The Founding of Christianity by Roman Counterintelligence

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
Yes, I agree that they seem like far more likely candidates than any other identities I've heard put forth
... with the exception of Matthew Josephson's "Greek satirists" conjecture. And to be fair, I'm no doubt highly biased by my own Western background.

Incidentally, I attended my first service of the Eastern church last night - a Greek Orthodox service, to be more specific. I spoke with the Reader before and after. He was quite confident that it was the West which broke from the East. Looking more into the East-West Schism today, it does seem to me that it is Rome which has been the one to make innovations to the orthodoxy.

The time of the schism, 1054, would have been exactly 1000 years from the time Paul was supposedly evangelizing to the first churches (assuming no phantom time hypothesis). And here we are now coming up on the end of the next millennium...
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
In any event, let me avoid falling into dismissiveness, and instead address your point: if it makes you feel any better, consider how much more time I've spect with the Methodists and how much less I subscribe to their orthodoxy.
That certainly does not make me feel any better. And why should it?

You are obviously an intelligent person, but your behavior is highly suspect. I'm not really sure what you believe, except by what one can discern by reading between your lines and your claimed actions.
As to the virtual Sanhedrin, I'm sorry that I'm not sure who you mean. May I ask you to explain, please?
This should be an easy one for you.

You claim that you want provide the new paradigm for the new age, to be the new Josephus, all the while coming under the wing of the Roman Curia, the "virtual Sanhedrin" du jour. I'm saying that they already have their scenario in the works. This is the meaning of "Meet the new Boss, same as the Old Boss."

You have not revealed your family pedigree Agent Smith, but I doubt it is as illustrious as Josephus's, who got to let his Hasmonean kin go along with him, and the Christian (Roman) book of Revelation states that 12,000 Elect (elite) of the tribe of Judah, and 12,000 of Benjamin got to bypass the 7 years of tribulation caused by their kissing 'Edomite' cousins Vespasian and Titus.

The sardonic message of the Bible is that outsider rebels will be hung on a cross, but the collaborative elites will be rewarded.

If one can take you at face value, perhaps you think that you can announce that you are the One behind the next One in this venue, because we are virtually hiding in plain sight, but I don't think this is a safe bet. Of course, maybe you are merely: Agent Smith.

Pray excuse the density of my gray matter, but the boundaries of Virtual Rome are unknown to me. Pleeze 2 enlighten?
Obviously you didn't read the free Rulers of Evil. The phrase "A rose by any other name is still a rose" applies here. Same for, "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, ... then its a duck."

If one can take you at face value, you are a product of your conventional framing (as was I ... and Jerry). You think that Rome died a long time ago and is irrelevant. Besides all the other agents of Rome running our government these days, the last 3 Speakers of the House have been so as well. When they stand to 'speak' they do so framed by two Roman fasces hung on the wall behind them. The office of Pontifex Maximus held by Julius Caesar and most of the emperors was passed onto the Popes, and this can not be dismissed as you would prefer to do.

If one can take you at face value, all this is one reason why secret societies needed to operate on 'grades'. You have to learn the basics before you can rise to the next level, and so on.

Me and my friends? I'm flattered that you're so jealous. Y'know, we can always squeeze more into the pews, if you ever get a hankering. It is that time of year, after all...
You missed the immediate point and the wider point. Your like the American who thinks the government is supposed to be all about him, but it was stated some time ago that "the business of America is business". And your new Church is a profitable corporate business as well, a global one at that. So have fun in the pews or at Disneyworld.

For we will always have miscommunications in the world, but we will not always have dear Richard. By pouring out this explanation to him, I have prepared him for future conversations with potential converts. Truly I tell you, wherever this good news is proclaimed in the whole world wide web, what I have done will be told in remembrance of me
This represents the same problem as before.

Apparently unaware to you, because you seem to desire to take everything that appears 'spiritual' on face value, the traditional and consistent policy of your new Church is to support the material wealth (and other) needs of its (predestined) Elect. This approach has placed it in hot water only in the last few centuries with the rise of liberal and democratic emancipation of such as the serfs and the Jews. This has forced the Church to adopt a seemingly new and kindlier face in certain regions of the world, while maintaining its repressive old face in others where it can profitably get away with it.

I'm well aware that I don't own Christianity. I'm only asking for some consistency. You argue for a materialist interpretation of the gospel, but then come back at the end of your argument to try and say that you've negated the spiritual, theological, and/or philosophical aspects, which you haven't even addressed. Consistency, please, that's all
WTF? Are you saying that all the material that I excerpted and commented on from Fideler doesn't address this?

But at the end of the day, the Sun yet rises despite all the blubbering of man about divine mathematical ratios and the curious members of the Curia still rake in their corporate profits, having their priests rape nuns and children, actively supporting fascist governments while being two-faced like Janus.

Now you gleefully desire to sit in the Church whose ecclesia openly celebrated and supported the Nazis, despite their propaganda today to the contrary? And you accuse me of what? "I'm only asking for some consistency."

To explain my last comment, what I mean to say is that based on the (Carotta, was it?) theory that the Julian campaign in Gaul is the original typology for proto-Mark (Antony), then it may also serve as a typology for the Josephan account of the "actual" events, seeing as his is the singular report of the events of the period. What possessed Titus, anyway, to begin his campaign in the north, in Galilee, when his legions were marching from Alexandria to the south? Pompey marched right from Syria to Jerusalem. He did possess a fifth column, but wouldn't this be even more likely in the context of the imperial era?
See, as I said before, you do have a brain, and it is capable of operating outside at least one box.

This is a distinct possibility. There are plenty of Roman archaeological evidence in the Levant, but such as Dura Europos show a definitive collaboration between the Romans and the Jews.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I saw a story discussed by a scholar that when the earliest 'Romans' paid their first visit to the Etruscans that these 'Romans' were horrified by the Etruscans marital practice of wife swapping. Certainly, morals amongst any one particular people can shift over time, but this stuck me as more of a reaction that might come from typical Jews. Ones who had moved west after being displaced by such as the Assyrians, then centuries later created a myth that they came from Troy.

Is it a mere curiosity that Livy was accused of being the Roman's Moses? Or that a Roman 'judge' was an 'iudex'?

Of course, the Judges of the OT were technically non-hereditary, ad hoc emergency kings, essentially 'tyrants' (using the original Greek definition). But one function of a king is also to adjudicate disputes, to judge.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The time of the schism, 1054, would have been exactly 1000 years from the time Paul was supposedly evangelizing to the first churches (assuming no phantom time hypothesis). And here we are now coming up on the end of the next millennium...
Yes, this event is interesting in light of the Doomsday actions of 1066 and 1070.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Of course, maybe you are merely: Agent Smith.
Richard, I don't understand the benefit of making accusations such as this regarding our forum members.

If she isn't an agent, she knows you're wrong, and it makes you look silly in her eyes. Also, you mention that you know people in real life who have somewhat similar views, and yet you know they're not agents. So if any of our readers are in that position, they'll see your argument as a non sequitur. There's nothing about Marcilla's remarks that seem obviously spook-specific, as far as I can see.

Whereas if you're correct, she will never admit it, and no one else will ever know. Furthermore, her arguments stand on their own merits. You can't win by saying -- "look, ignore her, she's an agent!" because that's basically a transparent ad hominem.

So whether you're right or whether you're wrong, either way you can only lose by making the accusation.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
To explain my last comment, what I mean to say is that based on the (Carotta, was it?) theory that the Julian campaign in Gaul is the original typology for proto-Mark (Antony), then it may also serve as a typology for the Josephan account of the "actual" events, seeing as his is the singular report of the events of the period. What possessed Titus, anyway, to begin his campaign in the north, in Galilee, when his legions were marching from Alexandria to the south? Pompey marched right from Syria to Jerusalem. He did possess a fifth column, but wouldn't this be even more likely in the context of the imperial era?
This is possible. But at the time that Josephus was writing, there would have been living persons who knew what actually happened, and probably other competing historical documents were still in existence; such as the one supposedly written by Justus. And, Josephus claimed to be writing history. So if Josephus was deviating too far from the actual events, his credibility would have suffered. (I do acknowledge that Josephus certainly intended for some passages to be taken as satires, but those sections are recognizable by the use of literary devices such as repetition and hyperbole.)

Is it possible that Titus intentionally set out to recapitulate the events of Caesar's military campaign, in order to create a real-life typology?

In the modern context, this is the only explanation I can come up with for the many similarities between the assassinations of Lincoln and JFK -- that JFK's assassins deliberately set out to recreate aspects of the Lincoln scenario. That is, unless you're willing to believe in a really extraordinary degree of synchronicity and/or "coincidence".

First, I would object to the use of the word "operative" in any but the most obviously figurative sense to describe anyone prior to the 20th century.
Voskuilen & Sheldon (in "Operation Messiah") describe Roman intelligence as a very sophisticated operation. They're comfortable describing Josephus and Paul as "operatives". But if you prefer to call them "spies", I'm fine with that.

The point is: their motives, conflicts of interest, and funding sources were not properly disclosed to their target audience.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Richard, I don't understand the benefit of making accusations such as this regarding our forum members.

If she isn't an agent, she knows you're wrong, and it makes you look silly in her eyes. Also, you mention that you know people in real life who have somewhat similar views, and yet you know they're not agents.
As I've said before I'm not sure what the benefit of having any of these conversations are. I do realize that we have not fully articulated our worldview (despite all that we've put up already), but this would be problematic in any case, as it represents a rather far distance contextually from either the average religious or secular contemporary persons. Started too late in life, oh well, it was just for my own intellectual pursuit to begin with, my Vision Quest.

And in my present state it is not going to get much further. As it is I have enough trouble making it back home from the grocery store, much less doing anything else these days.

Organized religion was (and still is - even though it is now disguised through the veil of Separation) a major, if not the most important tool of state. It provided some legitimate value in such as social cohesiveness, but at a heavy cost in the duplicity of the elites. And here Xianity provided no improvement, likely made it worse.

The motive to consider Paul and Josephus as independent operators, co-opted by the Romans, is to allow the present conceit that one can achieve the same accomplishment. This presumes that such intelligent people as the elite Romans and Jews took advantage of happenstance, divine or not, instead of taking the initiative to forge their own desired narrative, one that accomplishes a cultural merger, just as happened with Serapis by the Ptolemies in Egypt. Hmmm. Julius Caesar and Marc Antony, the Pontifex Maximi in bed with Cleopatra. What did they talk about between orgasms? Certainly not Serapis. o_O

The anthropomorphic god, idiotically named God, just makes all this unfold just so, and if you don't like it or believe, then ...

I gave up trying to know whether Ms. Smith was in favor of slavery or not. I simply could not get a straight answer to a straight question. But she did agree that the concept of Heaven seemed pretty stupid and contrived. Or at least it appeared so.

I heard from my divine sources that there is no permission for a polluting Smokey Mountain High there either, but that the legal edibles will send you to the 7th heaven. The catch is that there is no time between singing hymns 24/7 in order to brown nose the god named God to allow one to eat them without illegally missing a note.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
As I've said before I'm not sure what the benefit of having any of these conversations are.
We provide the forum as a space where interested readers of our website can share their views, or exchange opinions with us as the authors of the site. But I don't feel there's any obligation to provide extended conversation, beyond what feels mutually beneficial.

I do realize that we have not fully articulated our worldview (despite all that we've put up already), but this would be problematic in any case, as it represents a rather far distance contextually from either the average religious or secular contemporary persons. Started too late in life, oh well, it was just for my own intellectual pursuit to begin with, my Vision Quest.
Yes. The theory is a message in a bottle, floating on the ocean. Hoping that some younger, better qualified and more energetic individuals will find it, become intrigued, and pick up where we leave off.

And in my present state it is not going to get much further. As it is I have enough trouble making it back home from the grocery store, much less doing anything else these days.
So much the better reason to wisely use whatever time & energy we have left. Please don't let Marcilla or anyone else goad you into feeling obliged to waste time. I'm also resolving to be more focused in the future, but at the same time I'm hoping I can continue to find the time to keep this forum open.

Marcilla, please forgive us if replies are less extensive in the future.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Sorry, I just realized that there is a load of unanswered questions yet remaining.

I took you to mean (perhaps incorrectly) that the existence of a "Rome by any other name"/"ungodly temporal authority" negated the possibility of Divine superiority to the evils of Rome (proper). But the superiority of the Divine to all else is an a priori within the context of any discussion of Christian narrative
Your original question was this: "But isn't the inevitable rise of ungodly temporal authority part of the reason for the rise of a more individualist spirituality?"

In my original answer to you I stated that your question was to vague for me to understand what you are defining as the rise of ungodly temporal authority. Just when did this happen? 6,000 years ago, or 300 years ago, or 30 years ago, or when? Besides which, your more mainstream, cartoonish conception of the Divine is sharply different from mine, which variously conditions the way we perceive things. I generally otherwise like cartoons, so don't take this as an insult.

In any case, the cartoon version has an absurd and insecure Creator of the Universe(s?) doing rather inane things with his elitist favorites, who have the contemporary morals of drunken crony capitalists, and many years later this god changes his mind (once again) and inverts the laws (while you and Rome's Jesus maintain these laws are being maintained through spin doctoring). However, the one thing that is maintained, besides the 10 Commandments (common to most all prior cultures), is the Judeo-Roman canonic imperatives to conquer and rule the spherical Earth. The goddess Victory (aka Nike) stands atop a sphere (apparently representing a billiard ball to the Flat Earthers). The descendants of Jesse are to rule over all the Earth, for the good of all humanity, or at least those that can survive the genocides and such other depredations along the way. They will ALL be better off because there will be no minimum wage. In fact, there will be no wages, as all you need is food, clothing and a leaky roof over your head. But I digress. The same global directives are salted all throughout the NT, and this is the ultimate aim for the Church Militant, with 'divine' dispensation for the ends to justify the means (thanks to Papa Nero, at least).

As I have clearly stated before, the parallel Protestant and Catholic colonial conquests of the New World and elsewhere were religiously and politically Providentially Justified and modeled on the OT genocidal Conquest of the Promised Land. And because all this is 'laundered' in your god's holy book then everyone can look the other way and feel uplifted by wonderful hymns and such.

"Well, uhm uh, Mr. Stanley, that may have been true in the past, but even if we were to take all that seriously, and we don't BTW, let's just forget about it, and move on. After all, we've miraculously evolved an Ape.x Culture, albeit recently degraded - ironically by those holy bastards that supposedly got this all started according to our amazing Holy Book, heh heh." Well, what's all this stuff going on in front of us today, between the Nationalist and the Globalists, says Mr. Stanley?" "Well, uhm uh, there is no possible fucking way that these things are connected. We have a Church (going all the way back to the Roman emperors) full of really nice people that sing happy do hymns and feed a few of the poor, and BTW, please stop reading our god damn holy book, god damnit. And besides, our Church conveniently forgives all those uhm err .. real estate acquisition sins or ... whatever. And oh yeah, they weren't sins in the first place because our god said we could do that shit. Yes, it's only a coincidence that our new President has real estate all over the globe and he's a freaking pussy grabbing hero to the ape.x nationalists du jour. Maccabeehive that!!!"

I stand corrected.
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
There's a lot to respond to here, and yet at the same time, I understand there is a desire to narrow, rather than broaden the focus. Certainly a lot could be said about how to conduct oneself within civil discourse, but as the ears upon which those comments most need to fall seem to be most tuned out to them, regardless of the source, I'll curtail that line of commentary.

I want to be helpful, so in the interest of that, please excuse me if I depart from my more pleasant, conversational style, and make some more pointed questions, the likes of which I would expect to come from someone who (unlike me) is hostile to a theory of Roman origins.

  1. What is the Latin word for "counterintelligence"?
  2. What was the name of the department in the Roman government responsible for conducting counterintelligence?
  3. In what surviving documents is this agency named and/or its activities discussed - related or not to Messianism/Christianity?
  4. Why did the Romans label activities as "counterintelligence" which nowadays would be called "Black PSYOP"?
  5. Why did the Romans forego the more cost-effective solution of supporting moderate messianic/christian Jews and instead decide to go with a more resource-depleting and risky fabricated-from-scratch version of their own messianic/christian Judaism?
  6. If Roman counterintelligence morphed into the Jewish/Jesuit-controlled virtual Sanhedrin of today, where is their pacifistic and inwardly-focussed version of radicalized Islam, encouraging jihadists to render unto Uncle Sam what is Uncle Sam's?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Marcilla,

We've recommended the book "Operation Messiah" by Voskuilen & Sheldon. Rose Mary Sheldon has also written this other book, "Intelligence Activities in Ancient Rome", which I haven't had the pleasure of reading yet. But that won't stop me from quoting from her introduction:

... the Romans must be accepted on their own terms. Do not look to Rome for an ancient equivalent of the FBI or the CIA. There was none.... The Romans, like many ancient societies, created institutions that have no modern equivalent. The Romans did not separate the intelligence function into the neat bureaucratic categories of modern intelligence. Even the lines between civilian and military activities were fluid. They lacked our divisions of labor and jurisdiction, and the amount of corruption that went on seems unbearable by modern western standards. Institutions aside, a great deal of intelligence activities did occur that resemble ours, and we can use our modern terms to describe them. Words like collection, analysis, dissemination, and counterintelligence, when used wisely, can help us to accurately describe Roman activities. The Romans understood these concepts and practiced by them.
With regards to your question (5), our thesis is that there were never any "moderate messianic/christian Jews", except for those that were intertwined with the Roman elite from the beginning. Or, if you prefer: the elite Romans, rather than creating a risky fabricated-from-scratch version of "messianic/christian Judaism" of their own, chose to support the version that was developed by the Alexanders, the Herodians, and Josephus -- all reliable Jewish partners.

On question 6, I'm under the impression that many Muslims reject Jihad and Islamic radicalism in general, and that Muslims in the US do indeed pay their taxes. But I confess I have no idea as to the actual relative percentages of Islamic radical jihadists vs. secularized Islamic moderates.

And as to the Jihadists, I also have the impression that they are covertly funded by Western intelligence. Al Qaeda propaganda has a very slick look to it, as though it's prepared by Madison Avenue ad agencies.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Why did the Romans forego the more cost-effective solution of supporting moderate messianic/christian Jews and instead decide to go with a more resource-depleting and risky fabricated-from-scratch version of their own messianic/christian Judaism?
In Jewish terms their expected temporal "messiah" was a direct contradiction to the spiritual "savior" of Christianity. I doubt that the Romans ever expected any free range Jewish Zealot to buy into this, and thus the Romans knew that they would have to go to war. I say that the war is what they wanted all along, else the Temple could not be destroyed, and then the souffle would go flat. Instead the gospels were provided to Hellenized Jews, however they came to be that way, and such as Roman soldiers living in close proximity to such people. This as evidenced by the Christian church at Meggido, started by a Roman centurion and abutting a Jewish village. Elsewhere nascent Christianity was forced on such as slaves (many of which were likely Jewish) by their masters, the latter of which likely put on a Christian mask, or fascia, while retaining their pagan roots.

And as to the Jihadists, I also have the impression that they are covertly funded by Western intelligence. Al Qaeda propaganda has a very slick look to it, as though it's prepared by Madison Avenue ad agencies.
"If you don't have an enemy, then you must create one." If you want to make a massive change to a society, then you must cow it acquiescence via fear. If there is no one to fear then how can you do that?

Previously the Jews were the foils, now they have mostly, but not completely been integrated. So it is the Muslims turn, and the Donald and his Jesuits are making the most of it. A Muslim left his ID in the truck in Berlin. Shades of Mohammad Atta and the miracle passport.

Food for thought: The last book of the Christian Bible grants the elite descendants of Jacob (including those of Judah) the Elect inner circle around God in Heaven (ignoring the 24 elders of course) while all the 'worthy' Christians play second fiddle. Is your Pope ... what?

It sounds to me that the Christian canon (including the OT) laid out an explicit plan to use the tribe of Judah as exactly such dialectic foils. Mr, James Carroll, formerly a Roman Catholic priest, explicitly detailed, in Constantine's Sword, the entirety of Roman Catholic theology as doing exactly that. How would you describe it differently?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Food for thought: The last book of the Christian Bible grants the elite descendants of Jacob (including those of Judah) the Elect inner circle around God in Heaven (ignoring the 24 elders of course) while all the 'worthy' Christians play second fiddle. Is your Pope ... what?
Bad news for us Jerry. The second revelation in Revelation about the Elect is that they must be virgins undefiled by women. There is an out for the use of the plural term, but alas even this disqualifies me. I wonder if all qualified Christians must be Zionists as well? The first revelation about the Elect was from Rev 7.

1And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. 2And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: 3And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 4These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. 5And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.
http://biblehub.com/kjv/revelation/14.htm

It should also be realized that there was a great fight at Constantine's Council of Nicea to include or exclude Revelation as the final book in the Christian canon. Maybe Roman military counterintelligence had become lax by then? Or maybe ...
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
Apparently I'm still failing to speak in clear enough terms. Let me begin, then, by first stating what I am not saying.

My point is NOT disagreement over facts and conclusions. I think I've been consistently on board with what y'all are calling the "Roman Origins Theory" (as an aside, very unfortunate acronym). There is no point at which I have backpedaled into any kind of, "well, I dunno, guys, maybe an anthropomorphic superbeing really did manifest Himself as flesh and then His followers waited for like half a century before anyone decided to write His story down before everyone forgot it." As far as facts and conclusions, I think we've ever only disagreed on minor points.

My point is not the "what," but the "how."

With all due respect to the authors, the theories of Roman "counterintelligence" (I contend that this word is being misused) and Roman-originated "Christianity" are "out there" by any mainstream understanding. To combine the two as in the title of the thread is borderline intentional madness. It's like taking a bitter horse pill and rather than coating it with a candy shell, deciding to coat it with a second bitter pill.

I would just ask everyone to consider if they are making this more or less accessible to your target audience. Particularly as y'all have stated a desire to appeal to academics, I think most of them would reject anything with this title before even browsing the abstract
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
TBH, I hadn't considered that part yet. There's probably any number of other alternatives, some of which would be better, some worse, and again, the audience in each case makes a difference
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
I once completed the training and internship requirements to become a Court Mediator. As with a judge or arbitrator, a mediator presides over a dispute between two parties. Unlike the others, a mediator cannot render any decisions, and can only attempt to guide the parties to some mutually (dis)satisfying consensus.

One of the ways to try and do this was to try to find a point of agreement to serve as the kernel around which to begin to develop that consensus. I hesitate to offer suggestions because this approach runs counter to any sort of maximalist agenda, so I think may be ultimately dissatisfying. However, as the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water, so why use the cattle prod instead of the reins?

In any event, with regard to the subject at hand, I would suggest starting with a known "who" such as "the Roman Empire" or maybe even "the Roman Imperial Cult" or "the College of Pontiffs." Alternatively, you could consider the actors on the other side of the equation, "Messianic Jews," "Christians," or "Christendom."

Adding a "what" could produce:

  • How the Roman Empire merged Jewish Messianism and the Imperial Cult (kinda wordy)
  • How the Roman Imperial Cult became Christianity
  • How the pagan College of Pontiffs came to preside over the Catholic Church
  • How Messianic Jews became today's Christians (prolly too minimalist)
  • Why do Christians "render unto Caesar?" (I'm not really attracted to this one, but it does seem to me to get more to the heart of PF)
  • How Christendom came to accept Roman rulership
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Not totally sure where you're going with this, but:

How the pagan College of Pontiffs came to preside over the Catholic Church
Beard and North have a nice presentation in their compendium of papers, Pagan Priests, on how the pagan Roman clerical structure easily morphed into the clerical 'order' structure of the Roman Church.

Of course, when Constantine, the high priest of Sol Invictus (aka Iesous Christos), turned out the lights on the pagan temples, he turned on the same for the Xians. His troops were already loaded with loyal Xian cohorts, the soldiery having been among the first proto-Xians going back centuries to at least the X Legion Fretensis.

Why do Christians "render unto Caesar?" (I'm not really attracted to this one, but it does seem to me to get more to the heart of PF)
Under the heading of "inversion", isn't it interesting that today's coalition of far right and alt-right denizens are much more likely to not want to "render unto Caesar" despite many of them still being proud Christians. Of course, many of these are OT leaning Christians or merely cultural 'Xians' (i.e. not practicing), and likely the cultural sway of their more immediate ancestors re-enactment of the biblical Conquest still holding their mindset.

How Christendom came to accept Roman rulership
This is pretty easy. The Romans eventually killed or enslaved all the Nazarene/Christiani radicals and then slowly cultivated the nascent Xian defanged movement which they initiated. The support from the imperial offices would always be covert, even so that after Constantine the Church could maintain that the original movement was organic. Not too much longer and the emperors gave way to the papacy, including the title of Pontifex Maximus. And thus the papal crown of the Sabine tribal corporation reigned supreme over the fiefs of Europe, whom the Sabine Caesars had seeded generations before with their divine sperm. And hence the claims of descent from Christ (Caesar), the divine right of kings, the Sun kings, etc.)

Interesting that there is a claim that Mohamed was informed by a Nazarene relative, and hence the general Islamic animus to the Roman world of today.
 
Top