Go.

Alright.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the secular Boom cast today.

Martin and I have two great guests.

James Valiant and Warren Faye are here to discuss their documentary and their book

Creating Christ how the Romans Invented Christianity.

Good afternoon, gentlemen.

How are you?

Good, thanks.

How are you, sir?

It's great to have you, believe me.

I love how you open your documentary or the

documentary by having the viewer think you're talking about present day events in the Middle

East.

Yet it isn't, is it?

Well, there we can take some spread.

I guess the documentary was first thing I want

to say is that the documentary was created and produced by not Mr. Fey and myself.

Although inspired by our book, we're looking at Emmy award nominated documentarians who've

done previous documentaries.

They had the creative control, they made all

the visual and musical decisions.

They edited it.

I wish that I could take any credit in such a magnificent documentary.

I'm very pleased with it.

But the creative decision of theirs and out of

our control, we signed the rights over to them.

But you happen to choose one issue where there's overlap between the book and the

documentary.

We assume that they use books start.

That way to inspire the year 66 2022.

Right.

And if you think about it, that ancient war

from 2000 years ago in one sense hasn't stopped.

And we meant to give people a vivid connection between religion and politics in our own time

and how it leads to violence and terrorism and how primordial religious ideas are still at

war with more advanced Western ideas.

The basic conflict hasn't changed.

Games. Warren and Micah blair.

And please take care here with your voice.

Also, we recommend stopping your recording before hanging up.

Okay? So that's also information for the call.

So we are doing this live, but I want to do a shout out and thank you note to Fritz Heed.

Is that correct? Nonsense.

Yes.

Could you tell? Because I got access, because this is the

license and so on, mainly in North America, but I got access to that so I could watch it

and I'm blown away.

And it's a great documentary.

So could you please tell a little bit more about them, fritz he and his operation, his

companion and their work.

And then Blair, you continue with your

questions.

Sure. Go ahead, James.

Yeah, well, they're documentarians who also did a documentary on Joseph Atwell's book

Caesars Messiah.

And so they contacted us after the book came

out and they were interested in doing a documentary based on our book as well.

So that we spent a few days with them doing interviews and we visited a Catholic church

and looked at all of the symbolism that was in the architecture of the church and it was

rather vivid.

Anchors and dolphins everywhere.

They took all of that material and over the last two years they put together this

documentary.

They came to where Mr. Faye was living at the time, where I lived still.

And we went to the main Catholic church, one of the oldest here and biggest here in San

Diego, which is located at the university where I went to law school.

But, of course, that never stepped through the Cathedral Park, what they call the immaculata

at all.

That was my very first visit to that

structure, that church.

And both Mr. Fay and I were simply blown away

as we walk in for the very first time.

There's an interesting symbol over here.

You got your anchor.

Well, over here, we were just constantly

pointing out all the various things and all the various niches in the church.

Once you have that symbolic key, then you look around, you see it everywhere.

It's amazing.

The whole church was practically made out of

anchors, pourishes, of dolphins everywhere.

It's just amazing.

People never put that together, which is.

I can hear everyone.

It's a miracle.

Yeah. It's miraculous that nobody ever put

those symbols together before.

I think that there was a little zigzag in the

way that those symbols were interpreted in the modern day, because it was erroneously

associated with Augustus saying festina lente, which means make haste slowly, which was

Augustus's favorite saying.

And so it was assumed that he had issued a

coin with a dolphin and anchor on it, which never happened.

Augustus never did issue that coin.

He had a symbol of a trident and a dolphin

wrapped around it, but never of an anchor with a dolphin wrapped around it.

And so because of that, was transposed to think that it was a symbol of festina lente,

of Augustus saying it got completely overlooked as a symbol that was used by both

Christians and the Flavians.

So that disguised what was going on for a long

time.

And in fact, we do know that Augustus had a

symbol that he created to express the idea of maze slowly, or festival, which was a snail

shell and a rabbit's front moving along fast, but a snail behind.

And so that's how he actually illustrated that faith, and it never had anything to do with

the dolphin or an anger.

So that was a confusing thing that probably

let people forget, not catch what was going on between the Christians and the slavians until

we had to unravel that as well.

So, in fact, the first association of anchor and dolphin with 15 lente cannot be

attested until the ground.

Right, right.

It was the famous printer used it as his logo

of his publishing company, and he probably is the one who misuscribed it to Augustus coin.

But it is known that the Flavian emperors were the first to use the.

Symbol for use to use the at all.

Go ahead.

First and second Jewish revolts was just interesting.

So what ignited your quest to discover Christianity's origins?

Was there something you both discovered or both?

One said to the other, hey, look at this.

Or what began the quest.

Interesting, we both came from Christian families, and we both had a

Christian background, in effect, as a child.

I think I took it more seriously longer than

Mr. Faye did.

I think he was wiser in dumping the whole

thing earlier on, and he fortunately had a father who told the Bible was a closed mind,

and so he had some good, good people telling him, helping him get out of that his own way

when he was a child.

But even after we both became atheists, he is

by nature a researcher.

He is, I guess, what we would call a wonk.

He will become an expert on the detailed science of whatever that he is studying.

And so over the years we've known each other since childhood.

We've had all kinds of fascinating discussions.

We really his teens discovered Iron Rand together, for example, and much of philosophy

together.

He always wanted to be a novelist, even before

he'd read any novels by Iron Rand.

And he was a brilliant writer, even teen, and

he's gotten only more masterful sense in my book.

I recommend every novel that Warren Fay has ever published.

They are some of the finest.

He's the finest living novelist of our time.

I will be that blunt about it, and I do know I'm biased.

He's a childhood friend of mine, but I read a lot of novels.

He's just a stupendous writer.

I myself wanted to use the knowledge I got

from being a Christian woman, and so I continued my studies after I discovered

philosophers like random Nietzsche.

I had an inspiration one day at a library

reading Josephus, and I was so inspired by it that I cut a beeline when the traffic calmed

down to Mr. Fay's home and I started out his poor little apartment.

Well, you got to wake up.

You got to wake up, dude, you got to wake up.

I'm so excited about something.

One of the many connections that we talk about

in the book was just one, but it led to a whole series of chain reaction of other

implications and hypotheses.

He finally comes out his boxers needs a shame.

Okay, Jimmy, this better be damn.

I said no, really?

But that's the kind of relationship yeah.

And that was 35 years ago, and it took over 30 years to finally put it all together into the

book.

But yes, he chewed my ear off for hours that

first night, and really, we kind of came to the conclusion that was pretty close to what

the Antithesis was, which was that Christianity began as a sort of proto imperial

cult of the Flavians, or at least an aspect of their imperial cult.

And of course, it got modified, and we focused in more tightly over the years.

But that was the takeaway even from the very beginning.

I see a lot at that point in time.

Go ahead.

We each found important evidence along the way

that we just grew more and more certain that we would have to present this back to the

image issue that he brought up about Festina Lente.

Since the publication of Creating Christ, we've gotten some remarkable praise and

endorsements from various people.

One of the most remarkable is Professor Mark

dispensent.

He has just retired from King's College

London, where he taught this, his area edition in ancient history.

In this particular matter, early Christianity is astonishing.

He knows numerous ancient languages.

He is in particular and has been over the

years, an expert in ancient Roman iconography, particularly as it relates to the Christians,

and recently been converted to Roman providence thanks to our book.

And he is now currently working on a new book with various authors who advocate Roman

providence.

So it really has been an exciting,

overwhelming time.

I did not think that the book would have that

kind of impact, but so shortly for people like Dr. Price to say such nice things, professor

Eisenman, Professor Marcus Vincent to say such nice things.

It's been a really remarkable to have a documentary made on your book within five or

six years of it coming up.

I really am blown away by the reaction.

I thought, you don't want 100 years.

They might dust it off and say, you know,

these guys may have had a point or something, but to have this kind of reaction has really

blown me.

Well, that's great.

I know that Dr. Price and Dr. Eisenman are

well renowned scholars in their fields.

But they have an international reputation while those professor Vincent but I

think you have to be an open minded, creative mind to be at the cutting edge with us on

this.

I think we should expect a pushback both from

standard academia establishment types as well as Christian, obviously from your sincere

Christian apologist types.

Yeah. Speaking for myself, I rejected religion when I was seven, but unfortunately I

had to go to church till I was 18.

A lot of damage was done, so to speak, but I

could just remember, like, what is this garbage is so boring.

But that aside for me, Christianity, I said in my question, I said, It's a hoax.

But is it a conglomeration that they, like, take over pagan rituals and other myths and

then into that faith, or am I even close?

I think that religion and statecraft were one and the same in the ancient world,

and that's just how they did politics.

So we separated today and one's on one side

the other, but there wasn't any separation back then.

That makes a great deal of sense.

Yeah.

Think of what the American Revolution did by creating a secular government.

No established religion, freedom of exercise.

You think even of what Napoleon did in

attempting to secularize the governments of continental Europe.

We today, 200 years on from those developments.

We think of law as secular thing, and we think of religion as a separate thing, so that when

say, jihadists come out and say we want enforce Sharia law, what do you mean you want

religious law? Not in the west, thank you very much.

We've gotten over that, you see, in the west, in the Islamic world.

I certainly have not.

But you go back more than 300 years, there's

no separation between church and state.

The kingdoms of Europe that still have kings

and queens have established state churches unto this day, which is really astonishing if

you think about it.

Now, everything in the ancient world that was

political had a religious interpretation.

And every religious idea is obviously being

manifest in the event, the historical events, their moment, they saw them all in those

terms.

Roman Republic was a sacred institution

blessed by the gods.

They had an official, official state religion.

They all did.

The Jewish revolt itself had religious causes.

They wanted to enforce the Mosaic Law within their own territory, much the same as

consistent Muslims today want to enforce Sharia law in their countries.

And so it was a question of Roman governance and law and religious perspectives along with

the Jewish governance and law along with the religious perspectives that informed them.

But an event like the Jewish first century or the next great Jewish revolt of the second

century under Barcopa were explicitly religious in nature.

Ancient commentators said they were religious in cause.

It was the messianic prophecies of the Jews that caused this, what we would call today,

say, terrorism and religious jihad warfare 2000 years ago.

And it was a catastrophic war.

And we just simply could not believe that that

messianic inspired religious war of the first and second centuries was disconnected.

The emergence of Christianity at that very moment in history.

I see this was pointed out in your book and in the documentary.

What's the significance of Joseph's histories and the Gospels were being written at the same

time?

Well, that was actually one of the things that sparked the whole investigation

that led to the book.

James came over to my apartment in the middle

of the night and told me that he's been reading, comparing Josephus to the New

Testament Gospels and to the prophecies of Jesus coming back when the temple was

destroyed.

And he describes certain aspects of what that

scene will look like that mirrored Josephus's description of the actual sacking of the

temple 40 years later.

So of course they were written at the same

time.

Both these things were written after the fact,

the Gospels and Josephus side by side.

So the fact that those things were perfect

mirror images of each other obviously suggested there was some kind of coordination.

The numerous parallels between the Plevian emperors and the descriptions of

Christ had already been discussed by a scholar named Joseph Atwell.

For example, we had noted those long before Joseph Atwell's book was even published, many

of them at least.

And furthermore, the way Josephus describes

the siege of Jerusalem is precisely what Jesus describes in the first three canonical

Gospels.

And so much so that what Jesus said could only

imply that he was expecting the glorious coming of the Son of man to happen when the

temple was destroyed in 70 Ad and Jerusalem raised to the ground.

Well, the prophecy was obviously a post event prophecy.

So where is this glorious coming of the Son of man?

We have the temple destroyed, Jerusalem destroyed, cataclysmic events.

But there were Messiahs who claimed to be Jewish Messiahs at the time, glorious comings

of the Son of man and these were the Flavian emperors who had destroyed Jerusalem.

And I was reading in Joseph's vestasian is the Jewish messiah.

Wait, what a minute, wait a minute.

He describes the siege of Jerusalem just as

Mark 13 does, with armies fighting in the clouds invoking earlier Jewish prophecies.

So both Josephus and the Gospels use the same prophetic imagery to describe the glorious

coming of a Messiah at this time.

Jesus makes it very plain it will happen

within the lifetime of people hearing him.

And the destruction of Jerusalem and Temple

did happen at that time.

But where's this glorious coming of the Son of

Messiah? It could only be really a proof text of the

Flavian claims.

What you find in the Gospels and based on the

description or events that Josephus himself is describing, probably the very description,

since I don't think there was probably an army by the clouds over Jerusalem, they share a

common source, in other words, Josephus and the Gospels.

And Josephus is a Roman propagandist.

So you see the connections between the Roman

reaction to the Jewish war and early Christianity became more and more unstacable.

And when you look at the doctrines of the Jewish rebels versus New Testament Christians,

it becomes clear that the New Testament is a critical reaction to the militant nationalist

Torah orthodox messianic Jewish rebels of the first two centuries.

It seems that Christianity is a perfect critique of each of the elements that seem to

have alienated the Jews from Roman culture or have inspired directly to war.

Messiah, Torah, Orthodoxy, nationalism, militancy, not peace on earth and everyone can

get along.

It doesn't matter whether you're a Jew or

Greek.

All that stuff we read in the New Testament is

obviously Roman propaganda.

And a recent scholar, Professor Robin Faith

Walsh, a recent book from Cambridge University Press, which I highly recommend, basically

demonstrates that the New Testament could only have been written by Greco Roman elites of

period.

Wow.

You mentioned something about the so called the agent Paul and how maybe that was a

scheme in the long run.

Well, there is speculation that Paul himself was a Roman agent who was sent among

the Jewish rebels to sort of sow division or to mallify some of their more belligerent

tendencies.

But there's a lot of mystery there.

What exactly Paul was even the dating of Paul is still up in the air.

In the book, we take a very standard consensus scholar to view on the dating of

Paul, his letters written in the middle of the first century, basically, which is where most

scholars are.

But that's really just been a carryover

there's not a lot of good reason for specifically, there is no attestation for any

of the contents of the New Testament until the second half of the second century Ad.

That is to say, not even Christian scholars will quote earlier Christian material found in

the Judgement.

We don't even have descriptions of this

material apart from the most vague descriptions until the second half of the

second century.

A friend of mine, Jack Full of PhD candidate

at King's College London, has pointed this out and he said, in any other really good point in

any other field of ancient history, you'd be laughed off the stage if you said, this must

be first century.

There's really no attestation.

But we take a very conservative date in the book.

And since writing the book, I have become more and more convinced of a later and later dating

to both Paul's letters and the Gospels.

But to be safe, anytime between, say, 50 and

the 150 Ad are any of the potential times, because we don't have any physical manuscript

scraps of the New Testament, we have no attestation from other authors, even Christian

authors, until the second half of the second century.

So in terms of quotes and a clear naming of what we're reading.

So while we take that view, anytime between, say, the years before the first revolt and the

years following the second revolt are actually, from a strictly speaking, scientific

perspective, at plausible dates for the New Testament.

It's funny, though, that the Flavian era, the two Jewish wars, are going on right at this

moment.

There was a question earlier I'm sorry, I kind

of lost sight of your.

I was going to ask we know that Rome was open to accepting the religious

affiliations of the people they conquered, but I'm assuming that the Jewish revolted because

they didn't want to separate the state and their faith.

The Romans were very accommodating foreign religions.

They just absorbed foreign religions from the east to the Greek religion.

They just one for one, identified the pantheon early on.

But you could worship Egyptian gods like ISIS and therapists in Rome.

You could worship the Phrygian great mother.

You could, in time, worship their enemies god

Mithra from Persia.

So they were just absorbing and developing a

Roman version of all of these different Eastern religions.

If there wasn't a Roman version of Judaism, it would really be a big lacuna in the area.

Where is the Roman version of Judaism now? At first, the Romans gave exemptions to the

Jews because they couldn't even say a prayer in the presence of an idol or graven image,

you see, which is very much against Mosaic law.

So Jews were exempted from that and allowed to enforce the mosaic law in their own

territories.

See how sensitive the Romans were to all this?

It was only the Jewish war itself that brought that to an end.

Okay, yeah.

The Jews were monotheists in a world dominated

by polytheists, and there was a.

Natural conflict and their religious practice to make them separatists.

Romans said there were haters of all mankind in their antisemitic rants, but you'll notice

they can't eat with foreigners because they have kosher diet.

Foreigners for some Jews, were just impure.

They have strict sabbath observance.

They have circumcision, which made it embarrassing and difficult for them to

participate in Greek athletic activities, for example, from way back.

So they had odd beliefs that made it difficult for them to assimilate or for woman's who were

interested in being Jewish to become Jewish.

What adult man would go through circumcision,

for example? It was a hard sell feature.

So what Christianity seems to do is get rid of all of the while most distinctive elements of

Judaism are being knocked out of court.

It seems to be making a kind of messianic

Judaism, which makes it easy for Jews to assimilate into the Roman world and for Romans

who are interested in Jewish monotheism to dabble with it or go even further and absorb

it.

Philosophical monotheism was on the rise since

Plato and neoplatonism synchronism of various religions was well underway at this time.

And so there were many Romans interested in monotheism, but they didn't want to go all

that far.

So between the Gentiles who were interested in

Judaism and the Jews who were wanting to work with the Romans and assimilate into the Roman

world, christianity provided the perfect.

Okay, now let's go back a bit.

We mentioned the symbols, and I think we

talked briefly about the coinage.

Were there similarities between the Roman

coinage and religious symbols, as you say, the dolphin and the anchor?

Mr. Bago he was the guy.

I was skeptical we'd even find such an image,

but he found this image, and when I finally was able to pick my jaw up from the floor, he

showed me this image was astonishing.

He did an inventory of ancient Roman pointage,

convinced that we would somewhere find physical evidence of our thesis.

Go.

Mr. Fay.

You're working, I believe.

Well, from the very beginning, actually, from that very first night, I was

determined to investigate Roman coinage because I thought that would be the most

unique type of evidence.

Temple temples can be demolished, of course.

Manuscripts can be lost, but coins are minted in the millions.

Every single time.

They would put out, say, 6 million silver

coins in various different mints around the entire empire.

So I knew there was no way you could get rid of all those.

And it did take over 30 years.

It was the sort of like the final thing.

My mother had gone to Rome, and she had brought back a souvenir from the catacombs of

St. Domatilla, and it was a picture of the anchors flanked by two fish.

And it was the famous Christian symbol from the earliest Christian catacombs in Rome.

So I was looking at this, and then meanwhile, I'm looking through Roman coins, roman coins,

palavian coins.

And I keep seeing the dolphin wrapped around

the anchor, and I'm just not making a connection.

And here's this plaque that my mother had given me.

I've got it hanging on my wall.

I finally just wait a minute.

That's it.

That's it right there.

And so once we started looking into it, it was like an Easter egg hunt.

Both of us went off in different directions and kept finding dolphins and anchors and

dolphins and anchors throughout Christianity and throughout Flavian era.

And also another overlap.

Dolphins and tridents were used by both the

Christians and the slavians.

In the first two or 300 years of Christian history, it was far, far more common

to depict Jesus symbolically as an anchor, whereas a fish wrapped around an anchor than

it ever was the cross.

We're all familiar with fish, and sometimes it

was a fish alone, sometimes it was a fish wrapped around an anchor.

A lot of times it was just the anchor with fish heading towards it.

You see, which I'm fishers of feeder.

I'll make you fishers of men.

So the Christian converts are now civilized in terms of fish.

Like the bait.

The bait perfect.

And then you could swim with the dolphins.

Also, could you show the COVID of your book and back there and explain that?

I don't know how well, you can.

See the COVID That looks good.

This is actually taken from a mosaic Mr. Bay discovered that was covered when

Pompeii was exploded in 79, eight in the midst of the Flavian era.

And we know because of recent earthquakes there.

It was a recent Flavian era mosaic taken from Herculaneum.

And here you have a remarkable thing.

Fish and people are both coming towards the

anchor.

So in a totally pre Christian Flavian

symbology, what we're having is fish compared to people, all of them approaching the

salvation of the anchor.

Of course, it's universal symbol of safety.

So it was a specifically Flavian image that was used on mosaics.

Who knows what it represented? Apollo jesus, the flavians themselves.

What? But the point is that's distinctly Flavian

imagery, and the first time we see it on Roman coins is on coins of Titus under his brother

and successor.

Those are discontinued.

They're continued for a while and discontinued.

The only other time there was Roman use of that very image was under Hadrian during the

second Jewish revolt.

And then, of course, it was not used at all by

any other emperors.

And yet, in the very earliest physical

evidence of Christianity of any kind, the earliest physical evidence of Christianity,

any kind of those catacombs of Domatilla, and they are identified both as a Flavian site

burial site.

While the inscription does say this is the

sepulcher of the Flavians right on the inscription, but it's identified symbolically

inside as both Christian and Flavian by the use of anchor and fish and another few symbols

that are used both by the palavians and pagans interestingly.

And are repeatedly used by early Christians in the catacombs.

Okay.

One fascinating thing that we discovered was a marble facing from the

Colosseum of two dolphins wrapped around a trident.

Now, a couple of miles away, the Christians are using that symbol in the catacombs.

Why are they using a Roman symbol from the Colosseum to identify themselves only a few

miles away? This is the Colosseum where Christians were

supposed to be thrown to the lions, and they're using the Roman symbol as their own in

their catacombs.

It doesn't make sense.

Well, there's Slavian Amphitheater itself announces that it was constructed from

the spoils of the Jewish war.

The Flavian Amphitheater, built over Nero's

golden house in the wake of the Jewish war by the Flavia.

I did further research on Roman coinage, too, that I found absolutely.

I was actually writing a monograph on Roman propaganda at the time, including the coinage,

when Mr. Faye made the discovery.

You will find on first century Roman pointage,

the ideology of the New Testament.

And I would just go that far.

Compassion, forgiveness.

Concordia, Harmonia, PAX PAX, orbis terreum.

Peace on earth, goodwill, men.

We might translate all that, right.

Concordia.

Harmonia.

PAX.

Orbis.

Terreum.

Peace on earth, goodwill toward men.

We're about to celebrate Christmas.

In Luke's famous Nativity story, the angels

announce peace on earth, goodwill toward man is what Jesus prays.

It's right on.

Roman coins jiggling in pockets when the Gospels are being written.

We also found that Titus Flavius Clemens, another Flavian of that period, used

the anchor.

The anchor is his symbol because supposedly

Domician executed him by tying an anchor around his neck and throwing him into the

ocean.

A millstone around your neck that St. Clement

of Rome has an anchor to this day, on stained glass windows, you see him holding an anchor

instead of a cross.

We walk into the Catholic for the documentarians.

They have a niche dedicated to St. Clement, and there he is with his anchor.

And his name was Titus Flavius Clemens.

He was a cousin of the emperor as a member of

the emirate family.

He had married a granddaughter of Vestasian, a

niece of Titus, and it was her catacombs, her burial site.

Her body was later removed, but it was her burial site that became the earliest Christian

catacombs I e. The earliest physical evidence of Christianity that exists.

That's incredible.

Like the granddaughter and niece of the Roman emperors.

The interesting thing is, even ancient pagan historians, one of them says that

Clemens was executed, quote, for adopting Jewish ways, and his wife was banished.

Wait, what? And his family emperors claimed to be the.

Real Jewish Messiahs, and they hired a Jew to do their propaganda.

They were very well aware of the messianic prophecies and the role there.

That's why they used it in their own propaganda.

I'm the Jewish Messiah.

I'm the prince of peace who brought peace on

earth and goodwill toward men and became a world ruler.

And he had a son who was a son of God Savior, who was himself a Jewish messiah, who was the

dude who entered Jerusalem at 30, just like Jesus did, to fulfill the very prophecy Jesus

made as he's.

Entering Jerusalem, jesus walks into the

temple and morally condemns it and starts physically attacking it, morally justifying

and physically commencing the Roman destruction to come.

When you look at all of these parallels and connections to the Flavians and the Jewish

war, it becomes absolutely impossible not to see the intimate connection.

The politics of the New Testament is radically clear.

Romans 13, one of the oldest sections of the New Testament, obey the Roman state as God's

appointed agents on earth, not just to practically get along and not we don't want to

cause trouble here.

No, the Roman state are God's agent on earth.

They bring the sword to justice.

That's god's sword of justice.

That's why rebellion is a sin.

That's why paying your taxes is a moral

obligation, not just a practical good idea.

And then, of course, Jesus in the Gospels,

befriends tax collectors, impure people, says, Pay your taxes.

He says of a Roman centurion, I've not seen so much faith, not even among anyone in Israel.

So at this time of war with Roman the Jews, it's not just a Roman he praises, but a Roman

centurion, and he's got greater faith than any he knows.

Excuse me, I'm getting a little excited.

But you see what screams out as clearly Roman

propaganda over and over and over and over and over and over becomes on here on the season.

Put that together evidence the connections between early Christianity and Roman elites,

roman government elites, jews cooperating with the Roman, roman emperors themselves knew

about Roman religion, Jewish religion, and were using Jewish religion in their own

propaganda.

Okay, well, gentlemen, I'm actually getting worse here, but I have one more

question.

So both of you together, you can answer this

one at a time or whatever.

What did you really hope to accomplish by

writing this book? What were your thoughts about putting things

together?

Well, of course, truth is one of the main reasons that you want to know what really

is going on with our entire civilization.

And this is sort of a foundation that has had

a lot of downsides for Western civilization.

And so for the modern day in the 21st century,

I think it's really important for us to finally get these things settled and not have

some mystical question at the basis of everything that we're doing now in the modern

day.

So, yeah, we were able demystifying these

relics which still dominate philosophy in the modern age.

We felt a very noble ambition.

You're here.

What we say at the end of the documentary is true.

We have advanced morally, we really have over the years, and in some ways and in some ways,

we're still trapped by the ethics of the New Testament.

And we're using the ethics of the New Testament.

In effect, even secular people ateists don't question that Jesus was a valid moralist, a

good, good teacher of, you know, good ethics, and yet those ethics really aren't helpful in

the 21st century.

You know, I believe that what we really did

was to expose the moral idealism of Christianity for what it really is.

If you want to continue to be a Roman slave, I mean, yeah, turn the other to any aggression,

even when you can fight back, you can't even run away or block the punch.

You got to say other side.

Or love your enemy.

Submit to the evil doer blessed of the peacemaker.

We say on and on and on.

Obey the emperor.

My goodness.

I reject Christian morality, and we expose

Christian morality for what it was largely propaganda in those respects.

And if you want to continue to act like a Roman slave, you're free to do so.

Or you may want to question your philosophy.

Maybe you have to request the whole field of

ethics that you were raised with if you're a Christian.

And so I was hoping to accomplish and I didn't realize that at first.

At first I thought it was just an interesting little thing.

But it indicates, I think, also Iron Rand's view that altruism is ultimately powerless

politically, which is a sacrifice being asked, was someone collecting sacrifices?

Now, Iran didn't know the relationship between Christian altruism and the politics of the

day, politics of slavery and tyranny.

And again, quite accidentally, I had no idea

that we would end up doing this.

But I think we've vindicated ein Rand's view

that altruism is really a rationalization for power.

Yes, and then you have on the good note, but then and that could be a follow up

for next time about how the cross and the chiropracts came around.

And then if you want to have a crucifixion or hanging, as they say in Monte Python.

But also the serious thing that you should take the cross and feel guilty and so on.

But during this season, in English it's called Christmas, but in other languages, like in

Sweden, it's called yuval, like jewel tide.

So do you have any ending comment on that?

And also about this value for value, how we could support your great work here and the

documentary and the individuals behind the documentary, and how we could continue the

conversation about this.

It's wonderful.

Paganism about Christmas still bleeds through,

doesn't it, in certain European cultures? Is there anything about an evergreen tree or

candles and lights or so much.

Salad, like a logi logi.

Logi is a fireplace.

Right. Father Christmas or St.

Nicholas?

I know it's based on Nicholas, but there's so much of Christmas.

The way it's celebrated in the west by Christians has absolutely nothing to do with

Christianity.

It has more to do with the winter souls to

celebrations where the sun has reached its low point and now it's going to get beaten bigger.

Bigger and bigger.

Greens ever greenness to see a symbol of life

through winter.

It's all from Paganism.

Sorry? It's a seasonal thing long before

Christianity.

That's why I celebrate Christmas.

But as to the rest, I'll let.

Mr. Pagans well, I think you did a good job.

That sums it up.

You asked the second part.

Right.

The second part, which was I'm sorry, value.

Is that what you meant?

And how we could continue the conversation and spread the good word about

your excellent work and the documentary and the individuals behind that documentary.

Of course, the book is available now and the documentary will become available in

other foreign markets outside of the United States.

Good.

Progressively.

It's available on Amazon platforms shortly.

Yes. Good deal.

Right.

What else are you working on right now, if anything?

Mr. Faye is always writing something I'm hoping to collaborate with.

Now, as I say, there's a growing number of scholars.

We have a school now, we believe in Roman providence and working on a book, historical

book, I hope, with them.

And more than that, I want to back up and

write generally about Christianity and religion in general.

And pluses and minuses, as Mr. Faye indicates.

Mostly minuses, because this opens up a whole

new understanding, I think, of Western religion.

But Mr. Faye, as I say, is the greatest novelist of our time, and he's always working

on something brilliant.

Please check out Magenta.

Please check out his other novels.

Some of the finest philosophical writing

you'll ever come across is in Mr. Cray's work.

I hope that's well.

Thank you.

I'm working right now on the third and final

book of my fragment series, which is a science thriller, and it's called Symbiont.

And that will finish off that trilogy, which is continuously being shot in a policy.

And then also, I did just finish Magenta, and that is a sort of 1984 orwellian 21st century

take on oppression and high tech oppression and fascinatingly, that book.

You just could not get that.

I had sent that to my publisher of

Pandemonium, one of my novels, and he said, oh, it's really well done.

I just don't think it's the right time for Dystopia novel.

And at that particular day, in that moment, george Orwell's 1984 was number one at Amazon

after 75 years.

And I couldn't help it.

Not the right moment for Dystopian novel, I guess nobody's in the mood.

I put government lockdowns on COVID and stuff.

Yeah, he would.

But anyway, so I didn't want it to be

adulterated in any way.

So I just published it myself.

It's available through Amazon, everywhere.

He said.

Books published by Random House in McMillan.

And I think Symbiote will probably get a really good publisher as well.

Kathy has done every kind of writing in every area.

And what's so perverse to me is that what maybe his philosophical magnum opus he's

publishing himself, and he, you know.

Yeah, you can't get a book yeah.

There's no way you can publish a book like

that through it through a major publisher anymore.

And, I mean, if you think about it, where are the great novels today?

There aren't any.

It's a sad commentary.

There are philosophical novels, isn't it?

I'm surprised the degree of philosophy you managed to put into your thrillers appeared on

the New York Times bestseller list.

He manages to get in philosophy in those as

well.

Anything he writes, ladies and gentlemen, this

audience would be interested in.

Gentlemen, James Warren.

Thanks for manning the fox hole with us today.

Absolutely appreciate it very much.

I have to sign off or I'm just going to go

horrible coughing fit.

So, gentlemen, take care.

Martin, can you handle it? Yeah.

All right.

Bye, Reben.

Okay. Bye, Blair.

Wait a second.