| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
Make Believe Stories spread by Vatican During The Past Millenium to Obscure the Real History
Going by classical catholic dating, Christ died in year 33. Obviously, his ascension from the cross as the story goes provided evidence to his followers about his divinity. The name itself Christians relates to the word cross. Therefore, by definition, there were no Christians until Christ died on a cross in the year 33.
Now, the classic story would like to tell us that by the year 64, the year of the great fire of Rome, there were enough Christians in Rome to have formed a community large enough to provide inexorable source of people for daily killings in the arena and nightly burnings on crosses to illuminate streets of the city. Moreover, this community had been there long enough to develop a certain reputation among the Romans, and a sense of isolationism. Immediate question that comes up how did all of this happen in just 30 years?! In other words, immediately after Christ death, several of the eye witnesses had rushed to spread the word of the “miracle”, then they converted thousands of people including the whole families, and told all must head on to Rome, a very long way for the period to travel even for wealthy people, and settle there in an isolated community and to establish a well known non conformational reputation. And, all of this took place in just 30 years?!
This sounds a little fanciful to me.
The main source for the evidence of Christians in Rome is Tacitus. However, Annals 15, the book being referenced for this evidence, exists only as a copy made in 11th century by monks. They swear this is the only and accurate copy. I would say that they probably kept original text except changed one word only. They substituted Jews for Christians. Or, whatever the word Tacitus might have used for Jews at the time. Monks were believers and did not see any problem by “helping” the text to be less obscure. They were “convinced” Tacitus really meant to speak of Christians there.
However, if we use the word Jews, history that sounded so fanciful just a little while ago now becomes super convincing.
Jews were members of the state that was under protectorate of Rome and not its province. We know that unlike people in the roman provinces Jews had their king, Herod. Provinces on the other hand had governors appointed from Rome. Protectorate means Rome may have its military stationed in the state and will defend it from threats, and take some taxes but civilly the state still runs itself independently. This status existed since general Pompey who came under the orders from the roman senate to clear out Cilician pirates in the eastern Mediterranean. He had conquered the remnants of so called Seleucid kingdom with who Rome was at war because Seleucids were Macedonian rulers with who Rome was also at war. Pompey turned the Seleucid kingdom into roman province Syria and not to waste any more time he offered to the border state Judea to become a dependency in year 64 b.c.e.
Romans were big sticklers when it comes to the law and they didn’t change this status until the Jewish revolt in year 66, a hundred years later, and following the siege of Jerusalem. This is only 2 years after the great fire of Rome. And, the question is why would the Jews wait for 100 years of Roman taxation to begin all out revolt against this religiously forbidden act, taxation is blamed as the main reason for this revolt in classic history, despite the fact that this revolt begins within only 2 years after the great fire of Rome. This close distance in time makes these two event more likely to be related in history. Especially, since the Roman authorities have singled out an outside community to be blamed and consequently violently murdered.
Now, the king of Jews was a frequent visitor in Rome and a personal friend to the Emperor Octavian and other members of Octavian family and the court. Also, a close friendship continued under Emperors Claudius and Nero. Herod would spend long periods of time in Rome and he surely lived there with a large entourage. Many of who had relatives. Many of them must have also traveled to Rome for business and trade and might have chosen to settle permanently. This could have produced a large community in Rome of independent Jews who had this special status of free members of the state even without the citizenship. No wonder, the Jews felt deeply betrayed by the Romans once the word of these atrocities against their people had reached from Rome to the outskirts of the empire in Judea. It might have easily taken 2 years to confirm the rumors with all the travel involved and it began to unbalance the populace in Judea who honestly felt betrayed by these actions of the Romans.
Roman general Vespasian who was charged by Nero to end the Jewish rebellion in the year 66 had left for Rome after two years to lay claim to the Imperial throne after Nero’s “suicide”. He had left his son Titus to end the war in Judea. It was accomplished and the Jerusalem was punished for its defiance in the same way Carthage was punished in the past. Population was killed and sold to slavery. It was forbidden to settle on the site which was also covered with salt to discourage any settlers. However, just like with Carthage, future roman emperor Hadrian was advised of a wasted location and the city was re-founded under new name Aelia Capitolina and later a new province under Latin name Palaestina was formed.
____________________________________
It is said by the classic history that mother of Emperor Constantine, a reported Christian, had traveled to Jerusalem to conduct “archeological excavations” and actually did discover the Holly Cross and other relics supporting the notion of the Holy Trinity. It has all been done in time for the so called council of Nicea where the Holy Trinity had been codified as the basis of Christianity in one document. So, Roman, isn’t it? Archeology has never been as timely. This is another fanciful story given to us by the Roman Catholic authorities. Especially, its fanciful nature becomes more apparent since neither Constantine nor any of the following Roman, or as recent history prefers to call it Byzantine, emperors had mentioned, presented or used it. The Holy Cross only makes it re-appearance on to the world stage of history during the Crusades.
_______________________________________
Remember how the catholic history authorities refer to the popes who ruled during late 6th through middle of the 8th century? They admittedly claim how corrupt and lustful those popes were. Poisons, bribes, and otherwise profusely sinful and arrogant, despicable behaviors were the rule of the day. It does seem like the church accepts its downfall in an attempt to erase past “mistakes” and start with a blank sheet. However, let’s correlate something in history. City of Rome during this exact time period is part of what historians prefer to call today Byzantine empire. Popes in Rome are appointed from Constantinople by the head Bishop of the Christian church. Is this what Vatican so eager to erase from the memory as “bad” popes and begin with a clean sheet?!
Starting with the year 750 and onward popes of Rome have found themselves outside physical rule of the Emperors in Constantinople but more and more under the influence of Frankish kings. However, it is clear that there is a building struggle between the popes of Rome and Constantinople from this point on. Despite the fact that many as the old Romans used to refer to them “barbarians” but now barons, dukes, and knights of the Western Europe would still consider Constantinople to be the leadership and the “light” of the Christian world. Not to argue that this leadership in Constantinople did not refer to the western nobility as barbarians still. We know that this building struggle culminates by the year 1054 in a schism, a mutual excommunication between Rome and Constantinople.
_______________________________________
Now, how about if I suggest that the 1st Crusade wasn’t meant to go to Jerusalem?! The so called speech of Clermont by Pope Urban the Second where he supposedly calls for crusade to Jerusalem has five versions, all of which are admittedly dated to be written decades later by five supposed attendees who all acknowledge that they paraphrase from memory in their writings. Most commonly referenced source is Fulcher of Chartres. However, you may find translations of all five and check in any language you like. One thing you will not find in the actual body of text is a reference to Jerusalem. All the text is saying that knights should raise arms against the barbarians who betrayed us. This is the overall message from all five sources. Now, we all know that 1st crusade ended up at Constantinople of all places. This is totally way off Jerusalem. Most Frankish knights who made up the 1st crusade did nott see Constantinople as enemy, quite the opposite this was the center of Christianity to them. This was the most culturally advanced, rich, oldest Christian temple city of God on earth. Classic historians tell us crusaders went to Constantinople because Saracens controlled the Eastern Mediterranean sea and all the ports, so the Christians couldn’t sail directly east. They had to go by land. Then the question is why would the crusaders be dropped off on the western coast of Bosporus and not the Eastern? Moreover, this argument doesn’t hold any water as during 3rd crusade to re-conquer Jerusalem by Richard the Lion heart and Philip of France Christians had to start essentially over just like during the first crusade. Plus, Christians were recently defeated by Saladin and should have been more cautious. However, they sail their fleets directly to the east. Also, they travel separately not as one expeditionary force. Philip sails totally directly across the sea towards hostile ports and contrary to the objections by historians. He lands and lays siege to the port city of Acre and takes it. Richard meanwhile is also sailing directly however tends to land on every island he encounters in Mediterranean. Therefore the conclusion must be, Christians were not too afraid to sail into unfriendly waters controlled by Saracens and have uncomfortable landing near hostile port city.
I think this whole crusade business was a conspiracy plan by the Venetians and the Popes in Rome to get rid of Venetia’s main commercial competition and Rome’s main religious authority rival Constantinople. The plan was conceived and paid for by the Venetians’ canny minds. Eventually, this plan will be carried out successfully during the 4th Crusade and the Venetians have the main square of St. Mark brought and faced with marble from Constantinople to commemorate the defeat of the rival.
However, the 1st Crusade had faced a canning opposition in emperor of Constantinople who perfectly understood the situation and also took into consideration the level of naivety of the Frankish knights. He conned them into getting on his ships and moving across to Asia to help him fight the Saracens. Then Christians were tricked into letting Romans, the so called Byzantines, enter the city and close the gates. Therefore, Christians had to go east as they had no ships to cross back to Constantinople. They fought and laid many sieges and many of them settled in new territories and only the lowest ranked knights got to Jerusalem. They were definitely hungry, mad, surrounded by hostiles, and suffering greatly. Therefore, they caused a total mayhem once they entered the city but not for religious zeal but for madness, frustration, and fear. Of course, they never found any Christian churches or monuments in Jerusalem as we remember the city was totally leveled and covered with salt by the army of Titus in year 70. All Jews have left it also and have never rebuilt their temples while the land was under Roman rule, and since year 637, Jerusalem was in Saracen hands.
However, Franks were not without some shrewd businessmen. Enter so called the knights Templar. They went to the Pope and suggested to him in order to persuade the Christians across Europe to show more zeal in defending newly acquired territories overseas, we need to claim discovery of origins of Christianity in Levant. We need to claim that these ancient (though non-existing) Christian sites are in ruin now due to Saracens and we must rebuild them. We must go and with your blessing collect the money from the Christian houses from across Europe for this rebuilding campaign. Hence, the alternative origin of the name knights Templar is explained.
That is why Holy Trinity of relics claimed to have been found by the mother of Constantine had never seen the light of day until Crusades. They simply never existed. The complete story base to cover the previous millennium of Christianity had begun to be formulated only after the 1st crusade. And, only after Constantinople is conquered once and for all by Ottomans in year 1453, and not a single reputable, in public eyes, voice to contradict the Pope remains in Christendom, The popes of Rome begin total reformation of the history to exclude any rivals to their claim to the Roman imperial power. From now on, the Roman Empire was claimed to have ended in year 476 and Constantinople was never called the Roman Empire but Byzantine Empire. And, poor self sacrificing popes of Rome had to preserve western civilization on their own against all the odds.
______________________________________
When Armenians wanted to translate the fullest and the best copy of Scriptures into their language they sent John Egheghiatz and Joseph of Baghin to Edessa, then they went to Constantinople to obtain the fullest and the best Scriptures from the patriarch of the imperial church himself. Then, paradox, they travel to Alexandria to complete the full text of Scriptures. I am shocked. What is it that Alexandria may offer over the Scripture owned by Patriarch in Imperial Church in Constantinople?! I would understand if they wanted to cover all tracks and go to Levant, a place classically claimed as origin of Christ and Christianity, and double check in Levant if some of those “oldest” Christian churches might have some very original scriptures that might have escaped the authorities’ sharp eye in Constantinople. However, they went to Alexandria, Egypt! They never even considered Levant to be a source for anything. Did they know something that we don’t? Did they consider Alexandria to be origin of Christianity and in possession of the oldest Scriptures?!
Is it possible that the religion founded by Ptolemy Soter, a close friend and general of Alexander, who escaped the revenge of the old Macedonian aristocratic clans by going to Egypt while they were returning to power and forming what was to become Seleucid Empire after Alexander’s death, that this religion that should have simply helped Ptolemy, a foreigner, to survive and keep power in Egypt that this religion would evolve through a series of improbable historical events into something it was never meant to be?
Is it possible that because Ptolemy was a natural enemy of Seleucids and the Romans who entered into war with Macedon in Greece would become natural allies with Ptolemy as Egypt also became a strategically important supplier of grain to Rome? Is it possible that they would have a treaty that would be invoked when the Roman and the Egyptian interests collided during the war with Mark Anthony? Is it possible that the most romantic story in history of the world when Cleopatra and Mark Anthony commit suicide for love was simply the most convenient story that Romans could sell to the population to avoid a civil war in Egypt. Is it possible that by claiming that the last ruler of the house of Ptolemy has committed suicide for love, the Romans have appeared clean as their war was not with Egypt or its queen but with the roman citizen Mark Anthony and now they simply follow their obligations by the treaty with lawful rulers of Egypt to preserve peace and order and that means to support and participate in the oficial state religion of the house of Ptolemy?!
