Alternative Genealogy

Erc

Member
Thanx for the copy of Buddhist to Xianity ... now about the coming "Abrahamic" despotic global "henotheistic" man-god monolatry/monarchy that Akhenaten previewed...
 

Erc

Member
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Truth is, Jesus is a High Priest (Hebrews 6:20) pointing the way to the Father who is SPIRIT and not a MAN,

and Jesus as a son of God (John Chapter 10) the Spirit (John 4:24), and Jesus as a son of man (Matthew 16:13), Jesus clearly is NOT GOD the Most High, (John 20:17) who is your God and my God:: “Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father (who was the ONE who “resurrected” Jesus from death). Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to MY God (the Spirit, John 4:24) and YOUR God.’ John 20:17

And Jesus nor any other “messiah” is not King or Lord, see Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 8:7 and 2 Cor 3:17 with John 4:24 and John 20:17. For Spirit is Lord and King and Father.

With regard to Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Temple Cult of “political-religion” see Acts 7:48 and 1 Cor 3:16!
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Greetings, Erc.

Your reference is very good, as the author highlights that Yeshu ha-Notsri could be John Baptist, Dositheus and Simon Magus or at least lead to them.

Only his last diagram is misleading, as the Sethians shown at the bottom of the diagram include the Mandaeans (Mandeans there) since this sole remaining Gnostic sect also honors Seth as a god, under the name Shitil.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 

Erc

Member
Yes his scholarly work is impeccable...

My comment on "messianic" globalism:

Our High Priest is not God

Whither, as forerunner, Jesus entered for us, having become High Priest after the order of Melchizedek for ever. The high priest entered the Holiest Place by himself—a representative but not a leader. Jesus has entered the true sanctuary (Hebrews 9:24) that He may give His people entrance there (John 14:2-3). With this renewed mention of the great high-priestly act (Hebrews 4:14), the writer returns to the words of Scripture on which he was about to dwell (Hebrews 5:10).
 

Erc

Member
“Jesus” is high priest forever (Hebrews 6:20) of God the Spirit (John 4:24, John 20:17) is not a man, nor a "jew"(a "cultural construct"), nor any other man (Numbers 23:19), and Spirit the God is certainly NOT A GLOBAL DESPOTIC COMMUNISTIC "man-god" MONARCH! (https://theethicalskeptic.com/2015/09/30/the-definition-of-god/)

For the Lord is Spirit The God (John 4:24), and wherever the Spirit the Lord is, there is freedom! 2 Cor 3:17 ;-)

"Ethics V Omnipotence.

The omnipotent deity of the old order translated as power absolute, nothing that happened in the nation was outside the will of the all powerful God. The priesthood would select from among their class an almighty leader, a leader upon whom the priesthood would ordain the same attributes as the deity.

To question the leader or the bureaucracy that would surround him was tantamount to questioning God. A leader in this system is the Man-God.

This is a system of absolute dictatorship..." https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/history/thirteenth-tribe/
 

Erc

Member
“Jesus” is high priest forever (Hebrews 6:20) of God the Spirit (John 4:24, John 20:17) is not a man, nor a "jew"(a "cultural construct"), nor any other man (Numbers 23:19), and Spirit the God is certainly NOT A GLOBAL DESPOTIC COMMUNISTIC "man-god" MONARCH! (https://theethicalskeptic.com/2015/09/30/the-definition-of-god/)

For the Lord is Spirit The God (John 4:24), and wherever the Spirit the Lord is, there is freedom! 2 Cor 3:17 ;-)

"Ethics V Omnipotence.

The omnipotent deity of the old order translated as power absolute, nothing that happened in the nation was outside the will of the all powerful God. The priesthood would select from among their class an almighty leader, a leader upon whom the priesthood would ordain the same attributes as the deity.

To question the leader or the bureaucracy that would surround him was tantamount to questioning God. A leader in this system is the Man-God.

This is a system of absolute dictatorship..." https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/history/thirteenth-tribe/
Second witnesses from the "inerrant" "Wyrd" ;-)
1 Samuel 15:29
And also the Strength of "Israel" will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.
Hebrews 7:21
but "Jesus" became a priest with an oath by the One who said to Him: "The Lord (2 Cor 3:17) has sworn and will not change His mind: 'You are a priest forever.'" Clearly "Jesus" nor any other "anointed" is not a global King clearly as stated in 1 Samuel 8:7!
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
The de Vaux family of Norfolk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Vaux_family has now been given a genealogy back to the Merovingians and "Jesus", by a member of an elder line of French Barons, whose many times removed first cousin is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Foullon_de_Doué. I found the genealogy by accident, this is a part of his family pedigree site, and he is making no profit from it. Aren't aristocrats supposed to keep good records? So far he does not appear to be a charlatan like Pierre Plantard, of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", as the de Vaux family are not his male line ancestors, while Plantard claimed he had a male line back to the Merovingians, and milked it for whatever it was worth.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
As explained here, it's a pretty safe bet that everyone of European descent is related to the Carolingians and the even older Merovingians. And furthermore, I agree that aristocrats have the best of intentions, and do their best to keep accurate genealogical records deep into the past. So I don't claim that the elder French baron is intentionally a charlatan. For that matter, Pierre Plantard may also have a perfectly reasonable, legitimate basis for claiming that he is a direct descendant of the Merovingians. Stretching that far back, even a purely male line of descent is perfectly plausible, statistically speaking.

Having said that: even with the best of intentions, and all the wealth of the nobility, there's plenty of room for errors to creep in. Sometimes even a baby's mother is unsure who the father is. And it only takes one less than perfectly honest duke or baron, to introduce a fabricated history that could ruin everything that came before him.

Whether we regard these claims of ancient pedigrees as entirely factual or not, what's possibly most important is that the modern Dukes and Barons believe that they're factual. And they stake their claims to nobility on that basis.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
As explained here, it's a pretty safe bet that everyone of European descent is related to the Carolingians and the even older Merovingians.
I agree, no problem with that, "perfectly plausible". But exclusivity creeps in after that, as only a small percentage of that European population can PROVE that descent, generation by generation, back to aristocracy or royalty. After that comes the most premier exclusivity, the male line descent back to aristocracy or royalty. That is important to a certain elite segment of that population, for, as you said, "Whether we regard these claims of ancient pedigrees as entirely factual or not, what's possibly most important is that the modern Dukes and Barons believe that they're factual. And they stake their claims to nobility on that basis." Also, and especially, to royalty. To put it rather bluntly, with no offense intended, if it doesn't matter to you, it wasn't meant to.;)
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
According to the principle of primogeniture, the most exclusive status would be the line of descent of firstborn males. At each generation, any father can only have (at most) one eldest son. Unlike all other forms of royal descent, there is no exponential increase in the number of eldest sons over aeons of time. Thus, primogeniture tends to keep a kingdom or dukedom whole. There is (at most) one legitimate claimant to the throne. Of course if there is no eldest son, the rule of primogeniture leads to the foundation of a new dynasty, with possibilities for attendant chaos.

In cases where rule over a major chunk of real estate has been at stake, the determination of inheritance would seem to be a matter of considerable social and historical importance. In traditional kingdoms, the divine right of the royal family was mostly unquestioned, with the possible exception of a small riff-raff of ne'er-do-wells. And there wasn't much alternative to taking the elder King and Queen's word for it, when it came to the legitimacy of a Prince's claim to the family inheritance. So the question "mattered" to just about everyone in the kingdom, as well as all the historians and court reporters. And we see a broad historical consensus about questions of royal descent, at least in many cases. It wasn't just a matter of the royal family's private record-keeping.

There are, of course, many situations where the nature of royal descent is more ambiguous, and the consequences are less obviously important. Who cares about even the first-line male descendant of a King whose Kingdom has become a Democratic Republic, or conquered by a neighboring Kingdom? What is the importance of being a descendent of Charlemagne's seventh daughter, or one of Attilla the Hun's concubines? Hmm... if you're inclined to believe that royal persons have favorable genetics (greater strength, intelligence or beauty) or for that matter, unfavorable genetics (psychopathic tendencies), then any royal descendant might have those genetically inherited properties, to some greater or lesser extent. Growing up in any royal family is likely to provide certain "perks" such as education and access to resources, which could make the beneficiary more likely to become a high achiever and thus a contributor to the family fortune. And the personal attributes of royalty could "matter" on a social basis, again boosting the fortunes of anyone fortunate enough to be affiliated with the royal family. These benefits could persist for many generations, or indefinitely, even after the loss of the actual earthly Kingdom.

As a matter of fact, it seems that royal families kept control of the Church by sending their second sons into the priesthood, to become the Popes and Bishops.

By all appearances, now that we are into the third century since the French and American revolutions, the power of the ancient royal families is severely in decline. Upstart businessmen and politicians and media personalities appear to be very powerful, while the antics of Prince such as Charles, Andrew, William and Harry seem to be nothing more than a circus side-show.

Richard always argued that appearances were deceptive, and that the European royals are in fact far more important than they appear to be, even into the present day.

Seeker, are you inclined to agree with Richard about this? I never felt that he presented a convincing case.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Richard always argued that appearances were deceptive, and that the European royals are in fact far more important than they appear to be, even into the present day.
I believe that Queen Elizabeth has exalted status, at least as an icon, to her subjects, if nothing else. They could have gotten rid of her and her family long ago, if they had really wanted to, but the tradition and her royal aura is just too ingrained in the British people. Did you notice that even Prince Harry referred to her as his "Commander-in-Chief" to Oprah (I personally didn't think he was entirely facetious), and also that he was very careful to talk about his good relationship with her, and apparently told Oprah afterwards that the Queen and Prince Philip did not make racial remarks about his son. Besides her prestige, the Queen is also quite wealthy, though of course it is vulgar to talk about money when one is that exalted, and Prince Philip is actually worshipped as a god by some people, with their son Prince Charles next in line for that honor https://nypost.com/2021/02/27/islanders-who-call-prince-philip-a-god-plan-to-worship-charles/. Yes, her future successor Prince Charles had a "loser" image for awhile, but he just may surprise everybody when he finally succeeds to the throne (this article is obviously dated, though). https://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1678.cfm
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Seeker, I think we can agree that even if their power is severely in decline, the royals and nobility still have an important role to play. Your image of Charles as the Antichrist is certainly very interesting in this regard...



... as is the fact that Charles was trotted out as one of the principle creators and authorities behind the technocratic "Great Restart" agenda. And, circus side show or not, the Oprah interview showed that the masses are still fascinated with royalty. Everyone wants to know: if the Queen and Prince Philip did not make the racist remarks, then who did? Was it Charles or Camilla? The already disgraced Prince Andrew? There is simply no good answer!

But still, doesn't your link about the islanders who worship Prince Philip sort of make my point? That is, on the remote South Pacific island of Tanna, "an estimated 700 of its 29,000 inhabitants worship the royal as a god" -- in contrast to the times not so long ago when virtually everyone on the British Isles similarly believed that the King ruled by divine right? Now, in modern times, such a belief is relegated to a small tribe of illiterate indigenous peoples, confused by a cargo cult.



Oh, and let's not forget the Trumpists who refer to Orange Man as the "God Emperor". Such confusions can also exist in modern America! But thankfully, it's still a minority position even among Republicans.

So my point is not that the Royals aren't important... but how to evaluate their power in perspective, considering everything else that's going on. Is Prince Charles really setting the agenda for Davos and the Great Reset? Or are Bill Gates and other tech monopolists more in control?

Are the Euro-royals driving events that seem to recapitulate the prophecies of the Book of Revelation, the Koran and/or the Talmud? Or is it the cultural power of the memes themselves, as literally billions of believers have learned about them in church schools?
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Is Prince Charles really setting the agenda for Davos and the Great Reset? Or are Bill Gates and other tech monopolists more in control?
Perhaps Gates & Co. are using Prince Charles as a "poster boy" for their agenda, and will eventually back him as future King and "Antichrist". He probably needs that support, as he lost prestige and popularity by separating from, and then divorcing, his very popular first wife, Princess Diana, who was a cult figure even before her untimely passing. The English Rothschilds are also supposed to be close to the royal family, and it has been proposed that they actually spawned some of them, from the time of Nathan Rothschild (1777-1836). Just going by the precedent of his granduncle, King Edward VIII, who had to abdicate in order to marry a divorcee, should Charles even be considered as a future King, because of his second marriage to one?
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
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.
Just for fun, Apophis will next come near Earth on Friday the Thirteenth of April, 2029, the birthday of both Charles N. Pope (A Pope Is [Apophis] Coming?) and Guy Fawkes, not to mention Thomas Jefferson (we hold these truths to be self-evident). 2068, is, of course, right smack in the middle of Richard's predicted Third "Apocalypse" of 2066-2070.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
According to Business Insider, Prince Phillip's wish that "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation" has been very widely remembered at his passing. He lived to see the onset of the pandemic, but perhaps he got his wish with the advent of the dreaded Delta Variant?

Just going by the precedent of his granduncle, King Edward VIII, who had to abdicate in order to marry a divorcee, should Charles even be considered as a future King, because of his second marriage to one?
Wouldn't the smart money be betting that Charles will abdicate in favor of Prince William? But even if he does, I'm sure he'll still give plenty of speeches.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Prince Phillip's wish that "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation" has been very widely remembered at his passing. He lived to see the onset of the pandemic, but perhaps he got his wish with the advent of the dreaded Delta Variant?
In view of his title and background, "D" does stand for Duke also, and is something then rotten in Denmark (where he was formerly a Prince?). He also was angry about the fact that he was not allowed to pass on his family name to his children, and compared himself to an "amoeba". Since Charles and William will be of his male line, and not Queen Elizabeth's, could the new royal dynasty thus be ET or reptilian, (Y)Icke(s)!

Wouldn't the smart money be betting that Charles will abdicate in favor of Prince William?
Yes, William is long overdue. I have read years ago, on a now probably defunct website, that William was supposed to become King of England in the ominous End Time Mayan calendar year of 2012, and the Antichrist ruler of the world on his 33rd birthday, at the Summer Solstice of 2015 (as the returned King Arthur, as Arthur is one of his personal names). My guess would now be that Prince Harry becomes King of America in the future. ;)
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
What are your thoughts @Seeker
Julius Caesar was supposed to be the male line descendant of Aeneas the Trojan, who in turn descended in the male line from Dardanus, of possible Jewish origin, using clues from an ancient Phoenician historian-

"the ancient Phoenician historian Sanchuniathon (or Sanchoniatho)—who is believed to have lived around the 1200s B.C. (though some put him a few centuries later)—had to say about the identity of Cronus. But first it should be recognized that all material from Sanchuniathon "is derived from the works of Philo of Byblos (flourished AD 100), who claimed to have translated his Phoenicica from the original text. The authenticity of that claim has been questioned, but excavations at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in Syria in 1929 revealed Phoenician documents supporting much of Sanchuniathon’s information on Phoenician mythology and religious beliefs" ("Sanchuniathon," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985, Vol. 10, p. 404).

The writings of Sanchuniathon, as we have them, mention the Greek "Kronos, whom the Phoenicians call Israel . . . He circumcised himself, and forced his allies to do the same" (I.P. Cory, Ancient Fragments, 1828). Israel, as earlier stated, was the new name given to the biblical patriarch Jacob. And the Phoenician historian further explained that this Kronos or Israel had a special son named Jehud or Yehud. This is simply a shortened form of the Hebrew Yehudah, that is, Judah: ". . . evidence of the extent of Judah [later in the fifth century B.C.] are the seal impressions on storage jars . . . on which appear the name ‘Yehud’ in various forms" (Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas, 1977, p. 109).

Since the primary son of the Greek Cronus (Roman Saturn) was Zeus (Roman Jupiter), then Jehud would be the same as Zeus. Indeed, the word Zeus (Zhe-ut) may actually derive from Yehud—as the Roman Jupiter or Iupiter appears to derive from the Greek Zeus-pater or Zheut-pater (pater meaning "father"). Of course, a great deal of Babylonian paganism was overlaid onto these historical characters, creating the false gods of Greek and Roman mythology (see Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, 1916, 1959).

Thus, stripped of mythological embellishment, Dardanus son of Zeus son of Kronos is Darda son of Judah son of Israel. Actually, Darda was the grandson, great-grandson or later descendant of Judah—as the word "son" can be interpreted. In any case, Darda was, in fact, a descendant of Judah through the line of Zerah."
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Well-Known Member
From an earlier Miles Mathis paper- "They hope you don't know or have forgotten that Rome was founded by Aeneas, a noble who fled from the sack of Troy. He was the great-grandson of the founder of Troy, Ilus. So Rome's ruling bloodlines were Trojan. And they hope you don't know or can't figure out that Troy was founded by. . . Phoenicians. Ilus descended from Dardanus, a son of Zeus. Anytime a family comes from the line of Zeus, you can assume they are Phoenicians. Most Phoenicians like to trace themselves back to Zeus or Poseidon." http://mileswmathis.com/sangreal.pdf
I feel certain that Jerry will disagree with this Miles Mathis excerpt, at least- "For instance, I have shown you that all US Presidents and most Hollywood stars are closely related, and that they all come from the direct line of William the Conqueror and before that from Charlemagne. In many instances, they now admit it or even brag about it, while denying that it is important. They try to tell you everyone living comes from that line, but of course they don't." Miles said it, Jerry, not me. ;) Personally, as my family genealogist, I have traced myself from that line, too, but I am certainly not a US President or a Hollywood star! I must confess, though, that I got that original royal information about my family the easy way, from a document that a distant cousin used, to apply to the "Order of the Crown of Charlemagne", a royal lineage society, though I certainly have refined and expanded that information since then.
 
Last edited:
Top