The one I'm finding most fascinating, that's become a real "piercing the veil" wake-up moment, is the MK Ultra/Monarch programming that's apparently rampant in the entertainment industry. The work being done over at Vigilant Citizen is absolutely stellar.

Also of interest is the "alternative archeology" theories à la Graham Hancock. They range from the totally plausible "humanity is much older than we think" to the way-the-fuck-out-there "aliens conspired with a race of giants to turn apes into humans 10 million years ago" but they're all wicked fun to explore.

The conspiracy behind who created Christianity (Hint: The Flavian's of Rome).

i like This one.

Well, that's a horse of a different color. Look into Cleopatra, the exodus and the Celtics. Shit will blow your mind..... The British empire is Egypt.

What do you mean? That sounds like nonsense

The ruling Egyptian's fled after Rome dominated them. They traveled north. Interbred with the Celtics and later formed/created the British empire. It takes a whole book to understand it. I'll try to find the book link I read when not at work.

Which ruling Egyptians? The Ptolemy's were destroyed (except for Antony's children by Cleopatra who lived in Rome with Octavia)

One big issue that I've had with this idea is that there's a good chance that the Didache predates the Flavians. The earliest copy of the Didache dates from the first century AD (one scholar puts it even earlier than this) and it almost certainly is a copy of a much earlier document.

Most scholars also put some Pauline letters at an earlier date than the Flavian rise to power; however, I've also seen the claim that Paul was part of the Flavian conspiracy.

You need to look at the dates. If the Flavian family fabricated the story of Jesus why wouldn't they also fabricate a pre-text? We are talking about a conspiracy here. If the document predates it, could it not be by design to give credence?

If my memory serves (on mobile at the moment, don't feel like googling), the Flavians came into power around 70ADish? I could be remembering wrong, which would probably be screwing me up quite a bit. The earliest existing copy of the Didache is certainly from at least 100 AD, one scholar puts it as early as 50 AD.

Most scholars agree that the earliest Pauline epistles date from around 50 AD. But again, if he was in on it, and stuff was being put into place prior to 70ADish (if I'm even remembering that right) then I suppose it doesn't matter.

Still, I've never been a big subscriber to that theory. From what I recall, it suggests that the Flavians invented a messiah to placate the Jewish population. However, the Romans then proceeded to persecute those who believed in this messiah. And most of the Jews didn't accept this messiah and much of the early church was comprised of Gentiles rather than Jews.

It's an interesting hypothesis, certainly, but not one I've found very plausible, personally.

Your timeline is correct (as best as it could be), but what you fail to realize is... Yes, the church was Gentiles and not Jews. But, that very church went off to create the oldest corporation known to man. Kings bowed and converted to the church. That was the point. The Roman empire was forever embodied in the Vatican and Catholicism/Christianity. They won and the Jew hooligans lost. Christianity is the largest religion (most followers) than any other religion.

Your timeline is correct (as best as it could be), but what you fail to realize is... Yes, the church was Gentiles and not Jews. But, that very church went off to create the oldest corporation known to man. Kings bowed and converted to the church. That was the point. The Roman empire was forever embodied in the Vatican and Catholicism/Christianity. They won and the Jew hooligans lost. Christianity is the largest religion (most followers) than any other religion.

Too few get this far. Bravo.

It's a tough pill for many to swallow or they are just not into that conspiracy or they just don't know about it.

Yeah. What's the most interesting to me is this conclusion is reached from multiple difficult angles of research, from the history if major religions, political setups, European monarchies, and even American history (the King they were rebelling against was one of the Holy Electors for the Roman Empire if you read the Treaty of Paris), etc.

So interesting.

Very interesting indeed. I've researched this (ex Catholic) and was amazed by what I found. A huge factor for me was researching the Jesuits. So many rabbit holes so little time, sigh..... I do it, because I love history. If I didn't need to pay the bills, I'd be an archaeologist :).

Very interesting indeed. I've researched this (ex Catholic) and was amazed by what I found. A huge factor for me was researching the Jesuits. So many rabbit holes so little time, sigh..... I do it, because I love history. If I didn't need to pay the bills, I'd be an archaeologist :).

This thought is more common than I think we'd like to admit.

This is true. I believe we all have a longing for discovery and history. But, this shit society says we need to be investment bankers or be in some other stupid sector. Humans naturally love history and discovery (think pirates and explorers). The schools make it boring and "uncool". I buried my love of history in HS because I didn't wanna be a "nerd". I think others did so as well. We naturally wanna know the past, and it fascinates us. But, people bury it, sigh.... This current system sucks all the natural feelings out of us. I think it's by design.

This is true. I believe we all have a longing for discovery and history.

Very true for most. The trick at this point is to bring back that childish love of learning that I feel we all probably had, but this culture and this life tend to suck it out if you eventually (and I think you're spot on that it's by design).

But, this shit society says we need to be investment bankers or be in some other stupid sector. Humans naturally love history and discovery (think pirates and explorers). The schools make it boring and "uncool".

So true.

I buried my love of history in HS because I didn't wanna be a "nerd". I think others did so as well. We naturally wanna know the past, and it fascinates us. But, people bury it, sigh.... This current system sucks all the natural feelings out of us. I think it's by design.

So true again. I've been working on an idea to bring it back. If your interested, let me know. More of a summer project.

Yea, I'd be interested. What do you have in mind?

Depends on what you want to do and your level of involvement.

Well, if it's a website.. I'm a web developer. If it's something else, I'm a history scholar..

PM me.

70ADish

The Roman final destruction of the Temple was in 70 CE, and this marks the beginning of a new Christianity and a new Judaism more than any other single date, or actual event. Up until then, Paul's Jesus was a vision, not an entity in fact who walked the earth. The gospels came after 70 CE with the fleshed out myth of a real Jesus.

Unfortunately, that theory (that the Christ myth was invented by Paul, if I'm reading you correctly) doesn't fit very well with the evidence, in my opinion. Most scholars agree that Paul's earliest epistles are from around 50, which puts them 20 years (at the very least) before Mark, the earliest of the four.

Paul's letters clearly imply that he was writing to people who were already familiar with his own background, as well as that of Christ. Other early proselytizers are mentioned as well, though not necessarily by name, which implies that there were others using the already existing narrative of Christ's story (teachings, execution, resurrection, some or all of the above) to create or further their own sects.

I do agree, to some extent, that it was almost certainly after the religion had already begun to take hold that the Christ myth was fully fleshed out by the gospel writers (Reza Aslan's book "Zealot" makes a good argument for this in a few places, though I wouldn't take that book as gospel truth either, pardon the pun). However, it's most likely that the myth of Christ existed prior to the beginning Paul's ministry. At the very least, it existed prior to 50 AD, the earliest record of Paul's activity.

which implies that there were others using the already existing narrative of Christ's story

The question is "how flushed out was the "narrative of Christ's story" prior to 70 CE. The assumption is that it was more flushed out than it was. Yes, there were other sects too, but did they have a flushed out version or a version that was different than Paul?

For Paul, historical fact and detail are of little interest

But people assume that this is a bias on Paul's part, because they are assuming that Paul and the other "Christian sects" knew things, or could have known things, about Christ that they did not and could not have.

There is a reason it is hardest to study pre-gospel Christianity, there is a reason it is so obscure. Its because the Christ story only included a few references to a Christ that even could have been historical, and even those did not place Christ in a place and time that was contemporaneous to Paul. It could have been some messiah 100 or 200 years earlier.

the myth of Christ existed prior to the beginning Paul's ministry

Sure, but the devil is in the details here. Now we are into gnostic, Essene kind of stuff. Egyptian mystery school stuff. Stuff that linked back to Greek and even possibly Buddhist influences.

To talk of a Jesus of Nazareth is a completely different story, and a very, very different Christianity.

The Bible, to repeat, is an anthology of Hebrew and late Greek literature, edited and put forth by a council of Catholic bishops who believed that they were acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Before this time the Bible as we know it did not exist. There were the Hebrew Scriptures and their translated into Greek the Septuagint, which was made in Alexandria between 250 B.C. and 100 B.C. There were also various codices, or Greek manuscripts, of various parts of the New Testament, such as the four Gospels. There were numerous other writings circulating among Christians, including the Epistles of Saint Paul and Saint John, the Apocalypse (Revelation) and such documents (later excluded) as the Acts of John , the Didache , the Apostolic Constitutions and the various Epistles of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp.

In those days, and until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century, the Scriptures were not understood exclusively in a narrow literal sense. From Clement of Alexandria (Second Century) to Saint Thomas Aquinas (13th Century), the great theologians, or Fathers of the Church, recognized four ways of interpreting the Scriptures: the literal or historical, the moral, the allegorical and the spiritual and they were overwhelmingly interested in the last three. Origen (Second Century) regarded much of the Old Testament as "puerile" if taken literally, and Jewish theologians were likewise preoccupied with finding hidden meanings in the Scriptures, for the concern of all these theologians was to interpret the Biblical texts in such a way as to make the Bible intellectually respectable and philosophically interesting. Concern over the historical truth of the Bible is relatively modern, whether in the form of fundamentalism or of scientific research.

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/alan-watts-bible.html

Can't say it's a "favorite," as that seems like a weird word to use. I'm not even sure if you could count it as a conspiracy theory, really, but I believe that St. Brendan discovered the Americas before either the Vikings or Columbus or anyone else.

My least favorite conspiracy is that everyone seems to think I'm a shill for some reason.

Edited because I accidentally a word.

lol, well, it could be your name. Jokes aside, got any links on this? Seriously interested. Because there is a theory that the phoenicians visited North America way before any viking or christian. It's actually said that they mined the iron ore out of mines in Michigan.

edit: spelling

Unfortunately, there's not really much evidence supporting the idea that it actually happened. The rational side of me says it's probably legend, but the irrational side believes it regardless of the lack of hard evidence.

Wikipedia

History

National Geographic

An Old Essay - Project Gutenberg

If you can get a copy of "The Voyage of Saint Brendan" from your local library, it's an interesting read, if you're into old literature. I can't find a good copy of it online.

Thanks for the links. But, phoenicians predate 900AD. They were master sailors of their time and created much of the sailing routes in the Mediterranean and beyond. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia. It's fascinating stuff if you like history. They are said to be the children of Atlantis.

To be clear, St. Brendan would have done it around 500-600ish AD, not 900. But the Phoenicians predate him still. IF either of them did that.

Correct. There is evidence of Phoenicians in the US discovered in mines (in Michigan). Some mines were emptied prior to known excavations/mining. Which leaves researchers baffled.

We secretly love you cuz your name sez black sheep and ignorant bots fail to read and oh fuck it!

There were giants found all over the Americas with Red Hair but the Shills hid that Info.

Fuck. I'm exhausted!

Dream. Dream well!

Should be self explanatory

synthetic telepathy and mind control technology. Yes it exists, they can read your thoughts.

Thanks for the links. But, phoenicians predate 900AD. They were master sailors of their time and created much of the sailing routes in the Mediterranean and beyond. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia. It's fascinating stuff if you like history. They are said to be the children of Atlantis.

You need to look at the dates. If the Flavian family fabricated the story of Jesus why wouldn't they also fabricate a pre-text? We are talking about a conspiracy here. If the document predates it, could it not be by design to give credence?