Site hosted by Build your free website today!


The Roman Piso Forum



Before I start to illustrate the examples of rhetoric and propaganda
that are contained within the New Testament, I’d like to say a few
words about just how amazing it is to my mind that someone has not
worked on this before in a widely public work. And the same goes
for the listing of correlations between the works of Flavius Josephus
and the New Testament. These two areas to me would seem the most
obvious to even the most ordinary person, with even the a very
minimal level of background knowledge about this subject.

Never did I think that I would have to do so much of the basic
ground-breaking work myself… but so much seems to have escaped
the attention of so many for so long. I hope that these areas will no
longer be taken for granted or taken lightly and that they may be
taught and taken as the examples that they are.

I realize that most persons at this point in time have no background in
ancient history, let alone a good working knowledge of the true history
of those times and so, what may be found by those persons are rather
limited. But as for the things stated above, those should have been
found even by those of the Old Classical Scholarship - at least to some

And as for myself, what is foremost in my mind about this is what we
find in the New Testament that is aimed towards the Jews. We must
must never forget just how much knowledge that the authors of the
New Testament possessed. They were keenly aware of just what and
how much they could say in the NT about any certain thing without
giving away what they were doing.

And so, instead of saying (in the NT) that "the Jews were the enemies
of all Romans and Christians" outright in the NT, they merely
‘indicated’ that with various statements that were aimed against the
Jews. The reason that they did not want to state this clearly and in a
forthright fashion in the NT is because that would be (leave) evidence
that would too strongly show the purpose of the statements themselves.

What they resolved to do then was to make ‘indicating’ statements
against the Jews in the NT so that those could be expounded upon
orally (vocally) in churches and other meeting places (such as military
camps), without leaving too much WRITTEN evidence as to the true
purpose of those "antisemetic" statements. They were not put there for
a benign or arbitrary reason, they actually served a critical purpose.

Before we go too far in this article, we should make sure that we first
understand just what ‘rhetoric’ is as well as ‘propaganda’, so that we
can appreciate our ability to identify it and so that we will not fall victims
of it ourselves in the future. Too many times we’ll find others using
and even use the word ‘rhetoric’ ourselves to mean simply something
that we do not understand or generically even to statements made by
others that merely ‘appear’ to us to have been fabricated. That is not
what rhetoric truly is. Rhetoric is an expressly devised statement that
was meant by the designer of that piece of rhetoric to achieve a desired
effect upon those who hear, read and/or use that statement - it is the
encapsulation of an idea or ideology that may be wholly or in part untrue
or non-real, but which is meant to appear ‘real’ and valid. Rhetoric is
also found in the form of "questions", and this is most effective rhetoric
because the hearer or reader of it is left to ‘ponder’ the statement and
the ‘answer’ is almost always a foregone conclusion because of the
particular words used in the question. The average person is taken in
very easily by rhetoric simply because they are uneducated to it.

Webster’s dictionary gives a luke-warm definition of rhetoric and so
persons reading that definition never know the full and true meaning
of what it really is. The dictionary says; "the art of effective and
persuasive use of language." It should say something more like this;
"the creative use of words, phrases, questions and other statements
used for the express purpose of deception." I realize that some persons
today do use rhetoric and propaganda in political areas as a means to
achieve some ‘good’ goals. However, they should not HAVE to. The
reason that this may become necessary is because THAT rhetoric is
used to ‘counter’ what has already been or is being used by the other
side. And so, until we are ALL able to automatically ‘see’ and
understand rhetoric and propaganda, we will be subject to it and the
masses will be taken in by it. That is why rhetoric and propaganda
should be an essential that is taught in our public schools. Instead, we
see the opposite - we see the attempts to bring into schools rhetoric
which was designed to "dumb them down" (i.e., the bible & prayer).

Webster’s now defines "propaganda" as, "the systematic widespread
promotion of a particular doctrine or idea." Or "material distributed to
win people over to a particular doctrine." Again, another less-than-
correct definition. "Propaganda" used to be truly and correctly defined
as "the systematic promotion of HARMFUL and/or UNTRUE doctrines,
ideas, or material." Or as a definition for the HARMFUL and/or
UNTRUE material itself. Those who control the meaning of words,
as those who may control and CHANGE the meaning of words in our
dictionaries - control the perception of those words by the masses. Even
this, is a tool that is used to control the minds of the masses. Surely not
EVERYTHING being promoted can be defined as "propaganda"!!!

Now, for a few examples of rhetoric & propaganda in the New Testament.

(1) Antisemetism in the New Testament. Some of this is overt and fairly
obvious, while some is very well hidden. There was a major war going
on when the New Testament was being written. Although there are
rhetorical devices related to this war in the NT, a good deal of it is

When I think of a piece of propaganda in the New Testament that also
serves the purpose of a rhetorical device, I think of where the New
Testament tries to make the case that IT was/is a fulfillment of a its
own prophesy. The Gospels make it that the [war] destruction of
Jerusalem and the Temple were a fulfillment of THEM, rather than
that they were written as a part of the war! How do we know that
this is the case? Because THEY (the Gospels) were written AFTER
THE FACT and so could not have contained predictions about what
would happen, because they had already happened.

This is a piece of propaganda produced specifically for the purpose
of giving the Roman soldiers, Christian believers and others who made
up the masses in the Roman empire the illusion that being on the side
of Rome against the Jews (in the war) was something that ‘God’ both
wanted and demonstrated to them.

The author of the Gospel of John makes the Jews say in his "Gospel";
"This man is performing many signs. If we leave him alone like this
the whole populace will believe in him. Then the Romans will come
and sweep away our temple and our nation." (John 11:47-48)

The Gospel of John is known to have been written at a much later
date than when this occurred. The Temple was destroyed in the year
70 CE. The Gospel of John was written circa 105 CE accoring to
Abelard Reuchlin.

(2) The making of more Christians. Using the line in Genesis about
going forth and being ‘fruitful’ is has been used for hundreds of years
to get Christians to produce more Christians, and is still used in a very
effective way still today (most especially by the Catholic Church). So,
just by having babies and/or big families, more Christians are produced
from existing Christians. Secondly, they are commanded as a part of
the ‘requirement’ of being a Christian to proselytize and ‘convert’
others. This is an example of rhetorical devices in the Bible and the New
Testament specifically to achieve goals that were thought essential by
the authors of the bible to ensure that Christianity ‘grew’. Never do you
see an ‘honest’ and straight forward statement in the bible. It is all
made very slick and ‘asks’ all of the right things from believers in order
to reach its OWN goals. Remember, it was a family of the world’s
greatest con artists who were creating the bible. They were not just
thinking of things in their own time, but of the future of their own
family being able to make a good living off of believers. To do this
effectively, they knew that they would need to ensure that more and
more Christians were being created. By the same token, the more
Christians there were within a populace, the easier the populace would
be to control and manipulate on a political level.

(3) Tithes and bequests. This is one of the big differences that came
with the invention of Christianity. Though this existed previously in the
form of ‘sacrifice’, that was not enough for them. So, a whole new
system was developed. One where instead of the offering of produce and
pieces of livestock and the occasional clay pot. Those would be replaced
by cold hard cash. So, the ‘sacrifice’ was changed to ‘tithe’. And even
a percent, a fixed amount was arrived at by comparing the tithing
amount to the amount given in taxes. And the idea of bequests were
pushed orally by the priests. This meant that not only would the church
receive money on a regular basis, but that they would be most likely to
receive real property and the accumulation of wealth acquired during
the lifetime of their ‘faithful’. Again, this was and still IS a con game!
And we need to expose this fact to everyone that we know so that it can
one day END.

Do you want to know about a rhetorical device that was put into the
New Testament in order to get persons to both donate heavily to the
church and to get persons to make bequests to the church? Here it is;
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle that it is for
a rich man to enter into the kingdom of god (i.e., "heaven")." This bit
of rhetoric was put in three separate places in the New Testament to
make sure that it would NOT be missed. It is in Mark 10:25, Matt. 19:24,
Luke 18:25. This rhetoric was placed into the New Testament so that
persons would sign a bequest and therefore technically be "poor" when
they died, that way, they could go to ‘heaven’. What a scam! The whole
of the New Testament is one long con designed to manipulate persons
to the fullest!

(4) Rhetoric in general. The rhetoric of the book of Acts is one example
that has been noted by scholars. The "Acts of the Apostles", was a whole
book with a specific rhetorical purpose - to give the illusion that
Christianity was ALREADY known (and accepted) by the masses
throughout the Roman empire. The purpose of this illusion was to create
word of mouth advertising of the religion as a controversial issue among
the masses. (See "The Bible as Literature: The New Testament," by
Buckner B. Trawich, 1968, pg. 69).

Apparently small, simple phrases were used as rhetoric as in this example;
"… full of grace and truth." (John 1:14). Though it is true that these
authors did indeed leave us works that are "full of (their) "grace"" (sic),
and also full of truth regarding history as well, it is only there for those
who "hath wisdom" and can "see" (determine) it for themselves. And so,
there is really an ‘omission’ in this statement that can also be seen as an
‘inference’. The whole statement would then be; "… full of grace and
FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT." And the truth was that very few persons
could see and understand what that "grace" and "truth" really was/is. By
the way, this is also what is meant by the "secret" or "mystery of the
Gospels". What is meant by ‘grace’ is what the persons who were playing
‘god’ were kind enough to leave to us in order to find out that the whole
thing was indeed a fraud. Because these authors had complete control over
ALL that they wrote and whatever they chose to leave to us in order for
us find out just what they had done - they called this ‘grace’. Their ‘grace’
which they most graciously gave to us, when they did not have to. They
wanted to make sure that we understood that. And the "truth" was/is what
we can render from their writings once we have eliminated the untrue (by
deduction). So, the effect of the example here is the deception of the
masses purposefully and deliberately so as to give them the illusion that
they were indeed receiving something great and good - ‘grace’ and ‘truth’
when in fact they were being ‘hustled’. And that, is an example of a
rhetorical device.

Here is a quick list of some of the ideologies that they used to make the
whole ‘machine’ that they created work:

The idea of a "soul", for the purpose of making people think that they had
something of themselves as individuals to ‘save’. That creates the NEED
for that something to facilitate that - and so, you are given that by way of
the belief in Jesus.

The idea of Heaven and Hell. Remember, I said that these were things
that they ‘used’, not that the creators of Christianity necessarily created.
The Christian religion was a ‘refinement’, a largely improved version of
the older religions. Heaven (or rather the idea of it) existed previously in
the form of ‘the elisian fields’ for Greeks & Romans, and was given other
names elsewhere. And Hell, was previously "Hades". But these were not
real either. The Bible and the New Testament specifically reveals by way
of "disclaimers" that Heaven and Hell do not exist. The New Testament
makes openly false promises of life after death and so on.

The very idea of Heaven as a place to live in after death is a rhetorical
device created for the purpose of convincing people that they have to do
and/or believe certain things in life in order to ‘get there’. And with
Hell as the alternative if you do not… well, that is a pretty persuasive
ideology for those who don’t have a clue about any of this.

And then there is the idea of "miracles", that anything can happen in
your favor as long as you ‘believe’. This is also a part of the whole idea
of supernatural things and superstitions to confuse the mind with as
with the idea of angels, ghosts, demons and the devil/satan. You may
notice that Heaven is only offered to those who ‘believe’. That, is
rhetoric, because it offers no other choice to persons in order to obtain
the preset ‘goal’ of a life in Heaven. But it does not answer what
happens to those who never knew about Christianity in the first place.

We know of several devices that were used to persuade persons into
believing that should be mentioned here as well. One of those is that
long tubes have been found at ancient alters and other religious ruins
were persons behind the altars were talking into the tubes to those who
were there to worship and sacrifice. The tubes made the voice of the
person speaking resound, sounding loud and authoritative; like the voice
that one would imagine a ‘god’ to have. It is obvious that these were
used to deceive persons with. Another example would be where certain
"signs" from ‘god’ are referred to. Among these signs are all manner of
natural occurrences - those same things that we take for granted today;
thunder & lightening, earthquakes, erupting volcanoes, shooting stars,
lunar and solar eclipses. One of the more powerful of these ‘signs’ were
the eclipses as they would appear to the common person to happen
ONLY when the high priest said they would; and that was when ‘god’
wanted the masses to do what he wanted. And this ‘prediction’ by the
priest that this was going to occur before it actually did, was used as a
means to convince even the most ardent disbeliever that ‘god’ indeed
was giving them a ‘sign’. We know now that the rulers and priests in
ancient times actually knew when these eclipses would happen before
they did, and that is because they had been keeping records of them for
thousands of years! And we know today too, when these will happen by
the use of this same method - they run in cycles and therefore can be
‘predicted’ in advance. Religion is now, and always has been just a big
con game. The Bible is literary "Snake Oil". And THAT is the truth.

The emotional ‘weight’ of all of these ‘goodies’ that Christianity offers
is very hard for the average person to resist… IF, they believe them to
actually be TRUE. But they are not. They are there for persuasion only.

Many persons have been thoroughly indoctrinated into a ‘god way’ of
thinking by exposure to persuasive language, rhetoric and many other
things that have been ‘woven’ into the very fabric of society. They may
have no idea of what life would be like without the idea of a god or any
of that whole ideology. But the reality of this is that what reality and
truth without Christianity and religion would offer is: No God, which
also means no devil or demons, no supernatural, no hell, but still the
possibility of a heaven of our own making. And the elimination of the
largest and longest lasting scam and crime against humanity.

These authors of the New Testament were ‘slick’ and experts in the art
of manipulation. And now, how can they manipulate people unless they
‘believe’ and believe beyond all else? And so, they worked very hard on
the "faith rhetoric". They did all that they could to ‘blur’ the meaning
of and concept of ‘faith’ with other things such as ‘hope’ (1 Cor. 13:13)
and also of equating faith with ‘power’ (Acts 6:8), and of making it
appear to be a ‘virtue’ to be developed and ‘strengthened’ (Luke 8:48).

They took the trouble of making (giving) and example of a ‘doubter’ in
the form of Thomas (as in ‘doubting Thomas’ in Mark 3:18, Matt. 10:3,
Luke 6:15). Persons would be ‘complimented’ on their "great faith" in
the New Testament (Matt. 8:10). Faith was even given as something that
was semi-logical by explaining what it ‘is’; "Now faith is the substance
of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). But
that of course, is just rhetoric. It really makes no sense at all. All it really
‘says’ is that air is air. That nothing is still nothing, no matter what you
call it. But it gives the impression to the uninformed reader that ‘faith’
is really something, as if it is what you make of it and not an exercise in
futility. By the way, that passage is not how is was in the original texts.

Hebrews 11:1, was stated this way originally; "Now faith is of things
hoped for, the assurance of things not seen." The rest was added and
changed by later "interpreters". And, ‘faith’ was a rhetorical device
used to rally military troops during war; "fight the good fight by faith"
(1 Titus 6:12). And for all those who did not go along, they were then
mocked; "O ye of little faith…" (Matt. 6:30, 8:26, 14:31, 16:8 and in
Luke 12:28). But about ‘faith’, read on, you will be shown the disclaimer
that shows that they were indeed lying about the truth.

(5) The use of "disclaimers". You may see persons speaking of the many
‘contradictions’ that are found in the bible. You may even know of some
of those yourself. Most of those ‘contradictions’ are really what we’d call
today ‘disclaimers’. They put disclaimers into what they wrote so that they
could rightly claim to be telling the "truth". This allowed them to say just
about anything that they wanted to and still allow them to say that it was/
is "the truth". This was really just a huge manipulation of language and of
the readers of their writings. These people were con artists who had the
privilege of being royal and having access to everything that they needed
in order to produce and maintain the largest and longest lasting con ever!

By the use of disclaimers, they COULD indeed tell the truth; but in the
most deceptive ways! The way that they hide these disclaimers reminds
me of the con artists who used to use "fine print" in order to hide the
truth. Anyway, here is the disclaimer about the truth in the books of the
New Testament. Now bear in mind that this is supposed to be Jesus
speaking in the following verses;

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is NOT true." John 5:31

And then, just a few verses later he says;

"I am one that bears witness of myself." John 8:18

This, is an admission that he is indeed lying. Lying about all things
that he was stating! An admission that this was all really a hoax.

And you can’t say that they did not warn you. Because they DID give
this disclaimer as well;

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but
who are really ravenous wolves!" Matt. 7:15

"This is Jesus the prophet, of Nazareth of Galilee." Matt. 21:11

They warned you about those in sheep’s clothing, but not about the
one in lamb’s clothing (Jesus, the ‘lamb’)! And you can’t blame them
either, because saying "beware of false prophets in LAMB’S clothing"
would not be in their own deceptive interest - remember, their main goal
was to DECEIVE the reader. They did make the analogy though and
the "disclaimer" - again, you can’t say that they didn’t warn you! They
very effectively said, "Look, now you beware of false prophets… o.k.?
Got it? Alright." And then they proceeded to produce the false prophet
with which to deceive you with!

And the reason for saying sheep’s clothing was so that they could put
in an allusion to their ancestors by a secret reference to the "golden
fleece" (i.e. a sheep’s fleece/clothing). And why do they say "wolves"?
This is because the authors are ROMANS and the royal Romans were
thought of as ‘wolves’ because their ancestors Romulus and Remus
were suckled by a she-wolf. So, always remember that the false
prophet that they warn you against IS Jesus! This is a "disclaimer".
They set out to deceive and manipulate the readers of the New
Testament before they even started work on it - that was the goal!

This information was brought to you courtesy of:




Copyright 2000, The Roman Piso Homepage
(All Rights Reserved)

( =)=