Richard Stanley

Administrator
While Bartram is aware, via Carotta, of modern day Catholics celebrating rites clearly derived from the worship or adulation of the god, Julius Caesar, it is interesting that he wont allow that this process would have been fermenting in the 1st century.

It is here that I think Gary Courtney's, Et Tu Judas, fits in rather well. Courtney discusses that such as Julius Caesar would have been feted with scripted paeans, in such as plays and songs, across the new empire. And especially by legionary troops deployed to the frontiers.

These last areas are frequent sites of mithraeums, where military officers made a large portion of the Mithraic demographic. The entire Mithraic 'polity' including its Hellenized Jews, would have been down with praising this literal messiah, who had also given them the divine Augustus, the Prince of Peace. They would have been well familiar with the Pollio account of Julius versus Pompey in the Civil War. All this would provide a typological template to produce the gospels, and they could reference Chrest instead of Christ.

I'm guessing that 'Christ' was much like the Tetragramaton, and not meant to be spoken or written in those days. An initiate was to aspire to become a Chrest, and then a Christ, as is the typical tiered structure for mystery cults and secret societies. Obviously, Mithraism had a 7 layered tier structure not involving either a Chrest or Christ, but we already know of the Vatican panel identifying an individual as 'Chrest'. Was this a personal name, or an honorific title? Perhaps the leader of the 'lodge'?

As Bartram discusses, the Hellenizing efforts of Philo, like his 'legionary' relative, provide an early layer of support in the eventual merging of Judaism with the Greco-Roman system, especially with the Homeric millennial strata of Castor, Pollux, and sister Helen.

As Barbiero discusses in The Secret Society of Moses, it is in the Flavian period, after the fall of Jerusalem that Mithraism starts. This is coincident with the arrival of Titus back into Rome with Josephus and Josephus's extended family of Hasmoneans (Maccabees -- globalizing fake nationalists). Thus we have all the necessary elements and motives in place at this time. Whether we should take Nero's and Domitian's resistance to Chrestianity at face value or not, we have it that Chrestianity, as Bartram demonstrates, seeming to operate 'underground'.

Mithraism literally operates underground, and it clearly has at least tacit approval of the imperium. This considered its adherents' centuries of high level involvement in state functions. The Romans did not look kindly on subversive activities.

In this environment, the development of a Chrestian corpus would be for internal consumption ONLY, no proselytzing to the masses. This comes later, when the correct pieces are in place.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
BTW, on Bartram's resurrected pages he stated that he is (was?) indeed writing a book, only that he has been hampered by some strokes.

He also has an interesting page on the problems of academic peer-review: http://cista.net/Origins-of-Chrestianity/sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/the-textual-tradition/christian-peer-review.html

This related page suffers from that the mirror site doesn't fetch remote content, as happens on other content pages.

He adds to the usual complains the problem of the oldest and most prestigious universities having an original and still existing religious origin and lingering bias.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
In this page, Bartram discusses his evolved position on Helen and Izates of Adiabene. In this he places Helen and son Izates in opposition to the Roman 'Chrestian' faction, and this makes much sense to me.

As I've stated Ralph Ellis places Helen wanting to position her son as vying for the seat of the emperor, and thus this would also place the two as enemies of a Chrestian faction with the same ambitions. And, if memory serves me, Ellis discusses the mother and son as descendants of Julius Caesar (and Cleo), not Mark Antony, as with Bartram. We need to look into this again.

In any case Bartram goes on to state:

The archaeology of his mother's mausoleum and the richness of her gifts to the (Herodian-controlled) Temple and to Judea, place her, I suggest, as a compatriot of the Jerusalem 'Rich', those opposed to the Poor, the observant and mainly Messianic Jews led from Qumran. Her conversion to Judaism had been partial, along the same lines as promoted by the literary St Paul and Christian Church. Josephus mentions two missionaries to her, though names only Ananias; the New Testament names the man who converted Saul as Ananias; and according to the textual tradition, Saul was Helen's agent in supplying grain to Judea. These all suggest to me that Saul was an agent of Helen and together, they opposed the Messianic Jews at Qumran, and therefore supported the Herodian monarchy. Her palace complex in Jerusalem, recently excavated, seems to confirm this.
Helen was in Jerusalem when Izates died, so she didn't personally kill him, though she was well-placed to avoid suspicion whilst colluding with the Herodians.
The sources above are mainly dependent on Josephus and (other) Chrestians; the putative relationship between the Herodian and Chrestian Saul (later resurrected as Saint Paul) is not described by Helen, or anyone in her kingdom, but by those who wrote of Saul/Paul, i.e. Chrestians. The New Testament is black parody in the Chrestian war against messianic Judaism, the movement led by John the Baptiser and after his killing, James the Righteous Teacher (until his killing in 62); this literary source is not historical, but propaganda.

And later in conclusion:

In summary, there was a largely-undeclared war (from early in the first century) between the states ruled by colonial-Greek regimes of the eastern Roman Empire (from Asia Minor, south to Egypt and across North Africa), most of which in the early-first century had - through the work of Antonia Minor) - adopted Chrestianity, and messianic Judaism, led by the monastic community at Qumran and in the early-first century, Herod Agrippa. The three Jewish-Roman Wars are an expression of this conflict, which was mainly cultural (ideological and theological, since the invasion and occupation by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, ('manifestation of the god').
Further developments occurred in Judaea Province in the year 130, when Emperor Hadrian visited the Eastern Mediterranean and, according to Cassius Dio, made the decision to rebuild the city of Jerusalem as the Roman city of Aelia Capitolina, derived from his own name. The decision, together with Hadrian's other sanctions against the Jews, was allegedly one of the reasons for the eruption of the 132 Bar Kokhba revolt — an extremely violent uprising. The rebellion ended with the deaths of most of the Judaean population and a ban upon the Jewish faith across the Roman Empire, which was lifted in 137, upon Hadrian's death.
The Chrestian side looked to Helios, always syncretised with local sun gods and trinities; it struggled with the emperors following Augustus to gain the military support needed to stay in power, until they placed Vespasian as emperor; part of the payment they made for Roman military support was to send troops to join Rome in attacking Judea. Only when they had won, signalled by the end of the Third Jewish-Roman War, were Chrestians in a position to start writing their textual tradition, as black propaganda, parodying both messianic Judaism and its leaders - which includes Helen and Izates. This is the first example of damnatio memoriae used by Chrestianity.

I think that Bartram is generally correct, but (where I have highlighted in red) that the black propaganda should begin when the war begins, not after it is won. And Bartram claims that the gospels are not written till significantly later by Bardaisan, who is not in the heat of the moment. Josephus and friends are yet in the middle of it all, there being 3 wars before it terminates.

Why write black propaganda against the completely dead and enslaved Zealots, rubbing anti-Judaism in the noses of happily collaborating Hellenized Jews?

The new Chrestianity is only a problem for Imperial Rome in the narrower sense that its novelty would be disburbing to the cultural sensibilities of various 'conservative' types that like to maintain the 'pagan' status quo. That Chrestianity was amalgamated paganism, as is the later Christianity, would hold no account with these people. The audience for the gospels was not for radicalized Zealots in any case, it was for the already Hellenized and those on the fence.

Bartram's position has the advantage of pointing out why such as Mandaeans would revere John the Baptist and revile a fake Jesus, especially if they thought is was the likes of Saul. BTW, Lena Einhorn advances this notion about Saul/Paul as well.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
While Bartram is aware, via Carotta, of modern day Catholics celebrating rites clearly derived from the worship or adulation of the god, Julius Caesar, it is interesting that wont allow that this process would have been fermenting in the 1st century.
I'm not sure that Bartram would deny that Romans were worshipping or adulating Caesar in the 1st century. He would only question when or if Julius Caesar started to be conflated with Jesus Christ, the hellenized and pacified Jewish Messiah. Am I right?

Bartram seems clear enough in his reasoning, expressed at the same page linked above:

My criticism has the exact same basis I used against Caesar's Messiah, the Jesus Never Existed website and Carrington's Flavian conspiracy: they all depend on the Christian textual tradition. Whoops!
I will repeat: there is no reliable evidence for either Jesus Christ, or Christianity in the 1st century. So, whatever imperial Rome did at that time, it was not to invent Jesus Christ, or Christianity, or to make Julius Caesar into Jesus Christ; that is impossible. I recognised years ago how Julius Caesar may well be associated in some way with Christianity, but as I didn't know how, I've not made any such claim.
The sad failure of these hypotheses is a direct result of failing to recognise good archaeology (for Chrest and how the Chrestian enemies were the messianic Jews termed The Poor), and of falling headfirst into the glittering web of false assumptions that is the textual tradition.
This is not totally unreasonable. If we claim that there was such a thing as a Christian religion in the late 1st or early 2nd century, as depicted in Acts and the Gospels, there should be some archaeological evidence. Instead there's nothing but Chrestians.

So why is there no archaeological evidence of Christians? Either (A) there was no such thing, as Bartram claims; (B) all evidence has been lost or destroyed; or (C) at the time, the same artifacts were used by both Chrestians and Christians, so that it would be impossible to tell the difference by archaeology. This would imply that Christians at the time, spelled the name of their deity as Chrest, not Christ.

Since Christianity was invented by Roman Chrestians and foisted on unsuspecting Jews and Greeks, I think option (C) is very possible. That is, Roman Chrestian physical culture of the 1st thru 4th centuries, was indistinguishable from Christian physical culture of the same time. Except of course that Roman Chrestians of the imperial family, were far wealthier than their Christian subjects, and thus far more likely to leave stone monuments, inscriptions, and art.

In this page, Bartram discusses his evolved position on Helen and Izates of Adiabene. In this he places Helen and son Izates in opposition to the Roman 'Chrestian' faction, and this makes much sense to me.
But on this page, Bartram is perfectly willing to rely on the "textual tradition", including at least Josephus and the DSS. There are also passages in the NT that also refer to Helen and Izates. So where is the basis to accept Josephus and DSS reports as legitimate history, while denying the NT when it is referring to the same people? Helen and Izates can also be verified archaeologically, along with the broad outlines of Josephus's account of the Jewish War.

I think that Helen and Izates make sense as "controlled opposition". They supplied funding to the rebels, and also sought to be respected as leaders. And at the same time, they were also mindful of their relationship to Rome.

Ellis thinks that Izates literally was Jesus Christ, the rebel leader and messiah. I would be willing to agree that Izates was one of the many historical figures that were amalgamated into biblical Jesus.

Why write black propaganda against the completely dead and enslaved Zealots, rubbing anti-Judaism in the noses of happily collaborating Hellenized Jews?
I agree completely. I suppose we could contact Bartram at Quora and see if we can engage him in a conversation about this.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I'm not sure that Bartram would deny that Romans were worshipping or adulating Caesar in the 1st century. He would only question when or if Julius Caesar started to be conflated with Jesus Christ, the hellenized and pacified Jewish Messiah. Am I right?
Yes, the latter, and we can include any other candidate or amalgam for being Jesus Christ.
So why is there no archaeological evidence of Christians? Either (A) there was no such thing, as Bartram claims; (B) all evidence has been lost or destroyed; or (C) at the time, the same artifacts were used by both Chrestians and Christians, so that it would be impossible to tell the difference by archaeology. This would imply that Christians at the time, spelled the name of their deity as Chrest, not Christ.

Since Christianity was invented by Roman Chrestians and foisted on unsuspecting Jews and Greeks, I think option (C) is very possible. That is, Roman Chrestian physical culture of the 1st thru 4th centuries, was indistinguishable from Christian physical culture of the same time. Except of course that Roman Chrestians of the imperial family, were far wealthier than their Christian subjects, and thus far more likely to leave stone monuments, inscriptions, and art.
It is Valliant and Fahy's position that the term 'Christiani' was employed by radicalized, yet long Hellenized Jews (that only spoke Greek) as a substitute for a traditional militaristic 'messiah', ala Joshua, 'Yeshua'. This makes a lot of sense to me.

If so, there was good reason for the covert Roman counter-movement to cleverly employ the term Chrestianity, which can be useful for profitable conflation. Then co-opt it to 'Christ' when the time is ripe, and the zealous corpses are stinking on their real crosses.

Bartram is correct that there is no early record of Christianity as we think of it today, and there should be at least a tiny bit. Instead we are left with the gospel parody record of Jesus and his inner circle (relatives) being typical Jewish xenophobes. Instead, it is Paul who is ecumenical.

I think that Helen and Izates make sense as "controlled opposition". They supplied funding to the rebels, and also sought to be respected as leaders. And at the same time, they were also mindful of their relationship to Rome.
Yes. And this is what also excites me about Helen being a Nazarite. This is in the same context as Samson the Danite. Like Izates, he is the son of the Danite leader, whom we know was really part of the Greek aspect of the Sea Peoples phenomenon. Samson's odd behavior scared the living crap out of the 'indigenous' people, the Judeans, as well as the Philistines. Thus the Judeans did what Samson wanted, just like today's evangelical wannabe Israelites kowtow to Trump.
I agree completely. I suppose we could contact Bartram at Quora and see if we can engage him in a conversation about this.
Agreed.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
It is Valliant and Fahy's position that the term 'Christiani' was employed by radicalized, yet long Hellenized Jews (that only spoke Greek) as a substitute for a traditional militaristic 'messiah', ala Joshua, 'Yeshua'. This makes a lot of sense to me.
Do you happen to know if they present any evidence for this: archaeological, textual or otherwise? I suppose I could look it up for myself...

Bartram is correct that there is no early record of Christianity as we think of it today, and there should be at least a tiny bit.
Maybe the "radicalized, yet long Hellenized Jews (that only spoke Greek)" that bought into early Christianity, were culturally & archaeologically indistinguishable from other radicalized diaspora Jews of the time. That is, aside from their somewhat idiosyncratic, Roman influenced belief system. That could be an alternative reason why they didn't leave behind any distinctive archaeological trace.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Do you happen to know if they present any evidence for this: archaeological, textual or otherwise? I suppose I could look it up for myself...
I don't remember them providing any evidence, but that this was their operating hypothesis.
Maybe the "radicalized, yet long Hellenized Jews (that only spoke Greek)" that bought into early Christianity, were culturally & archaeologically indistinguishable from other radicalized diaspora Jews of the time. That is, aside from their somewhat idiosyncratic, Roman influenced belief system. That could be an alternative reason why they didn't leave behind any distinctive archaeological trace.
Possibly.

In any case, I just realized the rich / poor dialectic in the names Nazorean versus Ebionite, the supposed early schism in the Jerusalem church.

Nazoreans were not necessarily rich, only their leaders (flying around on luxury donkeys o_O ). The rest of them just swayed by royalist rhetoric and tradition.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
In picking up my copy of Ralph Ellis's King Jesus I now see his case for Izates being the veiled character of the Bible's Jesus of Nazareth being even more compelling. And, Izates also being the 'Isa' of Islam, who is to return at the End of Time. This after having done the prior research covered on this thread. Where Bartram discusses "Chrestianity", Ellis uses the term "Simple Judaism" and the individuals involved all appear to be the same and in the same general alignments.

I had forgotten that Ellis included such a detailed discussion of the archaeology of the Dewa Fortress in Chester, England and its Vesica Piscis temple. If Ellis is correct about the following I will have to go back over my forum posts on this and correct that the fortress and temple were built during the reign of Vespasian, by the legion that Vespasian had commanded when serving under Claudius. I believe that I had more recently gotten the information that the fortress was build during the reign of Claudius from Wikipedia or some other source.

Ellis concludes that the Chrestians, upon the victory in 70 CE, had crucified Izates, only it was he that was rescued by Joseph(us), and then with the political or romantic influence of Berenice over Titus got Izates exiled to the very remote and rather odd Dewa Fortress. Ellis identifies the old man healed by Vespasian in Alexandria as the rescued Izates, and that this man has had some injury to his genitals. And here we can see this as part of a wider complex of parodies, the following from the Book of Acts as discussed by Bartram and Robert Price on Eisenman's work:

And there in full view, is the parody. Eisenman revealed this in detail; reviewed by Price:
Where did Luke find his raw material for the prophecy of Agabus of a great famine to transpire in Claudius' reign, of Paul's trip from Antioch to deliver famine relief funds to Jerusalem, and for the earlier tale of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch? Again, from Josephus (though perhaps also from other cognate sources of information). It all stems, by hook and by crook, from the story of Helen, Queen of Adiabene, a realm contiguous and/or overlapping with Edessa, whose king Agbar/Abgarus some sources make Helen's husband. Helen and her son Izates converted to Judaism, though initially Izates refrained from circumcision on the counsel of an unnamed Jewish teacher who assured him the worship of God was more important than circumcision...
But we pick up the Helen story again back in chapter 8, with Philip substituted for Paul, where Philip accosts the financial officer of a foreign queen going from Jerusalem down through Egypt by way of Gaza. This is of course the Ethiopian eunuch. Why has Luke transformed Helen the Queen of Adiabene into Candace the Queen of Ethiopia? He has reverted to an Old Testament prototype, making Helen, a convert to Judaism, into a New Testament Queen of Sheba, having come to Jerusalem to hear the wisdom of Solomon. There is also a pun on the root saba, denoting baptism, a la the Essenes, Sampsaeans, Sabeans, Masbutheans, and Mandaeans, the type of Judaism Helen would have converted to (given the later Zealot involvements of her sons and her own reputed 21 years of Nazirite asceticism). Henry Cadbury pointed out long ago that Luke has fallen into the same trap as a number of literary contemporaries by taking as a personal name, Candace, the title of all the old Ethiopian queens, kandake, but Eisenman sees also a pun on the name of Helen's son Kenedaeos, who gave his life for his adopted people in the Roman War. In any case, there were no Ethiopian queens at this time.
When the prophet Agabus predicts the famine, Luke has derived his name from that of Helen's husband Agbarus. When the eunuch invites Philip to step up into his chariot, we have an echo of Jehu welcoming Jonadab into his chariot. When Philip asks the Ethiopian if he understands what he reads, Luke has borrowed this from the story of Izates and Eliezer, where the question also presages a ritual conversion, only this time the text is Isaiah's prophecy of Jesus, and the ritual is baptism. The original circumcision survives in the form of crude parody (recalling Galatians 5:12) with the Ethiopian having been fully castrated. Even the location of the Acts episode is dictated by the Helen story, as the Ethiopian travels into Egypt via Gaza as Helen's agents must have in order to buy the grain. Luke's substituted motivation for the trip, by contrast, is absurd: a eunuch could not have gone to Jerusalem to worship since eunuchs were barred from the Temple! ...

I have prior wondered what the relationship of the city name Chester might be to Chrest or Christ. Of course, there are many cities in England with 'chester' or 'caster' appended, and it signifies that a 'castle' or fort is there, from the Latin castrum - castellum. However, such literary elites, liking their dark parodies and such, might be attracted to the notion of castro, for castration, as Ellis suggests.

And as Ellis is suggesting that Izates has been transformed into a castrated ascetic in remote exile, we might also note these verses in Matthew 19:

10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Such sets up an interesting backdrop to the relationship between Celtic Christianity and the later Pauline Christianity in the British Isles. And, Ellis claims that Izates became known there as ... King Arthur. This, of course, requires another chronological time dislocation common to Ellis and Atwill regarding the Gospel narrative.

Ellis's efforts also resonate more since my examination of Harris's on the Dioscuri Twins and their ubiquitous relation to twin columns. One can see with Ellis's discussion on masonic imagery regarding the columns of Jachin and Boaz, that they are common reflections, with Castor and Pollux, of much older stories. Ellis provides an image, on page 394, of a Babylonian seal depicting two characters. One appears to be what we known of today as Orion, and he is dressed as is stated for Hercules. The other figure is dressed as is stated for the god Oannes, from where papal regalia stems, like the Dagon fish hat. In between them is a ... dolphin, later aligned with Castor and Pollux. The dolphin is known in the contemporary constellation system, in the same position, as Cetus. Orion is adjacent to the Gemini Twins in the latter's Zodiacal representation.

We also get a hint of the concept of a dual messiahship, one secular and the other spiritual or religious. We get that also with Castor and Pollux, because the Pollux is fully divine and Castor is only half divine.

On page 460 Ellis provides a Dewa fortress tombstone image of what appears to me as an image of either Castor or Pollux, as they were then depicted, riding a horse with a cape and a Phrygian cap. This usage would be apropos for a Roman officer in the cult of Mithra.

All of this then begs the question, again, of the 'real' relationship between (o)rthodox Catholic Christianty and such as: Celtic Christianity, the Templars, Masonry. Are they really such enemies, or are they some kind of inherent duality, another controlled opposition. The Biblical Jesus meets with Satan and they divvy up their respective jurisdictions, respectively Heavenly versus Earthly. The Book of Revelation has them switching jurisdictions every millennia. Good Cop, Bad Cop?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Here's what Wikipedia says about the "Elliptical Building" at the Deva (Dewa) Fortess:

Elliptical building

Outline of the first 'elliptical' temple
In 1939 some paving and the walls of two unusual elliptical buildings were discovered, one atop the other. These 'elliptical' buildings were partially uncovered behind Chester's market hall,[80] and no similar buildings have been found in other legionary fortresses.[81] The buildings were located near the centre of the fortress and they had their own bath buildings and a range of store rooms around the outside. The presence of a second bath building is unusual because legionary fortresses generally had just one set of internal baths.[82] Construction on the site began around AD 77 and this was confirmed by a length of lead piping, which served a central water feature or fountain, which was stamped with the name of Emperor Vespasian. The first building was a prestigious edifice made with concrete foundations and finely dressed stonework, and was probably the finest building in the entire fortress. Technically speaking it was not elliptical, but arcuate, with the central hall being formed from two intersecting arcs, and this makes it unique in the Roman Empire. Its function is unknown. There was no seating within the arcs, which precludes a theatre, and the best guess of the archaeologists was that the twelve alcoves may have contained images of the gods, with the temple being dedicated to the twelve primary gods of the Roman pantheon.[67] Or, alternatively, the oval shape may have represented the shape of the known Roman world, but there is no supporting evidence for this.[83]
The completed building measured 52.4 metres (172 ft) by 31.45 metres (103.2 ft), and had an oval courtyard with a water feature at its centre, 14 metres (46 ft) by 9 metres (30 ft), surrounded by 12 "wedge-shaped" rooms. Traces of the concrete foundation for the water feature and its lead pipe work have been excavated. The 12 rooms surrounding the courtyard had large arched entrances, 4 metres (13 ft) wide and at least 5.5 metres (18 ft) high.[84][85] It is not certain if the first building was ever completed, but it had certainly been destroyed by the AD 90s and the site was subsequently used as the fortress rubbish dump for many decades.[86]

Outline of the second 'elliptical' building
The second elliptical building was built on top foundations of the first, and although the architect must have been aware of the exact layout of the previous building, the design of the second was slightly modified. Although the it looks very similar to the first, it used different diameters of arc to achieve a slightly 'fatter' design. The second 'elliptical' building was not constructed until about AD 220, and this was confirmed by a coin of Emperor Elagabalus under one of the pavement slabs. It is thought that the second building may have survived until the end of Roman rule and influence in Britain.[67]

As Ellis discusses, the first structure was actually 'arcuate' and not a true ellipse, as is the second structure and as are all other Roman colosseums. This conforms to the geometry of a vesica piscis by using circular curves, albeit that the spacing of the circle centers are not conforming, apparently to allow for a wider floorplan.

Ellis also discusses the unusual, Nero-like emperor Elagabalus of the 'Syrian' Severan dynasty of Roman emperors, and his dealings with the so-called Elagabalus Stone, a kind of Omphalos or Ben-Ben stone. In fact, it might even be the Ben-Ben stone from Heliopolis. Ellis then discusses the parallels to the famous Arthurian legend of the sword and the stone, that this might be the same stone, moved from Egypt to Syria to Rome and onto Britain.

And it is for all the unusual characteristics that Ellis concludes that these structures were really some form of temple, most likely focusing on the Zodiac and the Sun. As such, all of the peculiarities indicate to me that we're talking about an esoteric religion, not meant for the average Roman citizen. Or at least some kind of remote incubation site for preparing a new popular religion.

I have also long wondered about why Rome came to have the 'Syrian' Severan Dynasty, and Ellis includes discussion of these people, who are essentially descendants of the same people as the earlier Helen and Izates of Adiabene, and from the same general region. It all seems of one piece or thread, and one more reason I think we're talking more about inner and outer churches and not competing churches.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Here's what Wikipedia says about the "Elliptical Building" at the Deva (Dewa) Fortess:
Ellis was the Wikipedia editor responsible for writing that section. So this can't necessarily be viewed as an independent confirmation of the information Ellis provides in his book. Ralph also tried to include the information that the dimensions of the building are 60 by 100 Egyptian royal cubits, but this was disallowed because the only source was Ellis himself.

And, Ellis claims that Izates became known there as ... King Arthur.
Here's an article about one other scholar, Chris Gidlow, who also believes that King Arthur and his court were located in Chester.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7883874/Historians-locate-King-Arthurs-Round-Table.html

The recent discovery of an amphitheatre with an execution stone and wooden memorial to Christian martyrs, has led researchers to conclude that the other location is Chester.
Mr Gidlow said: “In the 6th Century, a monk named Gildas, who wrote the earliest account of Arthur’s life, referred to both the City of Legions and to a martyr’s shrine within it. That is the clincher. The discovery of the shrine within the amphitheatre means that Chester was the site of Arthur’s court and his legendary Round Table.”
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
"They paved Camelot and put up a (an underground, sub-rosa) parking lot" :rolleyes:

They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique
and a swinging hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And they put up a parking lot ...

The car park that is now atop the concrete foundations of the Elliptical Building is an underground parking lot for a shopping mall.

Even the name 'Camelot' fits perfectly with Ellis's thesis, because it refers to Jesus of Gamala -- and hence to Egypt (Kem, Kemet) ... and that mysterious Egyptian mentioned in the gospels.

We need to go back and see exactly what Barbiero said in The Secret Society of Moses about the Arthurian tableau likely being related to the Flavian and Josephus business.

From the subheading of 'Simon Boethus' page 293 of King Jesus:

Further evidence that Queen Helena was linked to the Galileans can be seen in Saul-Josephus' Jewish War. Here, he maintains that two sons of Queen Helena, Kenedeus and Monobazus, fought for the rebels during the Jewish Revolt, and were eventually captured by Vespasian after Jerusalem fell. In other words, relatives of Queen Helena were definitely working for the same theo-political goals as were the Galilean Sect of Jesus and James.
In addition, the supposed pronouncements of King Monobazus himself, as quoted in the Talmud, lend further support to this argument for a link, for they have a definite biblical ring to them:
It is related of King Monobazus that he dissipated all his own money ... in years of scarcity. His brothers ... came to him and said to him, 'Your father saved money and added to the treasures of his fathers, and you are squandering them.' He replied: 'My fathers stored up below and I am storing above ... my fathers stored in a place which can be tampered with, but I have stored in a place which cannot be tampered with ... my fathers stored something which produced no fruits, but I have stored something which does produce fruits ... my fathers gathered treasures of money, but I have gathered treasures of souls ... my fathers gathered for this world, but I have gathered for the future world.' (Talmud IV Baba Batra 11a)​

The name Monobazus (Only King) seems to be commonly used in the family of Izates/Jesus.

If the Talmud quote was cribbed from the gospels, where or how would they have gotten access to such texts that 'didn't exist' till later by some accounts. More likely, as Ellis suggests, we are looking at an authentic account of an historical person and family ... of which a very 'rich' contextual fabric of evidence supports. That is, once the cryptic names are decrypted.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
From the subheading of 'Simon Boethus' page 293 of King Jesus:

Further evidence that Queen Helena was linked to the Galileans can be seen in Saul-Josephus' Jewish War. Here, he maintains that two sons of Queen Helena, Kenedeus and Monobazus, fought for the rebels during the Jewish Revolt, and were eventually captured by Vespasian after Jerusalem fell.
I forgot to comment on this, and was wracking my brain later knowing that my desired comment had something to do with 'pigs'. It wasn't until I serendipitously was reading an article about Presidential powers that the Bay of Pigs popped out:

... Kennedy’s great expansion was in the area of foreign policy, from soft programs like the Peace Corps to more aggressive options, like the Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam War. The latter, which his successor Lyndon Johnson expanded, is an infamous example of executive power: The war killed more than 58,000 Americans over more than a decade. Though the war was a cataclysm that soured the U.S. on foreign wars for some time, presidents haven’t surrendered the power to deploy the military overseas. At the moment, U.S. forces are involved in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria and have extensive presence in parts of Africa, in Yemen, and elsewhere, even though Congress hasn’t declared a war since 1942. ...

If we remember the gospel parody of the pigs of Gadara, from Atwill's CM interpretation, 'Titus', as Christ, is responsible for causing the pigs, the Jewish rebels, to drown themselves.

For JFK, the Bay of Pigs was something of a political Waterloo, having been undercut by McGeorge Bundy's ordering the bombers to stand-down (per Fletcher Prouty), causing the deaths of the Cuban rebels ... in the Bay of Pigs. Not so incidentally, the two ships employed for the rebel troops were (re)named the Barbara and the Houston, not so cryptic references to CIA spook George H. W. Bush.

Of course, then one must ask about the typological parallels in allegiances ... and doing this being aware of hidden agendas, and the notion of elite 'controlled opposition'.

While Ellis asserts a remote and secret exile for Izates / Jesus (with a very elaborate and unique temple), Miles Mathis and Tyrone McCloskey have made a strong case for the Kennedy (Camelot) assassinations having been faked, and that they were sent to what I like to call the Hidden Resort. I allege the same case for Julius Caesar (who had dinner with friend Brutus the night before, at the Last Supper), Hitler, Saddam Hussein, ... Napoleon was sent to a comfortable island exile, but everyone knew about it.
 
Last edited:
Top