Richard Stanley

This thread can be seen as a complementary branch to my earlier From Chrest to Christ thread which further develops the notion that the word and appellation of 'chrest' is linked to the more famous title of 'Christ', as advanced by John Bartram. In that thread I discuss the relationship of Mithraism to Christianity (or Chrestianity per Bartram) based upon the thesis of Flavio Barbiero in his Secret Society of Moses. In this work he asserts that the extended family of Josephus (Maccabee) Flavius was at the foundations of the Roman reinterpretation of Persian Mithraism.

In this last claim I assert that they did so with the full cooperation and imprimatur of the Flavian and later imperial Romans. In fact, perhaps we should be considering that Bartram's 'Chrestianity' was Roman Mithraism, and all consistent with the Platonic and Pythagorean embedded within the Gospels as we know them today (see David Fideler's Jesus Christ, Sun of God). After all, and for among other reasons, the mithraeum underneath the Vatican has an inscription referring to an individual named Chrest, possibly the leader.

Importantly we see Josephus Flavius being discussed, who is key to understanding Joseph Atwill's treatment of the Gospels in his Caesar's Messiah. This in that, among other matters, he discusses how the works of Josephus are textually interwoven with the four gospels. In order to do this there had to be some literary 'magic' in the creation of a chronological time shift in the Biblical mission of Jesus. This allowed the retrodictive fabrication of the prophecy of Jesus to his disciples that the Jerusalem Temple would be destroyed in their 'generation', a common allusion to a period of 40 years. This then means that Titus Flavius was the Christ of the Second Coming, and the literal graft described in Romans 11, namely the Gentile branch onto the Judaic "Root of Jesse". But all of these terms have to be decrypted and thus this makes a hash out of common understandings. I have detailed how the word 'gentile' means nobility (the only people that kept track of their gens or 'genes') and in an earlier book (to what I'll discuss here) author Ralph Ellis has demonstrated that Jesse actually represents an historical pharaoh -- in the time attributed to King David and Solomon. In the OT, Jesse is David's father.

Another person making the same chronological shift claim in his books is Ellis, and again, he identifies Josephus Flavius at the center of the matters. Ellis approaches the subject from different angles than Atwill, and in doing so he makes a strong argument that Josephus is one and the same as the infamous Apostle Paul. The main criticism of this equation is from a chronological perspective. But he makes a strong argument that a young and precocious Josephus, yet still a Jewish 'man', could indeed have taken on Paul's early missions, especially accompanied by an older mentor.

But even wilder than Ellis' claim about Paul-Josephus is his claim that there was indeed at least one real historical person who became renamed and re-contextualized by Josephus (and his imperial literary team?) and that this person appears to be a descendant of both Julius Caesar and Cleopatra VII. Such a claim also builds a bridge to the claim of Francesco Carotta in his Jesus Was Caesar that elements of Julius' historical narrative were integrated into the gospel depictions of Jesus' Galilean campaign and highly specific details of the Passion Story. On first glance Carotta's claims about the parallels of Pollio's account of Julius' Civil War campaign against Pompey to the gospels seems to discount Atwill's parallel of the Flavian campaign in Galilee to the same gospel accounts. But then, where do we get the chronological details of the Jewish War? ... From one Josephus Flavius. And ... we do not have the original account of Pollio's to verify.

Ellis makes this claim about JC and Cleopatra is his 2006 book Cleopatra to Christ, and hence the title of this thread. I read CtC when it first came out and thought it seemed quite plausible. It was already fitting with my developing view on the 'actual' origins of Western Civilization. But not only was the claim so bold, but there was a lot to digest. Besides all the real names of (some well known) people and places there were all the aliases for the same. And then how to reconcile all these different new interpretations? For instance, how can Julius, Augustus, and Titus be Christ from some perspectives and Ellis's Izates be Christ from a different one? This is a common criticism, yet upon consideration its actually pretty simple to solve.

The answer is that Jesus Christ (of Nazareth) is a literary fabrication, becoming an avatar for not just those specific Romans, but for the entire line of emperors and subsequently the popes. After all, for the latter, the popes are the Vicars of Christ, the 'substitutes' or 'stand-ins' for Christ (until he makes his second Second Coming (Futurist) that is).

From my work on the Chrest to Christ thread and other discussions on the forum, I started to re-read CtC and Ellis' King Jesus again. In the passage of time and from all my other reading since, it was striking how much more of an impact these make to me. As such, while I hope to make various comments about aspects of what Ellis has done with the CtC thesis, I hope for right now to first discuss what stands out in terms of my subsequent efforts.

I have been talking a lot about the dialectic of nationalism versus globalism, and finally coming to the late realization that the two phenomenon form an inherent duality in the Western complex, beginning in narrative form with the geographical expansion of Abraham and his three religions (and their inherent Cultures).

In a seemingly different realm, that of economics and politics, I've developed on the forum that contemporary (l)ibertarianism is ironically a political movement whose veiled sponsor are the remnants of European royalty, such as the Hapsburgs and Bourbons. This from their association with the Mont Pelerin Society and onto such as the Austrian School of Economics. In the USA the libertarian Cato Society is heavily sponsored by traditionalist Catholics, the Koch brothers. Traditionalist Catholics are inherently supposed to be Monarchists, the exact opposite of the pseudo-anarchist libertarians. This also explains the 'deep' associations of 20th century fascists with what is really a Traditionalist Catholic agenda. Catholic as in .... Roman ... as in the underlying values of such as Augustus, the Prince of Peace.

The consequences of Randian economics are such, as they readily admit, are that, yes, as Jesus said: "the poor will always be among us", because at a minimum they are lazy and/or they are not quite so worthy as others (note the new Prosperity Gospel). In such an unrestrained system the (unpreventably corrupt) rich will generally get richer and the poor will get poorer. Politics, such as it is, will become hyper-polarized and boom, some form of apocalyptic denouement will boil over, as sure as making popcorn. As I've covered on another thread, this is the phenomenon experienced with Nazi Germany, which was a messianic millennial (the 1,000 year Reich) movement, with Hitler as it's (False) Messiah. The Nazis hid behind the cover story that they were straying pagan volks, but the messianic theme was cribbed right out of the Bible and included at its core the traditional Christian antipathy towards the tribe of Judah, the ironic "Christ killers". The notion of the Third Reich harkens back, directly or indirectly, to imperial Rome, including such as the Fascist symbol of the fasces.

And so imagine my surprise to re-read Ellis' take on Queen Helena and (son) Izates of Adiabene (aka Josephus' Jesus of Gamala and the 'Egyptian') as leading a political movement that parallels contemporary libertarianism. These rebels being in opposition to the globalizing power of the day, Rome (and its allies including Hellenized Jews). Today's libertarian movement has been somewhat co-opted into abandoning some of its principles, while the demagogue and fake populist Donald Trump seems to be leading his zealous MAGAites over a cliff, ala Atwill's demon possessed pigs of Gadara.

These opposing parties for a dialectic, but note that their Egyptian and Roman ancestors are in common. This is consistent with Jerry's and mine thesis regarding the False Dialectic of Western Civilization, and this is exactly what is happening with the Orange Beast today, and the Biblical Samson, as chaos agents of change.

So in the common posts on this thread, I hope to discuss Ellis various claims regarding how Cleopatra got us to Christ (with the help of some Chrest-like Flavian literary friends). suffice it for now that Josephus named a lot of real, historical people. Yet in this lineage from Cleopatra he left a very clever trail of veiled breadcrumbs to follow. As Ellis stated, there was no need for him do so if he weren't trying to hide the actual names of real people, whose inclusion would destroy the illusion of the historical fascia.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
As Ellis stated, there was no need for him do so if he weren't trying to hide the actual names of real people, whose inclusion would destroy the illusion of the historical fascia.
Cleopatra to Christ and King Jesus were the first two books in what Ellis now considers a trilogy. The third book is Jesus King of Edessa, where Ellis shows that Josephus's dynasty of Adiabene can be equated with the archaeologically validated Abgarid dynasty of Osroene, whose capital was at Edessa. Traditionally, this is said to be Ur of the Chaldees, birthplace of Abraham.

Ellis notes an amusing connection between Phraates IV, identified by Ellis as the true founder of the Abgarids, and the King of the card deck...

Last edited:

Richard Stanley

I wonder if the single bladed axe, or labrys, was common royal iconography for such as the Parthians? More explicit single-bladed axe fasces are seen on such as Roman coins. It appears that for some reason it was the Romans, or during their time that their fasces adopted the single blade, whereas the Etruscans used the common double blade.

I recently watched another episode of the Unearthed series, this one on the Minoans. It opened featuring a discussion of a common linear geometric wall engraving on the walls of the royal areas at Knossos. It is a double bladed labrys. They mentioned that it is conjectured that the double blade might symbolized the dual roles of religious and secular rule.

It's also interesting to learn that the Romans, at least, would only affix the axe blade to the fasces if the circumstances or wielding authority merited the possibility of exercising lethal power. Otherwise, for such as the civil functions of a lower magistrate the axe was left off. Since having the axe on or off was so symbolic, then what reason did they adopt the single blade versus the double blade? Because they were so macho obsessed and the double bladed axe was frequently associated with female power? But this would make a hash out of the conjecture in the prior paragraph.

Richard Stanley

Part 2

With the very title of Ellis' book Cleopatra to Christ we are presented with the seemingly huge problem of how one could ever get from one to the other, from the get go. After all, all the surviving female line was accounted for, right? Cleopatra's daughter with Mark Antony, Cleopatra Selene, was married off by Augustus to the vassal king of Mauritania. Cleopatra VII's sister, Arsinoe, was supposedly assassinated by agents of Mark Antony's, and later Augustus had Caesarion assassinated, the only begotten son of his adoptive parent, also a god.

With this problem, Ellis examines various matter including letter from Cicero, where one can easily deduct that Cleopatra was pregnant at the time that she felt mortally compelled to absquatulate (my new favorite word) from her late lover's love nest. Ellis discusses how Julius Caesar's chronology prior to his assassination allowed for him to be the father. What is missing is any mention in the record of the existence of this daughter, while we know all about subsequent children of Cleo's with Mark Antony.

We are left to reasonably understand that Augustus felt that Mark Antony's children were no threat to succeed as emperor, but why would they be loyal to him, to the point that he trusts such as Selene to represent Rome as a vassal queen.

And since everyone already knew about the young Caesarion, what would be accomplished by hiding the existence of another child still in the womb? Well, for one thing, nobody, including Cleo could know whether the fetus was a male of female, and hence it might be a back-up to Caesarion in Cleo's obvious bid to femcuck her Ptolemaic line into the brand new Roman empire -- that Julius gave impetus to. So, here she would necessarily want to keep the pregnancy mum. But why would suspicious Romans need to be so coy?

This is a very similar problem to the rumored circumstances of the twin Yorkist princes allegedly killed by their uncle, Richard III. One account has it that one twin was secretively spirited away to Europe being replaced with a body double. Ironically one of the men at the center of deposing Richard III, Sir William Stanley, using the princes as a pretext, was later beheaded by Henry VII Tudor because William apparently was discovered siding with the cause that the one prince had indeed secretly survived in exile, thus a threat to Henry.

In any case, from Cleo's perspective, it would make sense even after the revelation that the child was a girl to continue keeping this child a public secret. Hence we know nothing from the historical accounts, via this POV.

As I mentioned at the end of my introductory post, such secrecy about a competing lineage would extend to Josephus Flavius's mortal existence, and hence his motive to cleverly obscure the names of this spurious, yet powerful, line from Julius and Cleo. As Ellis lays out, the names employed by Josephus all have various links that hint to the close observer what is really going on. But, why even go to this approach when Josephus could just have easily employed names that could not be ascertained as Ellis has done? This was a technique that was known, as Ellis used the same technique in prior works to reveal that the lineal heroes of the OT are really encrypted pharaohs of Egypt.

To digress slightly, Ellis' work with this last 'seems' to throw a monkey wrench into my development of the family tree of Jacob, emphasizing the elevation of Ephraim (the half-tribe of Joseph), over all the others including uncle Judah. I believe the solution to this conundrum is likely found in the same literary methodology revealed by Flavio Barbiero in his Secret Society of Moses. Barbiero noted how there was textual games being played with the lineages of Moses and Aaron. This, where we are supposed to believe that Moses (a pharaoh) is accorded as having no spawn, while brother Aaron continues propagating the priestly line of Levi.

From the Sabbah brothers' trenchant Secrets of the Exodus, we see that the pharaoh (Moses) still retains his official position in Egypt whilst his alter ego becomes the Biblical Moses in the remote desert. The narrative Moses plays out the extrapolated role of an exiled(?) real pharaoh, Akhenaton.

Where am I going with this digression? Ellis has laid out the existence of a competing lineage to the historical Roman line, but that it stems from Julius Caesar, grafted onto the pharaonic line. As such, can this be a modus operandi, a script being approximately repeated? With the 18th Dynasty, I have discussed that some feel that Amenhotep III had a co-regency with his son Akhenaton, and was OK with the creation of what we know today as Amarna. We've seen that Amenhotep III also had a very unique relationship with the Mycenaeans, who seem to have partially become the tribe of Dan, leading to the agent of chaos, the Nazarite Samson.

This all revolves around a relatively long process of transformation around the ending of the Bronze Age, of which only Egypt survived.


As we move on, we'll see Ellis discussing Naz.. related names, including Nazarene. They all eventually lead back to Egyptian royalty, as well as back to Edessa / Ur(fa) of the Chaldees and to ... Sabeans.

In the same vein, as I have discussed Jesus meeting in the wilderness with Satan, where Jesus cedes Earth to (his secret brother) Satan, the Book of Revelation mentions that such reigns are swapped on a millennial basis. This appears to be the basis of the Norman Conquest, 1,000 years after the fall of Jerusalem, and its Doomsday Domesday Book. The Normans took over cities in England like the Levites took over the 48 cities of destabilized Canaan. As the Sabbah brothers revealed the original personal prelature priesthood of Amenhotep III were the Yahud. For deniability sake, names get changed to protect the perps.

Thus, we have a framework of understanding that coherently supports Ellis' thesis.

To be continued:
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Part 3

So now that its been discussed that it seems likely that Cleopatra had a 'secret' daughter with Julius Caesar, then where did she end up? Ellis takes us back to our old friend, Josephus Flavius, who recounts the story of Augustus providing an a then common alliance marriage gift of an 'Italian concubine' to the Parthian King Phraates IV in the context of Augustus' more restive policy of the Pax Romana. Yet he gives this important king just a concubine, albeit likely beautiful? He had given a lesser king, an allied vassal, a known daughter of Cleopatra VII, Cleopatra Selene. And it is known in these later times, that even the Egyptians had given the Parthians Egyptians princesses as such brides.

So as Ellis suggests, it seems that there is likely much more to the official story.

Josephus gives this 'concubine' the name of Thermusa, otherwise not mentioned by other accounts. Josephus goes on to recount that Thermusa has a son with Phraates IV eventually named Phraates V, or Phraataces. Josephus states that Phraates IV already had prior sons with royal wives, not mere concubines, yet Thermusa's hold on her husband is so great that she convinces him to send his other 'royal' sons to Augustus to serve as 'hostage', a common practice to ensure compliance of a lesser noble to such as a king or emperor. However, in this specific case something seems a little off, as what was being leveraged against Phraates IV except Thermusa's alleged female powers over him?

At some point Augustus makes a trip to the east and enters negotiation for the return of two legionary battle standards that had been lost in battles to the Parthians. These battle standards were a big political deal to Romans, and knowing this the Parthians had resisted previous Roman efforts to get them back. The last time was when Mark Antony tried with force and lost the second standard in pursuit of the first. So, Ellis ponders, why did Phraates IV accede to give the battle standards back, keeping it in mind was Phraates IV himself who had previously done the refusing, not his predecessors? The only thing that seems to make sense in this context is that Thermusa and son convince him to do so, perhaps the two receiving some secret payoff from Augustus in return?

Later on, Ellis will explain that after mother and son are booted from Parthia, Augustus does put one of Phraates IV's hostaged sons back on the Parthian throne. At this point one has to wonder just how much royal blood matters versus potentially divided loyalties, e.g. serving two masters. Surely Augustus would choose the son seemingly most compliant to him.

The next thing we know, after the sons have been sent off, is that Phraates IV ends up in the Parthian morgue, and rumor has it that Thermusa and son have poisoned him. The death leaving the son to claim the crown, having also conveniently been named as successor by his father before he died. As Ellis relates, such as this 'concubine' and the wild narrative was one more reason that Josephus' historical accuracy has been doubted over time. Yet coins of her and her son have been discovered, proving their existence. And she was known in reality as Thea Muse (or Musa) Ourania.

Josephus recounted that mother and son then married ... each other, and hence why they end up together on said coins. This incestuous practice is not known anywhere but with the royal court of Egypt, and as Josephus recounts this caused cultural outrage in Parthia. Sooner or later, mother and son are deposed and send packing. While Augustus is recorded on the Monumentum Ancyranum (Ankara, Turkey) that the two returned to him as suppliants, they don't go back to Augustus physically, but rather take up somewhere in Roman Syria, with their retinue and retainer of 500 armed horsemen, and where they will raise their children.

I will come back later to detail the additional reasons Ellis identifies Thea Muse Ourania as the 'secret' daughter of Julius Caesar, but for now, Ellis relates that Josephus provides the rationale for just why the two incestuous love birds end up in a province called Batanea (shades of Bethany). Because of the military problems that the Parthians, including Phraates IV, had been giving the Romans and along the Palestine frontier that Herod the Great and later apropos son were willing to provide land to a suitable party. Who would provide a buffer line of defense, the land tax free with regard to remitting to the Jerusalem Temple and to the Herodians.

Tax free land on the frontiers of the Roman empire?
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Part 4

Ellis provides 6 (actually 7) reasons to believe that Thea Muse Ourania is indeed Julius and Cleo's secret daughter, aka Josephus' Thermusa:

  1. This first seems a little weak. It is, as mentioned prior, that the Ptolomid Egyptians had prior provided princesses to this region, however the kings at this time were Seleucid Greeks, part of Alexander's globalist enterprise, as were the Ptolomids.
  2. The Second Avroman Parchment lists the wives of Phraates IV, five years after he takes Thermusa from Augustus, as being: Oleniere, Baseita, Bisthebanaps, and ... Cleopatra. (Sourced via Ellis from the Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3a)
  3. Ellis discusses the synergy of goddess names relating to heavenly aspects, plausibly linking Ourania to Isis, which all Egyptian 'Cleopatra's' linked themselves to.
  4. According to Josephus, the pharaoh's daughter who saved Moses was named Thermuthis, and Ellis talks about an equivalent Egyptian name of Renenutet, a goddess linked to Isis. But as well Ellis discusses a literary visual pun with Renenutet regarding her nature of "rearing up" (like a cobra). But "rearing up", visually at least, can be equated with the rearing up of a child. Unfortunately Ellis failed to complete the typology, so I will: the rearing up of Moses (leading to Joshua - Yeshua) might be equated with the rearing up of the lineage that leads to Izates (Jesus - Yeshua).
  5. Ellis states that the Greek clio is derived from the 'muse' Cleo, hence Cleopatra being the "Poetical Muse of my (Heavenly?) Father". Here, Ellis also ties Isis to the foreign goddess Ast (Astarte) and Est, where the term Easter derives.
  6. Phraates IV and TMO also had a daughter, named Julia Ourania. The name Julia, is also the 'Iulia' clan surname of Julius Caesar, and such names are not assigned lightly amongst royal families, especially in the supposed enemy camp. And here, Ellis asks why she wasn't named Octavia instead. The link to Julius, and to Cleo VII, were being communicated, to those few who paid attention, with eyes to see and ears to hear.
  7. The French historian, Settipani, suggested that Julia Ourania was married to Ptolemy of Mauritania, whose mother was Cleopatra Selene, Julia's aunt.

Richard Stanley

Part 5

In regards to the exiled Thea Muse Ourania and her son/husband, Phraates V, settling somewhere in 'Syria', Ellis quotes Josephus:

Accordingly when (Herod) understood there was a man that was a Jew was come out of Babylon, with five hundred horsemen, all of whom could shoot their arrows on horseback; and with a hundred of his relations, and had passed over the Euphrates and now abode at Antioch (in the north of the Levant opposite Cyprus). (Herod) sent for this man and promised to give him land in the area of Batanea ... he also promised to let him hold the country ... tax free. (Josephus Antiquities, 17:24)​

As Ellis discusses, this quote raises a number of issues which if taken at face value would cause us to reject Ellis' thesis. However, when considered at a deeper level, this and similar accounts provide a lot more clarification ... to much more than we might have ever figured upon. Also, note what I have recently written separately here about Egyptian origins:

The first contextually interesting term is 'Jew', for in what sense could this couple be accounted for as being Jewish? The second term is 'Babylon', for we were talking about Parthia, where they were exiled from. Then, where is Batanea and how is it relevant? And then there is that issue about taxes.

Ellis' solution to the Jewish identification fits right in with our Postflavian approach, in that Judaism is clearly derived from Egyptian religion at its oldest strata. Not only that, but this connection is at the highest level of society and its traditional relationships with religion. This specific identification is no light matter, as it becomes central to the formation of the 'Christian' gospel narrative and the subsequent graft in Romans 11. That is, the grafting of 'gentiles' branch' onto the 'Jewish' or Hebrew Root of Jesse. In prior books, Ellis has shown how Jesse is really a disguised pharaoh, the father of subsequent pharaoh, King David. This encrypted path is how 'Jesus' rates as being of the line of David.

This Babylonian 'Jewish' individual Josephus names as Zamaris, whom he then identifies as the Biblical Judas of Gamala (or Galilee), whom he further goes on to demonstrate how he can be considered Joseph, the father of Jesus (the Nazarene), and Josephus' Jesus of Gamala as well. This latter individual's mother then is Queen Helena of Adiabene, who becomes a Nazarite in Jerusalem, and thus we know as the Virgin Mary.
  • Ellis points out that the meaning of the name Zamaris is a cryptic clue pointing to Julius Caesar's baldness, a genetic trait
  • Zamaris / Phraates IV / Judas of Gamala / Joseph has a sister, Julia Ouriana, indicating a connection to the Iulia line
Josephus notes that Judas of Gamala is the founder of the so-called Fourth Sect of Judaism, meaning it is a novelty for the time. Josephus thus states:
" ... they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only ruler or lord." (Josephus Antiquities, 18:23)​

As Ellis will go to discuss this aspect becomes the same social dialectic (of libertarian, ethnocentric nationalists versus authoritarian, cosmopolitan globalists) that we are witnessing today, as I have been discussing on other threads. It is actually two separate dialects confusingly conflated together, which I will try to disentangle later. In any case, I was quite excited in my re-reading of CtC that Ellis had identified this phenomenon, that our Postflavian thesis should predict. I will interpret the nature of the dialect(s) a bit different and cynically than Ellis however.

The next issue is that of 'Babylon'. At this time ancient Babylon was for centuries part of Parthia, and we must consider that the Parthians were perhaps most famous for their horse-mounted archers, who could shoot accurately when 'offensively retreating' from the enemy. That this 'Jew' had an armed retainer of 500 and a retinue of 100 relatives indicates that he was yet a man of some importance, like a royal or 'noble' at least. If Josephus had a motive for shading matters once, he would do so here as well. And, he hasn't really told a lie in doing so.

It is one thing to claim that the Biblical Jesus descends from a 'Jewish' king (whose actual existence, as depicted, has never been shown) and another to let it definitively slip out, at any point in this encrypted narrative chain, that this Jesus and friends are literally royalty of the highest order. This is consistent with the depiction of all the Biblical Patriarchs as we have discussed in our Old Testament analysis series, where royal personages are transposed into patriarchal hillbillies. Here, as usual, Josephus knows his literary craft, which utilizes typological imitatio, and not inovatio.

Next we move on the region of Betanea, and as Ellis discusses, the regions and boundaries of such as Betanea have become muddled in the passage of time. And he will go on to develop compelling cases for why these areas and several place names can be considered the actual places that the gospels discuss in the early life of Jesus.. I will not go into detail on this aspect as I want to move on to such as the tax and 'Liberty' issue that Ellis gets to.

Beyond that, I would like to add that Ellis' approach seems to make him, and anyone like me who supports it, as 'historicists' and not in the camp of 'mythicists'. However, this requires a nuance in the term of 'historicist, however, as no one is saying here that Jesus of Nazareth existed, as depicted in the Bible. If there is some veiled historical figure, or even more than one, then stubbornly insisting on pure mythicism is deliberately putting on blinkers. Who benefits?

Enough for now.

Richard Stanley

In Cleopatra to Christ Ellis has done a good job, in my opinion, of making the case that the New Testament's Holy Family is historical yet not the absurd depiction of they're being of humble tradesmen stock ... and at the same time of the lineage of a famous king. Just like King David's true identity having been veiled, the same applies for the Holy Family.

And in my opinion, this clever disguising in the Gospel and Pauline accounts is all the more reason to understand why the orthodox canon would not have been in wide circulation for centuries, a too many hoi polloi would have known the real account and names, and have been passing down this knowledge orally for several generations before it fading out sufficiently. In the mean time, the Gospels are known as the 'Chrestian' account, by a sub rosa organization that appears to likely be the Romanized cult of Mithra.

In this same early period the 'Roman' Church is said to have been courted by gnostic leaders such as Valentinus, who desired ecclesiastical offices. In this period the Church is logically a big tent. And this is likely one reason that Josephus/Paul employed the metaphorical device that his parents were 'tentmakers' from Tarsus (the cult center for Mithraism BTW). Like Josephus/Paul has informed us about the Greek Castor and Pollux (Pythagorean) vector into Christianity, he is informing us here about the Persian/Parthian vector here, and elsewhere he informs us of the Egyptian vector.

All of these vectors are more 'overtly' represented in the Mithraic symbolism of the 'underground' church -- of the elites. Such would be the case with the later manifestations of the Templars and the Freemasons, as I concur with Flavio Barbiero in this regard.

Where I diverge from most others, including Ellis, is in the depiction of this underground stream as being at odds with the Church, especially the Roman Church. There is only the appearance of such, and this appearance is carefully groomed, as part of what is termed "controlled opposition". The purpose being that the hoi polloi must not be allowed to understand that it is their trusted Shepherds that are simultaneously and intimately involved in undermining them, degrading their culture and such. All for the Greater (global) Good, so to speak, which is a euphemism for: not likely for your personal greater good.

While in my opinion Ellis is generally correct in his analysis of various Gospel parables demonstrating that references to the Kingdom of Heaven is clever Church spiritual reframing of 'nationalist' promotional propaganda of the Holy Family, where Thea Muse Ourania (like her mother Cleopatra VII) would properly be known as the (Egyptian) Queen of Heaven (Isis), at an esoteric level the Roman Church would not have had any objection to this at all, in fact it is quite proud of such. It would only object to the average person understanding this.

If Augustus Caesar had inserted the descendant of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra VII into Parthia, then the Roman imperial apparatus was continually aware of developments, and likely helped guide future developments to their advantage. Here I can see them encouraging Phraates V (Joseph) and his son Izates (Jesus) to develop their nationalist 4th Creed (as Josephus depicts it) while perhaps leading them on as patsies. This Izates is thus also the 'Egyptian' whose military rebellion fails, and here the Gospel Jesus sees that his fig tree is barren, meaning it is not in the cards for him to succeed to the imperial throne. The Flavian Chrestians have duped him, while his 'friend' Josephus has thrown in his cards with them, the Graft of Romans 11 has been achieved.

And where Ellis is generally correct that a globalist versus nationalist dialectic is respectively formed between Rome and the disguised Holy Family, here as with today's dynamic, I assert this is all controlled opposition. Like the 20th century Fascists (including the fake 'pagan' Nazis) close ties to the Catholic Church, Steve Bannon is a good Catholic boy. Where Ellis points out that the disguised Holy Family were hedonistically libertine via such as their incestuous royal Egyptian marriage(s) practice, the elites of imperial and Christian Rome were ever two-faced in these regards. Donald Trump is repeating the libertine typology in his pandering to America's nationalist zealots, even hinting at his 'odd' relationship with his favorite daughter, and that he "can get away with murder". All the while his White House is filled with Georgetown apparatchiks.

As Ellis will go to discuss this aspect becomes the same social dialectic (of libertarian, ethnocentric nationalists versus authoritarian, cosmopolitan globalists) that we are witnessing today, as I have been discussing on other threads. It is actually two separate dialects confusingly conflated together, which I will try to disentangle later. In any case, I was quite excited in my re-reading of CtC that Ellis had identified this phenomenon, that our Postflavian thesis should predict. I will interpret the nature of the dialect(s) a bit different and cynically than Ellis however.
In the most recent years I have serendipitously learned of the seemingly paradoxical sponsorship of the modern libertarian political and economic movement by the 'remnants' of various Euro-royal houses, such as the Bourbons and Hapsburgs. This via their Mont Pelerin Society, and this operates in conjunction with the so-called Austrian School of Economics, that of laissez faire economists von Mises and Hayek. The Hapsburgs were the emperors of the Second Reich, the so-called Holy Roman Empire. The seeming paradox can only be resolved once one understands the aspects of such as "controlled opposition" and transitional hidden agendas. Without 'seeing' the underlying sponsorships we are misled to believe that such as libertarianism, especially the most extreme Randian form as being of an organic nature. The exact same thing goes for totalitarian Communism, and while we should be seeking to find middle ground in all such, we are today informed by the 'patriots' that anything short of Randian extremism is godless Communism. Who is benefiting from such artificial polarization?

Ironically, this economic dialectic leaves space for such as yesterdays' 20th century and today's Fascists to claim the 'rhetorical' economic middle ground (aligned somewhat with the late 19th century Papal Bull Rerum Novarum) while performing the redux of simultaneously blaming the Jews for both the real excesses of Capitalism and Marxism. But who really wants to get into bed with such hateful and paranoid kooks?

And so just as I see today's machinations, where Right and Left are controlled oppositions at the highest levels, the same occurred in Biblical times, both OT and NT, and hence form our Postflavian notion of the False Dialectic of Western Civilization. The playbook stays the same, because it works on the same underlying human psychology. The Jewish War provided the chaotic social backdrop to shoehorn a new religion into place over the course of several centuries, that replaced several others and so-called mystery cults.

Today, we are repeating the same script, even having recreated Israel as a flashpoint and Persia (Iran) as the West's foil du jour. Today, as President Nero (or Caligula?) flaunts every American norm or law he can find, oil tankers are attacked in the Gulf of Oman (an extention of the Persian Gulf). Or so we are to believe.
Last edited: