-101 votes

The Roman Empire and the Catholic Church are about to Fall: The Roman Conspiracy to Create Jesus Christ Unveiled:

Get a load of this: http://caesarsmessiahdoc....

It's going to be released in Beverly Hills, CA. September 28, 2012

The Second Coming of Christ Has Already Happened.

There is absolutely no denial after you grasp this. It may take you a few hours to finally get the gist of it, but once it hits you, it's a WHAM you'll never forget, and you'll never look at the Scriptures the same again.

The "Holy Trinity" .... "Vespasian - Titus - Domitian" .... All three became Emperors of Rome, and after Titus' death, Domitian constructed the "Arch of Titus":

Arch of Titus in Rome was constructed in 82 AD by the Roman Emperor Domitian shortly after the death of his older brother Titus to commemorate Titus’ victory in the Sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The Arch of Titus has provided the general model for many of the triumphal arches erected since the 16th century including the Arc de Triomphe.

The "Second Coming of Christ" was Titus' take down of Jerusalem, and the Son of God was memorialized with this mighty Arch. The second attempt was successful, and that was the Second Coming.

As seen here: http://www.touropia.com/a...

The concept of a divine trinity consisting of a father, son and “Holy Ghost” – the Greek words actually mean “awful spirit” – comes from Josephus. Josephus applies the Jews’ messianic prophecies, not just to Vespasian, but to his dynasty. In other words the real trinity is Vespasian, his son Titus, and his son Domitian – the awful spirit.

Domitian was the "Holy Ghost" - The "Awful Spirit" who wanted to be recognized as a God himself.

In Greek evangelion, a technical term meaning “good news of military victory.” In English, it is translated as “gospel.

The "Gospels" is nothing more than a military victory account of the Romans win of the Jewish. The New Testament was written by the Flavian Dynasty with the help of Josephus Flavius

For anyone who doubts that the Flavian's of the Roman Dynasty and Josephus were the ones that actually wrote the New Testament and created "Jesus", just take a moment out of your day and ask yourself why is the Bible so Antisemitic and so "Pro-Roman"? .... "Turn the other cheek" .... "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's", etc.

Now ask yourself if you've ever even noticed the book of "Romans" and the book of "Titus" in the NT? Now are you ready for the FACE PALM moment?

Why would a Jewish loving "God" dedicate in his written words, a book to "Romans" and another to "Titus"?

Go read Titus, and realize that it is actually Vespasian (God) giving the Son of God (Titus) instructions on how to teach the newly acquired slaves (Jewish after the Romans conquered them in the War) how to be obedient to their new masters (Vespasian and Titus).

The Original Jewish people had their own God, and he was David; a real Titan; a warrior; a man of war that even brought down Goliath and was soon to take the head off of Caesar (Dead Sea Scrolls), and there were many Jews amongst and within the Roman Empire who were gathering in groups discussing how their God "David" was coming soon to take the head off of Caesar. Nero didn't like this and called upon Vespasian who he had earlier exiled to return to the Empire and deal with this disobedient Jews, and he did along with his great warrior son Titus.

Vespasian and his son Titus went to Jerusalem and tried to bring down the city, but failed. That was the first coming of Jesus Christ (Titus). Vespasian was wounded and told his son Titus he MUST reenter Jerusalem and finally take her down and make all those unruly Jews submit to the Roman Empire, and Titus went back to Jerusalem and did just that.

Here's Part 1: and there are 5 parts total:


And that was the "Second Coming of Christ" aka "Titus".

The following account of Vespasian's triumph in Rome is provided to us by the Jewish historian, Josephus who was present at the festivities. His description not only provides insight into this victory celebration but also of the nature of other triumphs staged after a Roman victory. We join his story in the early morning hours of the day of the festivities:


The Jews who submitted to their Master (God) and came to him through his Son (Titus) were allowed to enter the "Kingdom of God" aka "Heaven". Those that disobeyed were killed or not allowed inside the gates of Heaven (the new Jerusalem).

Now hopefully you understand why many Jewish people today do not believe in Jesus Christ; nor do they follow or praise him. Their God is "David" the great warrior and not the pacifistic "Jesus" that turned the other cheek and gave unto Caesar.

Use your head for a moment and realize the Jews and Romans were arch enemies. Do you really think their "God" would be a pacifistic tax slave? Or would he have been a Warrior?

The Romans created this "Jesus" character to hopefully teach the Jews to turn the other cheek; submit to authority; give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Why would a real living God who's loving and caring order his followers to kill sinners and their children? Seriously think about this a moment: Would a loving God order the death of a child of a sinner? What did the child have to do with a mother infidelity? The child should not be held accountable for a parents sins, right?

Or did he (Vespasian aka God) order the killing of children so that one day they would not come back to revenge the death of their parents?

Why would a God demand sinners to bring their best Oxen and Cattle as a tribute to God as an offering for their sins? Could it be because there was nothing of more value that the Jews could afford? Why would it be easier for a Camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man get into Heaven? Could it be, because Vespasian did not want anyone of wealth in that Kingdom but himself?

The Scriptures were back dated 40 years to the day that Titus took down Jerusalem. Remember that Jesus spoke of this real Messiah that would burn down the cities; surround Jerusalem and raze the Temple within that 40 year span. The Romans created "Jesus" and made him a passive and forgiving Messiah; one that would turn the other cheek and give unto Caesar that which was Caesars.

The supposed Crucifixion of Jesus Christ was a mockery to the Jews; the end of Christianity; the end of their messiah Jesus, and the acknowledgment of the REAL "Jesus Christ" that fulfilled all those prophesies that the Jews Jesus spoke of, and that REAL "Jesus Christ" was Titus, the Son of God (Vespasian).

They (the Romans-Flavian Caesars) wanted to be known as God (Vespasian) and the Son of God-Jesus Christ (Titus). The only way they could get the Jews to accept them as Gods was to get them to pray through this made up Jesus character they invented. The Jews would NEVER bow to a living man (Vespasian), but by bowing to "Jesus Christ", they were actually bowing to the Caesars of the Roman Empire. They wore a mask; created a strawman (Jesus). They did not care about the name; they knew that they created "Jesus", and when the Jews were bowing and praying to Him, that they were actually bowing to Vespasian and Titus.

I know this is a hard pill to swallow for Christians (myself included), but if you actually step away from the Bible and stop looking at it as some magical book, and read it in it's literal typological form, the truth is in plain sight for all to see.

The campaign of "Jesus" ministry and the campaign of Titus' war on the Jews are in perfect sequence with each other if you read Josephus' court of record of the Jewish-Roman War. Remember that Josephus was a Jewish General who was captured by Titus' Army; they spared him; he was a great mind and they had a use for him in the Empire. One record of events is totally dependent on the other; as in the ministry campaign of Jesus was actually created from Titus' campaign in his war on Jerusalem.

All "Religions" are total BS; they are meant to divide and conquer; to control the masses; to teach obedience to a master, and that master is Government.

Now you know why all the authors of the Bible never contradict each other; because it was written by a few men at the time; all in the same court.

"Jesus" spoke of his prophecy in 40 years (within his lifetime), not of 2000 years afterwards and beyond. The Flavian's back dated the Scriptures 40 years on purpose, so that when Titus actually brought down Jerusalem it would look as if HE was the real Christ.

The many "Anti-Christs" that will (already did) come, are actually nothing more than those who opposed Vespasian and Titus; they were non believers; must be possessed with demonic spirits since they did not believe in Jesus Christ (Titus). These disobedient slaves with demonic spirits were against "Anti" Jesus Christ aka Anti-Christs.

No one shall enter the Kingdom of God (Vespasian) without coming through his Son "Jesus Christ" which was actually Titus.

John 3:16

For God (Vespasian) so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son (Titus), that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Go read "Titus" at the end of the New Testament; then read Romans and Philemon where "Paul is a prisoner of Christ Jesus".

At the end of Revelation written by Josephus from the words of God (Vespasian), he warns anyone who alters the text will suffer the plagues described within.

Would a loving God actually do all those things to man just because he changes some text? Or is that the "Threat" of God (Vespasian) to anyone who would alter his words?

Now read Revelation 19:11 "The Rider on the White Horse"

I saw Heaven standing open (the walls of Jerusalem had holes in them from the battle and the gates were finally opened) and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe "dipped in blood" ...

Would a robe dipped in blood actually mean that the robe is Red or Scarlet?

A Roman Victory Parade was at hand; Titus was wearing his Victory Robe and the Victory Crown upon his head as he entered the gates of Heaven (The New Jerusalem).

Here's the famous painting on Joseph Atwill's facebook page:


The triumph was a gala affair. Presided over by Vespasian and Titus, it featured piles of booty, including gold relics taken from the destroyed Jewish Temple, paraded through the streets. Now you understand what the text means by "Streets of Gold".

Titus was the the Rider on the White Horse followed by the armies that followed him were on white horses and dressed in fine linen .... It was a VICTORY PARADE; the "Second Coming of Christ" had taken place; they were all celebrating and dressed for the occasion. It was now time for God (Vespasian) to take his Throne, and the Son of God (Titus) to be seated at his right hand.

"You are worthy to take the scroll and to open it's seals because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God..."

Titus was wounded in the war.

Once you tie the Scriptures to the Roman-Jewish War, it is plain as day.

Here's Josephus' account of the victory celebration first hand:


The most precious of objects taken from Jerusalem were items from the Temple: the golden table on which the bread of the presence had been placed, the golden lampstand, or Menorah, the golden trumpets used in calling people to worship, and a copy of the Jewish Torah. Behind the wagons that carried these objects rode Vespasian, then Titus, with Domitian beside him. The triumphal procession ended at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus where Simon, son of Gioras, who had been the Jewish general, was put to death before all of the citizens of Rome. All of this happened in 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple of God.

If you will read the book in it's literary and typological sense, you will come to realize it was an account of what had happened THEN, not what would happen 2,000 years from THEN.

Listen to Joseph Atwill explain the truth about the "Jesus" character and how and why he was brought to life:


Here's another very good interview:


Look up his other interviews on YouTube as well.

Ask yourself one question: Why would a Book inspired by God himself who loved the Jewish people more than anything in the world or universe combined, dedicate a Chapter of His Book to the "Romans" and another to "Titus"?

Answer: Because the Flavian's created Christianity and with the help of Josephus Flavius, they created the character known as "Jesus Christ", and Titus himself fulfilled all the prophesies of THEIR creation, and his Father who is now known as God and accepted as God along with Titus who would now be accepted as "Jesus Christ" had fulfilled the prophecy of the "End Times", which was nothing more than the end of Jerusalem and the Messianic Christian Movement with the "Second Coming of Christ" aka "Titus".

As a tribute to their conquering victory of the Jews and to make sure everyone living at that time knew that Vespasian was to now be recognized as God and Titus as the Son of God aka Jesus Christ, they put it in plain sight for all to see in the book of Romans and the book of Titus.

In the book of Titus, Vespasian (God) is talking to his Son Titus (Jesus Christ) and instructing him on how to teach the new slaves (Jews) to be subservient and obedient to their new God.

Just read it; it's right there in the "Holy Bible" for all to see who the REAL God and the REAL Jesus Christ really is.


This is a good overview on Joe's Blog:


Once we break the chains of religion, the political structure of the world WILL change.

The Second Coming of Jesus Christ has already taken place; and the "End Times" are nothing more than the end of the militaristic-messianic movement of the Jews in about 70 CE (Common Era).

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Then risk/reward "wager" you mentiion is discussed in

the podcast located here:


Contrary to what some have posted in reponse to my comment to the OP, I honestly couldn't care less what others beleive. However, if you want to hear both sides of the argument I think you will find the podast above most interesting.

If you find the one above thought provoking, educational, or entertaining...there is another one that I an point you to that I think you will also enjoy.

In Liberty,

An Intrigue Piece Aimed at Cognitive Misers

This is an intrigue piece aimed at cognitive misers (those who refuse to "spend" any mental energies they are not forced to spend). One notices immediately that there are NO references in it, though there are MANY supposedly historical assertions in this piece begging for references. There is likely no greater "red flag" in any piece than a lack of sourcing.

Now don't get me wrong; I think most Christians hold to a great many irrational ideas, as well as irrational defenses of their faith. They are insufferably incurious about the particulars of their own doctrines, and they do not seem to mind very much when they turn out to be unauthentic representatives of the very values and principles they profess to espouse. (Read more about that here: http://www.jackpelham.com/2012/05/20/we-love-our-labels/)

But just because most Christians are a mess does not bear any reflection on the Bible. As far as any of us knows, the Bible could still be true and authoritative, even if most Christians make a major mess of it. This piece, just like a lot of church banter, is aimed at people who don't study the Bible enough to know what's there from what's not there.

I say this piece is aimed at the "cognitive miser" because of paragraphs like this:

Why would a Jewish loving "God" dedicate in his written words, a book to "Romans" and another to "Titus"?

The cognitive miser, not wanting to waste any energy thinking, will say to himself, "Yeah, why would God do that?", and will then promptly drop the question without seeking to answer it. Because it is the easier task, he will assume the author here has made a point simply by asking this rhetorical question.

The diligent thinker, however, will say, "Well, let's see if I can think of any reasons...." He will think first, and reach a conclusion later. On his short list of suspect answers might be things like, "Well, there WAS an evangelist named Titus, so maybe that's why the epistle that was written to him was named Titus, just like the epistle written to the church at Rome was named Romans."

Suddenly, with some plausible possibilities on the table, the rhetorical question that knocked it out of the park for an audience of cognitive misers falls to the ground with an unimpressive thud at the feet of the diligent thinker.

And here's another example of a content-less rhetorical argument:

In Greek evangelion, a technical term meaning “good news of military victory.” In English, it is translated as “gospel.” The "Gospels" is nothing more than a military victory account of the Romans win of the Jewish.

At such a "factoid", the cognitive miser says, "Oooh!" and "Aaahhh!" Or if he wants to appear particularly contemplative for his miser friends, he might voice an erudite, "Hmmmmmmmmmmm." Never does he stop to consider, however, whether such a word (evangelion) might have indeed been appropriate for a story at the end of which a great battle against Satan and his angles has been fought and won by Jesus and his angels. Indeed, most CHRISTIANS miss this fact about the gospels (as they do about the rest of the Bible), and they somehow see them as being about Jesus coming to start a perpetual church institution on the planet, rather than about Jesus booting Satan from the world.

Indeed, there is more judgment talk and talk about Satan and the like in the gospels that the cognitive miser will ever realize, because he will not count and make lists of things as he reads. He is not reading for understanding, but for some lesser goal, such as to check off that he has done it, or so as to win the approval of friends at church.

And so it is with this article. It is not written for those who want to grasp things, but for those who want to reject things.

I suppose that if I thought it were worth the time, I could dissect it sentence by sentence. Likely, that would spawn lots of focused arguments with several cognitive misers who belong to various cults of predetermined conclusions. Meanwhile, for the diligent thinkers out there, I've already presented enough examples to get the critical thinking ball rolling.

Many Christians, of course, will hate this article and will see it as satanic persecution---or something of that general sort. They will assume the higher position and will "tisk tisk" upon those who like this article. Meanwhile, however, they cannot answer deep questions about their OWN beliefs. (Here are some examples: http://www.bibleinvestigation.com/deep-questions-about-the-b...) And neither do they care that they cannot answer, for they value other things higher than they value understanding.

For example, most will likely NEVER think deeply enough to arrive at the question of why "the church" so routinely and predictably fails to meet the expectations it sets for itself after reading about the original church in the Bible. No, they just go mindlessly about the business someone else has told them to conduct and rarely give it a critical thought.

This article reminds me very much of the apt quotation by humorist Don Marquis:

“If you make people THINK they’re thinking, they’ll love you; But if you REALLY make them think, they’ll hate you.” ~Don Marquis (1878-1937)

No doubt, many will read this presumptuous piece and feel as if they've just taken a smart pill. And oh how they will take offense when someone bids them now to "do the math" necessary to back it up. Christians get mad quite routinely upon being asked to support their conclusions, and most non-Christians are quite the same. In this article, those who make a mockery of Christianity exhibit the exact same fallacious rhetoric as do so very many Christians.

Jack Pelham

I think you're fixing to take a "smart pill" when you read this:

Here's my last comment on this thread; apparently no one has any rebuttals, but perhaps you in your infinite wisdom will break the chains of deafening silence, and 'enlighten' me, since I apparently wrote the post to target "Cognitive Misers".


Once you realize the Scriptures are nothing more that the literary version of the Arch of Titus, you will have "seen the light". Once you study the Roman-Jewish War beside the Scriptures aka "Gospels" aka "Good News of Victory of War", and the Arch of Titus, you will see that this post is very real and very true.


South, you fail to realize...

You wrote:

Once you realize the Scriptures are nothing more that the literary version of the Arch of Titus, you will have "seen the light".

You appear not to have noticed that you have failed to substantiate this claim with anything other than your own say-so. Yes, I know that YOU find your own testimony to be compelling, but to those of us who don't adore you as you adore yourself, it is lacking in merit.

It's YOUR argument, South. What this means for you is that YOU are the one upon whom rests the onus to prove it.

Belief is not an argument, South. Neither is adamancy nor repetition. Go learn the importance of logic, fact, and sourcing, and then come back and talk to us.


And Jack has decided to skip the Million Dollar Question and

the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room like others on this board ... lol

I know it hurts Jack, but this will not go away. I'll address you as I did "Jon" with an almost identical comment:

Unbelievable that you think people are stupid enough to see that you are deliberately attempting to "dodge" the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room, and redirect the argument into a game of having me spell out the carvings and history of the Arch of Titus ... lol

Okay Jack, since apparently your computer screen is giving you problems and you can't see the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room, let me present you with it once again:

I've left this comment in a few locations in this thread, and everyone seems to be avoiding it like the plague:



Further down the passage in Hebrews 12:9 God (Vespasian) says:

"Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us, and we respect them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness"

Here Vespasian is stating "we have all had human fathers who disciplined us", but now that I am the true living God of Heaven (the new Jerusalem), I will discipline you for your good, so that you may share in my holiness

Question: Did or does a REAL God have a human father?

Now Jack, can you answer the MILLION dollar question or not?

This is the beauty of this statement: I didn't say that; you didn't say that; Joe Atwill didn't say that; no other internet guru or biblical scholar said that; Fred Flintstone or Robert Price didn't say that.

Forget any other arguments from anyone else, and rebut the words of God Himself as written in Hebrews 12:9 above.

I'll be waiting Jack.

NOTE: Once again in case you get confused. I don't want any misunderstandings Jack (or anyone else on the board for that matter); do not attempt to divert or sidestep the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room Jack; do not plaster a comment full of others opinions with links of rebuttal's etc. Jack.

Answer the Million Dollar question Jack, and give me your rebuttal to the word of God himself as listed above.

"insert game show music here"

If you divert the question Jack, I'll keep posting this above and below any comment you make Jack, until you have no more wiggle room.

Answer the question and rebut the words of "God" himself.

Once we've addressed the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room, all arguments are null and void.


South, I don't see a gorilla here.

In a post that is scores of lines long, you claim over and over that I'm avoiding the "800-pound gorilla". And after all your positioning, you carry on as if the upcoming question in your post is finally going to whip back the curtain and reveal this "gorilla" in a "Voila!" moment. But after all the fanfare and drum roll, your question does no such thing.

You ask:

Did or does a REAL God have a human father?

I see no "gorilla" here, South, so why don't you spell it out for me. What does the answer to this question have to do with the authenticity of any or all of the Bible documents?

I'll just sit here anxiously awaiting your answer. I'll sure it will be profound---one way or another.


You're not really this incoherent are you?

Let me state it again Jack:

Hebrews 12:9 God (Vespasian) says:

"Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us, and we respect them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness"

Here Vespasian is stating "we have all had human fathers who disciplined us", but now that I am the true living God of Heaven (the new Jerusalem), I will discipline you for your good, so that you may share in my holiness

Question: Did or does a REAL God have a human father?

Now Jack. If "God Himself" stated in Hebrews 12: that He Had A Human Father That Disciplined Him, what does that tell you Jack?

Now to the common man with a hint of common sense and one brain cell left in his cranium, that means that "God, in his own words claimed to be a living man who had a father who disciplined him".

So here's the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room that you apparently cannot see yet:

If "God Himself" was disciplined by his own father, then who the hell is God's Father"?

If this "God" we've all been raised to believe is the All Mighty, the One and Only Creator of Man/Women, the Stars, the Sun, the Moon, the Planet, the Galaxy, then who the hell created him?

The "REAL" God of God's has NO father; he "IS" the Father.

It is sad that I have to take the time to spell out the obvious for you Jack, the mighty wise one that left the inflammatory comment above, stating this post was meant for "Cognitive Misers".

No Jack, the post was meant for people with an IQ of at least 60 who are able to take the needed time to read and research the "facts" before they launch an attack on others.

Now Jack, do you see the 800 lb. Gorilla in the room yet?

If the person (Vespasian) who's claiming to be "God" in the Holy Bible is in fact nothing more than an egotistical maniac that's claiming to be the living God, then what validity does that give to the entire Bible itself?

This is sad I have to spell this out, but it is what it is I suppose.

Good Day Wise One Jack Pelham.

South, you are making a grand assumption.

Here is you argument, restated in the form of a classic syllogism:

Premise 1. The text states, "we have all had human fathers...".
Premise 2. The text purports to have been authored by God himself.
Conclusion. Therefore, God claims to have had a human father.

Your problem is the false assumption you make in the 2nd premise. In no place does the epistle to the Hebrews claim that its author is God. Your conclusion, therefore, is false (or at best, unprovably true), albeit logically valid. In either case, your argument fails.

You commit further fallacy with this presumably-stinging summation:

If the person (Vespasian) who's claiming to be "God" in the Holy Bible is in fact nothing more than an egotistical maniac that's claiming to be the living God, then what validity does that give to the entire Bible itself?

This is an if/then statement, posed with a rhetorical question in place of the "then". To restate it with your rhetorical question turned into the assertion that it really is, your argument is thus:

If (A) the author of Hebrews is an imposter, then (B) the entire Bible is invalid.

The problem is that B does not necessarily follow A. This can be easily observed by witnessing an argument in the same form, but with different assertions:

If (C) revolutionary Benedict Arnold was a traitor, then (D) the entire revolution was invalid (B)

Or again:

If (E) Fonzie jumping the shark was an unpopular episode, then (F) the entire Happy Days series was a flop.

Your arguments do not take into account actual facts, and you do not seem to be familiar with the documents you are criticizing. This smacks, therefore, of mere hearsay at best, and trolling at worst. I cannot tell which, but the perverse deliberacy of the latter aside, they are equally as counterproductive to our society.

If you want to discredit the Bible without knowing what it says, don't expect well-informed people to follow along. If you want to prove something to THEM, you'll actually have to study the documents in the Bible first, South.

What good is there in it, South, to tell a lie or to commit a logical fallacy in the interests of promoting what one believes to be true? To prove oneself unauthentic in promotion of a cause hurts the cause, does it not? So what's the point?

Indeed, you position yourself as if arguing from logic, and not merely from dogma, yet your logic is fatally flawed. You may think I'm crazy, but I'd think you'd want to learn logic before trying to use it in a debate.

Once the swords have come out, it's a little late to learn how to learn how to fence.

PS: Since you have not responded to this post yet, I'm taking this opportunity to add one final thought to it. It will be interesting to see what direction you take from here forward in this discussion since you went for what you believed to be your most salient point (your "800 pound gorilla") and failed. You failed to show that a gorilla exists, so whatever will you do now? Move on to lesser points? Or perhaps you will simply maintain an attitude of denial about your failed proof?

You could, of course---and this is my hope---deal honestly with the affair and realize that you do not have the cause you thought you had. Then you could free yourself up to champion causes that are worthy of fact, logic, and sourcing---becoming a cognitive contributor to the society in which you live, rather than a detractor.

If nothing else, I hope that you will set out to prove your predetermined conclusion by legitimate means. Though it may take you some time, you would then realize at length whether there are any legitimate proofs for it or not. You could become your own referee, guided not by zeal or dogma or ego, but by the rational principles of fact, logic, and sourcing.

Indeed, I would not know how to prove what you are trying to prove. The best I could hope for is to write, as you did, a piece for cognitive misers only. I would not expect a more sophisticated audience to follow along on such a weak set of assertions.

I have been studying the inconsistencies and problems of Christianity for over ten years and I can point out some MAJOR flaws in the way that most people perceive the religion----things where the Bible and their perception simply do not add up. For instance, why is it that NO church routinely meets the goals and expectations it naturally sets for itself when reading accounts of the original ekklesia ("church") in the Bible? And why is it that if you listed ALL the elements of the original ekklesia (apostles, prophets, angels, miracles, communal life, God disciplining the members, etc.), such a great number of them are not extant in churches today?

Sure, YOU think you have an answer, but not only is your argument fallacious, your answer is not the only possibility. There are other explanations that are much more plausible. http://www.temporaryekklesia.com

Can we agree that everyone who reads the Bible is under the

assumption that it is the word of God? No matter who actually wrote the text with their own pen; the text is supposedly the word of God himself, correct?

God spoke to the authors and those authors relayed his message in the book we all know as the Holy Bible, correct? At least that is the assumption I've always been under. Of course there are some opinions of others within the text, but the overall premise is "This is the Word of God". Can we agree on that?

I will assume we can at this point. So lets look at Hebrews 12 from the earliest Greek version known to man:

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.

The significance of Codex Sinaiticus for the reconstruction of the Christian Bible's original text, the history of the Bible and the history of Western book-making is immense.

Home Page: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

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.

Now, would you like to see the text in it's most ancient; earliest version available to man?

Hebrews 12:


Now is it safe for me (or anyone else who might read this) to presume that the text is the word of "God"

There are many-many words within the passage such as "we, us,, our, etc" as in first person speaking at the time.

How about this verse?

"My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son"

At the heading of the verse, it says "God Disciplines His Son(s)"

Sounds like God is actually speaking, but I could be wrong. Can we assume, even if God himself did not actually put the pen to the paper and hand write the text himself, there was someone in the room (a recorder) who wrote the words he spoke?

Now, once again: Can You Answer The Million Dollar Question?

"Did-Does-or-Can A Real God Have a Human Father?"

Jack, I apologize for the returned attacks. I'm am not the enemy here; I am not your enemy. You launched the first attack, as many others have on this thread. Yes, I have studied the Bible. I'm not claiming to be a Biblical Scholar, but I can read. And once you study the history of the Roman-Jewish War beside the Scriptures, it is very plain to see that one is dependent on the happenings of the other.

The prophecies Jesus (the character) spoke of 40 years earlier, were carried out and fulfilled by Titus. They simply back dated the Scriptures so that it would look as if Titus was the true Christ Jesus when the prophecies were fulfilled.

It's very easy to understand once you study the Flavian Dynasty; the Arch of Titus; the Roman-Jewish War. The Romans had to stop the militant-messianic movement of the Jews at the time. They accomplished this by high-jacking script from the Dead Sea Scrolls; the Torah; the Old Testament, and led the reader into the New Testament; the Scriptures; the Gospels, which actually means "Good News Victory of War" aka evangelical.

God Disciplines His Son(s) .... It does not say "God Disciplined His Son" ..... It says Son(s) ... which were Titus and Domitian.

Hebrews 12:9

"Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it ... "

South, I don't mean to be patently offensive to you or to...

....anybody else, but your profound ignorance of the Bible texts rivals that of the most ignorant amongst the Christians---the very people you seem to criticize for their dupable ignorance.

You ask for this:

"Can we agree that everyone who reads the Bible is under the assumption that it is the word of God?"

You prove it, and I'll agree to it. But good luck proving it.

1. YOU have read some of it and YOU don't believe it's the "word of God".
2. Rational people who read it understand that nothing in it can be proven to be the word of God until such time as God himself can be interviewed.
3. Nowhere does "The Bible" have any text explaining what "The Bible" is. In fact, the words "The Bible" do not appear in the texts of "The Bible".
4. Nowhere in "The Bible" is there any document (such as a Table of Contents) from anyone claiming to be inspired of God who tells the reader which documents are to be included in the collection and which should be avoided.
5. In no place in "The Bible" does anyone make any such statement as could reasonably be construed to say, "Whatever texts will be considered by some as the 'Word of God' in the year 2012 will, for that very reason, BE the word of God in 2012.
6. While some of the documents in the Bible purport to contain material attributed directly to the mouth of God, many do not.
7. Even if a work is written by an authorized and inspired prophet, it does not follow that every statement in that work has to be ABOUT God. For instance, when Jesus (whose inspiration is as widely believed as any other Bible character's inspiration) tells his apostles "you are the branches", he does not mean to say that GOD is "the branches" too. Similarly, when the Hebrews author refers to "we", there is not one logical reason in the world to insist that he must have intended for God to be included in that "we". Indeed, he certainly had the language to state such a thing explicitly if that's what he wanted to do. (Pssst. Don't tell the Christians, but many of them have a nasty habit of wrestling the word "we" from its natural context in order to create special doctrines, too: http://www.bibleinvestigation.com/2011/12/29/we-are-not-chri...)

So now, we can't agree on that notion, for it is nonsensical.

At the heading of the verse, it says "God Disciplines His Son(s)" Sounds like God is actually speaking, but I could be wrong.

Your ignorance is profound, which makes your attempts at textual criticism ridiculous. Had you checked the earliest copies in the Greek, you'd see that the paragraph headings are nowhere to be found. And had you investigated this puzzle, you'd have discovered that Bible publishers add these headings to help cognitive miser readers find their way through the texts. The unintended (hopefully) consequences of such is that cognitive misers like yourself end up drawing unfounded conclusions based upon the words in those headers. Indeed, you are doing exactly that right here.

It's very easy to understand once you study the Flavian Dynasty; the Arch of Titus; the Roman-Jewish War.

Pardon me, but I have a really hard time believing that you've ever studied anything. You flit about with such disdain for customary scholarly and logical discipline that you reveal yourself as a charlatan. You aren't even aware of the issues about which one should be careful.

Indeed, I linked you to an alternative theory that you show no signs of having read. This says a great deal about your overconfidence in your present knowledge. You continually assert that Jesus' second coming happened long ago---except when YOU assert it, you don't really mean what you say, for you believe that the entire account is bogus, except inasmuch as it secretly reflects some bits of truth here and there about the exploits of Vespasian, et al.

Just like most Christians, you have very little idea of what was actually foretold about Jesus' second coming, nor about its fulfillment. Erroneous expectations are rampant and very few have any clue how to explain that he and his apostles unequivocally stated that that coming would indeed be in that same generation. Even the revered CS Lewis threw Jesus under the bus for this teaching, calling him "delusional": http://www.temporaryekklesia.com/infallible/

The long and short of the matter here, South, is that you are criticizing a collection of documents about which you know practically nothing. It is a fool's errand. If you want to influence smart people, act smartly and do your homework first.

If you want to talk about people being ripped off and duped in the name of religion.... If you want to talk about how "the church" is quite unlike the original accounts of Jesus' ekklesia, as well as the implications of this fact.... We could discuss all of this in a rational way that keeps fact, logic, and sourcing always in view. But you will first need to go and learn just what constitutes logical proof of an idea.


OK, South, for your convenience....

The post I'm replying to here is where we left off before your Hebrews-authorship dodge.

Can we get back on track now, please?



Jack, who do you believe wrote Hebrews?

Just a simple question you should be able to answer if you've studied the Flavian Dynasty; the Roman-Jewish War; the Arch of Titus and the "Holy Ghost".

Also, when I refer to "God" in many of my responses, I'm referring to Vespasian :)

Hey, South?

Did you forget about me?

Hey, The South, where did you go?

I posted to you yesterday, but it was in reply to my own post (and not to yours), so I'm posting again in hopes that you are notified.

Have you lost interested in trying to support your assertions any further?


South, demonstrate how the question is relevelant....

...to this discussion and I'll answer it.

Otherwise, this sure smells like a dodge, for you have not in the least addressed my challenges to you.


South, it's been 48 hours....

...since your last interaction in our discussion. You have been a very assertive poster, so it's hard to imagine what could be keeping you away from our discussion for such a long time.

Have you lost interest in supporting your assertions here?


Oh no Jack, I have not lost interest at all :)

The reason I asked who you believed to be the author of Hebrews, was because I'm under the assumption you believe it to actually be "Paul", when in fact "Paul" is a typological character who's adventures foresee Domitian (the Holy Ghost)- the 3rd Flavian to become Emperor of Rome.

Note: If my assumption of your understanding is wrong, please forgive me. If that is indeed your stance, then here we go:

Paul was Domitian's "Jesus", just as "Jesus" was Titus' Malachi - his messenger.

The Pauline material was wired into Domitian's court historian Suetonius' work "The Twelve Caesars", in the same way the "Gospels" were wired into Josephus' "War of the Jews".

"Jesus stated that the “Son of Man” – a title for the Jewish Messiah that comes from the prophecies of Daniel – would come before the generation he spoke to passed away. Since Jews of this era saw a generation as lasting forty years, what Jesus was claiming was that the Son of Man would appear within forty years from the date of his death on Passover 33 CE. Jesus also made clear predictions as to what would happen when the Son of Man came. He prophesied that during the Son of Man’s visitation Galilean towns would be destroyed, Jerusalem would be encircled with a wall, and the Temple would be razed." [Joseph Atwill]

Now, in your defense:

When I stated in earlier posts that these were the words of God, I did not mean the actual God himself (the creator of all things), I was talking about Vespasian; looks as if I should have stated those were words of Suetonius via Domitian instead.

I will admit this is somewhat confusing, now that I've learned Paul was a creation of Domitian's doing; and yes, I may have jumped the gun so to speak in assuming those were the words of Vespasian. I've had 10 different Bibles open and 20 tabs over the last few weeks, and have possibly misconstrued some of my original understanding; for this I apologize and as soon as I nail this down, I will post another comment on the latest comment page and correct myself, so as not to lead anyone down the wrong the path.

Mathew/Mark/Luke was written during the reigns of Vespasian and Titus. John and beyond all the way to Revelations was the doing of Suetonius via Domitian.

This post is not for "cognitive misers".

PS: If I don't reply tonight, I will tomorrow; very busy.

Well, South, I don't peg Paul as the author of Hebrews....

...so what else do you have for me here?

You keep re-asserting your spiel about Vespasian having authored it, but that is simply bald assertion. YOU are in no position to be a witness as to the authorship of a document whose writing you did not witness, of course, although you don't seem as impressed with this fact as I do.

So what else do you have?


Then who do you "peg" as the author of Hebrews?

I'm not asserting a spiel that Vespasian 'authored' it; I believed it was the words of Vespasian written by Josephus at that time.

Are you rebutting the whole post? Are you under the impression that the NT was not the creation of the Flavian Dynasty?

If so, show your side of the story; tell me why you believe the entire post is wrong and only meant for "cognitive misers".

Then I'll prove to you that the Bible itself states that there will be no return of Jesus; that it has already happened.

Yes, the Second Coming of Christ has already taken place.

I may have to respond late tonight or tomorrow; very busy for another week or so.

PS: Are you/were you a Christian? If not, Atheist? Just trying to find out what position you're fighting this post from; that might help us both :)

I was seduced...

into this string in attempt to more clearly see the 800 pound gorilla. The mass of words has been quite tangential thusfar. My attempt here is to relocate the gorilla and respond.

Is this it...
Question: Did or does a REAL God have a human father?

Assuming that's it, and that Hebrews 12:9 has something to do with it, then what does any text from Hebrews at all have to do with such a question(illusory gorilla)?

Sure, many people regard the Bible as "the word of God". So what? Sure, most people regard Hebrews as being written by Paul? So you believe that Paul did not exist, and it was written by Vespasian, no wait, Josephus, and that Josephus wrote it from the perspective of Vespasian, and that there is the possibility that Josephus [or later Bishop] created Paul as a literary vehicle to either conceal or anonymize the writer and/or his perspective. So what? None of the different possibilities regarding who wrote it makes any difference.

It is written from the perspective of a teacher, and "God" is consistently referenced grammatically in the third person.

Your gorilla creation does not bear logic... or What am I missing?

Hey, South...

It's been several days. I'm beginning to wonder whether you're realizing that you really don't have any evidence other than hearsay. Or are you just busy?

You seemed so eager until I honed in on your lack of evidence. Then you went dark on me.


OK, South, let's break it down line by line.

Then who do you "peg" as the author of Hebrews?

I resist the temptation to name an author because we simply do not know who wrote it.

I'm not asserting a spiel that Vespasian 'authored' it; I believed it was the words of Vespasian written by Josephus at that time.

Ah, but you have failed to prove this. You might as well be arguing that Santa Claus or Pee Wee Herman wrote it, for you have as little proof.

Are you rebutting the whole post? Are you under the impression that the NT was not the creation of the Flavian Dynasty?

Again, you don't understand how logical argumentation works, South. When YOU make an assertion, YOU are supposed to show evidence in support of that assertion. You seem to have utterly skipped that part, and now rest on the assertion itself as evidence FOR the assertion itself. This is logical hogwash, and you, too, would say as much to anyone trying to pull the same trick on you.

If so, show your side of the story; tell me why you believe the entire post is wrong and only meant for "cognitive misers".

You are trying to shift the burden of proof onto your critics. It is not my job to prove why your assertion is bogus. I note for the record, however, that I already showed a couple of sample points that cause serious problem for your position, and that you did not reply to those. You and I both know you're not interested in proving things point by point. All you want here is another opportunity to spin out your yarn yet another time. Go and learn what this means: repetition is not an argument.

Then I'll prove to you that the Bible itself states that there will be no return of Jesus; that it has already happened.

You have no idea what the Bible states. You have proven that several times already. Why should I listen to your "proofs"? Indeed, I challenged a "proof" you offered to someone else and you ran away from that argument. I asked you to show even one single sentence in your prooftext that makes the claim you say it makes. It is no wonder that you ran away from that conversation.

On the one hand, you throw around the word "proof" quite a lot, but on the other hand, you don't seem to know (or to care) what that word really means.

Yes, the Second Coming of Christ has already taken place.

Here you lie, for you do not really mean what you are saying. That is to say, you don't believe that Jesus is a historical figure. So why would you even write such a sentence?

Interestingly, I believe in the face value of this sentence from you. I believe that the record has Jesus claiming that he'd return in that generation, and that if it didn't do what he said, something would be seriously wrong with either the religion or the record, or both. Most believers have never studied this issue, and I KNOW you've never studied it.

PS: Are you/were you a Christian? If not, Atheist? Just trying to find out what position you're fighting this post from; that might help us both :)

It doesn't make any difference what I am; the burden of proof here is on YOU, South. It's your argument, so you're the one who has to prove it. That's how it works in the grown-up world, South.

Now, you brought up this whole authorship of Hebrews dodge to get out of answering my previous challenges. So could we please get back to the conversation at hand?


And equally, most

And equally, most non-religious people go about their day in the same state of mental fog about their reasons - or not - for doing things; usually they do them because that's what they have always done, and that's what their folks did, and their folks before them. That's life, not an argument about how one lives it. If it was any different we wouldn't need the Daily Paul would we, cos we'd all be walking talking Libertarians. In the same way people are not required to have PhDs in religious studies to live their religious lives, although it's helpful to have people like William "Dawkins Chaser" Craig and J P Moreland who do. Most of what we know we take on trust - that is how society works.

And this Christian doesn't think the above is 'satanic' but also doesn't see too much clear space between The South's arguments from 'Inside Knowledge' and yours from 'Superior Position'.

If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

This space available


You wrote:

And equally, most non-religious people go about their day in the same state of mental fog about their reasons - or not - for doing things; usually they do them because that's what they have always done, and that's what their folks did, and their folks before them.

Yes, that's how it is, but that is not how it MUST be. People tend to adopt the same "mindware" as those around them; it is taught largely from generation to generation, as well as from peer to peer. The mindware of rational thought could be taught in this way, too.....if people cared enough to do it.

Most of what we know we take on trust - that is how society works.

I don't mean to be particular, but I'd feel a lot better about this sentence if it said, "Most of what we BELIEVE we take on trust..." It is the trait of the cognitive miser to live from hearsay and to remain incurious about whether what he has heard is actually true. This is the M.O. of our dull society, but any of us is free to adopt some other paradigm, such as this one: http://www.jackpelham.com/2012/06/29/if-you-havent-done-the-...

And this Christian doesn't think the above is 'satanic' but also doesn't see too much clear space between The South's arguments from 'Inside Knowledge' and yours from 'Superior Position'.

I don't really follow you here, Solly. Can you spell it out a bit for me, please?

Cognitive Miser...I love it

never heard it put that way before. Our country is full of cognitive misers which is why we are in such dire straits. Their brains are filled with "knowledge" by simply listening to talking heads and sound bites on the idiot box daily, and never is there any thought or effort put into checking this supposed "knowledge" out. But hey...why not live in a fantasy world where you get your money for nothing and the chicks are free?


You might find this book interesting. I sure did.

The author show that standard IQ tests do NOT measure rational thinking at all. America officially values IQ (the efficiency of algorithmic thought, more or less), but not the rational processes of the reflective mind (logic, wisdom, reality-based thinking).

This is why, for example, Ron Paul has a great many fans who, themselves, cannot "make the argument" for Ron Paul. They "like" him, but they are not good at the higher levels of thinking required to "get" him. As an ironic result, they come across to their neighbors in exactly the opposite way of what they desire; they are a turnoff rather than a boost to the campaign. And of course, I'm not talking about ALL Paul supporters, lest anyone assume that I am.

The good news about rational thought is that it does NOT require a high IQ to be good at it. This means that practically anybody can master it. They just need to learn a few things about how to do it, and mostly, they have to WANT it because it is definitely more labor intensive than irrational thinking. It requires care, deliberacy, diligence, and lots of mental energy. So if there is to be any meaningful shift this direction in the American paradigm, it's going to have to be accompanied by getting a boatload of people to learn how to CARE again.

Good to know.

As an apologist, I'm glad to know what the next line of bs thrown at what i believe is going to be. Now I can find the holes in it and tear it down like every previous fail attempt I've ever seen. This is a real whopper though. It is creative, I'll give you that, but out of context from the rest of the bible entirely. If it was true we wouldn't have to worry about that line about false teachers that says that even if they say that he's come back already and he's over here, or look he's over there, we shouldn't believe it. When he comes back it's going to be a true event that won't be missed by anyone. Not something as mundane as a Roman attack on Jerusalem that happened in 90AD.

Next time you try to come up with something to try to kill the beliefs that someone holds dear, remember that a text without a context is a pretext. Also trying to force your beliefs by destroying the beliefs of someone else is unconstitutional. Don't infringe on our right to believe what we want and we won't tear you down in return. Thanks.

Matthew 10:16

He's not coming back because he was a fiction created by

the Flavians. I don't like it anymore than anyone else. I've followed the good book and teachings for several years, but when this information come to light, that changed for me.

I'm not saying there is no God; I still believe there is. But after doing some research and studying the history of the Jewish-Roman War along side the Scriptures, it's a no-brainer.

It's actually fascinating the con lasted over 2,000 years.

Here's more:


This is why conspiracy theorists are a drag

on this movement.