All Roads Lead to Rome

Originally posted by Isaacland
if there wouldn't had been of the romans, christianity would be nothing more today then a forgotten myth of a wacky guru, rejected by traditional Jewish religious laws and sons of Abraham.

I am sorry my friend, but you have been deceived as to what this "wacky guru" was doing. His teachings were the way to throw down the Empire and the false teachings of the Temples.

I am sorry you have been mislead. I am sorry the teachings of Christ have been perverted. Please allow me to show you the truth:

Follower of Christ

There is more to this onion than meets the eye.

With Love,

Your Brother

It is imperative that majority of the Essenes and Christianity have large connections, not only is my stance clear, majority of the Essenes have mentioned about the Holy Spirit, before Christ even came in the picture, Rome on the other hand was just the Messenger in the case of Christianity and we all know who did started that, Paul.

again you brush the essene aside for matters that do not concerned you. You now categorize them as gnostic when you really do not even know what they are. all we have are the translations and soon complete internet release of the scrolls.

reply to post by IAMIAM


First let me say to you my friend that I'm sorry if I offended you. I totally respect your religious and fraternal beliefs. We all got our path in life and if peace is what is driving you along the way, i sincerely, respect you and am happy for you.

Shalom
שָׁלוֹם

Originally posted by Isaacland
First let me say to you my friend that I'm sorry if I offended you. I totally respect your religious and fraternal beliefs. We all got our path in life and if peace is what is driving you along the way, i sincerely, respect you and am happy for you.

No offence was taken at all my friend. I simply wanted to show that what you may perceive based on the false teachings of others, is not the Truth of what Christ was teaching. I have grown weary of the enslavement of the beast of Empire just as anyone on this thread. Thus, it is only prudent that I show there IS a way to take it down.

With Love,

Your Brother

I am having a difficult time explaining myself and the importance of christianity before ROME. It would seem that the only importance to those individuals on this thread is that christianity went mainstream when "rome" held it in their power, I can only tell and show examples what was christianity before rome

Originally posted by Jordan River
I am having a difficult time explaining myself and the importance of christianity before ROME. It would seem that the only importance to those individuals on this thread is that christianity went mainstream when "rome" held it in their power, I can only tell and show examples what was christianity before rome

You do seem a bit confused when you post things like this:

I beg to differ proto on your quick assumption about the Essene. They were indeed the proto-christianity of the time and should be taken very seriously. Much debate is on the idea that John The baptist was one as well. This is also indeed if you believe in the Gospel/myth/legend/lore etc etc. You tend to underplay some key characters in the story and their traits at least and only take direct specific quotes from the bible to serve your purpose. Which is fine.

I think you would be very hard pressed to find me quoting scripture anywhere in this thread. While I may sometimes say some universal truths (at least to me they are universal) such a 'judge not lest you be judged' or 'to err is human to forgive is devine' these have more to do with my own natural beliefs in human behavior and karmic justice than the fact that yes evidently these sayings have come from the Bible.

So no, really, in all seriousness not only have I not quoted scripture in the thread, in part because I know very little scripture to quote and in part because this is NOT a religious thread but I generally roll my eyes, stomp my feet, and do everything I can to keep people from trying to turn the thread into a religious dialouge.

Religion is only one aspect of the Roman conspiracy.

Religions is an argument no one can in fact win, because no one can actually produce the God they are actually arguing about and get that God to settle the argument though his own actual real time, real world, current and present definition of what are thought, imagined and presumed to be his words.

Further one of the sticking points is was there even a Christ or was it all a fiction made up by Rome to espouse key virtues of Caesar and how the Roman State wanted to govern the populace moving forward with Christianity, Roman Christianity being the basis of a political system.

No, I absoultely do not believe that anyone will know the precise truth of this in absence of the God in question weighing in or Rome fully disclosing it's records and what it did.

Neither appear to be likely since neither has obviously happened in 2,000 years.

So it's an agrument for the sake of an argument, usually involving people arguing about things that have been handed down for thousands of years, often through Rome itself, and often frequently revised to suit Rome.

So here you are 1900 years later trying to figure out what this one sect in Judaism was really doing 1900 years ago and believing that it holds some great key to some great mystery that you can not even define the mystery let alone the key you imagine it holds, let alone have any real proof surviving from that era that can be authenticicated.

So since it's not a religious thread, since I am not looking for that 'perfect' path to God or enlightenment or the Kingdom of Heaven or all the things that seem to compell people that want to foster these arguments, no I really don't see it as any bearing, and yes, I am actually brushing it aside for that reason.

I am presently focused on Rome in the year 2011, whats going on with it's Shadow Government in the year 2011, what it is doing to drive world events in the year 2011, trying to formulate a way to meet that and slow it down and ideally stop that in the year 2011.

What do the Essene have to do with that? Once again not a thing.

So while it's dissapointed a wide collection of posters I won't adopt there specific theories, that they feel are compelling, if I had adopted each and every person's theories who is passionate about religion, space aliens, inter dimensional beings, all I would have is a hodge podge of conflicting theories, that can't fit all together, largely focused on and around intangible myths from the ancient past, that have pretty much no bearing with what we are facing in the year 2011 as far as the Roman Shadow Government, and I would basically be as confused, and unfocused, and as frightened as many of those posters would be.

Since I have been interacting with you on the boards for well over a year and a half now, and this is the first time you have mentioned the Essene Cult/Sect I have little choice but to assume that you recently discovered it and while reading the dubious and almost certainly distorted tales of the sect/cult you have convinced yourself it has some great importance in regards to today's world.

Do I share your belief, no, have you given me any reason to, no, is it still not a religious thread, yes, is it a general conspiracy about Rome, and Rome in the year 2011 yes.

It's great of you to share, and want to share, and I certainly dont mean to discourage people from doing that, but if I don't see a value in what you are sharing, please respect that, as much as I try to respect your need or desire to post that information or idea, belief, thought, statement or question.

Thanks.

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by Isaacland
if there wouldn't had been of the romans, christianity would be nothing more today then a forgotten myth of a wacky guru, rejected by traditional Jewish religious laws and sons of Abraham.

I am sorry my friend, but you have been deceived as to what this "wacky guru" was doing. His teachings were the way to throw down the Empire and the false teachings of the Temples.

I am sorry you have been mislead. I am sorry the teachings of Christ have been perverted. Please allow me to show you the truth:

Follower of Christ

There is more to this onion than meets the eye.

With Love,

Your Brother

While I am entirely unsure that Jesus as you conceptualize him ever lived, or lived as you conceptualize him, your statement is nonetheless partially validated but significantly validated by the Pennsylvania Dutch Amish.

Simple followers of the written word which they ascribe to and live out verbatim without trying to interpret, question or pick and choose from, they do enjoy a nearly completely atonymous life with the Government rarely intruding in any way into their communities or on to their lands.

They have their own schools, see to their own medical care, are not part of the social contracts of Social Security or Medicaire, and live a simple agrarian existence as farmers and craftsmen shunning modern conveniences and luxuries, entirely sustaining themselves in full off the land that they live on and farm, and with the things that they make and create by their own hand.

So yes, regardless of the origins of Jesus's teachings, those who want to follow them verbatim in this fashion, do enjoy a very real type of immunity from the state.

As a person not of such faith and belief, it is very easy for me to see, how they attained and maintained this status, and why most so called Christians haven't as they have struggled to interpret, pick and choose which of the gospels and cannons and talmudic laws laid out in the Bible they want to adopt or don't want to adopt to in essence try to enjoy the best of both worlds.

So there is some real truth in what you say, and honestly I don't believe I would be opposed to living that kind of simple lifestyle of rising with the sun and resting with it, taking only from the land that which is really needed to survive, living in peace and not coveting what your neighbor has but always being willing to share with them, and living a natural lifestyle in harmony with nature.

Well, just as soon as I stop my drinking, smoking, fornicating, lying, theiving, self centered ways.

Grap a snicker's bar and stay tuned, this might take a while!

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by mick1423
How could Julius Caesar, a genius and perhaps history's greatest military tactician, a general who never lost a battle...

Ceasar lost the Battle of Gergovia in 54 B.C. to Vercingetorix and the Gauls.

This is entirely true my beloved, brilliant and erstwhile nephew.

One could certainly also say that fortune was not favoring Caesar either when he was kidnapped by Pirates while abroad in exile when Sulla had taken over Rome displacing Caesar's benafactor Gaius Marius. Though this may have worked out in favor of Caesar depending on how far and wide Sulla's assassins were looking for political rivals he meant to do away with.

Augustus is a real authority on the Roman Empire, though with the Ides of March fast approaching his debut on the thread might be a bit auspices for him, and a bit omminous for me!

Thanks for joining in my friend.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
This is entirely true my beloved, brilliant and erstwhile nephew.

Thank you, Uncle, your compliments are always much appreciated.

One could certainly also say that fortune was not favoring Caesar either when he was kidnapped by Pirates while abroad in exile when Sulla had taken over Rome displacing Caesar's benafactor Gaius Marius. Though this may have worked out in favor of Caesar depending on how far and wide Sulla's assassins were looking for political rivals he meant to do away with.

I also thought about mentioning this anecdote, but since he was not actually comanding Rome's Legions at the time, and as you so astutely point out, the entire incident actually worked in favor of Caesar I declined to include the occurence. Perhaps this portion of the tale may be of some relevance. Could Ceasar have manufactured his own kidnap to foil the vile Sulla by eluding capture and consequently conflating his own persona by the measure?

Augustus is a real authority on the Roman Empire...

My knowledge of Rome is on par with your own, I am certain we could spend many hours recalling the Glories of Republic and Principate.

...though with the Ides of March fast approaching his debut on the thread might be a bit auspices for him, and a bit omminous for me!

Thanks for joining in my friend.

Fear not, Dear Uncle, may your hand continue to guide Rome and it is a pleasure to join Above Top Secret's most interesting thread.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

I also thought about mentioning this anecdote, but since he was not actually comanding Rome's Legions at the time, and as you so astutely point out, the entire incident actually worked in favor of Caesar I declined to include the occurence. Perhaps this portion of the tale may be of some relevance. Could Ceasar have manufactured his own kidnap to foil the vile Sulla by eluding capture and consequently conflating his own persona by the measure?

It is an intriquing question and the occurence of being kidnapped by pirates certainly put him well beyond Sulla's easy reach surrounded by a cadre of armed men, presumably holding him captive.

If this was a machination on the part of Caesar and the circumstances are true, it does tend to show Caesar in a most rutheless and murderous light since he his alleged to have once freed, to have then later tracked down his captors and silt their throats. A reputed measure of mercy because they were supposed to have treated him kindly while in their custody.

Much of the story though does play to Caesar's bigger than life persona and ego, as Caesar is alleged to have chastized the Pirates for the amount of Ransom they asked, chiding them they could have easily gotten twice what they asked in exchange for him.

So we have quite a bit of ellements of master story telling at play, Caesar the man his captors respected enough to treat decently, Caesar the man who felt he was worth and could have commanded far more, Caesar the man who would have his revenge but temper it with a modicum of mercy.

No doubt Sulla would have invested more effort into assassinating Caesar if he knew just what the young man would be capable of in due time, but Sulla's wrath seemed to extend to just those in Gaius Marius's faction period.

It would though have been a brilliant way to ellude Sulla, who would have either had to bear the cost of paying the ransom or a sizeable fighting force to take him from the Pirates at a time when Sulla was desperately trying to replenish Rome's treasury by murdering and robbing the Patricians who had been aligned with Marius.

Caesar being a beloved but relatively poor relation of Marius wouldn't have likely been worth that much effort in Sulla's mind.

The more intriquing question would be though, what would the world be today had Sulla succeeded in eliminating the young Caesar?

My knowledge of Rome is on par with your own, I am certain we could spend many hours recalling the Glories of Republic and Principate.

You are much to modest nephew, the money spent on all those tudors and books has clearly been a good investment.

It's nice to see you taking a real interest in the Empire.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
when he was kidnapped by Pirates

Did he strike up a favourable and long lasting relationship with them, I wonder, he was released after 40 days, I believe, there's that 40 days thing again.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
alleged to have once freed, to have then later tracked down his captors and silt their throats. A reputed measure of mercy because they were supposed to have treated him kindly while in their custody.

Ah, if those allegations are true perhaps he didn't strike up a long relationship with the pirates.

It's always pleasant to visualize historical events if we can so here it is, back in time in 52 BC, Vercingetorix surrending to Julius Caesar and begging for mercy...

Kudos proto, for your reply, but many will probably see a different point of view upon your thread. I do believe that Rome (vatican church) would like to rule the world. or possibly already have. I want to assure you that my knowledge of the Essenes have recently blossomed a little more, and I would like you to not assume what I have to offer to the table. You may indeed brush them aside and so bet it. But I clearly see a state of harmony between the Essene rituals and Christianity as well. I do not offer anything new to the plate, but it is something that individuals have to find it. I still defend my point and I am accepting, yet again, another stalemate in this thread. Your knowledge has been greatly appreciative. and all I have been doing was to challenge your idea to give it more body, which you cannot produce when trying to connect the string to the Essenes towards Rome.

Btw: I never really want to change this thread into a religious debate, I am sure you have had that, but I wanted you to see it from another point of view, instead of Rome, so... Pre rome, Which in any case you slice it the Essenes were the closes thing to Christianity before Rome mainstreamed it. That is all

Originally posted by Isaacland
It's always pleasant to visualize historical events if we can so here it is, back in time in 52 BC, Vercingetorix surrending to Julius Caesar and begging for mercy...

I prefer the painting I have hanging in my library by Lionel Noel Royer entitled Vercingetorix throws his arms down at the feat of Caesar. Royer captures the haughtiness and disdain of the Romans quite well in this incredible portrait.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c0aee1d77f63.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Jordan River
Kudos proto, for your reply, but many will probably see a different point of view upon your thread. I do believe that Rome (vatican church) would like to rule the world. or possibly already have. I want to assure you that my knowledge of the Essenes have recently blossomed a little more, and I would like you to not assume what I have to offer to the table. You may indeed brush them aside and so bet it. But I clearly see a state of harmony between the Essene rituals and Christianity as well. I do not offer anything new to the plate, but it is something that individuals have to find it. I still defend my point and I am accepting, yet again, another stalemate in this thread. Your knowledge has been greatly appreciative. and all I have been doing was to challenge your idea to give it more body, which you cannot produce when trying to connect the string to the Essenes towards Rome.

Btw: I never really want to change this thread into a religious debate, I am sure you have had that, but I wanted you to see it from another point of view, instead of Rome, so... Pre rome, Which in any case you slice it the Essenes were the closes thing to Christianity before Rome mainstreamed it. That is all

edit on 1-2-2011 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2011 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

What you might be failing to get is that Rome itself predates the Essene Cult/Sect by hundreds of years. So the relevence of Christianity as a political constuct as the empire morphed is where Christianity comes into play.

Please make no mistake about it, the Jews when it comes to the Myths of the the God of Abraham were a small desesrt cult/sect one of many hundreds flourishing all over the globe. The relevence of the gospel as a spiritual pathway is negligble at best.

Had it not been imposed by Rome as part of a carefully constructed political system, it would have likely fallen into the dustbin of history much like the Essene cult itself did.

The notion that this desert group of nomads in a small region of the planet stumbled on to something of profound signifigance is by and large a fairy tale that has never been validated by the actual real time, real life appearance of the God it centers around.

So it's real relevence is as a political control system, and that's how I am focusing on it.

There is a wealth of written accounts of the Ecuemnical councils to display that a hodgepodge of various religions and cults were woven into Rome's version, of what appears to be a Sun Cult.

So while I applaud your desire to learn more about the ancient past, I truly as I have said twice before see no relevence on Rome's political system.

While there may be some deity or force involved in some of the Judean sects, or Christian sects, it can be just as easily argued that there may be some deity or force involved in hundreds of other non-related religions that flourished at that point around the globe.

Rome spread Christianity and Statism revolving around Christianity at the point of a sword, not through the miracle workings or words of a God.

Your argument seems to be that there is some 'true' unadulterated version of 'christianity' and that 'you' believe it was practiced by the Essene cult/sect, what you are failing to recognize in my counter argument is I don't care, if there is a 'pure' version of Christianity, because I do not subscribe to the Christian concept of God whether it's Rome's, or the Essenes, because said God has failed to manifest itslef in any universally accepted and identifiable way.

When I go to Publix where shopping is a pleasure, everyone who works there has no doubt it's me, as a unique, gregarious, jovial, and sociabale individual there is really no denying I am there, there is never any controversy whether it's me or not, and while yes some times, some clerk swears up and down I said Marlboro lights, I am right there to say no, no really I said Winston Lights.

On the other hand this particular diety, not so affable, sociable, interactive, or identifiable as I am.

The only reason in reality you want to believe this God is important is because Rome told you he is important.

In the meantime Rome owes me some coed baths, about 56,781 loaves of bread, 3,621 festivals and games, and a good explanation as to why there is no temple to Bachus for me to hang out at.

We all have our priorities my friend, and greviences with Rome, you would like to know if and what a true version of Christianity is about, I would like prompt attention to the above.

Thanks.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The more intriquing question would be though, what would the world be today had Sulla succeeded in eliminating the young Caesar?

Well it certainly would have eliminated a Gallic beating by a nearly impoverished Caesar for starters. It is interesting to note that Cicero reports Pompey saying, "If Sulla could, why can't I?" It may have been possible that instead of Julius Caesar we may have seen another person rise to the position of Dictator for Life and Pompey would have been a likely candidate.

Ronald Syme, in his authoritative work The Roman Revolution, postulates that the fall of the Republic was inevitable and that if not Caesar there were numerous candidates to seize control as the Republic came spiraling down due to corruption and political malaise. He writes:

"The nobiles by their ambition and their feuds, had not merely destroyed their spurious republic: they had ruined the Roman People. There is something more important than political liberty; and political rights are a means, not an end in themselves. That end is security of life and property: it could not be guaranteed by the constitution of Republican Rome. Worn and broken by civil war and disorder, The Roman people was ready to surrender the ruinous privilege of freedom and submit to strict government as the beginning of time....So order came to Rome. "Acriora ex eo vincula", as Tacitus observes."

You are much to modest nephew, the money spent on all those tudors and books has clearly been a good investment.

It's nice to see you taking a real interest in the Empire.

Thank you, Uncle. It is a subject that could afford the contemplative mind a basis of study for many of the socities that have tried to follow Rome's footsteps.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

I prefer the painting I have hanging in my library by Lionel Noel Royer entitled Vercingetorix throws his arms down at the feat of Caesar. Royer captures the haughtiness and disdain of the Romans quite well in this incredible portrait.

It is an amazing rendering, you can just see Caesar thinking "So you're the guy" and "What on earth were you thinking" with a slight hint of "Crucifiction? Lions? Crucifiction? Lions".

Truly a masterful painting.

Thanks for sharing that Augustus.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus

Well it certainly would have eliminated a Gallic beating by a nearly impoverished Caesar for starters. It is interesting to note that Cicero reports Pompey saying, "If Sulla could, why can't I?" It may have been possible that instead of Julius Caesar we may have seen another person rise to the position of Dictator for Life and Pompey would have been a likely candidate.

Sulla had more in common with Caesar than Pompey, yet he also possessed something neither of the other did, a; grass crown. The highest honor a consul could receive bestowed only by a legion for being rescued from annihilation on the field of battle. Rarely awarded because it required a tacit admission on the part of the legion that it would have been doomed without the intervention, leadership and rescue of the consul they awarded it too.

While it could be argued both Pompey’s and Caesar’s troops loved them, Sulla like Caesar had a standing marching army willing to back them up at the gates of Rome itself, while Pompey and Marius had to hastily put together armies to protect themselves from Caesar’s and Sulla’s advances on the city.

Pompey wisely fled, while Marius found himself out maneuvered by Sulla’s battle hardened and offended troops.

Pompey much like Sulla had risen from common stock, but Sulla was a much better politician and far more intelligent than Pompey. Caesar like Sulla had to marry his way into good patrician standing but unlike Sulla, Caesar seems to have failed to grasp the limitations that would apparently come to thwart him from his ultimate ambition.

Unlike Caesar Sulla ruthlessly stripped his rivals of their wealth to replenish the treasury and had the majority of them killed or exiled for life.

Caesar’s hope that rivals could become lasting friends in the face of his unbridled ambition while perhaps kind and cunning to an extent seemed to be his undoing.

Sulla unlike Caesar seemed intent on ‘restoring the republic’ indeed at the height of his power, 2 short years after taking Rome by force, he relinquished his offices and retired to the country side to write his memoirs leaving Rome and politics for good, and died an old man of natural causes.

Caesar sought to transform the Republic into a permanent dictatorship and while ultimately what he started did succeed in Augustus he himself did not seemingly get to enjoy the ultimate fruits of that labor.

While Sulla was by and large reviled for his forceful taking of Rome and the elimination of most of his political rivals in the aftermath, it could be argued when it comes to the three, Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar, that Sulla played the best hand.

Had Sulla chose to cling to power it might have eliminated both Pompey and Caesar ever rising to the positions they ultimately did.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
While Sulla was by and large reviled for his forceful taking of Rome and the elimination of most of his political rivals in the aftermath, it could be argued when it comes to the three, Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar, that Sulla played the best hand.

Had Sulla chose to cling to power it might have eliminated both Pompey and Caesar every rising to the positions they ultimately did.

I think his age may have precluded a prolonged effort to further consolidate power and attempt to remain Dictator, he may not have had the necessary time left to accomplish a full conquest of the Republic. Did he have the resources and capability? Most certainly. It would have been interesting to have seen the actions of Pompey, Caesar and other surviving Patricians if this would have been the case.

There was, it would seem, a vacuum that would enevitably need filling and Caesar was most propitious in his actions and placement. He was agressive in his decisons, both military and political in a time where delay could spell doom for any option. He anticipated his opponents actions and then planned and acted with accumen.

Could there have been another to rise so quickly to the occasion as he did? Possibly. I think it would have been more reminiscnt of the Year of Four Emperors were a battle of attrition would govern the outcome regionally and then the victors could vie for ultimate authority.

All the more reason it reflects favorably on how Caesar orchestrated his rise and near-eventual consolidation to be completed by Octavian shortly after his demise (or presumed demise).