Seeker

Well-Known Member
Oh My Goodness (literally), so Izates/Jesus has connections to Judaism, Christianity, and now Islam, even Ralph Ellis didn't go that far, Congratulations, Richard! I guess the Romans were right, and "Jesus" is the One, after all. We shall have to start the true Postflavian religion here, with Jerry as Pope and Richard as Superior General. Claude, of course, wants to be Holy Roman Emperor. I am still in the lower grades, trying to figure out what in the h--l is really going on here.
God's ways are mysterious, you know.
Yes Indeed, I'm a Believer (No Monkeeing around here).
Seriously, Great Work, Richard, you are truly an Oracle, but not as a G(r)eek.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
We shall have to start the true Postflavian religion here, with Jerry as Pope and Richard as Superior General.
Jerry and I toyed too long with the name of (What it) Is-ism, but the Deep State read our emails and beat us to the draw with the Islamic State In Syria. As did Isis herself. Bastards!!!

Reading further into Bartram (some of which I don't remember so maybe it is newer material?) one can see the centrality of Edessa and its ongoing connection to Rome, after the supposed rebel is suppressed.

As to what is really going on, perhaps the best way to understand it is to watch the Wachowski movie, Jupiter Ascending, which Jerry and I reviewed here: https://postflaviana.org/even-jove-gnods/
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Bartram makes some brief interesting commentary on the god Sabazios/Sabazius, that some consider this name to be Saba Zeus. Yet another interesting possible linkage to the Sabines and Sabeans, etc.

Also, regarding the Nasari/Nizari Ismailis, I should note that their founder of the Ismaili state (and the order of the Assassins), Hassan-i Sabbāh, and subsequent leaders were noted for their broad library of materials from such as the Greek Neoplatonists and similar.

The name 'Nizari' (a branch of the Ismailis) stems from a man named Nizar, and so linkage back to 'Nazarene' is not likely direct from this. Nizar was struggling for succession to the Fatimid Caliphate in Cairo (where in old Egyptian NZR meant 'prince'). As well, that Isa (the Nazarene) is the one who returns (after the Mahdi does his job) is also common to all of Islam.

During the Crusades various Muslim commentators of the day complained that the Nizari were collaborating with the Templars. In fact, the Nizari Assassins assassinated more Sunni leaders than Crusaders. Supposedly the structure of the Assassin organization was the same as the Templar hierarchy, but maybe this is only a function of necessity? What then to make of the Crusaders' detour to Edessa before moving on to take Jerusalem. And that the skull and bones 'Jolly Roger' is said to originate there as well? The S&B is also a clever form of the Chi Rho BTW.

Pirates? Pastafarians? Pastaflavians?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
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.
The site at cista.net is a mirror of Bartram's old google+ repository, maintained by Victor Wolf. The jump page:

http://cista.net/Origins-of-Chrestianity/

states that Wolf happened to have spidered the site before it disappeared.

I'm mystified about the statement that Bartram's quora posts are gone. His quora homepage is at this link:

https://www.quora.com/profile/John-Bartram

his most recent activity is just six hours ago, as of this writing.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Well, that's a bummer. That's what I thought at first impression, by the visual style. Then when I saw the comment that he was writing a book and thought that some updates had been made I let my enthusiasm when the day.

Well, at least we have this much back. I wonder if Bartram's gmail account is working?
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
IF the late Nicholas de Vere was correct, and the de Veres have a male line descent going all the way back to the Roman Emperor Claudius, then of course the "official" parents of Claudius were Drusus and ANTONIA MINOR, most definitely a "real player" on Bartram's site, and others of interest to Postflavians.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
[re: Bardaisan] Lastly, he was motivated.
This is where I get lost. Given that Bartram agrees that the Gospels are elaborate parodies of characters from the Jewish War, why would Bardaisan be motivated to write such parodies around the turn of the third century? How would this benefit his patrons in the Edessan royalty, whose ancestors were the target of malicious caricature? Or does Bartram see the Gospels as a hagiographic depiction of Abgar VII and his court, without any element of cruelty or satire?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Good questions. More reason to think the earlier dating makes sense. Especially if one is fond, like me, of Carotta's and Courtney's claims that the original gospel template(s) were redacted from garrison paeans to Julius Caesar.

No, I think he claims the Edessan family is being mocked.

See, you need to make a comparison spreadsheet.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
on December 25, 48 BC, Julius Caesar was declared to be Jupiter's incarnation in Alexandria (thus "Son of God" himself), officially beginning Caesarean Rome.
Continuing with the topic of "Chrestmas/Christmas", Bartram may have changed his mind by now, but on his old "Origins of Christianity" site, he thinks it possible that "Chrest" did not become "Christ" in the Roman Church until the time of manuscript scholar Alcuin, and the crowning of Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne by Pope Leo III, which occurred on CHRISTMAS of 800 AD! Thus, "Chrestianity" would have officially lasted from Christmas of 48 BC (if Saussy is correct), when Julius Caesar was declared Jupiter's incarnation in Alexandria, and Caesarean Rome began, until that auspicious, historical Christmas of 800 AD, when Charlemagne became the first "Holy" Roman Emperor, and the First "Reich" commenced. Alcuin must be the "Grinch"!

https://cista.net/Origins-of-Chrestianity/sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/christianity/alcuin-of-york---a-recapitulaton.html
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
"Chrest" did not become "Christ" in the Roman Church until the time of manuscript scholar Alcuin
Has anybody carefully considered the possibility that "Chrest" and "Christ" were just regional or variant spellings of one and the same word, with both spellings persisting for many centuries, and nobody much caring about the difference?

Getproofed.com has a list of 8 common words with variant spellings in American English, including doughnut/donut, axe/ax, dialog/dialogue and disk/disc. Wikipedia has a much longer list of words spelled differently in the British Isles. And this is the case even today, after a long process of standardization following the invention of the printing press.
 

Seeker

Well-Known Member
Has anybody carefully considered the possibility that "Chrest" and "Christ" were just regional or variant spellings of one and the same word, with both spellings persisting for many centuries, and nobody much caring about the difference?
I cannot honestly say that I "carefully considered" it, but yes, long before I came to this site, I thought (in my ignorance?) that "Chrest" and "Christ" meant the same thing (or person).
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
This is the wrong thread to discuss this, but I believe that the Homeric use of 'chrest' was in the generally understood context of 'good' and related. This versus the usage of 'christ' (starting when?) as annointed equating to the Hebrew 'messiah' (for both kings and high priests).

It is interesting to look at my Compact Oxford Dictionary which gives for modern English useage:

crest - noun 1. a comb of tuft of feather, fur, or skin on the head of a bird or other animal, 2. A plume of feather on a helmut. 3. the top of a ridge or wave. 4. A distinctive heraldic device representing a family or corporate body.​
I will skip the verb forms​
ORIGIN Old French creste, from Latin crista 'tuft', 'plume'.​

It would seem that the later words have dropped the X 'chi' spelling form if a bird's 'crest' can be equated to a king's crown or even such as a heraldric device, or even the top of a ridge. The pronunciation is the same however.

As Jerry talked on the phone, maybe there is some purposeful conflation going on?

According to Fideler, at least, there was certainly a distinct difference between the solar 'christ' and mundane 'chrest' within the Greek gematrical system. As such, I wonder what the origin and dating of that is?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Bartram discusses his central parody of the NT based upon the Master-Servant relationship in Isaiah 53. He gets this from ... Eisenman via Robert Price.

Below from: https://cista.net/Origins-of-Chrestianity/sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/archaeology-of-chrest/master-and-servant.html

...
The parody of the New Testament turns around the Master-Servant relationship:

Isaiah 53, taken from the Book of Isaiah, is the last of the four Songs of the Suffering Servant, and tells the story of a "Man of Sorrows" or "God's Suffering Servant".
Many Christians believe the "Man of Sorrows" or the "Suffering Servant" to be a reference to the prophecy of the Ministry of Jesus, which became a common theme in medieval and later Christian art. The passage of 'Isaiah 53' is known for its interpretation and use by Christian Theologians and Missionaries, many of whom identify the servant to be Christ Jesus. Many Christians view the entire chapter, and particularly this passage to refer to the Passion of Christ as well as the absolution of sins believed to be made possible by his sacrificial death.
“He was taken from prison and from judgment:……and who shall declare his generation?…… for he was cut off out of the land of the living:…… for the transgression of my people was he stricken.…” (53:8 KJV)[2]Jewish scripture in Isaiah 52:13 through Isaiah 53:12 describes the servant of the Lord as the Nation of Israel itself: “My Servant…” (Isaiah 53:11), “…a man of pains and accustomed to illness…” (Isaiah 53:3). "The theme of Isaiah is jubilation, a song of celebration at the imminent end of the Babylonian Captivity". Judaism sees this passage, especially "God's Suffering Servant", being written over 2500 years before nowadays, without a reference to the king Mashiach...
New Testament One of the first claims in the New Testament that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus comes from the Book of Acts, in which its author (who is also the author of Luke), describes a scene in which God commands Philip the Deacon to approach an Ethiopian eunuch who is sitting in a chariot, reading aloud to himself from the Book of Isaiah. The eunuch comments that he does not understand what he is reading (Isaiah 53) and Philip explains to him the teachings of Jesus. "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus." This has been the standard Christian interpretation of the passage since Apostolic times.
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!

Bartram finishes this page with:

I define the "good" for which Chrest is commonly translated as in "the great and the good" and society needs only a few of these. The simple have their uses, the rebels can be dealt with; what this society is looking for are those who listened, learned and accepted: follow the Roman custom of separating private and public belief - always demonstrate loyalty to the system, your Lord and Master. This is the call of the imperial cult, against which Judas the Galilean rebelled.

In different words, this is what Saussy said about the Roman system, which we are yet under. This is why our public education system did not like to teach the plebes and below how to think, following the Goethe's maxim that "there are none so enslaved that believe they are free".

In any case, here we are talking about Helen and Izates as central figures. In Ellis' interpretation, such as Judas the Galilean are like modern day Tea Party Libertarians. If he and kin are not Josephus' pseudonyms for the Edessan family, the latter can still be seen as rebelling against the institution of Rome's new taxation which they had been previously promised to be free of, by the Herodian Philip(?), in exchange for providing a military buffer to the Parthians.

Today we see the Neoliberal libertarian movement being untimely sponsored by the 'submerged' remnants of European royalty via their Mont Pelerin Society (New Pella in the mountains?). The seeming paradox is solved in realizing that unrestrained free market capitalism must lead to such as the excessive economic disparity, the wealth concentrated at the top. See Genesis 47. This is what it is all about, always has, always will be.

Hence, avatar Jesus (the Edessan/Egyptian 'Jew') is in vicarious, covert league with his cousin Sabine Caesarians, the Sabine popes. Joseph is in league with Pharaoh. After WWII John XXIII is still the Jews' 'Joseph'. Kapeesh?

To use another Abrahamic religious metaphor, the shepherd (saba) tends lovingly to his flock, saving them from the wolves and lions (with the help of his sheepdog), fattening them well, before fleecing them and/or taking them to market to be sacrificed and eaten.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
In the following video, Derek launches a new streaming format, and hence there is a lot of preliminary blah, blah about what he's up to. After that he discusses a concept with James Valliant called Israel Only, where a group of Preterist Historicists are (dubiously) pushing that 'Christianity' was meant for 'Israel Only', meaning that the 'Gentiles' being talked to by Paul are from the Lost Tribes. They think that, if proven, that this will 'destroy' the basis of Christianity as a universal 'catholic' religion. Derek has apparently launched a successful fundraising to pay Richard Carrier to examine and pronounce judgement on Israel Only.


Derek and James discuss the importance of definitions of what 'Gentile' and 'goy/goyim' means and such, that Carrier will need to take into consideration. What's missing in the discussion, IMHO, is:
  • the importance of Bartram's lack of 'Christianity' evidence in favor of the elite precursor mystery cult 'Chrestianity'
  • that perhaps Paul was advancing what became the nascent exoteric 'Catholic' Church for the hoi polloi, while:
  • Gospel Jesus, as the fictive avatar for the Caesars, the Edessans, the Herodians, is representing the esoteric mystery cult called Chrestianity (and Mithraism IMHO)
Derek and James discuss various interpretations of the chosen Elect, (e.g. Calvinism) as pertains to how an average convert might or might not become a member of the (Predestined) Elect. How can one become, mid-life, a member of something that is 'predetermined'?

This is the rub that continues till today, where some churches inform their congregants that they have become the elect of God by their 'mere' acceptance of Christ or similar. But if, on a slightly hidden hierarchical level, the terms Elect and 'gentile' are really talking about the elites vis-a-vis their mystery cult, then I think we have a much better match with reality, and what we see yet today, including elite behaviors. This includes the common confusion amongst todays' hoi polloi, whether they are believers or secular, over the identity and nature of such as the 'Illuminati'. The latter and similar are manifestations and historical residue of the manner that the elites operate differently than the rest of us. 'They' don't explain such as this, the 'mysteries', because otherwise the sheep would revolt. Can't have that. Better to let people think they have their democracies and such, and that Jesus and God loves them (when it's convenient).

Gospel Jesus is leading a select band of disciples and others, where he informs the Greek woman that he doesn't reveal his secrets to just anyone. Why, because she's Greek, or that he suspects she's not otherwise 'worthy'? In contrast, we are always told that normative Judaism, then and now, was not a mystery cult, but rather everything 'Torah' was discussed out in the open (except for the Oral Law and the occult stuff that is amazingly similar to the 'gentile' occult).

So, is the real dialectic here Jews versus Gentiles (non-Jews), or Lost Tribes rejoining Judah, or the elite Elect (gentil gentlemen, nobles and gentry) versus the hoi polloi? BTW, 'worthy' and 'worthies' is yet another appellation of English, at least, nobility. Just saying.

The latter seems most consistent with the Postflavian concept of the False Dialect of Western Civilization, where when one reads the OT narratives of the patriarchs' closely, we are really being told the stories (whether historical, semi-historical, fictional, whatever) of a noble/royal caste rather than such as rude shepherds and such. The former want most everybody to think that we are talking about the latter.

Hence Paul and the Jesus/Jerusalem church are 'amazingly' running on different tracks, but for the same cause. God works in mysterious ways you gnow. This is how we have a religion ostensibly centered upon the avatar Jesus (who secretly represents the Caesars, popes, kings, and such), but in actuality, for the common man and woman runs on the watered down principles handed down from Paul.

Incidentally, in watching the video and thinking of Bartram's thesis, I suddenly thought of Dionysis Exeguus and his 'late' establishment of the AD calendar dating system. I don't remember whether Bartram has made this connection or not. Probably he has.

Also, they talk about the extent of the 'world' as referred to in the OT and NT and otherwise thought of by these peoples back in the day. Such that Rome would announce that they were the rulers of the world .... as they understood it. I think this is clearly wrong for several reasons:
  • They knew of all the neighboring lands outside their domains
  • They knew about China
  • They received trade items from far outside their domains, by land and sea (the Red Sea and Indian Ocean for instance)
  • It was actually well known that the Earth was a sphere (hence James may indeed be something of a 'ancient' Flat Earther, historically at least)
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following interview with Dr. Price is about details of the early/intermediate/late dating controversy:


As we've 'progressed', I'm settling in on two general dating possibilities as favorites:

The first is that, per Carotta, Courtney, and Oder at least, an early proto-Mark was formed out of decades old garrison paeans (as perhaps a play) to Julius Caesar, the original which had already been culturally tailored, differentially, to legion ethnicity and such. In this case, the redactors were likely members of their respective garrison's Mithra lodge, whose demographic was the officer cohort.

As Carotta asserts, this tailoring would have been performed under approval from above. This provides the advantage of keeping the different versions under tight control, subject to easier recall, shredding, and 'universal' replacement in the future. Why not just one original version and stick to it? Because you can only shift humans' mindsets and/or cosmoviews so far at a time. Look at the problems we're having today (and 19th Century Germany) vis-a-vis Culture.

In the subsequent redactionS, various elements are added into what was originally the story of Julius' civil war military campaign against Pompey. These new elements are such as the Homeric elements, the Pythagorean esoterica (e.g. the 153 fishies in the net, the 4,000 and the 5,000), etc.) and the Judaic gloss. Complicating (obscuring and/or facilitating?) matters here are the (intermediate) Flavian military campaign parallels in Galilee.

With the 'Chrestian' Flavians we have the (pre-Cross) Fish and Anchor, the 'Vesica Piscis-esque' Elliptical Building at Dewa Victrix Fortress (is Chester Chrester? o_O), the Mithra-esque Sarcophagus of Domatilla, her 'Chri(e)stian' catacombs, and we have the menorah depicted in Titus' Arch (so we know that they mattered for something (whether fact or fiction) in Palestine -- even if one wants to claim Josephus is complete bull).

Why would (Papa) Nero and other emperors occasionally persecute the Chrestians (along with some diaspora Jewish messianics known in Greek lingo as 'Christiani')? Because as this first phase of creating the new religion, aka Domitian's (including 'Domitian' Nero [sic]) Big Fish (Juvenal's Satire #4), is in process, the conservatives are circulating 'true' rumors of subversive cult(s), that are 'atheistic' (relativity) in regards to their beloved gods and goddesses, whom, in their cosmoview, their pious reverence of is responsible for maintaining their world order (in a very real way they are correct).

This is basically what happened to the Templars, who had to sacrifice a few to save the many, the latter of which became easily folded into the Hospitalers (today's Catholic Knights of Malta).

Once the Cross ascends visually with the changes around Constantine, the triple cross depictions show us the prior Greco-Roman saviors (crypticly Castor and Pollux, also referenced symbolically in Paul's narrative) dying while the new savior survives to take their place. The Sun and the Moon framing the scene from above, just as in a standard Mithraic tauroctony.

Secondly, we have the possibility that everything is 'late' and/or 'intermediate' dated, with no dependence on such as a proto-Mark or a post-70's Josephan/Flavian construction ala Atwill. This would mandate that Josephus or a redaction of Josephus (to facilitate the interwoven texts) that comes later IMHO. Possible, but I think scenario one more likely.

An early Paul can exist, in either scenario, because he talks of a 'Christ' in Platonic/Philo terms, isolated from gospel Jesus, the later fictional avatar. Who are these 'gentiles' that he is talking to? Are these the hoi polloi or are they men and women of substance, the 'gentil' of the day, whether they be Greco-Romans or Hellenized Jews. These latter 'gentiles' already familiar with the topics in their cultural context. These would much more likely to not be literalist fundamentalists, as the hoi polloi are, but rather they understood their different pantheon gods in metaphorical terms, as they were created in the first place.

It is only in the later centuries, per Bartram's thesis of a preliminary Chrestian period, that it makes sense for the new Anno Domini system to be introduced. Why have it if nobody, except the insiders, knows what it refers to?
 
Last edited:

Charles Watkins

Active Member
An early Paul can exist, in either scenario, because he talks of a 'Christ' in Platonic/Philo terms, isolated from gospel Jesus, the later fictional avatar.
Mark is said to have founded the church in Alexandria and the Platonic conception of 'Christ' comes from Philo. The Alexandrians were connected to trading outposts all over the Mediterranean where Pauline Christianity would emerge. They were also promoting 'The Way' of Apollonias, who could be the basis of the Paul character.

My guess is Alexandrian evangelism led to the establishment of 'Chrestianity' which was later reshaped into Pauline Christianity by Marcion. Marcion's proto-Luke could have actually been proto-Mark, allowing for the possibility that proto-Mark originally contained some of the Luke material. The Catholics made further redactions to create the gospel we have now. I suspect the Caesar elements came from the Sol Invictus faction as part of selling the cult to Rome. (Embedded within 'Chrestianity' was an Egyptian mystery cult available only to the elites.)
 
Top