Alternative Genealogy

[Seeker]

Hello, I have had some experience with family genealogy, and would like to start a thread about the alternative genealogies that have been proposed for the figure known as Jesus Christ, and perhaps correlating them with the possible origins of the religion that bears his name, without cluttering up the threads that have already been posted relating to this topic. Much has been written on this site about how the the Roman cult of Julius Caesar could have evolved into the Roman religion of Jesus Christ, could there have been a genealogical connection as well? Here is what I have found so far connecting Jesus Christ to Julius Caesar in genealogies proposed by alternative history authors:

(1) Ralph Ellis in "Cleopatra to Christ" proposes that Jesus was the great-grandson of Julius Caesar through a presumed posthumous daughter by Cleopatra.

(2) "Roman Piso" in his papers proposes that Jesus was a pseudonym of a Roman aristocrat whom he calls Arrius Calpurnius Piso (among many other names), whom, in another genealogy that I have seen, was possibly, but probably not, also the great-grandson of Julius Caesar through the Pisos, UNLESS this Arrius Piso is the natural son of the Roman Emperor Caligula (as "Roman Piso" states that Caligula stole the mother of Arrius Piso from his father), which would make Jesus/Piso the gt-gt-gt-gt-grandnephew of Julius Caesar. The father of Caligula, Germanicus, was adopted by Roman Emperor Tiberius, which could have made Jesus the adopted gt-gt-gt-grandson of Julius Caesar (see Tony Bushby below) in a natural way. However, Charles N. Pope (see below) makes Caligula the biological son of Tiberius, the biological son of Augustus, the biological son of Julius Caesar, which would make Jesus/Piso the great-great grandson of Julius Caesar by Caligula. At any rate, the marriage of his relative Calpurnia Piso to Julius Caesar would imply some sort of relationship to him.

(3) Charles N. Pope on his "Domain of Man" site makes Jesus the grandson of Julius Caesar by his son Caesarion.

(4) Tony Bushby in "The Bible Fraud" makes Jesus the natural son of the Roman Emperor Tiberius, the stepson, adopted son and also son-in-law of Augustus, who was the adopted son and grandnephew of Julius Caesar, which would make Jesus a sort of step/adopted great-grandson of Julius Caesar or a great-great-grandnephew-in-law of Julius Caesar. Again though, Charles N. Pope (above) makes Tiberius the biological son of Augustus, the biological son of Julius Caesar, which too would make Jesus the great-grandson of Julius Caesar.

Thus, it appears that these alternative history authors, that I have so far discovered, have made Jesus a distant or illegitimate member of the Imperial Julio-Claudian family, and descended from Julius Caesar by blood or adoption, but it was all a "secret", to mainstream historians, anyway!

 

[Jerry Russell]

When discussing the figure known as 'Jesus Christ' we also need to consider that many of the tales in the Gospels are obviously allegorical or fictional. Many of the quoted sayings can either be attributed to earlier figures, or else may have been fabricated by the Gospel authors. And to the extent that there's any biographical or historical information at all about this figure known as 'Jesus Christ', this information may represent a composite of two or more actual, living human beings.

About the genealogies suggested above:

(1) Ellis is referring to a known historical figure, a king of the Abgarid dynasty of Edessa: Manu VI son of Abgar V. Ellis furthermore argues that Manu VI is one and the same person as the king known in Josephus as Izates Monobazus II.

(2) The primary goal of "Roman Piso" is to establish a genealogy for Josephus. He argues that the true identity of Josephus was Arrius Calpurnius Piso, the son of Gaius Calpurnius Piso and Arria the Younger. And furthermore, "Abelard Reuchlin" thinks that Caligula seduced Arria, cuckolded Gaius, and thus grafted his family genes into Arrius. See my article 'Mateo Piso Christ, son of Jane the Virgin'.

The historical character 'Josephus' (actually, 'Arrius Calpurnius Piso') is furthermore related to 'Jesus' as the author of the New Testament, in which the character 'Jesus' is recognized as an autobiographical representation of the author.

But certainly, no one would say that Izates Monobazus II is the same person as Arrius Calpurnius Piso.

(3) Pope says (here) that this grandson of Julius Caesar was Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus, illegitimate son of Caesarion with Agrippina, daughter of Julia the Elder. Is this the same person as Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus (consul 19) whose official grandfather was Marcus Junius Silanus, but whose parents names are apparently unknown to historians? And what does this person have to do with Jesus? Perhaps it's necessary to buy the book. At any rate, this is clearly not the same historical person as Manu VI son of Abgar V, nor the same as Arrius Calpurnius Piso.

(4) Bushby has two Jesus characters who are twins, one of whom was a Galilean militant, and the other a Jewish high priest. Their mother is Mariamne Herod. Neither of these two characters seems to be the same as Manu VI, or Josephus, or Torquatus consul 19. Although various Jesus characters cited in Josephus are either Galilean militants, high priests or both, and Ellis identifies these characters with Manu VI.

All four (or less?) historical characters have in common, that their official genealogies have nothing to do with Julius Caesar. In every case, the alleged connection is a result of a cuckolding event or other obscure trickery.

Of course we Postflavians are not above scandal mongering. As we proved with our Melania Trump pictorial compendium, cultural degradation draws lots of traffic. But at the end of the day, we have to confess that it's impossible to prove anything... especially after the passage of almost 2000 years.

 

[Jerry Russell]

But at the end of the day, we have to confess that it's impossible to prove anything...

Did that sound too harsh? I wasn't meaning to shut down the discussion. I think it's well known that the Roman royals were not known as marital straight arrows. Our view of "scandal" and "cultural degradation" is somewhat ironic, in that we acknowledge that the royals use these concepts as a bludgeon to attack common people, while they themselves indulge in all sorts of "degraded" behavior. All I'm saying is, I don't see how we can be certain about the true parentage of any of these figures.

 

[Seeker]

Thank You for your very rational, point by point, well thought out response. I do appreciate it, and it may take me more than one posting to adequately (for me, anyway) respond to it, but of course that makes my new thread look longer!
Yes, I tried to make clear that this was "alternative" genealogy by "alternative" authors, and certainly not the historical ones for these historical or otherwise characters.

When discussing the figure known as 'Jesus Christ' we also need to consider that many of the tales in the Gospels are obviously allegorical or fictional. Many of the quoted sayings can either be attributed to earlier figures, or else may have been fabricated by the Gospel authors.

This is indeed true, which is why I did not refer to the Bible at all in my analysis, nor quote from any of the genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew or Luke, although I do find it interesting that in Luke 3:23 (KJV) Jesus is described "being (AS WAS SUPPOSED [a later interpolation?]) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (from Helios, implying a solar connection)"?

And to the extent that there's any biographical or historical information at all about this figure known as 'Jesus Christ', this information may represent a composite of two or more actual, living human beings.

I agree 100% with you, as that is exactly what Ellis, Piso, Pope, and Bushby appear to be doing, though not all of their composite characters appear to be historical.

 

[Seeker]

Did that sound too harsh? I

I assure you that I am not offended, I welcome constructive criticism, that is how I learn more.

All I'm saying is, I don't see how we can be certain about the true parentage of any of these figures.

That is surely right, we may never know the truth, but that does not prohibit me from becoming a "Seeker" of it.

 

[Seeker]

(1) Ellis is indeed referring to a historical figure, and as a matter of fact he is actually combining two historical figures, as you mentioned, besides combining "Josephus" Jesuses with him/them, but I make no criticism of him, as Piso and Pope look to be doing the same thing, with Bushby actually dividing Jesus in two as twins, but he probably got that idea from the Apocryphal Acts of Thomas, so I don't think he made that up out of thin air, and perhaps Jesus did actually have a twin, if not a brother(s), but, as has been mentioned before, we need more evidence.
Even with all of those connections, though, Ellis in his family tree of Jesus still has Julius Caesar as his great-grandfather, so do we say that Ellis is right with "Jesus" but wrong about his Imperial Roman ancestry? Or has he written another book that I do not know about in which he retracts that information?

 

[Seeker]

But certainly, no one would say that Izates Monobazus II is the same person as Arrius Calpurnius Piso.

(2) Including myself. Perhaps I did not state it clearly enough, but for now I was merely listing 4 different theories, one after the other, and not trying to connect all of them together, except in a possible relationship to Julius Caesar. I did not wish to overwhelm and overkill with possible other characterizations, and was trying at the beginning to stick to one person, Julius Caesar, because of the Roman religious evolution of his deity to that of Jesus in Postflaviana development. I would have to say that the primary goal of both "Abelard Reuchlin" and "Roman Piso" was to ascribe the composition and characters of the New Testament to a Roman origination, with both Jesus and Josephus, and many other characters besides, being literary manifestations of one man, Arrius Calpurnius Piso, if he himself even existed. Julius Caesar, as a real, historical, human being (and certainly a Roman), is incidentally in the mix, as either an ancestor or a relative, and conducive to my line of thought at the present time. Historically in the record, he was married to a Calpurnia, so there is a Piso relationship, even if Arrius Calpurnius Piso is as much an invention as his New Testament characters are supposed to be.
By the way, I had read both Abelard Reuchlin and your article previous to writing this, and had enjoyed both of them. I knew that you would be aware of the Caligula angle, and I had seen that Roman Piso in his genealogy of Arrius Calpurnius Piso had included Caligula among the husbands (or partners) of his mother. By the way, did you notice at the bottom of page 22 of the Reuchlin booklet that he queried if the "Arius" personal name of Piso was "the possible source of the name Artorius or Arthur--as in King Arthur?!" So in a way Piso's "Jesus" is a prototype of "King Arthur", which correlates with the Ellis interpretation. I love being able to TS (Tupper Saussy) "reconcile", I always took that parting advice in "Rulers of Evil" to heart, though this isn't exactly how he meant it, as it was "lost in (my) translation"!

 

[Seeker]

(3) Pope says (here) that this grandson of Julius Caesar was Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus, illegitimate son of Caesarion with Agrippina, daughter of Julia the Elder. Is this the same person as Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus (consul 19)

(3) I believe Pope was equating "Jesus" with the son by that nearly identical name. If ever a spreadsheet was needed, as Richard has suggested, it would be for the multiple identifications in this "Domain of Man" site, which according to Pope were possible because this Uber-Elite family had access to almost unlimited power and wealth, which enabled them to travel extensively, rule many countries using different names, disguises, and doubles (the common people, living primarily in one village all of their lives, would seldom, if ever, see their rulers, and even then from a distance, when a substitute could be employed). Pope also believes in many "faked" deaths and "resurrections" in another country under a new name. No, it clearly was not "Manu" or "Abgar" or "Piso" that was meant by this person, but then again, I was not suggesting that (yet!), but if I am following Pope correctly they could have been (or nearly anybody else, for that matter), because "all the world's a stage" for them and their "family". As you noticed, Julius Caesar connects through Caesarion to this Roman "Jesus" branch.

(4) Bushby has two Jesus characters who are twins, one of whom was a Galilean militant, and the other a Jewish high priest. Their mother is Mariamne Herod. Neither of these two characters seems to be the same as Manu VI, or Josephus, or Torquatus consul 19. Although various Jesus characters cited in Josephus are either Galilean militants, high priests or both, and Ellis identifies these characters with Manu VI.

(4) Again, no, they do not seem to be the same as Manu, Josephus, or Torquatus, but that was not my intention to attempt to link them at this time, only to Julius Caesar, and Bushby has done that by making these Jesus/Judas twins the natural sons of Roman Emperor Tiberius, of the Julio-Claudian Imperial Roman House founded by Julius Caesar. Interesting links to Ellis: (1) Utilizing the same story in the Talmud for their own projections, Bushby makes these Jesus/Judas twins the sons of a "Panthera" Tiberius, and Ellis has Jesus as a possible secret son of "Pantera" Ptolemy of Mauretania, and (2) Bushby has the twin Jesus sent to England for religious training and eventually become "Rabbi Jesus Cunobeline", and then "Bran the Blessed" when he became "King of Britain", as Ellis has his "Jesus" exiled to England and become the prototype of "King Arthur". Even Piso and Pope get into the act, as I mentioned previously that "Arius" could develop into "Arthur", and Pope in another place on his site mentions that "Bran the Blessed" of Britain was another identity of Jesus or Josephus. At this point, I am not affirming that any of this is true, I am merely making comparisons between these alternative history authors and how they showed genealogical connections from Julius Caesar to Jesus in their works, whether feasible or not, as Postflaviana has tried to show connections religiously from "Caesar and Christ" (to borrow a title from Will Durant). This is not my "gospel" by a long shot!
From the remarks that you have previously made, am I correct in thinking that you prefer the version provided by Ellis (up to a point), that the historical figure Manu VI could possibly be Izates and various Jesus characters in Josephus, or did you give him primacy because the "Ellis Jesus" happened to be first (intentionally) on my list?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Long ago we started out with the notion that, if there was any historicity, the gospel Jesus was likely a composite character, and I see no reason to deviate from that position now. I think it is most helpful to always keep in mind of all the Pythagorean and other esoteric embedded in both the gospels and the Pauline corpus, that this Jesus is also a composite amalgamation of prior pagan dying god-men.

As such, perhaps Jesus was constructed, using the prior Serapis merger model - on steroids, such that it was meant for the many seekers to get hung up on their favorite candidate, and thus be more likely to ignore what is most important?

The believers, of all different varieties, tell us that its all about 'salvation', of our souls, and I have always struggled with what this really means. We find out that the Elect get to bypass the horrible events that Christ will bring in restoring the purity of the Earth with fire and brimstone. The events are on Earth, no ... they're in the Heavens, they're on Earth, no they're in the Heavens.

Hmmm, the Lord's Prayer, the esoteric maxim "As above, so below".

While many are busy worried that quadzillions of dark carbonaceous angels flapping their wings of oxygen are out to do us in, others are saying Apophis will strike in 2029, 2036, or now the Russians are saying 2068.

2068?

In any case, I have my money on that some Elect packaged the Bible with specific intent, and that the message was so disturbing that this is why they didn't want to release the esoteric aspects to the hoi polloi, because they had no possible means to deliver 'salvation' at that time, and until lately. And, in so masking the message, they created a huge literary puzzle to keep the uninitiated busy, in some measure by guessing who Jesus really was.

 

[Seeker]

And, in so masking th message, they created a huge literary puzzle to keep the uninitiated busy, in some measure by guessing who Jesus really was.

Including Ralph Ellis? I thought that his Manu/Izates/Jesus character was being considered on this site. At any rate, Happy 2010th Birthday to Roman Emperor Vespasian, a real historical character who knew he was not God. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Vespasianus01_pushkin_edit.png

 

[Seeker]

such that it was meant for the many seekers to get hung up on their favorite candidate, and thus be more likely to ignore what is most important?

"My name is Legion: for we are many" (Mark 5:9) KJV.

others are saying Apophis will strike in 2029, 2036, or now the Russians are saying 2068.

Looks like some "others" are getting hung up on their favorite year, instead of their "favorite candidate", unless they are the initiated.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Including Ralph Ellis? I thought that his Manu/Izates/Jesus character was being considered on this site.

I don't understand. I'm only saying that the Biblical Jesus seems to be a composite, a complex one of men and myths. I believe that Ellis is indeed correct that 'Josephus' is pointing to that individual and his (b)yzantine family. But that there are also several other strata of humans and myths in the mix.

 

[Seeker]

I see, I misunderstood and thought that you were discounting the human element of "Jesus" altogether. I certainly agree with your analysis of several other strata involved, and thought in my beginning to this thread that a genealogical aspect of "Jesus", with a possible relationship to Julius Caesar, might help explain the religious symbolism aspect, of the deified Caesar becoming the deified Jesus to the Roman world.

 

[Richard Stanley]

If one is going to adhere and promote the concept of "as above, so below" then as that other maxim goes about "if you don't have an enemy, then you must create one", the same principle goes for the alleged savior of a new religion and age. At least in my opinion. Why go to so much effort to create all of this is you can't take favored ones aside and point out it was really so and so? Having an inner church has no value if it doesn't have valuable secrets to bestow on its adherents. Such is what keeps them motivated.

 

[Seeker]

Yes, and it has created a booming industry, with all of the "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "Da Vince Code" spinoffs, with authors peddling the "true" bloodline of Jesus, and millions more literally "buying" into it. Perhaps it went a bit too far, and Pierre Plantard had to be set up as a scapegoat to discredit the "research". I wasn't intending to go into his discredited genealogies here, but did Ralph Ellis touch upon it in his book about Mary Magdalene and the House of Orange, I have not read it.

 

[Seeker]

I wasn't intending to go into his discredited genealogies here, but did Ralph Ellis touch upon it in his book about Mary Magdalene and the House of Orange, I have not read it.

I got lucky, and found an excerpt of that Ellis book about Mary Magdalene and the House of Orange. Ellis mentioned the Merovingian line, but not in genealogical detail, issuing from Mary Magdalene and her daughter Sarah in France. The Merovingians were indeed superseded by the Carolingians, but they carried on as powers behind the throne with William of Gellone (William of Orange) as their new branch.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I don't think we have that book in our library, but I did post an interview with Ellis that discussed it. Here is the post: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/from-cleopatra-to-christ.2515/post-12649

 

[Seeker]

Ellis is referring to a known historical figure, a king of the Abgarid dynasty of Edessa: Manu VI son of Abgar V. Ellis furthermore argues that Manu VI is one and the same person as the king known in Josephus as Izates Monobazus II.

various Jesus characters cited in Josephus are either Galilean militants, high priests or both, and Ellis identifies these characters with Manu VI.

And to the extent that there's any biographical or historical information at all about this figure known as 'Jesus Christ', this information may represent a composite of two or more actual, living human beings.

Long ago we started out with the notion that, if there was any historicity, the gospel Jesus was likely a composite character

the Biblical Jesus seems to be a composite, a complex one of men and myths. I believe that Ellis is indeed correct that 'Josephus' is pointing to that individual and his (b)yzantine family. But that there are also several other strata of humans and myths in the mix.

Sorry about the overkill with the "Quotes", but I wanted to narrow this discussion down to the point of view of both you gentlemen on one posting. So we are all in agreement that Jesus was a composite character, and you both seem to be going along with the Ellis version of the historical Manu VI being combined, together as Ellis has it, or perhaps as separate layers of, Izates Monobazus II and some Jewish War Jesuses for the Christ of the New Testament? I am of course only dealing with the exoteric Jesus character here, both of you are miles ahead of me explaining the esoteric Jesus on other threads.

 

[Seeker]

I don't think we have that book in our library, but I did post an interview with Ellis that discussed it. Here is the post:

On page 124 of the book excerpt that I read, Ellis seems to be implying that William the Conqueror, being redheaded, and so on downwards to Queen Elizabeth I of England and beyond (Prince Harry?), is because they are part of the Mary Magdalene line, which also includes, before and after her, Pharaoh Akhenaton, Esau, King David, and the modern Williamite House of Orange. None of the Viking forefathers of William the Conqueror are mentioned on this page, whom would seem out of place to me also, except as a convenient cover story, as you mentioned in your posting that you referred me to. Great "History of the World" summary for the "uninitiated"!

 

[Seeker]

I got lucky, and found an excerpt of that Ellis book about Mary Magdalene and the House of Orange.

Lightning struck twice, and I now have the genealogy pages of Manu/Izas/Jesus from "Jesus, King of Edessa". If this is the latest Jesus genealogy posting from Ralph Ellis in his books, then I shall work from that, unless someone has any updates/retractions from him.