    there was another “prophecy” that came to pass within the passages
    above. I am referring to Christ’s exhortation to become “fishers”or
    “catchers” of men, while standing on the spot where Jews would be
    caught like fish during the coming war with Rome.

    However, any patricians who knew the details of the sea battle
    at Gennesareth would have seen the irony in a Messiah who
    named “Savior” inventing the phrase “fishers of men” while stand-
    ing on the beach where the Jews were caught like fish. The grim
    comedy is self-evident.

    These two “fulfilled” prophecies exemplify the two levels on
    which the New Testament can be understood. Jesus’ prophecy
    regarding the destruction of Chorazain and Capernaum is com-
    pletely straightforward and meant to be understood literally.

    The other “fulfilled” prophecy that of Jesus’ prediction that his
    followers would become fishers for men, is not so straightforward.
    It could be understood only by someone who, like the residents of
    the Flavian court, had knowledge of the details of the sea battle
    between the Romans and the Jewish fishermen at Gennesareth. Only
    such individuals could have seen the prophetic irony in Jesus using
    the expression while standing on the very beach where the Jews
    would later be caught like fish.

    If the authors of the Gospels were being less than transparent
    when they referred to the Jewish rebels as fish, they were at least
    using a metaphor common in the first century. For example, Rabban
    (chief Rabbi) Gamaliel spoke of his disciples through a parable in
    which they were compared to four different kinds of fish — an
    unclean fish, a clean fish, a fish from the river Jordan, and a fish
    from the sea. Roman authors also used the metaphor. Juvenal, a con-
    temporary Roman poet, specifically compares fugitive slaves and
    informers to fish.

    The structure of the comedy is important. Jesus speaks of “catch-
    ing men” in a seemingly symbolic sense. Josephus then records that
    Jesus was indeed a “true” prophet. His vision of “catching men” at
    Gennesareth did come to pass, the joke being that it came to pass lit-
    erally, and not in the symbolic manner that Jesus seemed to have
    meant with the phrase. This is the most common structure of the
    humor created by reading the New Testament in conjunction with
    the War of the Jews.

    If the New Testament and War of the Jews engage in an interac-
    tive comedy regarding “fishing” for men at Gennesareth, they also
    work to create another “fish” joke. As mentioned above, in Matthew
    11:23 Jesus predicted “woe” for “Chorazain.”

    Scholars have always presumed that Jesus was referring to a
    Galilean fishing village. Josephus, however, gave a different defini-
    tion of the word “Chorazain.”

    The country also that lies over against this lake hath the
    same name of Gennesareth . . . Some have thought it to be
    a vein of the Nile, because it produces the Coracin fish as
    well as the lake does which is near to Alexandria. 41
    . . . . .

  15. So, while at the Sea of Galilee Jesus predicted woe for the
    Chorazain, and said that henceforth his disciples would follow him
    and become fishers for men. Titus’ experience was strangely parallel
    to Jesus’ prophecies in that he literally brought woe for the
    Chorazainians and his soldiers literally followed him and became
    “fishers of men.” That is, they fished for the inhabitants of the vil-
    lage named for the Coracin fish. If the irony of juxtaposing the onset
    of Jesus’ ministry and Titus’ campaign was created deliberately, it
    apparently stemmed from the fact that Titus saw the humor in his
    “fishing” for the Chorazainians as they attempted to swim to safety.

    The previous examples, in and of themselves, are not convinc-
    ing evidence that there is a deliberate parallel between Jesus’ min-
    istry and Titus’ campaign. It is, after all, quite possible that it was
    just an unfortunate coincidence that Jesus chose the beach at Gen-
    nesareth as the spot where he described his future ministry as fish-
    ing for men. I present this example of the two levels of interpreta-
    tion that are possible while reading the New Testament in
    conjunction with War of the Jews, because it occurs near the begin-
    ning of both Jesus’ and Titus’ narratives. I show below that the
    sequence of events that take place in the New Testament and War of
    the Jews have a meaning not heretofore understood.

    However, the parallels that exist between the experiences of
    Jesus and Titus at Gennesareth are not limited to catching men. The
    first part of Jesus’ statement is “Follow me” and “Do not be afraid.”
    When one reads the passage from Josephus in which the Jews were
    “caught” it is also recorded that the soldiers who did the “catching”
    were told not to be afraid and indeed “followed” someone. As the
    next excerpts show, the person being followed was Titus, who told
    his troops not to be afraid.

    “For you know very well that I go into danger first, and make
    the first attack upon the enemy. Do not you therefore desert
    me, but persuade yourselves that God will be assisting to
    my onset.”

    And now Titus made his own horse march first against
    the enemy.

    As soon as ever Titus had said this he leaped upon his
    horse and rode apace down to the lake; by which lake he
    marched and entered the city the first of them all, as did the
    others soon after him.

    Thus, Josephus pointed out three times that Titus was the first
    into battle. And again, the Roman soldiers who would do the “fish-
    ing” literally followed Titus, creating another conceptual parallel
    with Jesus.

    In fact, the New Testament passage above, in which Jesus asks
    his disciples “follow me,” and the passage from Josephus in which
    Titus asks his troops to follow, so that they can become fishers of
    men, have a number of other parallels.

    Like Jesus, Titus had been sent by his father.

    So he sent away his son Titus to Casarea, that he might
    bring the army that lay there to Scythopolis. 45

    While it is hardly unusual to follow a leader into battle or to
    have been sent by one’s father, Titus, again like Jesus at Gennesareth,
    is in a sense beginning his ministry there. He states that the battle is
    to be his “onset.”

    “Do not you therefore desert me, but persuade yourselves
    that God will be assisting to my onset.” 46

    The Greek word that Josephus uses here, horme means “onset”
    in English, that is, either an assault or a starting point. From Titus’
    perspective the moment can be seen as a starting point because it is
    his first battle in Galilee entirely under his command.

    To summarize, though there were thousands of other possible
    locations, both Jesus and Titus can be said to have had the onset of
    their narratives at Gennesareth, and in a manner that involved fish-
    ing for men — parallels that are unusual enough to at least permit
    . . . . .

  16. Perhaps “Zen Deist” might describe my spiritual thinking… but that is if we accept that human language is all metaphor.


      Pandeism (or pan-deism) is a theological doctrine which combines aspects of pantheism into deism.[1] It holds that the creator deity became the universe and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity.[2][3][4][5] Pandeism is proposed to explain, as it relates to deism, why God would create a universe and then abandon it,[6] and as to pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.[6][7]

      The word pandeism is a hybrid blend of the root words pantheism and deism, combining Ancient Greek: πᾶν pan “all” with Latin: deus which means “god”. It was perhaps first coined in the present meaning in 1859 by Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal.[8]
      . . . . .
      Kinda sorta in a way… but more like this:
      Ta Panta Nous [1≡∞]

      • I was around 23 or so…

        I looked up from the book and caught a glimpse of my eyes in the mirror across the room. I thought, “oh, there’s that animal”…. that was the last verbalized thought I had. Suddenly the room turned into negative, and then positive, and negative over and again; pulsing, and I could hear a booming pulsing with it. Then I gasped as a huge breath seemed to be blown into my lungs. I fell back into the pillows. A bright white light! Forever…

        Sometime later (?) I heard the chatter return; I was thinking to myself, “I did it!!!” And then I opened my eyes and I was back in the physical world, but still in a state of awe.

        I am still in a state of awe.

      • That is what happened when I was around 23.

        I had been sitting in bed on my day off reading a book on Buddhism. It was about the history and all the different sects around the world. I had sort of considered myself into Buddhism, maybe a Buddhist. At some point around the middle of the book, it flashed on me that Buddhism was as big a load of bullshit as any of the western religions. I slammed the book shut, sort of disgusted and threw it on the nightstand. That’s when I glanced up at the mirror across the room.

        I can’t say how long I was “there” in the presence of Infinity. There were dual sensations, the bright space was as calm and sedate as pure bliss, and at the very same time a rush, like just peaking on a roller coaster ride when you’re looking straight down and that thrill and fear blasts through your guts.
        Of course these are just words, metaphor… it was “like” that in a way, but I can’t really describe it. And I cannot really say what I know now, or that it is anything “new” that I didn’t know before that moment of enlightenment. But I can say EVERYTHING changed. One thing … I know I am forever.

        I discovered this symbol in a book on physics when I was babysitting for the people across the street when I was 9 years old – (≡), it means “is exactly” in math. It was in a chart of symbols on the end sheets of a hard bound book. Something about the symbol fascinated me, and I always remembered it. It was so similar to the = sign… but meant something more than that, that wasn’t clear to me until my mind matured. So ‘theoretically’ I ended up with the equation: [1≡∞] ‘One is Infinity’ All is One, etc. several years before the instant enlightenment. I understood it intellectually first. But that is not the same as ‘being there’. You have to be there to really get it.

        So whether I have stated this clearly enough to you or not. Whether you actually believe me or not. You aren’t going to ‘get it’ until being there yourself. That is just the Way It Is.

        The true Tao cannot be spoken.

  17. Take It Down: US Support for Jim Crow Israel
    Struggle Over Substance, Not Symbols
    by Dan Sanchez, July 21, 2015

    Revisionist Zionism itself, of which the State of Israel is largely an embodiment, is predicated on ethnic supremacism and exclusion. This played out in the very foundation of Israel upon the ethnic cleansing and dispossession of three quarters of a million Palestinian Arabs in the 1948 Nakba.

    It has continued to play out ever since in the relentless Israeli policy of “Judaization” that subsidizes Jewish settlement, strangles Arab development, and enforces the continued dispossesion of Palestinians.

    And it took a great leap forward with the 1967 war and resulting Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and other territories. The West Bank has become the central theatre for the land-rustling Israeli settler movement, which instead refers to it as Biblical “Judea and Samaria.” And the Gaza Strip has been made a vast-yet-dense ghetto and open-air prison where Palestinians are “concentrated,” immiserated, and massacred.

  18. Semantics
    the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, andconceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
    the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
    plural noun: semantics
    “such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff”
    . . . . . . .
    Semantics (from Ancient Greek: σημαντικός sēmantikós, “significant”)[1][2] is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, like words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for; their denotation. Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used for understanding human expression through language. Other forms of semantics include the semantics of programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics. In international scientific vocabulary semantics is also called semasiology.

    The word semantics itself denotes a range of ideas—from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language for denoting a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal enquiries, over a long period of time, especially in the field of formal semantics. In linguistics, it is the study of the interpretation of signs or symbols used in agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts.[3] Within this view, sounds, facial expressions, body language, and proxemics have semantic (meaningful) content, and each comprises several branches of study. In written language, things like paragraph structure and punctuation bear semantic content; other forms of language bear other semantic content.[3]

    The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including lexicology, syntax, pragmatics, etymology and others. Independently, semantics is also a well-defined field in its own right, often with synthetic properties.[4] In the philosophy of language, semantics and reference are closely connected. Further related fields include philology, communication, and semiotics. The formal study of semantics can therefore be manifold and complex.

    Semantics contrasts with syntax, the study of the combinatorics of units of a language (without reference to their meaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationships between the symbols of a language, their meaning, and the users of the language.[5] Semantics as a field of study also has significant ties to various representational theories of meaning including truth theories of meaning, coherence theories of meaning, and correspondence theories of meaning. Each of these is related to the general philosophical study of reality and the representation of meaning.

    In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse (termed texts, or narratives). The study of semantics is also closely linked to the subjects of representation, reference and denotation. The basic study of semantics is oriented to the examination of the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units and compounds: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, paronyms. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax.


    • In Chomskyan linguistics there was no mechanism for the learning of semantic relations, and the nativist view considered all semantic notions as inborn. Thus, even novel concepts were proposed to have been dormant in some sense. This view was also thought unable to address many issues such as metaphor or associative meanings, and semantic change, where meanings within a linguistic community change over time, and qualia or subjective experience. Another issue not addressed by the nativist model was how perceptual cues are combined in thought, e.g. in mental rotation.[6]

      This view of semantics, as an innate finite meaning inherent in a lexical unit that can be composed to generate meanings for larger chunks of discourse, is now being fiercely debated in the emerging domain of cognitive linguistics[7] and also in the non-Fodorian camp in philosophy of language.[8] The challenge is motivated by:

      factors internal to language, such as the problem of resolving indexical or anaphora (e.g. this x, him, last week). In these situations context serves as the input, but the interpreted utterance also modifies the context, so it is also the output. Thus, the interpretation is necessarily dynamic and the meaning of sentences is viewed as contexts changing potentials instead of propositions.
      factors external to language, i.e. language is not a set of labels stuck on things, but “a toolbox, the importance of whose elements lie in the way they function rather than their attachments to things.“[8] This view reflects the position of the later Wittgenstein and his famous game example, and is related to the positions of Quine, Davidson, and others.

      A concrete example of the latter phenomenon is semantic underspecification – meanings are not complete without some elements of context. To take an example of one word, red, its meaning in a phrase such as red book is similar to many other usages, and can be viewed as compositional.[9] However, the colours implied in phrases such as red wine (very dark), and red hair (coppery), or red soil, or red skin are very different. Indeed, these colours by themselves would not be called red by native speakers. These instances are contrastive, so red wine is so called only in comparison with the other kind of wine (which also is not white for the same reasons). This view goes back to de Saussure:

      Each of a set of synonyms like redouter (‘to dread’), craindre (‘to fear’), avoir peur (‘to be afraid’) has its particular value only because they stand in contrast with one another. No word has a value that can be identified independently of what else is in its vicinity.[10]

      and may go back to earlier Indian views on language, especially the Nyaya view of words as indicators and not carriers of meaning.[11]

      An attempt to defend a system based on propositional meaning for semantic underspecification can be found in the generative lexicon model of James Pustejovsky, who extends contextual operations (based on type shifting) into the lexicon. Thus meanings are generated “on the fly” (as you go), based on finite context.

  19. I would love to get a’hold of a transcript of what is said here. I have listened to McKenna for decades – going back to KPFK LA, the Pacifica station, usually on Roy of Hollywood’s “Something’s Happening” (midnight to dawn) shows.
    This is splendid!



    Introduction from « The Gnostic Gospels »
    by Elaine Pagels

    In December 1945 an Arab peasant made an astonishing archeological discovery in Upper Egypt.
    Rumors obscured the circumstances of this find–perhaps because the discovery was accidental,
    and its sale on the black market illegal. For years even the identity of the discoverer remained
    unknown. One rumor held that he was a blood avenger; another, that he had made the find near
    the town of Naj ‘Hammádì at the Jabal al-Tárif, a mountain honeycombed with more than 150
    caves. Originally natural, some of these caves were cut and painted and used as grave sites as
    early as the sixth dynasty, some 4,300 years ago.
    Thirty years later the discoverer himself, Muhammad ‘Alí al-Sammán; told what happened.
    Shortly before he and his brothers avenged their father’s murder in a blood feud, they had saddled
    their camels and gone out to the Jabal to dig for sabakh, a soft soil they used to fertilize their
    crops. Digging around a massive boulder, they hit a red earthenware jar, almost a meter high.
    Muhammad ‘Alí hesitated to break the jar, considering that a jinn, or spirit, might live inside. But
    realizing that it might also contain gold, he raised his mattock, smashed the jar, and discovered
    inside thirteen papyrus books, bound in leather. Returning to his home in al-Qasr, Muhammad
    ‘All dumped the books and loose papyrus leaves on the straw piled on the ground next to the
    oven. Muhammad’s mother, ‘Umm-Ahmad, admits that she burned much of the papyrus in the
    oven along with the straw she used to kindle the fire.

    Click to access nhl.pdf


    • The Thunder, Perfect Mind

      For I am the first and the last. I am the honored one and the scorned one.
      I am the whore and the holy one.
      I am the wife and the virgin….
      I am the barren one, and many are her sons….
      I am the silence that is incomprehensible….
      I am the utterance of my name.
      . . . . .

      • These Christians are now called gnostics, from the
        Greek word gnosis, usually translated as “knowledge.” For as those who claim to know nothing
        about ultimate reality are called agnostic (literally, “not knowing”), the person who does claim to
        know such things is called gnostic (“knowing”). But gnosis is not primarily rational knowledge.
        The Greek language distinguishes between scientific or reflective knowledge (“He knows
        mathematics”) and knowing through observation or experience (“He knows me”), which is gnosis.
        As the gnostics use the term, we could translate it as “insight,” for gnosis involves an intuitive
        process of knowing oneself. And to know oneself, they claimed, is to know human nature and
        human destiny. According to the gnostic teacher Theodotus, writing in Asia Minor (c. 140-160),
        the gnostic is one has come to understand who we were, and what we have become; where we
        were… whither we are hastening; from what we are being released; what birth is, and what is
        Yet to know oneself, at the deepest level, is simultaneously to know God; this is the secret of
        gnosis. Another gnostic teacher, Monoimus, says:
        Abandon the search for God and the creation and other matters of a similar sort. Look for him by
        taking yourself as the starting point. Learn who it is within you who makes everything his own
        and says, “My God, my mind, my thought, my soul, my body.” Learn the sources of sorrow:, joy,
        love, hate . . . If you carefully investigate these matters you will find him in yourself.
        What Muhammad ‘All discovered at Nag Hammadi is, apparently, a library of writings, almost all
        of them gnostic. Although they claim to offer secret teaching, many of these texts refer to the
        Scriptures of the Old Testament, and others to the letters of Paul and the New Testament gospels.
        Many of them include the same dramatic personae as the New Testament–Jesus and his disciples.
        Yet the differences are striking.

    • “Orthodox Jews and Christians insist that a chasm separates humanity from Its creator: God is
      wholly other. But some of the gnostics who wrote these gospels contradict this: self-knowledge is
      knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical.
      Second, the “living Jesus” of these texts speaks of illusion and enlightenment, not of sin and
      repentance, like the Jesus of the New Testament. Instead of coming to save us from sin, he comes
      as a guide who opens access to spiritual understanding. But when the disciple attains
      enlightenment, Jesus no longer serves as his spiritual master: the two have become equal–even
      identical.”~Elaine Pagels – Introduction to The Gnostic Gospels

      by John Lash (from MetaHistory Website)

      “My proposed term for the extraordinary concurrence of events in 1947, including the invention of the holograph, the creation of the CIA and Operation Majestic, and the famous wave of UFO sightings including the alleged crash in Roswell, New Mexico.

      To introduce the 1947 Nexus, I invite readers to consider these two concurrent events:

      > In December 1945, an Arab peasant discovered the Nag Hammadi codices concealed in a jar in a cave in Upper Egypt, near Thebes (Luxor), but it was not until June 1947 that a French scholar, Jean Doresse, recognized what the documents were.
      > In the same summer of 1947, a Bedouin shepherd discovered the first of a massive cache of parchments and scrolls in the cave at Khirbet Qumran, overlooking the Dead Sea, about 30 miles south of Jerusalem.
      > Primary chronological nexus: the Nag Hammadi Codices (NHC) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) emerged from two thousand years of obscurity in the same historical moment.
      > William Whitten was born in March of 1947. (grin)
      But wait, there’s more. Much, much more.

      In the fall of 1947, the world was shocked by the announcement of the formation of the sovereign state of Israel. Israeli scholars and soldiers alike were inspired by the realization that a modern state in the “Promised Land” was being established at the very moment the Dead Sea Scrolls resurfaced – no mere coincidence, perhaps, since the Scrolls were evidence of a nationalist and messianic movement in Palestine, headed by an extremist apocalyptic sect whose stated aim was to invoke the intervention of supernatural powers to establish Israel as a sovereign realm: the Zaddikim.

      Is this wild enough?”~Lash

      • “What do the Dead Sea Scrolls say about Jesus? Nothing.
        What do they say about the world in which Jesus lived? Lots.”~Megan Sauter

        “The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in eleven caves along the northwest shore of the Dead Sea between the years 1947 and 1956. The area is 13 miles east of Jerusalem and is 1300 feet below sea level. The mostly fragmented texts, are numbered according to the cave that they came out of. They have been called the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times.

        Although the Qumran community existed during the time of the ministry of Jesus, none of the Scrolls refer to Him, nor do they mention any of His follower’s described in the New Testament.”

      • The first written account of the ministry of Jesus, the Gospel of Mark, was penned in about 65 to 80 CE, 30 or more years after Jesus was allegedly executed.

        Tradition has it that the author of Mark was John Mark, an associate of Peter the Apostle. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 323 CE) quotes Papias of Hierapolis (c. 130 CE) as hearing from one “presbyter” that Mark had written Peter’s memoirs – something generally called “hearsay” in legalese, and not overly reliable, nearly 300 years after the fact. Also, several late second-century sources indirectly allude to John Mark’s association with Peter. These claims have long been challenged by scholars, primary because John Mark was a known Palestinian Jew.

        The Nag Hammadi codices are 13 leather-bound volumes dated to the mid-fourth century that contain an unprecedented collection of more than 50 texts, including some that had been composed as early as the second century.

  21. The Transcendental Aesthetic (1): A Priori Intuitions

    The place of the transcendental aesthetic in Kant’s work is that it is
    where he deals with the nature of sensibility. It is the means by which
    objects are given to us. Sensibility is the original relation of cognition to
    objects. All thoughts or concepts involve an indirect relation to objects and
    hence ultimately, to have sense, have to be connected to “intuition”.
    Sensations can be understood in two ways: in terms either of their matter or
    their form. The matter of sensation is the “thick” experience of it (touch,
    sight, sound, etc) whilst the form of sensation is that in it which enables us
    to experience it at all. Kant wants us to turn to the latter as it is what he will
    term the a priori element of sensation. This necessary form of sensation is
    not itself sensational if by sensational we mean arising from the senses. That
    which is constitutively independent of the senses in terms of its origin is
    what Kant means by “pure”. Hence Kant will be suggesting that there is a
    manner of sensibility, which enables us to describe the pure nature of

    The pure intuitions are what the transcendental aesthetic is intended
    to describe. The content of pure intuition is the form of all empirical
    intuition. What is this, according to Kant? He argues that there are two such:
    space and time. The arguments in favour of his conclusion that space and
    time are pure intuitions are divided into two components, termed
    metaphysical and transcendental expositions. The metaphysical expositions
    demonstrate that space and time are a priori intuitions whilst the
    transcendental expositions are intended to show that only on the assumption
    that space and time are a priori intuitions are the characteristics of certain
    bodies of knowledge possible.
    When Kant sets out the argument in favour of the view of that space
    is an a priori intuition he mentions by contrast the positions of Newton and
    Leibniz (B37), the former of whom held that space and time are absolutely
    real, and the latter of whom argues that they are mere relations of things but
    that nonetheless these relations would belong to things regardless of
    whether the things in question were intuited.

    Click to access KANTLECTURE03.pdf


    • N,N-dimethyltryptamine, or DMT, is an illegal, psychedelic tryptamine compound found in the human body and at least ~60 species of plants worldwide. Rick Strassman, MD, described it as “the first endogenous human psychedelic” in DMT: The Spirit Molecule (2000), and in an interview in 2011 said that DMT “seems to actually be a necessary component of normal brain function.” Terence McKenna (who, “more than anyone,” Strassman wrote in 2000, “has raised awareness of DMT, through lectures, books, interviews, and recordings, to its present unprecedented level”) called DMT “the most powerful hallucinogen known to man and science” and “the commonest hallucinogen in all of nature” in his 1994 lecture “Rap Dancing Into the Third Millennium.” McKenna wondered why theology had not enshrined DMT as “its central exhibit for the presence of the other in the human world,”

    • The pineal gland—which is “unique in its solitary status in the brain,” in that all the other parts of the brain are paired—may be where DMT is produced in the human body: “The most general hypothesis is that the pineal gland produces psychedelic amounts of DMT at extraordinary times in our lives.”

      The pineal gland of older life forms, like lizards, is called “the ‘third’ eye” and has a lens, cornea, and retina. As life evolved, the pineal moved deeper into the brain. Finally: “The human pineal gland is not actually part of the brain. Rather, it develops from specialized tissues in the roof of the fetal mouth. From there it migrates to the center of the brain, where it seems to have the best seat in the house.”
      — DMT: The Spirit Molecule (2000) by Rick Strassman


    Faith (pistis) and Knowledge (gnosis)

    The distinction between faith (pistis) and knowledge (gnosis) is a very important one in Valentinianism. Pistis, the Greek word for faith denotes intellectual and emotional acceptance of a proposition. To the Valentinians, faith is primarily intellectual/emotional in character and consists accepting a body of teaching as true.

    Knowledge (gnosis) is a somewhat more complex concept. Here is the definition of gnosis given by Elaine Pagels in her book The Gnostic Gospels: “…gnosis is not primarily rational knowledge. The Greek language distinguishes between scientific or reflective knowledge (‘He knows mathematics’) and knowing through observation or experience (‘He knows me’). As the gnostics use the term, we could translate it as ‘insight’, for gnosis involves an intuitive process of knowing oneself… Yet to know oneself, at the deepest level is to know God; this is the secret of gnosis.”(The Gnostic Gospels, p xviii-xix) Bentley Layton provides a similar definition in The Gnostic Scriptures: “The ancient Greek language could easily differentiate between two kinds of knowledge… One kind is propositional knowing – the knowledge that something is the case (‘I know Athens is in Greece’). Greek has several words for this kind of knowing-for example, eidenai. The other kind of knowing is personal aquaintance with an object, often a person. (‘I know Athens well’; ‘I have known Susan for many years’). In Greek the word for this is gignoskein…The corresponding Greek noun is gnosis. If for example two people have been introduced to one another, each can claim to have gnosis or aquaintance of one another. If one is introduced to God, one has gnosis of God. The ancient gnostics described salvation as a kind of gnosis or aquaintance, and the ultimate object of that aquaintance was nothing less than God” (The Gnostic Scriptures, p 9).

    Faith corresponds to the intellectual/emotional aspect of religion while gnosis corresponds to the spiritual/experiential aspect.
    Both the psyche and pneuma were capable of salvation. Psyche was saved through pistis while pneuma was saved through gnosis. Hence they distinguished two levels of salvation: psychic and pneumatic.

    The psychic level of salvation was characterized by conversion (metanoia) and faith (pistis). This corresponds to receiving oral and written teachings since the psyche “requires perceptible intruction”.
    At the pneumatic level the person was reborn through spiritual resurrection and directly experienced the divine Truth through gnosis.

    • “In orthodox Christianity, pistis is an end in itself. The object of pistis is pistis itself. This easily leads to a rigid dogmatism. Salvation comes to be seen as acceptance of a specific body of dogma to the exclusion of all others. In Valentinianism and other forms of “Gnostic” Christianity, the object of pistis is gnosis. The teachings are seen as a series of metaphors that point to the higher reality of gnosis. This helps explain the diversity of thought found within Valentinianism.

      The teaching about faith and gnosis is at the heart of the dispute between the Valentinians and Irenaeus of Lyon. The Valentinians criticized Irenaeus’ rigid emphasis on dogma and pistis (faith) alone at the expense of gnosis. In their view, Irenaeus’ Christianity was unspiritual and offered only the lower psychic level of salvation. while they themselves had attained the higher pneumatic salvation (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:6:1-4).

      The terms “Gnosis” “Gnostic” and “Gnosticism” are often used by modern writers to describe Valentinianism. From the discussion above it should be clear that using the term ‘gnosis’ to describe Valentinian teaching is contrary to the use of the term by the Valentinians themselves. Gnosis refers to mystical experiece and is not restricted to a particular group or period of history. The term “Gnostic” (possessing gnosis) was rarely used by the Valentinians to describe themselves. They prefered to be called things like ‘the elect’, ‘the spiritual ones’, ‘the church of the superior seed’ or ‘disciples of God’. The term “Gnosticism” was coined in the 19th century to describe the teachings and beliefs of various second century Judeo-Christian groups including the Valentinians. Those we now call “Gnostics” would never have used a term like “Gnosticism” to describe their teachings.

      To summarize, the Valentinians made a clear distinction between belief and gnosis. To them belief in a body of teachings (Valentinian or otherwise) was much inferior to gnosis. They never apply the term ‘gnosis’ to their teachings. The word is reserved to refer to salvation through experience of the divine. Failure to draw the distinction between belief and gnosis can lead to an inaccurate picture of Valentinianism and Gnosticism in general.”~David Brons

  23. eschaton
    the final event in the divine plan; the end of the world.

    the coalescence or growing together of parts originally separate.


  24. 8 circuit model – Leary
    The Eight-Circuit Model of Consciousness is a hypothesis proposed by Timothy Leary and expanded on by Robert Anton Wilson and Antero Alli as well as Laurent Huguelit. The model describes eight circuits of information (eight “brains”) that operate within the human nervous system, each corresponding to its own layer of the direct experience of reality.

  25. Why Atoms Are NOT 99% Empty Space

    “Things are not empty space. Our classical intuition fails at the quantum level.

    Matter does not pass through other matter mainly due to the Pauli exclusion principle and due to the electromagnetic repulsion of the electrons. The closer you bring two atoms, i.e. the more the areas of non-zero expectation for their electrons overlap, the stronger will the repulsion due to the Pauli principle be, since it can never happen that two electrons possess exactly the same probability to be found in an extent of space.

    The idea that atoms are mostly “empty space” is, from a quantum viewpoint, nonsense. The volume of an atom is filled by the wavefunctions of its electrons, or, from a QFT viewpoint, there is a localized excitation of the electron field in that region of space, which are both very different from the “empty”vacuum state.

    The concept of empty space is actually quite tricky, since our intuition “Space is empty when there is no particle in it” differs from the formal “Empty space is the unexcited vacuum state of the theory” quite a lot. The space around the atom is definitely not in the vacuum state, it is filled with electron states. But if you go and look, chances are, you will find at least some “empty” space in the sense of “no particles during measurement”. Yet you are not justified in saying that there is “mostly empty space” around the atom, since the electrons are not that sharply localized unless some interaction (like measurements) takes place that actually force them to. When not interacting, their states are “smeared out” over the atom in something sometimes called the electron cloud, where the cloud or orbital represents the probability of finding a particle in any given spot.

    This weirdness is one of the reasons why quantum mechanics is so fundamentally different from classical mechanics – suddenly, a lot of the world becomes wholly different from what we are used to at our macroscopic level, and especially our intuitions about “empty space” and such fail us completely at microscopic levels.“

    Source: PhysicsStackExchange

    • “The fastest way to find the right answer to something, is to post the wrong one on the internet”
      ~Benjamin Franklin

      . . .
      Hahahahaha!!! Precious!

    • she
      She hated the idea that meaning was subjective…
      She said, “if nature abhors a vacuum, then fill it up!”
      I asked her, “With what?”
      After a while she replied, “With chatter”
      Another long pause and then she added, “You know, the Morpheus molecule of metaphor.”
      She left before I could get her number. I thought I might find her on this planet…

      • The arrogance of rationalism. 1619 Rene Descartes, September Ulm Germany an angel appears and says to sleeping Descartes, “the mastery of nature is to be achieved through number and measure.”

      • Psychoactive toad is a name used for toads from which psychoactive substances from the family of bufotoxins can be derived. The skin and poison of Bufo alvarius (Colorado River toad or Sonoran Desert toad) contain 5-MeO-DMT and bufotenin. Other species contain only bufotenin. 5-MeO-DMT and bufotenin both belong to the family of hallucinogenic tryptamines. Due to these substances the skin or poison of the toads may produce psychoactive effects when ingested.[1]


        “As with all forms of control, it’s about fear. People who are afraid, don’t question, don’t challenge…”~Craig McKee

        This is very true. And it is people who fear who write this stuff as well as produce the media representations of it. I think we have a more complex psychological situation than simply putting this into the context of a ‘conspiracy’.

        Demonic entities have been part of folk lore of humanity since humanity came into existence. Fear of the dark, fear of the unknown arose with the consciousness of future and the imagination of what might be beyond the edge of the camp fire. Distrust of “other” is not a modern phenomena. It is primordial.

        ‘The Revelation of St. John’ is “predictive programming” for Christ’s sake (literally)!

        This is a huge subject, that must be investigated from many angles, and states of mind.

        Craig has opened a Pandora’s Box presented by but one perspective.

  26. But why is this so-called ‘predictive programming’ so popular and ‘successful’?

    It is because it has RESONANCE with the human psyche; as my first comment proposes. An analogy to what I am suggesting can be found in the way that mind-altering substances work on the psyche molecularity through what are called RECEPTORS:

    THC the active molecule of cannabis – Cannabinoid receptors, located in the brain, are part of the Endocannabinoid system which is involved in a variety of physiological processes including appetite.

    LSD, or lysergic acid diethylamide has a structure that is very similar to a few neurotransmitters that are naturally produced. The key it is most similar to is a neurotransmitter known as serotonin. Serotonin is used to modulate and signal a variety of things in the brain. Visual processing (or what you see) utilizes a lot of serotonin. Almost all of the senses have some serotonin input as well. Emotional processing (sad, happy, excited, etc.) is also heavily serotonin influenced.
    LSD happens to be even better at activating serotonin receptors than serotonin itself, so it essentially increases the normal levels of signaling by serotonin (it does this through a variety of mechanisms, not just limited to better binding – it actually releases extra serotonin, changes the lock to accept keys more readily, etc.).

    Dimethyltryptamine, aka DMT, is a naturally occurring substance … DMT binds to serotonin receptors in a manner similar to how psilocin and LSD does.

  27. Josephine Jacobsen and William R. Muellar, The Testament of Samuel Beckett ( Faber 1964, 1966), 199pp.,

    CONTENTS: [Introductory] The Murmur in the Mud; [The Technique] The Dimension of Poetry; The Epistemology: A preliminary to Understandign; The Comic Mode; [The Vision] The Human Condition; The Quest; [Conclusion] The Enormous Time; [Appendix] To Wait or not to Wait: The Enduring Saturday of Samuel Beckett; bibliographies. B: ‘Style is more a question of vision than technique’ [11]

    Beckett the novelist and Beckett the playwright remain Beckett the poet. [20] … the Beckett universe, the Beckett protagonist: this unique figure of which all alter egos are the mask – a giant, amorphous, frightening creation, whose image dominates every word Beckett has written. [21]

    Authors refer to th Beckett protagonist as distinct from its manifestations as “Q” [21] In the novels the only motion was circular; identities merged, and emerged, and remerged [sic]. Locale, data, characters gave out under the reader’s feet with the abruptness of a pitfall. There was the sense of a mockery which ridiculed all things, even suffering; a sense of mystery which clouded the reader’s hasty, or even sober, conclusion. And there there were the repetitions. [22]

    An object intrinsically insignificant … reappears like some nemesis, shifting commonplace and horrifying aspects. [22]

    The work of SB is a major contribution to literature, to poetry, and to the ancient questions man has asked in attempting to establish the truth of his identity and his predicament. [23]

    Strange notion in any case, and eminently open to suspicion, that of a task to be performed, before one can be at rest. Strange task, which consists in speaking of oneself. Strange hope, turned towards silence and peace. (U, 313)

    But the other voice, of him who does not share this passion for the animal kingdom, who is waiting to hear from me, what is its burden? Nice point, too nice for me … Faint calls, at long intervals. BHear me! Be yourself again! Someone has therefore something to say to me. .. I. Who might that be? The galley-man, bound for the Pillars of Hercules, who drops his sweep under cover of night and crawls between the thwarts, towards the rising sun, unseen by the guard, praying for storm. Except that I’ve stopped praying for anything. No no, I’m still a suppliant. I’ll get over it, between now and the last voyage, on this leaden sea. It’s like the other madness, the mad wish to know, to remember, one’s transgressions. [U 338-39.]

    .. with regard to the noise .. it has nto been possible up to date to determine with certainty, or even approximately, what it is, in the way of noise, or how it comes to me, or by what organ it is emitted, or by what perceived, or by what intelligence apprehended… [U392]

    Quotes Beckett in Proust, ‘By his impressionism I mean his non-logical statement of phenomena in the order and exactitude of their percepton, before they have been distorted into intelligibility in order to be forced into a chain of cause and effect. … And we are reminded of Schopenhauer’s definition of the artistic procedure as “the contemplation of the world independently of the principle of reason”. In this connection Proust an be related to Dostoevsky, who states his characters without explaining them. It may be objected that Proust does little else but explain his characters. But his explanations are experimental and not demonstrative. He explains them in order that they may appear as they are – inexplicable. He explains them away.’ (Proust, 66-67)

    Derives from this SB’s epistemology and aesthetic ‘in microcosm’ [70] Beckett is in revolt against what he envisages as a scientific position … Beckett is in revolt also against virtually our whole literary tradition. [71]


    “Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order […] and the like.” ― William O. Douglas, Supreme Court Justice
    Bottle up the champagne, pack away the noisemakers, and toss out the party hats.

    There is no cause for celebration.

    We have secured no major victories against tyranny.

    We have achieved no great feat in pushing back against government overreach.

    For all intents and purposes, the National Security Agency has supposedly ceased its bulk collection of metadata from Americans’ phone calls, but read the fine print: nothing is going to change.

    The USA Freedom Act, which claimed to put an end to the National Security Agency’s controversial collection of metadata from Americans’ phone calls, was just a placebo pill intended to make us feel better and let the politicians take credit for reforming mass surveillance.

    In other words, it was a sham, a sleight-of-hand political gag pulled on a gullible public desperate to believe that we still live in a constitutional republic rather than a down-and-out, out-of-control, corporate-controlled, economically impoverished, corrupt, warring, militarized banana republic.

    You cannot restrain the NSA. The beast has outgrown its chains.

    You cannot reform the NSA. A government that lies, cheats, steals, sidesteps the law, and then absolves itself of wrongdoing does not voluntarily alter its behavior.

    You cannot put an end to the NSA’s “technotyranny.” Presidents, politicians, and court rulings have come and gone over the course of the NSA’s 60-year history, but none of them have managed to shut down the government’s secret surveillance of Americans’ phone calls, emails, text messages, transactions, communications and activities.

    Indeed, the government has become an expert in finding ways to sidestep niggling, inconvenient laws aimed at ensuring accountability, bringing about government transparency and protecting citizen privacy.

    It has mastered the art of stealth maneuvers and end-runs around the Constitution.

    It knows all too well how to hide its nefarious, covert, clandestine activities behind the classified language of national security and terrorism. And when that doesn’t suffice, it obfuscates, complicates, stymies or just plain bamboozles the public into remaining in the dark.

    Case in point: the so-called end of the NSA’s metadata collection of Americans’ phone calls.

    This, of course, is no end at all.

    On any given day, the average American going about his daily business will still be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

    More than a year before politicians attempted to patch up our mortally wounded privacy rights with the legislative bandaid fix that is the USA Freedom Act, researchers at Harvard and Boston University documented secret loopholes that allow the government to bypass Fourth Amendment protections to conduct massive domestic surveillance on U.S. citizens.

    It’s extraordinary rendition all over again, only this time it’s surveillance instead of torture being outsourced.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s