Seeker

Active Member
Well, according to the accounts, Julius royal Iulia family had for centuries been relegated to the political backwaters, because of the shift to the republican anti-monarchical bias. That is, until Julius showed his mettle in various ways, rising up somewhat like the lowly shepherd, David.
Yes, and Julius Caesar was certainly not shy about "allowing" himself to be promoted as a living god on earth, with Mark Antony as his flamen (however, Octavian [Augustus] eventually carried on the Caesar cult with himself as the chosen son of Divus Julius), but had to draw the line at kingship when Antony tried to crown him at the Lupercalia and the people demurred. Would he have eventually become king, if he had been spared to conduct his Parthian campaign in triumph? I'm not sure yet if I go for this 100%, but Charles N. Pope on his "Domain of Man" site has the All in the Uber-Family of Julius (fake death) father of Caesarion (fake death) father of Jesus (fake death), with all of them under various alias eventually becoming the "Great King of the World". Pope seems to think that this elite family could pull it off throughout the ages, utilizing different names, costumes, countries, substitutes, etc. to fool the poor stuck in the mud sheep who never leave home and view their rulers from a safe, undetectable distance.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I have long wondered what the effective difference was in Julius having become 'dictator', versus becoming a king. Beyond, I guess, the stronger dynastic implication of the latter. And, would not the planned Parthian campaign have made a problem for implementing such as Ellis's scenario via secret daughter, Thea Muse Ourania?
 

Seeker

Active Member
There was no effective difference, it may have been a clever ploy by the "shrewd fake populist" Caesar to make himself look good in the eyes of the people, using henchman Mark Antony. At the time Caesar was to leave for the Parthian campaign (March 44 BC) his secret daughter was not even born yet, but even if he had conquered it, could it not have been eventually ruled by a client king, as Numidia/Mauretania was by Juba II under his "son" Augustus (Julius and later Augustus raised him after his capture by Julius, so he was well programmed by Rome)? A member of the Imperial Household, Cleopatra Selene, was given to him as a bride by Augustus, so why not another female member (called a "concubine", just as Mary Magdalene later was) given to a loyal Parthian client king by the same Augustus (which for all intents and purposes was what really happened anyway), resulting in a future Roman operative descendant, code named "Jesus", if he himself was the secret descendant of these two lines? Like father, like son, very "shrewd" planning for the future. As for Vespasian, was it his "role" to play the plain speaking, hardworking, capable "peasant" in this play to succeed the Caesars, just as Mark Antony may have previously had the "role" of the crude, drunken, lascivious "fall guy" for these Caesars? Divide and conquer, switch the names, locations, and/or loyalties of the "real players", so the sheep will not guess that it is all the same family that controls the big global picture, by focusing on nationalist agendas.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I happened across this 2.5 hour video last night, which covers a broad range of topics. At one point in the middle it mentions a canonic gospel passage (Matthew 14:1-2) where Herod wonders if Jesus is John the Baptist reincarnated. From the standard chronology in the canon this is ridiculous as the two live in the same generation as cousins. However, Ellis speculates a late birth for Jesus and I think an earlier death for JtB. And, of course with the latter that Josephus was a 'replacement' brother for JtB.

1At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, 2And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him. (Matthew 14 KJV)​
13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. (Matthew: 16 KJV)​

This, of course, begs the question of possible beliefs in reincarnation at the time in either early Xianity or Judaism.

1And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? (John 9 KJV)​

It has a weird (because of the UFO Channel lead in) and slow start, but turns to a rapid pace. Robert Price is one of the commentators.

It has a very interesting treatment of Satan, that he is a diligent OT protecter of Yahweh's interests in such as the story of Job. But he has been recruited to an evil role in the NT, especially in Revelation. And, as I discuss, it is necessarily God, the Creator, who is ontologically responsible for all things, evil as with good.
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Active Member
However, Ellis speculates a late birth for Jesus and I think an earlier death for JoB.
This would certainly make more sense, if John the Baptist were a generation ahead of Jesus and thus "reincarnated" in him. When John baptized Jesus a "Holy Spirit" hovered over Christ in the form of a dove, could this be a symbolic way of stating that when Jesus began his public ministry he took over from the executed John? However, as we know that the historical Pontius Pilate was in power 26-36 AD, so was Jesus "initiated" into the mysteries during his rule with a symbolic "death", as Lazarus may have been also, and not actually "crucified" until the conclusion of the Jewish War? Josephus may be deliberately conflating two different events here. Just to make things more interesting, H. Spencer Lewis, the founder of the AMORC Rosicrucians in the US, believed that Jesus was the reincarnation of Zoroaster!
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
This would certainly make more sense, if John the Baptist were a generation ahead of Jesus and thus "reincarnated" in him. When John baptized Jesus a "Holy Spirit" hovered over Christ in the form of a dove, could this be a symbolic way of stating that when Jesus began his public ministry he took over from the executed John?
Ignoring the possibility of a reincarnation here, just the pondering by Herod (whoever wrote this) about this presents the possibility of the chronological plausibility of the Ellis scenario.

With reference to reincarnation, one would then have to consider such as the Mandaean claim that JtB was a good guy and Jesus not so much.

With regard to the baptism, the video asks why Jesus (as the Son of God vs. the Son of Man) needed to be baptized in the first place. Maybe just the human half of Jesus needed to be baptized? :)
So could this also extend to the NT, in that Satan is representing the interests of "God" when he offers Jesus all of the kingdoms of the world?
It seems possible to me.

BTW, I fixed JoB to JtB.
 
Last edited:

Seeker

Active Member
With reference to reincarnation, one would then have to consider such as the Mandaean claim that JtB was a good guy and Jesus not so much.
If the above was true, perhaps the Mandaeans considered Jesus "just an imitation" John, not the original flavor (beware of imitations!). Jesus does not seem to have taken this "identification" very seriously himself, as in the very next verse (Matthew 16:15), after the above quotes from Matthew in your posting, he then asks his disciples, "But whom say YE that I am?" This leads to Peter's "Confession", and the controversial verse 18, appointing him as the Roman Catholic "Pope", with Peter receiving the "keys" by which he can bind and loose everything on the earth, with the same result in heaven when he does this (a parody of Josephus predicting Vespasian becoming Emperor, and in return getting to be the chief propagandist [the key?] for the new Flavian empire/religion, i.e. earth and "heaven"?).
Also notice a few more verses down (23) when Jesus does an about face and tells Peter to "Get thee behind me, Satan". Is PETER now representing the interests of God in the NT, standing "behind" Jesus, and is he also representing the interests of the Roman Catholic Church in those apocalyptic verses of Revelation? Then Jesus makes his "pitch", and says for all us to follow him, for if you "lose" your life for his sake you will find it (in eternal servitude), and there is much more "profit" in this than in owning the whole world ("God" really owns it anyway).
Finally, at Matthew 15:28, we have the "Postflaviana" memory verse, "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here ( in Jerusalem), which shall not taste of death (including Jesus himself and Josephus at the time of the Jewish War), till they see the Son of man (Vespasian the practical common man mocked efforts to deify him, and Titus was his son) coming in his kingdom (the Flavian Dynasty of Rome, with Vespasian as its founding Emperor and son Titus as the Victorious General over the Jews and his successor)". For the truly devout, I mean no blasphemy here, but perhaps this entire Chapter of Matthew 16 is an example of truth in plain sight, "but can ye not DISCERN the signs of the times?" as Jesus himself says (go back up to verse 3 ).[/QUOTE]
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The video also talks about the schism between the Ebionite early Church and the Paulenes, and thus how the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (one of 150 early gospels) shows James being the proper successor and not Peter.
 

Seeker

Active Member
Hmmm, from memory, I remember reading "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by the late Laurence Gardner (who was accused of plagiarizing Nicholas de Vere), and in it he posits that Joseph of Arimathea was really James the brother of Jesus. Combining this with Ellis and King Arthur, this would mean that the "true" church went to England eventually (as Ellis relates Jesus did and Gardner states that James did) and a bloodline was founded there, in opposition to Rome.
 

Seeker

Active Member
Yes, unless Josephus/Joseph of Arimathea was sent to England from Rome to counteract and "succeed" Jesus there as a "brother" James. If Jesus was born in 14 AD as Ellis now postulates, and Josephus is historically deduced to have been born in 37 AD, he could very well have come to England later than Jesus to "undo" any damage that may have been done, just as Jesus may have "succeeded" the much older John the Baptist earlier and was considered not so good by the Mandaeans. Josephus is supposed to have passed away in Rome about AD 100, though this appears to be an assumption to me, and nothing appears to be known of his children and bloodline after that.
 

Seeker

Active Member
"Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by the late Laurence Gardner (who was accused of plagiarizing Nicholas de Vere)
Where Gardner parted company with Nicholas de Vere was that he believed that the true royal dynasty are the Stuarts, and not the de Vere bloodline.
 
Just read THE FABRICATED PAUL by Hermann Detering, where he argues that the letters of Paul were written in the 2nd Century. He looks for a history of them going back earlier and concludes they did not come into circulation until the mid 100s. He also refers to various textual analyses that point to 2nd Century authorship. If Paul were actually a student of Gamaliel as claimed, then he should have been more fluent in Hebrew. Instead he used only quotations from the Greek Septuagint. There seem to be few records of Paul's congregations after his writings.

Detering proposes that the Pauline letters were the creation of the 2nd Century heretic Marcion, whose Gnostic-like church was the main competitor to the Roman Catholics. Instead of the Demi-Urge, Marcion cast Jehovah in the role of the corrupt material god, the God of Law. In opposition he posited a greater Good God, who sent Jesus to overthrow the Rule of Law with the Rule of Love. Apparently, this doctrine was vastly popular since his churches outnumbered the Catholics. When he broke from the Roman church, he needed a canon to establish his bona fides and so adopted the legendary evangelist Paul as his founder. Detering thinks that the Paul legend, as told in Acts, was then fleshed out with the Pastoral letters that were really addressing issues in Marcion's own churches. He does a good job of showing how the theological matters covered in the letters were more germane to the 2nd Century than the 1st and they they were the principle issues that divided Marcion from the Catholics.

Once the Roman Catholics had stamped out the 'Gnostic heresy' they needed to take back Paul, so there was likely another round of editing to bring Marcion's work into line. (I suspect Eusebius, who appears to have done other dirty work for the church.) Detering notes the Gnostic themes that have survived the redactions and the possible motives for the insertions.

Detering thinks the model for Paul was Simon Magus and spends a chapter on this enigmatic figure without coming up with convincing parallels. (To me, Simon seems more like a model for Jesus.) I would note that the Book of Acts looks to be derived from Josephus, so it would make sense that some of the details of Paul's life would come from his works. I would ask: if Josephus was the author of the New Testament, then why would he have needed the letters of Paul? If these are pure fabrications, then wouldn't they risk exposure? How would they be necessary to the proposed deception? To me, they appear to be an effort to document the works of Paul to give weight to the enforcement of selected teachings -- something Marcion would need in breaking the grip of Jewish Law. I can't help thinking that Apollonius of Tyana might also be part of the model. Like Paul, he went on missionary journeys to many of the same places.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Yes, there seem just too many of these 'gnostic' or similar characters (yours above and Valentinus and Basilides) floating around the early Roman Church, and now we have this issue of Bartram's, i.e. 'Chrestianity' and its links to the Flavians. And this latter's strong linkages back to the Platonic and Homeric stratas.

As such, your question about what role Marcion might have played are one reason I think we need this spreadsheet project to make it easier to see all the potential impacts and weigh them.

Similarly, I am going to add yet another element to the mix, that we have mostly ignored like Marcion. And that is ... SEX.

Many researchers touch on various aspects of sex in relation to such as the real story of Jesus and the Templars, etc.. But usually we are left unsatisfied, pun intended. Last night I watched Robert Sepehr's work on this matter and felt rather gratified, pun intended. As seems to be the norm, or apropos, with such a topic, this starts slow and builds, covering a wide range of aspects and cultures. I may do a separate post on this or place it under the From Krishna to Christ thread, but it also fits here with coverage of Egyptian, Judaic, and Christian aspects, including Gnostic. Also, Hermeticism and the OG Alchemy. As such, this helps build a bridge in the thesis of widespread linkages of inheritance between religions of different regions. Here we see dragons, serpents, androgynous hybrid beings, cosmic trees,... etc.

This also helps explain the Catholic treatment of sex and marriage, in the context of the widespread and longterm pervsity of its clergy. But note the different context for such as Immaculate Conception that normally gets summarily dismissed.


This also seems to fit well with Pierre Grimes's notion that Plato has been mistranslated and thus misinterpreted, that such as his ideal city-state was not meant for Earthly implementation. And so is the Book of Revelation, really meant, on the esoteric level, as means for personal revelation, rather than for scripting a new age for the masses. Or, both?
 

Seeker

Active Member
This also seems to fit well with Pierre Grimes's notion that Plato has been mistranslated and thus misinterpreted, that such as his ideal city-state was not meant for Earthly implementation. And so is the Book of Revelation, really meant, on the esoteric level, as means for personal revelation, rather than for scripting a new age for the masses. Or, both?
So could the foregoing be yet another example of Elite manipulation, this time of the Rosicrucian maxim, "as above, so below", with the "above"(esoteric) meaning meant for them, and the "below"(exoteric) meaning meant for the rest of us?
 
Top