Where have you seen this claim?

How could that be 'remotely' (pun intended) possible? People do claim, prior to so-called 'remote viewing" that they have had 'out-of-body' experiences where they see their own physical bodies as separate from their mental vision and then they can travel around in such a state. But this isn't using their physical eyes which are left in place with their bodies.

Or do their eyeballs float around somehow attached to their minds?
Isn't it obvious that eyeballs don't dissociate from the physical body, and then reattach later? Or not?

I am only relating what I have read regarding the quantum theory of Mind, as might relate to phenomena like remote viewing and such. If the mind is a process only rendered inside the more mundane physical electrochemical constraints of the brain neurons, then such cannot be true.

I have no idea if remote viewing is real or not, but somebodies have made a fairly large effort to convince us that it is.

Let's say that RV is a real phenomenon, then you explain how it might work -- short of detachable eyeballs that is. Do you have dreams when you sleep Jerry? Do these dreams have images and sounds associated with them? Or, were you merely hallucinating that you had a dream?
At one point in this new Q&A session, Price likens the Boanerges brothers, the so-called "sons of thunder", to Castor and Pollux with roots of this in Sumeria.

A new interview with Joe, and some great discussion of more parallels and depth, especially regarding the Biblical making of Peter the cornerstone of the new Church, rising out of the foundation of the old - as told by Josephus.
Quantum theory works subtly in biology - but it is really there. Mathematician Roger Penrose first suggested quantum theory in biology...
Since you [Richard] are the one who proposed this explanation, isn't it your job to explain how it's supposed to work?
...but this is now proven in photosynthesis. So if it is in photosynthesis it will also be in human brain function. Hence there will be plenty more quantum theory in biology to come. One way is via photons exchanged by neurones transmitting some sort of deep subliminal information (not conscious of course). Richard does NOT have to give the details.:cool:

Yours faithfully
Last edited:
A new book by Michael Lawrence, 70, is discussed focusing on such as astrological elements to the basis of the new religion. Presented is an interesting look at the use of '70' to use as the period between the year 'zero' (there was no year zero) and the destruction of the temple, but, of course this means, IMHO, that Dionysis Exiguus must have been aware of this issue when he created the Anno Domini calendar centuries later.

Last edited:
This post moved to here from the Cleopatra to Christ thread. I decided to move it because of some commentary on a revelation of Robert Price's that the cruci-fiction story of Jesus, son of God, and Jesus Barabbas, son of the father, are really allusions to the Yom Kippur tradition of the two goats, one being sacrificed for the community's sins and the other let free. It also hints of the twin brothers aspects I've dealt with on this thread.

New documentary apparently focusing on Julius Caesar as the crystallizing impetus of the then new mystery cult of 'Christianity'. I have not seen it yet, and one needs to rent or buy the film. https://deepdivedocumentaries.com/synopsis/

Here is the trailer:

Here is the producer talking with Derek Lambert:

The following is apparently the first installment of a discussion with Derreck Bennett about Christianity as a typical mystery cult of the day. Bennett quotes several different scholars on the topic that proves a solid foundation for what I have also thought is the case. To wit, Xianity is an amalgamation of prior pagan systems that was then given a gloss of Judaism - perhaps to give it a unique and exotic Eastern feel?

As was discussed in the prior post's video, Jesus is explicitly depicted running an initiatory mystery cult, where he reveals to his disciples what he only mentions to the hoi polloi in parables. The gospels are encrypted with Pythagorean sacred math ratio numbers, etc., etc..

Bennett also does a good job discussing the fact that Greco-Romans were in such debt to the Egyptians (and Mesopotamians for that matter), the argument having been first (and correctly) advanced by Herodotus.
I've been reading about Marcion lately and would be interested to know about connections to the Chrestians. However, I can't seem to find John Bartram's writings on the Internet any more. His Quora posts have been removed.

Just came across Origins of Christianity.
Last edited:
Hi Charles,

That link you provided seems to be something of a copy of Bartram's original Google+ plus pages, which were much more comprehensive than the Quora posts (last time I looked there at least). I'll have to look it over some. Jerry had found the Quora posts earlier and I don't recall having seen these copies of the Google+ material. Thx

I don't recall Bartram having discussed Marcion, but maybe he did? In any case, Marcion would be starting in the correct general region of Cappadocia Anatolia for a descendant of Flavian Chrestianity, as many of the 'Chrest' inscriptions that Bartram discusses are found there. The Romans would 'exile' people (various elites) to there rather than execute them. Doing so provides great cover if one wishes to quietly establish a movement out of sight from those 'conservative' factions who might object and quash it before its time.

For instance, 'John of Patmos' was situated there probably because the island was a Roman naval base that protected the sea lanes and access to two important cities. John was allowed visitors and apparently was able to send letters, if we are to believe what was passed on to us. This is like Paul and Justin Martyr having similar 'liberal' freedoms when in the pokey.

This is indeed some form of Bartram's work, and it includes some updates (regarding the original Google+ pages) of his. Unfortunately, some pages did not bring over all the graphics for some reason.
Last edited:
For instance, 'John of Patmos' was situated there probably because the island was a Roman naval base that protected the sea lanes and access to two important cities. John was allowed visitors and apparently was able to send letters, if we are to believe what was passed on to us. This is like Paul and Justin Martyr having similar 'liberal' freedoms when in the pokey.
Good points, Richard. When I was much younger, and took the Bible literally, I wondered why the Romans were so "nice" to John and Paul, but of course Paul did admit that he was a Roman citizen, and wanted to go to Rome and see Nero personally. Truth in plain sight?
Thanks to Charles (aka Seeker Too) we now have Bartram's overview of the relationship of the Edessan (per Ellis) / Commagene (per Bartram) royal family faction (of the 'Rich') was to that of the Qumran 'Poor'.

Ellis has the Edessan family running the Zealots aligned with the Qumran 'Poor' while Bartram the opposite.

Here it might be wise to ponder that, as with today's political 'players', we are in a "hall of mirrors". Such is exactly what Moses Hadas explicitly asserted about the earlier Maccabees, i.e. that they were Hellenizers first and only rhetorically Jewish nationalists (JINOs).

Helen's relationship with Judea existed during part of the reign of Herod Agrippa (11 BCE – 44 CE), who is treated in biblical texts as a traitor, because although raised by Antonia Minor, on his return to Judea, he dropped that façade to become a popular, pro-Judean hero. Her Nazirite position aligns her perfectly with James. This is why the Jesus of Nazareth myth.
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.

If Helen and Izates were the subject of 'black propaganda', this would also be the case if they were 'merely' the controlled opposition, as this would not be able to be revealed to the masses. And, it would be likely that the descendants of the followers of Helen and Izates would be the ones who carried on with what became the Arian position of 'Christianity', and possibly what became Islam under the foundational rubric of Muhammed.
Good points, Richard. When I was much younger, and took the Bible literally, I wondered why the Romans were so "nice" to John and Paul, but of course Paul did admit that he was a Roman citizen, and wanted to go to Rome and see Nero personally. Truth in plain sight?
Yes, and then we have both Philo and Josephus so cozy with the emperors as well, each with their cover stories.

As to Bartram's and Ellis's positions we should also remember that the Gospel Jesus (except for "render unto Caesar ..") strongly appears to be in the so-called 'Jerusalem Church' camp that was in opposition to Paul. So if Ellis's is indeed Izates, and the Gospels are black propaganda, then Jesus/Izates was indeed a JINO. Such would also be the reason the Talmud has to veil the instigators of the war as a Kamza and a Bar Kamza.

If Helen and Izates et al. were tax farmers (actually resisting any Roman taxation per their original agreement) consistent with the claimed ancestry (per Ellis especially -> Cleopatra) then having the Gospel Jesus hang out with publicans and prostitutes is indeed great black propaganda.
I've been reading about Marcion lately and would be interested to know about connections to the Chrestians.
Well here you go Charles:

Due to the immense and valuable work of the author known as Acharya S/D.M. Murdock, thinking on the usage and meanings of the term Chreste has advanced considerably. I have recently joined her in open discussion on this, here. She also has this very informative page: Isis the Chrēst
We all know that Chrest is often meant as 'Good', or something useful; but it became associated in sacred texts with the Chi-Rho, itself derivative of the Ankh and thus Ancient Egyptian, magical resurrection; Chrest appears in the New Testament as a title for IS, known later as Jesus, and then is altered to read Christ, understood as messiah.
This history of development needs, I suggest, a chronology, so we can begin to understand who did what, when, and what the term meant to them at that particular time. Here is my first attempt:
  • Isis (and both Osiris and Horus) in pharaonic, Ancient Egypt; also the Isis Myth of death and resurrection from the Nile.
  • Chrest - in normal usage, something good, useful.
  • Chi-Rho used by Ptolemy III (246–222 BCE).
  • Isis Chreste - appearing in Ptolemaic Egypt.
  • Cleopatra VII (69 - 30 BCE) as Nea, the 'new Isis'.
  • Chrest Magus bowl, late-1st century BCE - early-1st century CE.
  • Chrestians - Roman inscription with Antonia Minor, Drusus and Jucundus.
  • 'IS Chrest' in early Chrestian and Manichaean texts.
  • 'IS Chrest' in Marcionite synagogue, Syria 318/9 CE
  • 'IS Chrest' in the original New Testament (4th century)
  • Chi-Rho adopted overtly by Constantine I.
  • 'IS Chrest' altered to read Jesus Christ [the 3 erasures visible in the Codex Sinaiticus -rs]
We thus see a number of changes, most notably: Chrest becomes associated with killing, then (originally, riverine) resurrection.
I therefore think we must associate this Egyptian killing, followed by riverine resurrection, with baptism, starting with (i) the drowning and resurrection of Antinous by Hadrian (130 CE), then (ii) the accounts of John the Baptiser. ...

If Paul/Josephus can be counted in the covert Chrestian camp, then it seems to make sense that Marcion would as well. This would also make sense of why he would be in contention for a high position in the Roman Church.

If Bartram's chronology above is correct, where it must necessarily include Cleopatra VII, and Ellis is correct that Helen is a covert descendant of Cleo and Christ Julius, then such as Helen's attempts to become a Nazarite were for PR image sake, or as Trump and Clinton would say today: branding.

Would should also remember that as to canonic gospel dating, that just as with typical mystery cults, like Mithraism, we have almost no extant texts, because this was the system of esoteric secrecy. This possibility for earlier dating (post 70 CE), ala Atwill's CM, must therefore not be excluded IMO. Such hidden texts likely would be controlled by the imperial cult priests and high functionaries of the imperial cult, such as in the Roman imperial cult cities that Paul liked to focus on. This similar to the controversial statement attributed to Hadrian that the early 'Christian' (Chrestian?) clergy were actually from the cult of Serapis (Serapis/Isis), the Ptolemaic syncretized cult of Osiris (and Isis) with the Apis bull.
The following excerpt is from Bartram's post on the fictional Nazareth, where he first discusses the weak archaeological evidence for the claimed town at that time. He then finishes by quoting Eisenman, but the NZR focus has now shifted to the Nazrites or Nazarenes. I have argued in another post that the NZR root actually originates with the same (or NSR?) root in Egypt refering to 'prince', with a close relationship to the word for 'branch', figuratively used for branches of royal family trees, e.g. Jesse to David to Jesus (all 'pharaohs' in Ellis interpretation).

The point that Bartram is getting to is how to see the canonic Gospels as (Flavian/Josephan) 'Chrestian' parody, .... and that in this light Saul's epiphany to Paul is part of the same fabric, not some otherwise seemingly incongrous bastardization later glomed onto the Gospels. And ironically, thus we are actually seeing some of the true dynamic that was at play, ... between the Poor and the Rich.

The Chrestian parody has largely been described by Professor Robert Eisenman:
As Hans-Joachim Schoeps had already surmised, the stoning of Stephen has in precisely the same way supplanted the stoning of James (actually a conflation of James' ultimate stoning at the command of Annanus and an earlier assault by Saul on the temple steps preserved as a separate incident in the Recognitions). The name Stephen has been borrowed from a Roman official beaten by Jewish insurgents whom Josephus depicts ambushing him outside the city walls. Why this name? Because of a pun: Stephen means "crown" and was suggested both by the long hair of the Nazirite (which James was, according to early church writers) and by the crown of martyrdom. To Stephen has been transferred James' declaration of the Son of Man at the right hand of God in heaven, as well as James' "Christlike" prayer for his persecutors. We read that a young man named Saul was playing coat check for the executioners of Stephen and, his taste for blood whetted, immediately began to foment persecution in Jerusalem and Damascus. This has been drawn, again from the lore of James as well as Josephus. The clothing motif was suggested by the final blow to James' head with a fuller's club, while just after his own account of James' death, Josephus tells of the rioting started by a Herodian named Saulus in Jerusalem!
Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Viking Penguin, 1997. Reviewed by Robert M. Price
And more recently:
Put in another way, like Paul - we shall reserve judgement about James - they too were interested in non-Jewish converts but, for them, 'circumcision' was a sine qua non, not only for conversion, but even to discuss questions pertaining to the Law. No wonder certain 'Zealots' (in particular, those Acts 21:21 denotes as the greater part of James' 'Jerusalem Church' adherents), 'Sicarii', or 'Nazirites' wished to kill Paul.
As already remarked, this issue of 'abstaining from things sacrificed to idols' is the backbone of James' directives to overseas communities at the close of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:25 and 15:29. It is reiterated in Acts 21:26 when Paul is sent into the Temple by James for a Nazirite-style penance because the majority of James' supporters are - even in the language of Acts 21:21 - 'Zealots for the Law.'
We can therefore see how - whether Nazareth, or Nazarene - Chrestians wrote in parody and this parody has since been used by Chrestians, Christians and Buddhists.

And so, getting back to the scenario reconcilation mode, we would have Izates, as witnessed by his mother's Nazarite rituals, be consistent with Ellis's claim that the Edessan/Commagene/Palmyran/Gamala family were indeed representing themselves as the family of the expected Jewish messiah, thus fomenting the war ... and necessitating the narrative time displacements ala Atwill, Ellis, etc.. And these claims descend back into pharaonic Egypt, also consistent with Robert Feather's analysis in his The Copper Scroll and the Sabbah brothers' Secrets of the Exodus.

Izates does his expected agent provocateur job and gets rewarded with a cushy life at the Hidden Resort of the day, in the middle of the Dewa Fortress in today's Cheshire. Here where emperor Vespasian even built him a unique Vesica Piscis shrine to allow him to contemplate his navel. Unfortunately, after the Brits of Cheshire heard Janis Joplin sing, they literally paved this former Chester paradise into a parking lot.

All this reminds me that the taking of the Nazarite vow by non-royals, would likely be akin to lower nobles of Europe becoming such as a Templar. In the case of a Nazarite, they are demonstrating fealty to who they expect to be their king / messiah. The Templars to ... John the Baptist (especially funny using Ellis's elite Edessan JoB)?

Here we get to a recurring problem with analyzing the Templar's true relation to 'Rome', friend or secret foe? We actually see a very similar phenomenon played out. In such hierarchical organizations, everyone below a certain level has no idea of what is really playing out. Namely, in both cases, who their highest leader is playing for and what the real agenda is. This isn't just with the Templars and Nazarites, but for ourselves today as well.
Last edited:
Gospels and letters
First, the problems associated with this genre need to be recognised:
  • They are anonymous. Though many assume who are the authors of the synoptic gospels, these assumptions are baseless.
  • They are unprovenanced, which in archaeological terms, reduces their value very considerably (because as they did not come from secure, cultural layers, we have little or no context for them).
  • They are not dated reliably - none, not even the codices, have been carbon dated.
As a result, where the synoptic stand in contrast to the many others is speculative.
  • None of the texts/fragments or early codices of the New Testament mention either "Jesus" or "Christ" explicitly.
Their use of nomima sacra instead indicates that the gospels are a product of a culture already using such symbols and this is the Ptolemaic society of Egypt (whose last monarch was Cleopatra VII).
The original Codex Sinaiticus spells Chrest and Chrestian, not Christ or Christian; the New Testament is thus based on Chrestian theology.
As noted often elsewhere in this site, the general character of the New Testament is that of a Chrestian parody of its enemy: messianic Judaism and Jews, particularly its leadership (the series of Righteous Teachers).
But when Palestine became Roman territory the cross was introduced as a form of punishment, more particularly for those who could not prove their Roman citizenship; later on it was reserved for thieves and malefactors (Josephus, Antiq., XX, vi, 2; Bell. Jud., II, xii, 6; XIV, 9; V, xi, 1). (The cross as an instrument of punishment in the ancient world, Archæology of the Cross and Crucifix)
Though crosses in various forms appear in the past and modern eras, the crucifix does not appear until it was written into the NT accounts:
During the first two centuries of Christianity, the cross may have been rare in Christian iconography, as it depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution and Christians were reluctant to use it. A symbol similar to the cross, the staurogram, was used to abbreviate the Greek word for cross in very early New Testament manuscripts such as P66, P45 and P75, almost like a nomina sacra. The extensive adoption of the cross as Christian iconographic symbol arose from the 4th century. (History of the Cross)

As I commented previously, Bartram would need to concede, that if early, at least, Chrestianity operated like the typical mystery schools it was born from, like Mithraism, then if there was an early corpus it would not have been known to vulgar outsiders. Hence, Atwill's assertion that the canonic Gospels were written or redacted and textually woven around Josephus's works cannot be dismissed. Such points to the 'Chrestian' Flavians in conjunction with Josephus.

Of course, it is possible that a later literary project was performed to do this, but this would require that either the works of Josephus be redacted after publication and distribution, or that the works of Josephus were written later to begin with.

It should also be noted that Bartram has the 'Chrestian' phenomenon beginning likely at least one generation before Vespasian, but I'm not sure exactly when. This is what I have suspected for some time, considering it a general imperial project (for the Augustan New Age). (added 7/18/20)

Regarding the lack of the cross symbol in early 'Christianity', it is well known that the Flavian 'fish and anchor' symbol was what was used, more appropriate for Flavian Chrestians perhaps? And, of course, Vespasian is directly tied to the Vesica Piscis 'Elliptical Building' at the Dewa Fortress. This via a water fountain(?) lead pipe with his name embossed on it. Smells pretty fishy to me.
Last edited:
The following is the early 3rd century baptistry from Dura Europos. To me it seems evolved from a typical mithraeum. In this case, one could picture the baptized one being sprinkled with the blood flowing from the bull in a typical tauroctony. Remember that the Mithraic rites engaged in by the elites' Yale Skull and Bones Society involves such a baptism, albeit sometimes using a different bodily fluid.

The typical Mithraic zodiac has been replaced by various seasonal ag products. And what are those two stars bookending the structure depicted on the wall to the right? Are these cleverly representing the Mithraic Sun and Moon, but displaces to the side?


Image taken from: https://cista.net/Origins-of-Chrest...ental-scale/chrestian-theology-and-texts.html
Below, Bartram presents his theory of gospel authorship, attributed to Bardaisan, the precursor to Mani --- and the Ismaili (Nasari -- Nazarene) sect of Shia Islam.

In the map of Bartram's I think Ellis has well shown that 'Adiabene' is really a name used by Josephus, and maybe others of the day, for Edessa. Josephus said that Adiabene was east of the Euphrates, not east of the tigris. and, as Ellis suggests, Arbela is geographically too far to make sense in many of the stories.

Also, not the interesting royal names mentioned below, with regards to Ellis's thesis:

The source of the first gospel, which gave rise to the synoptic versions in the New Testament, is a product of Greek culture in the Levant sometime after Hadrian and before the 4th century (when the NT appears). The author had studied the appropriate texts (especially Josephus and Plutarch) and further, was conversant with the faith of Mesopotamia (the tradition of the sacrificial king) and the syncretic faiths (in this period) of the Levant, especially Syria. Lastly, he was motivated.
This produces Bardaisan:

Bardaisan (Syriac: ܒܪ ܕܝܨܢ, Bardaiṣān),also known as Ibn daisan, also Latinized as Bardesanes(154–222), was a Syriac gnostic and founder of the Bardaisanites. A scientist, scholar, astrologer, philosopher and poet, Bardaisan was also renowned for his knowledge of India, on which he wrote a book, now lost...
Bardaisan (bar-Daisan meaning son of Daisan/leaping river in Aramaic ) was an Assyrian born on 11 July 154, in Edessa, which, in those days, was alternately under the influence of the Roman and the Parthian Empire. Edessa was a metropolis of Osroene. He is the creator of an offshoot of Mesopotamian religion named after his name which was the base of gnostic Mani and later gnostic Batini and Ismaili sub-sect of Shia...
...educated with the crown-prince of the Osrhoenic kingdom, at the court of Abgar VIII bar Manu.
Owing to political disturbances in Edessa, Bardaisan and his parents moved for a while to Hierapolis (Mabug), a strong centre of Babylonianism. Here the boy was brought up in the house of a priest Anuduzbar. In this school he learnt all the intricacies of Babylonian astrology...
According to tradition, during his youth he shared the education of a royal prince who afterwards became King of Edessa, perhaps Abgar X bar Manu (reigned Osroene 202-217).
Perhaps owing to the persecutions under Caracalla, Bardaisan for a time retreated into Armenia...
According to Sozomen's Ecclesiastical history, "Harmonius, his son, was deeply versed in Grecian erudition, and was the first to subdue his native tongue to meters and musical laws; these verses he delivered to the choirs".
Encounter with religious men from India
Porphyry states that on one occasion at Edessa, Bardaisan interviewed an Indian deputation of holy men (designated as Σαρμαναίοι,Sramanas) who had been sent to the Roman emperor Elagabalus or another Severan dynasty Roman Emperor, and questioned them as to the nature of Indian religion...

Did I mention the Skull and Bones Society previously?

Well, the Skull and Bones Bush family had a curiously close relationship with the hereditary (royal) leaders of the Ismaili sect, the Aga Khan's. Bush 41 was college roomate with the then future Aga Khan, and then played tennis with him regularly in their later lives. The then current Aga Khan had been the head of the failed League of Nations. The Aga Khan's had been declared legitimate descendants of Muhammad, PBUH of course, by a British court. The Ismailis built their American headquarters in Sugarland, Tx, where Poppy Bush retired to. Poppy Bush, when VP, got in some small trouble when it was alleged that he boinked his taxpayer paid secretary while staying at the Aga Khan's Swiss chalet. Any pee (Mithraic baptism) tapes? I must be forgetting something.

Oh yes, the Ismailis had a small group back in the day, known as the Assassins. Poppy Bush, in line with his covert and overt CIA days was associated with a CIA assassination squad, documented by Daniel Hopsicker in his Barry and the Boys. 'Barry' being the infamous Barry Seal, CIA drug and weapons smuggler and once Civil Air Patrol cadet with alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, operating under their CAP mentor, 'Apostle' David Ferrie.

And, the Aga Khans kindly helped the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt (yes, of that family) overthrow the democratically elected Mosadegh in 1953, in favor of the Shah. Because that's how we Americans defend Democracy around the world.

All coincidence, nothing to see here. God's ways are mysterious, you know.
Last edited: