It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


All Roads Lead to Rome

page: 137
<< 134  135  136    138  139  140 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 06:56 AM
WOW, what a gread thread you have here! I found your link at the "FOUNDATION X" thread, and you really caught my attention! This is a great work, and it does make a lot of sense! After having done my own research, i also find that christian religion may just be " the greatest story ever told"! it's a story to keep us controlled, united in the belief and adoration of something divine, but also in fear of challenging this divinity! the church may just have collected more money in these centuries than all world governments put together! the legacy of divide to conquer is surely still on, and it always works... let's see where the next steps will lead...

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 07:56 AM

First it's important to know that I consider the Vatican and Rome to not be the same entity. I believe the Vatican is a front for the Patricians, that they would not actually have Priests running the actual show, but simply putting on a show.

Interestingly enough when you start investigating the enigmatic tiny principality of Seborga, which has existed uninterupted since the founding of the Roman Republic, it was granted the right to reject any religion or religious icon by Charlemagne. So it wasn't bound by the Catholic Church's rules like so much of Europe was through the middle ages.

This is very interesting because it was originally considered to be the Home of Mt. Olympus the traditional Roman Gods and indeed the caves that dot it's recessed hill, that was considered to be Mt. Olympus is dotted with tens of thousands of religious cave art dating from the founding of the Republic.

There is no dispute that the Knights Templar were created there. Throughout the middle ages they claimed to have the corpse of Christ as well as the Imperial Roman Sceptre.

So there really is a part of Rome that stands quite seperate from the Vatican.

Now if the Vatican is simply a front as I contend, three possibilities exist in situations like this.

1. The front man, the Pope was out of control and the Roman Patricians acted to get him back under control by using various nearby Nations. (Sardina, France etc.)

2. A general uprising in attitudes against the Vatican bordered on actually threatening it, so once again the Patricians would act to make it look like it was being dealt with so some popular movement wouldn't spring up that really would. Thus placating the people, and then they would simply restore it to full sovereignty later after the controversy died down.

3. Genuine attempts by other entities to stop or limit the power being exerted through the Vatican, one's that likely always failed in the long run leading to full soveriegnty since the Patricians, the real wealth and power could simply exercize their power and wealth to eventualy free it through other nations and return it to sovereignty.

Charlemagne's, Napoloeon's and the Piedmont Empire's all ended up falling, but the Vatican and the Papacy has endured and lived on.

My contention is Rome has the flexibility to create illusions and the ability to create illusions that are meant to disarm people and confuse people.

People love to get caught up in what are the religious intriques, things like the Angelican Church yet truly fail to fairly consider the business enterprise that is Rome that really does own more land than anyother single entity, that really does have more gold and wealth than any other single entity, that really does make business and tactical decisions to perpetuate and expand itself and protect itself that have nothing to do with Catholicism or Religion.

I do believe this is one of the reasons that the Patricians chose a religious front, and a religious style system of governance as it really does confuse people.

Even here in this thread, when for month after month now I have cautioned people that the thread isn't about religion, many posters insist it must be.

The Vatican really is not Rome, it is but a front, one of many that Rome uses to it's advantage.

One that ultimately I contend Rome will sacrifice completely for it's advantage.

When it comes to what happens between the Pope and the other Sovereigns I think the real truths went to their graves and not the history books.

For instance Napoleon kept the Pope prisoner for a good bit of time and carried off much of the Vatican archives to Paris, yet he still insisted the Pope preside over his coronation as Emperor of France, even after having done all that.

That the Pope himself place his crown on top of his head at his coronation in France even though it's alleged the Pope did not want to do this.

Or did he?

What tangled webs we weave when we first practice to decieve.

Rome is all about deception, it's greatest deceptions faking it's own death again and again.

edit on 13/11/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: Spelling

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 09:49 AM
reply to post by xuenchen

I am unable to answer any questions regarding the bloodline of Caesar, but I can tell you that Josephus was very much an agent of dis-information.

The worship (and when I use that word, I do so as a unifying force for the elite) of the sun, which was mentioned earlier in the thread, is representative of the intellect.
We currently refer to this force as Lucifer but it has gone by many names one of which is Prometheus.

This allegorical religion creates the mystery that drives the devotees to do the things that TPTB wish.
The outward meaning of the Abrahamic faiths is that of a servile religion.
This is designed to keep the masses in line and it is why the three major religions of the patriarch Abraham were created during the time of Rome.

But the allegorical meaning of this religion of Rome is known only to the adepts of this "religion".
It is known only to the initiates, of which Josephus Flavius belonged.

But at the heart of this "initiatory" faith of ALL secret societies is the Quaballah.

This is where things become very murky.

All of history is written by the people that want us to know what we should know and that is all.
Josephus is a perfect example.
John Allegro is an example of a biblical historian who possessed enough morals to defy those with power, but possessed so little charisma that they let him live.

I mentioned the Quaballah because all that we know of history is interpreted, and the only way that these interpretations can be made publicly available is through financial backing.
And although the Quaballah is supposedly Jewish in origin, one does not need to be a Jew to practice this "religion"..

This makes me question the role of the Jews. I personally think that they are scapegoats.
Some have said that the modern Jews are dupes of the Sabbatean Jews.

The thing to remember about history is that it is truly written by the winners and only those with a certain viewpoint are supported by the powers that be.

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 09:54 AM
i was born a roman catholic but have since moved on to further my studies and my knowledge into my own beliefs, ideals, religion, whatever you feel to call it... in a nutshell there is a super massive black hole in the middle of all known everything (so to speak), there was a episode on Nova about it, although i have not been able to find it.. anyways, it showed very unclear images of what appeared to be a gap in space with all these planets circling, some taking years to make one revolution, others would slingshot around it in a matter of days, nearly falling in, all of their orbits were completely different, it was one of the most amazing bits of tv i have ever seen, but here i am as always far from the subject and tangible in my thoughts and point...
point being, this was one of the most interesting reads i have ever had the opportunity to lay my eyes on, and i am greatly appreciative of the OP ideas and beliefs, they are like few things i find these days in the fact it has the ability to further my own theories and belief's... thank you for this wonderful discussion

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 01:04 PM

Caesar's name
Using the Latin alphabet as it existed in Caesar's day (i.e., without lower case letters, "J", or "U"), Caesar's name is properly rendered "GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR" (the form "CAIVS" is also attested and is interchangeable with the more common "GAIVS"). It is often seen abbreviated to "C. IVLIVS CAESAR". (The letterform "Æ" is a ligature, which is often encountered in Latin inscriptions where it was used to save space, and is nothing more than the letters "ae".) In classical Latin, it is pronounced "GUY-us YOOL-yuhs KUY-sahr", where "guy" and "kuy" are pronounced as the English "sky". In Ecclesiastical Latin, the familiar part "Caesar" is pronounced "CHAY-zahr".

Roman nomenclature is somewhat different from the modern English form. "Gaius", Iulius, and Caesar are Caesar's praenomen (given name), nomen (surname), and cognomen (familial nickname), respectively. In modern usage, his full surname would be "Iulius Caesar". The cognomen "Caesar" means "hairy" and indicates that this branch of the family was conspicuous for having fine heads of hair (hence Caesar's later sensitivity about his ironically thinning hair). His grand-nephew, Gaius Octavius duly took Caesar's name as "Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus" upon his posthumous adoption in 44 BC, and the name became fused with the imperial dignity; in this sense it is preserved in the German and Russian words Kaiser and czar, both of which refer to an emperor.
Julius Caesar Biography

He was to old.

edit on 013030p://bSaturday2010 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

edit on 2010/11/13 by GradyPhilpott because: Snipped external quote that was too long.

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

His trusted General and friend Mark Anthony who was left unscathed in the plot, with the help of Caesar’s nephew Octavian, destined to eventually become Augustus Caesar and Rome’s first life long dictator and Lepidus another General spirited Caesar away to safety out of the city, to the tiny Roman State of Seborga.

What was the original name of Seborga ?

Castrum Sepulcri ?

This just doesn't add up.

What was the original name of this area when they took Julius Caesar there?

Originally a feudal fiefdom of the Counts of Ventimiglia, Castrum Sepulcri as Seborga was then known, was gifted by them in 954 AD to the Benedictine monastic order, who in 995 minted Seborga's first coins. Elevated in 1079 to the status of a principality under the Holy Roman Empire, Seborga was later governed as a sovereign state by the Knights Templar and then by monks of the Cistercian monastic order. This situation continued unchanged until 1729, when King Vittorio Amedeo I of Savoy acquired ownership of the principality - and it is at this point that Seborga's history really gets interesting.

edit on 2010/11/13 by GradyPhilpott because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 02:10 PM

but can we go further BACK from J Caesar ?

the bloodline seems to stop after 2 or 3 generations.

where did the Caesar bloodline originate ?

it seems to point to a fabricated storyline.

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 02:34 PM
Regarding the the Council at Nicea in 325AD

The first New Testatment was published in 160AD by Marcion, Bishop of Sinope.

150 years BEFORE the Council at Nicea in 325AD

The CODEX SINAITICUS is the oldest Bible in the world and dated 200AD
125 years before the Council at Nicea.

The Christianity was already well established before the Council of Nicea,
Constantine did not introduce it.
edit on 023030p://bSaturday2010 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 02:36 PM

Originally posted by xuenchen

but can we go further BACK from J Caesar ?

the bloodline seems to stop after 2 or 3 generations.

where did the Caesar bloodline originate ?

it seems to point to a fabricated storyline.

I some
edit on 023030p://bSaturday2010 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 03:03 PM
***This will be a rather long post and I will most certainly have to take breaks***

I want to post some information concerning the creation of the Old Testament and the” modern day” viewpoint of biblical scholars concerning the origins of the Torah, or Pentateuch. This is an addition to my previous comment on history being a product of the winners.

With Rome being the ultimate winner.

This will hopefully give some insight into modern day Zionism and how it is being used by Rome to manipulate the Middle East into following the playbook toward a world government that is also know as the revelation of St. John.

Please know that this is not what I BELIEVE but it is the modern biblical scholar’s viewpoint and the official version backed by Rome by way of the Vatican.
Also know that I will only be discussing the Torah, or the Pentateuch, and how it has been fractured by Roman historians, such as Titus Flavius Josephus, in order to create the very servile Abrahamic faiths while also splitting them so as to divide and conquer.

Another classic Roman Strategy.

The Torah was long believed, and is still so by most devotees, to be written solely by Moses. This viewpoint began to change in the 18th and 19th century BCE due to the volume of doublets that are present in the Torah.
A doublet is a form of textual analysis in literature that consists of contradictory statements concerning the same story, which is also found in the same text (i.e. creation in the bible… Eve is created from Adams rib in one account but then she is created at the same time as Adam in other accounts. Moses is referred to in 3rd person several times in the Torah. The Torah accounts for the death of Moses and also accounts for events post Moses)
Due to these doublets the Torah went through 4 basic stages concerning the theory of its creation.
1) Moses wrote the Torah
2) Moses wrote the Torah with later additions
3) Moses wrote the Torah but with very severe editing along with revisions and additions
4) Moses did not in any way write the Torah (this is the modern day belief of mainstream biblical scholars)
This new theory of the origin of the Torah was put forth by Julius Welthausen in the middle 19th century and it states that the Torah is a combination of a various sundry of oral traditions that were compiled by two prominent historians.
Jeremiah along with his scribe Baruch is said to be the author of Deuteronomy and Ezra is said to have compiled the writings of three other groups of texts into the final version of the Torah.

These texts are known as the J, E, and P texts.

The earliest of these are the J and the E texts.
The J texts stand for Jehovah (Southern Kingdom) and the E texts stand for Elohim (Northern Kingdom). At the time of the creation of the oral tradition concerning these texts, the Kingdom of Solomon was split into the Northern and the Southern Kingdoms, with the Northern Kingdom called Israel and dominated by the Shiloh priests (their God was known as Elohim and is plural in the bible not singular because it is a combination of the God of Canaan, El and the Godheads of Egypt, Isis and Ra).

The Southern Kingdom was known as Judah and it was dominated by the Aaronid priests who worshiped the god known as Jehovah. Although both groups were a part of the same Kingdom they were not on good terms. Their beliefs were similar thus the doublets found in the Torah, but they literally worshiped different Gods in their own mind. (Not too dis-similar to the Civil War fought between the states).
The Jehovah texts were the oral tradition of the Aaronid priests and the Elohim texts were the oral tradition of the Shiloh priests. These texts were passed onto the followers for the same reason that all religions are created….

(BTW... most biblical scholars now believe that David and Solomon were the product of myth and were never REAL people. **MYTH**)

In 722 BCE Assyria conquered the Northern Kingdom and the Israelites were then forced to move to the Southern Kingdom, or Judah.
In order to maintain the social order, the Jehovah and the Elohim oral traditions were combined, but the Shiloh priests are forced to take a back seat to the Aaronid priests due to location.

In order to compensate for this, the Shiloh priests create the laws known as the P texts, or Priestly texts.
This is a "newly minted" oral tradition consisting of rules that the Israelites must obey while in Judah. They are a reaction to the Shiloh priests becoming subservient to the Aaronid priests; however, in 715 BCE King Hezkiah takes the throne in Judah and decides to centralize the religion of the land by combining the J, E, and P oral traditions.

These texts were recognized and obeyed as religious law until the actual writing of the book of Deuteronomy by Jeremiah and Baruch around 600 BCE.
This written book was then combined with the oral tradition of the J, E and P texts after the fall of the second temple to Babylon in 587 BCE.

Ezra was said to have arrived with the first "official" combined version of the WRITTEN Torah in 458 BCE. It was official because the Jews at the time were living under the rule of the Persians and the King of Persia at the time, Antaxerxes, deemed Ezra as the high priest to teach to Jews in Babylon the word of their God.
And it is always for the same reason.... SOCIAL CONTROL.

Must take break but onto Rome in the next post.

edit on 11/13/2010 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 03:11 PM
The Works of Julius Caesar, (parallel English/Latin) tr. W.A. McDevitte and W.S. Bohn [1869], at

Gallic Wars Book 6 (53 B.C.E.)

Works by Julius Caesar

The African Wars
Translated by W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn

The Alexandrian Wars
Translated by W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn

The Civil Wars
Translated by W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn

The Gallic Wars
Translated by W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn

The Spanish Wars
Translated by W. A. McDevitte and W. S. Bohn

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 03:13 PM
I don't see any comparison that can be made when researching the history of Caesar and that of Jesus Christ,
edit on 033030p://bSaturday2010 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 03:25 PM

Oh storm dancer if you aren't too busy spamming the thread with all these silly links could you pull out a calculator and do some subtraction because according to mine if you take the year 2010 and subtract the 1600 year old codexdinaiticus then you get the year 410.

Which then if you subtract the year 325 from the year 410 you realize that no, this bible appeared 85 years after the council of Nicea.

It sure would be great if you spent a little more time thinking through what you are trying to say or not say.

From your own link

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript – the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity – is of supreme importance for the history of the book. [Find out more about Codex Sinaiticus.]

edit on 13/11/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 03:30 PM
It would appear that the bloodline goes all the way back to ZEUS and other mythical gods of Greek origins right up to Romulus and Remus. None the less, ALL MYTHICAL !

have a look; there are some actual "family tree" diagrams too !

Ancient Greece (pre-Hellenistic) was heavily influenced by Hebrew scholars and ancient Phoenician Semitic trade. Many of the GREAT STORYTELLERS originated here!

edit on 2010/11/13 by GradyPhilpott because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by Stormdancer777

Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.

More from your own link placing it around 350, a full 25 years after the Council of Nicea so where you are pulling the 225 number sure is not from the site you linked.

I am assuming you made a typo and didn't deliberately try to misportray that for some reason.
edit on 13/11/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 03:42 PM

Most if not ALL "Books" "written" by J.C. were probably written and edited by Hebrew scribes,
who were widely "employed" by Roman "officials" and political "advisers".

"Final Editions" must surely have been at least "reviewed" many years later by none other than the "King" of scribes Himself ; Josephus Flavius.

it all seems to be based upon myths and legends??

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 04:03 PM
I have been working really hard on this topic even contacting experts on the subject, I am still working on it,
BTW they wont debate it because it is so historically inaccurate, but I am trying.

posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 04:16 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I have been working really hard on this topic even contacting experts on the subject, I am still working on it,
BTW they wont debate it because it is so historically inaccurate, but I am trying.

I would really appreciate it if you focused a bit more on working smarter instead of harder.

You start out your post:

Regarding the the Council at Nicea in 325AD

The first New Testatment was published in 160AD by Marcion, Bishop of Sinope.

This link states no such thing, what it says is a character named Marcion who was later excommunicated by the Church for attempting to use his personal wealth to take over Christianity had a few of the gospels, not all of them.

So no this is not the first New Testament, further none of the gospels he is alleged to have had, have survived from that time period, so it’s basically people theorizing at a later date, that what was in the couple of gospels he was alleged to have been preaching, is in fact the same thing that is in the Gospels that Constantine had officially canonized and published.

This is an entirely erroneous and false representation of what is actually on the site that you have linked too.

Are you even reading what you are putting links into the thread contending that they support some ridiculous statement made by you that the links don’t actually support at all?

Here you go again...

The CODEX SINAITICUS is the oldest Bible in the world and dated 200AD
125 years before the Council at Nicea.

This is once again a gross misrepresentation of what is in that site, it clearly states that it is believed to be over 1600 years old, but published in the mid 4th century, the Council of Nicaea was in the early 4th Century, the date for this Bible considered to be the oldest is considered by the people who have it and study it to date somewhere between 350 and 410. Well after the Council of Nicea.

Further had you thought it all through regarding your first misrepresentation where you fabricate that Marcion made the first New Testament, then how could the Codex Sinaiticus be the first New Testament?

The Christianity was already well established before the Council of Nicea,

Now here we see again in your very limited statements that you can’t even take the time to work out grammar in a one sentence paragraph?

That’s working hard? The Christianity was already established before the Council of Nicea,

Here you can’t even start out the sentence properly, spell Nicaea correctly or end the fragment of the thought with a period????

Where you then go on to post the same link a second and a third time that doesn't even support what you have tried to say.

Further if you actually understood what the opening post is stating that Christianity did exist before the Council of Nicaea but in a completely different form, than it did after Rome published it and made it the official State Religion.

So no where have I claimed that some form of Christianity didn't exist. So you are in fact seemingly trying to prove something that I am not trying to disprove or claimed never happened.

To prove with completely false and innacurate statements that are not supported by your links.

Then in your next post your two lines of personal text required by ATS is

I some

Three words, with no explanation at all of the relevence of the link you are yet posting again.

I some information? Come on StormDancer you are an English speaker, born and raised in an English Speaking nation.

Seriously it looks like you are some nervous school child hastily doing something you know you shouldn't be doing.

If you call these posts working hard?

It looks to me like your usual attempt to derail and clutter up the thread with a lot of random and disconnected thoughts, at a point in the thread, where a lot of people are wanting to discuss very relevant recent events like Foundation X.

Maybe that's not what you are intending to do, but it sure would be nice, if you slowed down, and took some time, to come up with some HONEST and ACCURATE statements and theories and conclusions and write them all out at an above FIRST GRADE LEVEL.


posted on Nov, 13 2010 @ 04:39 PM

We had all better pray there is a God in heaven that will protect you from the ATS Gods for this one!

Too funny!

edit on 2010/11/13 by GradyPhilpott because: Removed quote of OTed post

new topics

top topics

<< 134  135  136    138  139  140 >>

log in