It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The Holy Roman Empire

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I was thinking about how easy it would've been to completely control the news in ancient times. Especially if you owned most of the known world. Then I noticed how closely aligned the original Christian Church was - structurally - to the Roman Empire (Pope - Emperor, Cardinals - Senate, Archbishops - regional governors, Saints - the lesser gods, too many to count actually) and how it was structured. I don't know. It seems like the Roman Empire might still be with us after all. Only now, they're saving a lot of money on military expenses. I wonder if those guys were as totally evil as I imagine I could've been if faced with a similar situation.


"It doesn't look good. In fact, it doesn't look good at all."

Tiberius wasn't an animated sort by any description, but his dourness had taken on a particularly ominous intensity since gathering these two within his private chambers. Between the three of them, the entire Roman Senate was fully represented; if influence was the only criterion allowed. His taut manner amplified the fact that his news was grim. Visibly shaken, Tiberius wasn't a man given to emotional indication in even the most extreme circumstances.

"Does this involve the northern territories?" inquired Julian. "We can always cut the outer settlements loose if need be. I've never seen the value in them anyway."

"I wish it could be so easily addressed," Tiberius replied. He looked across the room to the window; his eyes reaching far beyond the rooftops scattered below its open yawn. "I love the Senate. I love being a Roman citizen. I had visions of my son and his son as Roman Senators." His voice trailing off as his eyes dropped to the tiles; far short of the window's broad release.

"I presume that this has to do with the arrival late last night of Antonius," said Lucius. "His news was not expected to be good."

"No, it wasn't good. However, it wasn't anticipated to portend disaster. I'm afraid we haven't much time before Rome falls forever."

It was a battle between Lucius and Julian for pallor, with neither giving ground, as Tiberius tried to find amusement in the competition. "Relax, my friends. Rome was not built in a day, and it won't fall in a day." He walked to the large window that dominated the room. "Still, I believe that it's time to begin our migration effort. To delay any further will invite failure. We have only a generation at best to successfully replace the last four hundred years with a fully prepared narrative."

The silence bowed in resignation to the fact that none in attendance could challenge the truth that Tiberius had calmly stated. Rome was in decline, and if they wanted to preserve their own families' status going forward, the empire's transformation would be their only means of assuring that preservation.

"I met with Micio this morning, and he'll be drawing up a list of writers who can be counted on for their consistency, their balance of stylings, and their complete discretion."

Lucius blanched. "Writers? How precarious will this scheme become with the inclusion of others? I certainly hope that you've..."

Tiberius raised an eyebrow, cutting off his reaction. "Lucius, my friend. Discretion, in this case, refers to their capacity to simply disappear without controversy after their part is played."

Three smiles suddenly broke through the gloom. Not big smiles, but smiles nonetheless. Tiberius was a professional. Grim, humorless, and bloodlessly professional. There'd be no problems with loose ends.

"Micio suggested that we tie it in with that Hebrew sect that started up back around the time we took their temple to the ground. He has a pretty compelling character profile that provides a convincing continuity for what he calls "the Christ", a word that means rescuer or savior, apparently. It's complicated, but he's putting together a complete presentation for next week. I'm told that this plan is very comprehensive."

Julian was the first to state the obvious. "So, how can this ever work? If this religion is to have begun nearly four centuries ago, then how are we to..."

"...erase the truth that it never actually existed?" said Tiberius. He smiled. "We're Rome. We write the history of our era."

"And what of Alexandria? The Library?"

Tiberius grew dark. "Julius Caesar accidentally burned it once. Fires happen all the time. Don't worry about Alexandria. We own Alexandria."

The afternoon's overcast suddenly broke, a brilliant sun sent a warm shaft of encouragement into the room, splashing across the floor between them as Rome's future sealed between these three.

"I'll let Constantine know that we're all in agreement then. Once the outline is crafted, we'll call a council. Perhaps Nicaea. Of course, the details of this will be kept close to our breasts. A proper history will be created to allow the future to enjoy a natural and plausible progression of events."

"And we'll be priests?" asked Julian. "I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, to be completely honest."

Tiberius laughed. "We'll be long gone before the Senate becomes the High Priests of this religion. No, my friend, we will launch it, but it will be many years...many years before our beloved Rome transforms. But transform it will. It must. If it is to survive another thousand years, it must transform. And when it does, it will lead an army of angels against all enemies. None will dare stand before it."

As Tiberius closed the door behind his compatriots, he allowed a brief smile to cross his face. A priest? The thought amused him. Then again, how else would God's empire on Earth be governed, if not by priests. He gathered himself for the hours ahead. Constantine would be excited with the news of their decision. He'd already begun inventing his own legend in connection with all that awaits. As if Emperor was an insignificant title in itself.

edit on 12/6/2010 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Who do you suppose the "new" priests will be in the coming transformation ?



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Who do you suppose the "new" priests will be in the coming transformation ?


The coming transformation? This likey occurred 1700 years ago. Read the piece again.
edit on 12/6/2010 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


As sages have said the past is the future.Your narrative is well written,I enjoyed it .



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by daddyroo45
 


Thanks. I love small scenes like this to really describe a concept and present it for discussion. Some controversies are well served in this manner.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
The link below is about the Roman Piso family,

who may have been involved in the "New Testament" writings.

The actual writers and advisers were Hebrew scholars.

The Piso family may have been "cloaked" Jews!


senorlopezd.tripod.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Very Intersting. I assume "The Christ" is The Bible. I always did look at it as a history book. This also answers my question as to when and why Rome abandoned polytheistic religion for a single god. But I ask what is that quote from?

It seems to me that Rome used religion to control the masses and apparently amass an "army of angles". and people fell in line accordingly.

As for how the people got their news, Harolds were monks who stood in the streets telling people what the civil agenda was. because they didn't have newspapers. Being monks, religion controlled the media

This Is a funny and semi relevant video from Family Guy. the time frame is a little off
The Serfs
edit on 7-12-2010 by Dissent because: Video didnt work, Replced with link

edit on 7-12-2010 by Dissent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
If you look at it real closely, youll notice that most pope in history, have been from European noble houses. Atleast 80% of reigning popes have been aristocrats.

Many modern popes were from Aristocratic Families. Pope Pius XII (family came from an ancient aristocratic family, long connected to the papacy), Pope Paul XI (father was an italian politician, mother was of an italian noble family)...

The arisotcratic houses of Europe, and the papacy go hand in hand.

Bourbon, Savoy, Saxony, Massimo (the oldest aristocratic family in europe. descended from the roman maximi family), Windsor, Hesse, Orange, Lorraine, etc.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I don't know. It all just seems too obvious, but then most people don't really think about why they believe what they believe. The fact that the Christian religion literally emerged from the center of the Roman Empire as the official religion - and this, after the Christ was executed by the Roman Empire, fulfilling the alleged mission he was sent to complete via that execution - seems like something a professional fiction writer would construct. Real history is a lot mpre convoluted and unfinished than the gospel story.

Of course, the fact that the bible (compiled by the Roman Empire) is the only source that even mentions the life of Jesus in any other than a reference to an obscure prophet or teacher that some people followed - and actually not by name, unless you count Josephus' reference to Cristos, which is actually a title and not a name, then the plot thickens even more.

Then, if you look at the fact that the Church stayed in Rome - where the Emperor (Pope) and the Senate (college of Cardinals) would've wanted to remain, of course - and was the only version of Christianity to exist until the Reformation in Germany, then it really starts to look like an extention of the Roman Empire. Even the name evolution (The Roman Empire - The Holy Roman Empire - The Church) suggests that they are all related to one another. Hell, Constantine - the Roman Emperor who oversaw the Council at Nicaea, where the bible was compiled and the canon established - was canonized a saint. I see way too much linkage here to be able to ignore it or dismiss it.
edit on 12/8/2010 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
I don't know. It all just seems too obvious, but then most people don't really think about why they believe what they believe. The fact that the Christian religion literally emerged from the center of the Roman Empire as the official religion - and this, after the Christ was executed by the Roman Empire, fulfilling the alleged mission he was sent to complete via that execution - seems like something a professional fiction writer would construct. Real history is a lot mpre convoluted and unfinished than the gospel story.

Of course, the fact that the bible (compiled by the Roman Empire) is the only source that even mentions the life of Jesus in any other than a reference to an obscure prophet or teacher that some people followed - and actually not by name, unless you count Josephus' reference to Cristos, which is actually a title and not a name, then the plot thickens even more.

Then, if you look at the fact that the Church stayed in Rome - where the Emperor (Pope) and the Senate (college of Cardinals) would've wanted to remain, of course - and was the only version of Christianity to exist until the Reformation in Germany, then it really starts to look like an extention of the Roman Empire. Even the name evolution (The Roman Empire - The Holy Roman Empire - The Church) suggests that they are all related to one another. Hell, Constantine - the Roman Emperor who oversaw the Council at Nicaea, where the bible was compiled and the canon established - was canonized a saint. I see way too much linkage here to be able to ignore it or dismiss it.
edit on 12/8/2010 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


Dont get me wrong, they are spiritual. but spiritual in a very Pagan, Egyptian sort of way.

For instance, the standing obelisk in st. Peters Square is 4500 year old!! Obelisk which was originally set up by a 5th Dynasty pharoah in Helipolis. It was moved to Alexandria by augustine, and eventually caligula brought it to Rome - where it stood just outside neros colliseum (and thus oversaw thousands of gladitorial massacres). In the 1500's the Papacy had it moved to St. Peters Basillica,.

What kind of symbolic message does that send? This information is straight from the Vaticans own websiter. Not only do they not hide it, they try to spin it as 'making sacred the profane". In fact, the obelish is a phallic symbol. Meaning their pushing the same ideology, and spiritual philosophy of the Egyptians who the Hebrew bible considers the epitome of evil.

And given Egyptian culture was typified by a heirarchial system - with the priests and politicians from noble families having all the knowledge, while the commoners are fed lies so they can control them; it seems the catholic church has completely adopted this social policy. They present themselves as so nice and charitable. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the control the whole structure.. Wars, drugs, etc.

The very idea of corruption is nursed by each reignning pope, who considers himself god on earth - and his word as completely binding upon all living beings. Tell me how this is any different from the emperors of Rome, or the Pharoahs of Egypt? This was also the Babylonian spiritual philosophy - as well as in india -- with its caste system.
edit on 8-12-2010 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Hi NorEaster

I have come to expect excellency from you, and you didn't disappoint me this time either.

As I basically agree with you, there's not much need for commenting on your initial thoughts. Except on one point, which in the present context maybe is more of academic interest (brought up by 'xuenchen' earlier in the thread).

I am no admirer of pauline 'christianity', actually quite the opposite. But I have to admit, that from the hijacking (or invention) of a 'Jesus-movement' onto its socio-political applications, it's quite a masterpiece of social engineering. Not so much the pauline edited bible itself, which probably couldn't be made coherent on the available existing traditional material, but by the (mis)use of semantics, psychology and rhetoric.

The elaborate structure of pauline redemption doctrine right out fascinates me. Quite clearly it's a circle argument, but it's a VERY big circle, and even if each separate argument on it easily can be demonstrated void, it's equally easy for its defenders just to pass on to the next 'argument' postulating some feed-back context.

It's a verbal gordic knot, and few critics have the interest or stamina to unravel it. Besides the options for sidetracking are equally deflecting.

Such a system wasn't build in one generation, long periods of experimentation on human gullibility and disarming techniques of logic must have preceeded the relatively quick emergence of the pauline fabulations. I believe like xuenchen, that an already existing judaic tradition supplied a wellbuild fundament, it was easy to construct superstructures on.

My maybe best argument for this is, that to keep up with changing cultures and different political constellations, the safety-valve of renewed 'covenants' has been a part of this judaic fundament for a long time. Each different 'covenant' would cover contact with different cultures, and I find it highly significant, that the origin of 'covenants' aren't associated with the traditional pristhood of Aaron (which would be expected to act as middlemen and interpretators of the 'covenants'), but by the enigmatic state-in-the-state 'priesthood' of Melchizedek.

It's reasonable to suspect, that the relative unimportant pauline sect (using Melchizedek as authority for the recent new 'covenant' of redemption) must have had a very good bargaining offer in the knowledge from the semi-secret organisation 'sons of light'. After all Constantine initially started out by leaning towards Arian, but switched to paulines, as they could offer him a better social-engineering model than the older 'covenants' of strict judaic laws could. No-one would expect decadent Rome to adapt to the specifications of OT law.

By the way, I'm surprised the holy cavalry hasn't been here already, trying to off-topic the thread.
edit on 8-12-2010 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Who do you suppose the "new" priests will be in the coming transformation ?


The coming transformation? This likey occurred 1700 years ago. Read the piece again.
edit on 12/6/2010 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


OK. I read it. Nice little snippet of unattributed fiction. Is that your writing, or did you get it from somewhere?



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Who do you suppose the "new" priests will be in the coming transformation ?


The coming transformation? This likey occurred 1700 years ago. Read the piece again.
edit on 12/6/2010 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


OK. I read it. Nice little snippet of unattributed fiction. Is that your writing, or did you get it from somewhere?


I wrote it straight to the board. I write fiction ( a couple novels and many short stories), so dialogue and scene set-up are fairly routine for me by now. I actually had to look up typical Roman men's names to keep those guys from all being named after Hollywood character, like Sparticus and that sort of thing. Names are a b*tch.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Hi NorEaster

I have come to expect excellency from you, and you didn't disappoint me this time either.

As I basically agree with you, there's not much need for commenting on your initial thoughts. Except on one point, which in the present context maybe is more of academic interest (brought up by 'xuenchen' earlier in the thread).

I am no admirer of pauline 'christianity', actually quite the opposite. But I have to admit, that from the hijacking (or invention) of a 'Jesus-movement' onto its socio-political applications, it's quite a masterpiece of social engineering. Not so much the pauline edited bible itself, which probably couldn't be made coherent on the available existing traditional material, but by the (mis)use of semantics, psychology and rhetoric.

The elaborate structure of pauline redemption doctrine right out fascinates me. Quite clearly it's a circle argument, but it's a VERY big circle, and even if each separate argument on it easily can be demonstrated void, it's equally easy for its defenders just to pass on to the next 'argument' postulating some feed-back context.

It's a verbal gordic knot, and few critics have the interest or stamina to unravel it. Besides the options for sidetracking are equally deflecting.

Such a system wasn't build in one generation, long periods of experimentation on human gullibility and disarming techniques of logic must have preceeded the relatively quick emergence of the pauline fabulations. I believe like xuenchen, that an already existing judaic tradition supplied a wellbuild fundament, it was easy to construct superstructures on.


Paul's elaborations borrowed heavily from the Hellenistic mystery religions of the Greeks, and if back dated, probably were crafted that way to immediately associate them with the time period; ensuring the religion's provenance in the 4th century. We can't forget that the Catholic Church is the organization that presented the Letters from Paul to the world, declared the chain of possession of those letters, and have been the historical verification for their authenticity. When you consider the power that Rome has had over the Christian narrative, and how much is speculated as having existed that didn't survive Rome's wheat/chaffe efforts involving the proper Christian narrative, you begin to realize that what the world has is what Rome gave it, and that's all the world has. Even the Evangelicals are devoted to the exact Greek Texts that were approved by Rome, and fighting over the inerrant holy word of some Roman bureaucrat's proof reader.


My maybe best argument for this is, that to keep up with changing cultures and different political constellations, the safety-valve of renewed 'covenants' has been a part of this judaic fundament for a long time. Each different 'covenant' would cover contact with different cultures, and I find it highly significant, that the origin of 'covenants' aren't associated with the traditional pristhood of Aaron (which would be expected to act as middlemen and interpretators of the 'covenants'), but by the enigmatic state-in-the-state 'priesthood' of Melchizedek.

It's reasonable to suspect, that the relative unimportant pauline sect (using Melchizedek as authority for the recent new 'covenant' of redemption) must have had a very good bargaining offer in the knowledge from the semi-secret organisation 'sons of light'. After all Constantine initially started out by leaning towards Arian, but switched to paulines, as they could offer him a better social-engineering model than the older 'covenants' of strict judaic laws could. No-one would expect decadent Rome to adapt to the specifications of OT law.


The difference between te Hebrew god and the god of the New Testament is so extreme that entire religions have erupted in an effort to square that circle, but to be honest, it takes "faith" to be able to reconcile what is supposed to be two extremely different personalities attributed to one eternal being. In fact, the easiest and most rational explanation is that the Hebrews invented their god, and the Christians invented theirs from the core of a completely different way of seeing life and the nature of reality.


By the way, I'm surprised the holy cavalry hasn't been here already, trying to off-topic the thread.
edit on 8-12-2010 by bogomil because: spelling


Maybe they just don't see the threat in it. That's okay. I'm not trying to threaten anyone's faith in whatever it is that helps them love other folks and treat them decently.
edit on 12/9/2010 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Have you read the "All Roads Lead to Rome" thread?

A lot of valuable information there concerning Rome



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by squirelnutz
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Have you read the "All Roads Lead to Rome" thread?

A lot of valuable information there concerning Rome


I just ran into this presentation on another board. Holy crap! I need to do some research into this notion. I will confess that I never bothered to do more than note the obvious concerning Rome's heavy hand on all of this, but this guy's laid out some extremely defined assertions that warrant some book cracking to see how well they hold up to dispassionate examination.

If these assertions survive, I may have to contact the author with what I've discovered concerning the perennial god-man narrative, and where it actually came from originally. And what it really means.

Thanks for the heads up. I never found it on this board, but I remembered this post of yours when I saw it today on that other one. Pretty amazing stuff, whether true or not.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


The founders of Rome were actually not Romulus and Remus, but rebels from the 12 tribes of Israel who wanted to establish a world ruling kingdom, and destroy the opposition (The Prophets of Yahweh) once and for all. They were Identified in several places in the bible but most notably in Rev. as the "Great Whore" ,which is described as a city that sits on 7 hills, having rulership over all the world.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


The way that the O.T. and N.T. are portrayed is contradictory, however the context is dovetailed together perfectly. From Rome itself came this dissension as Constantine would have nothing to do with the "rabble of the Jews". This is When The N.T. got a makeover to appeal to the pagan religions of Rome and their Solstice Festivals.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by cedruslebani
reply to post by NorEaster
 


The way that the O.T. and N.T. are portrayed is contradictory, however the context is dovetailed together perfectly. From Rome itself came this dissension as Constantine would have nothing to do with the "rabble of the Jews". This is When The N.T. got a makeover to appeal to the pagan religions of Rome and their Solstice Festivals.


I will admit that I've recently discovered no shortage of well defended narratives surrounding the Roman creation and crafting of the Christian religion and overall theology, as well as how they backfilled its official history. I've gotten interested in this due to the realization that I may have stumbled upon a progression of the original Mystery religions' god-man mythos that forms the basis of the Jesus narrative. The fascinating thing is that the Jesus narrative actually progresses the Mystery notion that the Pagan god-man myth had preserved to that point, over the course of the previoius 4500 years (at least).

I didn't even know about most of this stuff until I started reading up on how my own notions might (or might not) relate to established theological notions. After I posted this vignette (kind of as a provocation more than for any other reason) I Googled around and ran into a lot of theories. I ended up buying a book on Gnostic Christianity by two guys Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy after discovering the the perennial nature of this god-man myth and how aligned to the gospels it really is. Frankly, their book is like 10 years old and the two of them are on some other foolishness that has people camping out and "experienciong one-ness" - whatever that is - but what I did discover is that the Jesus narrative actually moved the god-man myth in a way that causes my own discovery to link directly to that entire myth's historical progression - but only if one approaches the Jesus narrative from the Gnostioc Mystery religion angle.

It's complicated, but I think I've finally found the linkage that I was searching for, and that's pretty exciting stuff for me. Until now, I've been completely unable to understand how my own theology could possibly exist, since I couldn't perceive any linkage (let alone any linkage to my own life expwerience or interests) to previous theological notions. The version of Gnosticism that those two guys explore in their book THE JESUS MYSTERIES is the most plausible link I have found to date, even though any form of Gnosticism or Mystery religious concept - in my own non-spiritual way of seeing reality - is a complete misinterpretation of the heads-up that someone or other got back 2,000 or so years ago, and 4500 years before that.

I may have unearthed something really important. After reading all this Christian history, I'm becoming even more convinced of it. Kind of nerve-wracking at times.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I have a problem with this whole thread. The reason is simple. TheHoly Roman Empire was in north and central Europe. It never included the Vatican. There was significant non-Catholic population (many Lutheran) but others as well.

People love conspiracies. The are a number of source documents that remain available- including maps from the 1200's and 1500s showing this.

Do a little homework before making a judgement.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join