From Cleopatra to Christ
- Thread starter Richard Stanley
- Start date
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
I have viewed all of this as part of a long term process construction of religious and societal mergers and acquisitions. The Romans and their related 'foreign' elites, were well aware of the reasons that Alexander's empire fell apart. And, the Romans were otherwise very tolerant of new and cults, provided that they did not present themselves as an existential threat to the empire or the court.
As such, I agree that Vespasian was certainly not a prime mover.
It is very easy for those highly intelligent people to have taken their evolved gods seriously ... if their narratives are properly understood as esoteric metaphors for how the cosmos and Earthly phenomenon actually work. For instance, see the myth of Europa and Hades. This is basic cosmology, plain and simple, that such as the uneducated and illiterate hoi polloi would have contextual difficulty correctly comprehending, without guidance. The Christian corpus contains similar esoteric cosmology, such as the Pythagorean 153 fishies, linking back to the Omphalos of Delphi. Jesus and his 'cross' replaced the Gemini Twins, Castor and Pollux, who were the prior saviors of the Greco-Roman world since the collapse of the Late Bronze Ages marked by the Trojan War. Those Twins had their dual upright cross, the dokana, which hoplites and legionaries would carry before them. Paul would then ride a ship, the Castor and Pollux, to symbolically bring Roman Christianity there.
But, these narratives are not easily transposed, like computer code, for various reasons. And so, at some point, the elites recognized the need to create a universal (catholic) narrative, hence the Roman graft found in Romans 11.
Absolutely, he ties Josephus to Paul, but the faithful say this is just a coincidence of names and ... job descriptions.
In any case, I think Nero was just playing a role, of a necessary foil. It was his demand that triggered the war. No demand, no war, no Christianity. It's rather funny to read the Talmud comments about him.
I think it likely that he was intended to play a role, but 'accidents' do happen, and therefore one needs contingency plans right? Maybe this is why Antony had to break away from the otherwise logical Octavian succession camp and thus foment the tension with Octavian, via refusing to supply grain. It seems that it would have been easier for Caesarion to do this, as a real rival for accession.
Thx
Yes, I think we have that video link posted on one or two other threads here.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
As the following has to do with Arthur, which Ellis discussed, I have posted it here. It seems that the author, Graham Phillips, may have found the grave location of the original, real 'Arthur' just outside of Daschurch, England. This man, and the early accounts of him are within the accorded chronological period. The only thing that I see that creates a problem for Ellis might be the etymology of the name, but maybe the later Norman writers conveniently co-opted the similarity for their 'Romantic' reinterpretations?
Richard, what you just said about the etymology of "Arthur" rings a bell with me. In a recent conversation with a family DNA researcher, he told me that after the Conquest in 1066, he believed that the Normans "assimilated" native Saxon names, i.e., if a Saxon name sounded somewhat like one of their own Norman names they made a Norman name out of it
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Hence: the Norman Stanley, Anglo-Saxon for 'stone', and French for 'field' or 'meadow' (from leigh).
The Welch (the real Britons) would be quite offended that this original Arthur person would be accorded as an Anglo-Saxon.
The Welch (the real Britons) would be quite offended that this original Arthur person would be accorded as an Anglo-Saxon.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
Jerry and I have no say in this, it's all up to the gods of XenForo.
A 2012 article by Francesco Carotta entitled "Fulvia: The Mother of Christianity?", one time wife of Mark Antony, has an English translation on his site. A Fulvia Pia was the mother of Roman Emperor Septimius Severus two centuries later. An unsourced genealogy of Fulvia Pia has her descended from both Roman Emperor Titus and Ancus Marcius, 4th King of Rome, grandson of Numa Pompilius, the Sabine 2nd King of Rome.
DESCENT OF MARCUS AURELIUS FROM ARRIUS PISO http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso/marcaurl.html DESCENT OF CONSTANTINE 1 FROM CLAUDIUS II GOTHICUS http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso/constan1.html DESCENT OF SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS FROM ARRIUS PISO http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso/septsev.html RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN: THE HERODIANS, FLAVIANS, & THE PISOS http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso/her-flav.html
This is the old Roman Piso Homepage from 2000, never updated. The first link will show you the descent from Arrius Calpurnius Piso, whom they believe is also Josephus, down to Lucilla, daughter of Marcus Aurelius, and the second link will take you from there to Constantine the Great. The third link has a different descent of Septimius Severus and his mother Fulvia Pia than the first one I had mentioned previously, it stems from Arrius Calpurnius Piso (Josephus). The fourth link shows how they are all connected to the Herodians (Herod the Great married a Maccabee in this pedigree) and "Uncle" Vespasian, for what that it worth.
The only ancestry Roman Piso does not show in these pedigrees is the Sabine descent, but the grandfather of Vespasian was born and raised in Reate (now Rieti), the modern capital of the Sabina region. Reate was originally a major site of the Sabine nation well before the foundation of Rome.
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
It would seem that similar to Ellis who did not really read, or retain, Atwill's Caesar's Messiah, I must not have read the last 'non-chapters' of Jesus was Caesar, for as I stated prior Carotta has laid out a very detailed combination morphing and redaction process, in his non-chapter Final Observations. This whereby the first strata of what became the Gospels were variously reworked, across the empire, from the original Historiae of Julius Caesar produced by Aesinius Pollio. Then, these altered texts, now reflecting the respective cultural outlooks of their spontaneous and independent local redactors and audiences became available to the Flavian imperial team led by Flavius Josephus. The latter would then give the best 4 selected versions their final Judaic gloss ... and, separately from Carotta, the Josephan team provided the textually inter-winding nature of the resulting gospels with Josephus' Jewish War (ala Atwill's analysis).
This 'seems' like it might cause a problem for Ellis' thesis, because why would we have an account of a real history, that of Julius' Civil War, being overlaid with the Jewish War? Well, first of all, we only know of the details of what happened in the Jewish War, because Josephus tells us so. Thus, he was pretty free to describe the latter war, in a relatively remote area, as he pleased. And/or, ... is it possible that the Romans cleverly planned their campaign chronology in Galilee to comply roughly with the first? I think there are some Gaul-ing and legion-dary reasons to think this might indeed be the case, which I'll discuss further below.
Carotta explains that the original history, covering the Civil War between Julius and Pompey, would have been provided to each Roman garrison throughout the empire, where it would be treated as a divine text ... because Julius Caesar was a god after all. Thus it would be recited variously,
just as done in Christian churches today. However, Carotta explains that the original texts' formal language was not suitable for communicating with common soldiers and their families, hence the local garrison 'chaplains' would respectively translate the texts to the vernaculars more suited. In the process there would be a range of things that could go awry in the translations, as is typical, and some material would get redacted differently depending on whether it might conflict with respective cultural biases of a particular legion.
Thus, this first spontaneous process would have made the later efforts of Josephus et al. much easier, where they would just have to decide how to remove or disguise references to the Civil War, and then add Judaic references such as the various OT prophecies, the business about the Nativity and John the Baptist, etc..
Carotta explains that there were a range of factors that would additionally make the original texts easy to repurpose, including convenient similarities in names and such. This includes that Julius Caesar's favorite troops were from Gaul, similar in name to the region of Galilee. But, there were also many 'gentiles' living in this region, including legionary veterans. Herod the Great had settled five Roman legions in his domains.
And, in looking up the history of the Legio X Fretensis, used in the Jewish War, they had been deployed to such as Syrian Palmyra:
This would be in the general time frame that the family of Thea Muse Ourania was setting up house in the region.
How convenient to have retired veterans (and their sons) living in the region of 'Jesus' Galilean 'ministry'. Agent provocateurs anyone? No, they would never do such a thing.
As such, I'll next add some choice quotes from this chapter.
This 'seems' like it might cause a problem for Ellis' thesis, because why would we have an account of a real history, that of Julius' Civil War, being overlaid with the Jewish War? Well, first of all, we only know of the details of what happened in the Jewish War, because Josephus tells us so. Thus, he was pretty free to describe the latter war, in a relatively remote area, as he pleased. And/or, ... is it possible that the Romans cleverly planned their campaign chronology in Galilee to comply roughly with the first? I think there are some Gaul-ing and legion-dary reasons to think this might indeed be the case, which I'll discuss further below.
Carotta explains that the original history, covering the Civil War between Julius and Pompey, would have been provided to each Roman garrison throughout the empire, where it would be treated as a divine text ... because Julius Caesar was a god after all. Thus it would be recited variously,
just as done in Christian churches today. However, Carotta explains that the original texts' formal language was not suitable for communicating with common soldiers and their families, hence the local garrison 'chaplains' would respectively translate the texts to the vernaculars more suited. In the process there would be a range of things that could go awry in the translations, as is typical, and some material would get redacted differently depending on whether it might conflict with respective cultural biases of a particular legion.
Thus, this first spontaneous process would have made the later efforts of Josephus et al. much easier, where they would just have to decide how to remove or disguise references to the Civil War, and then add Judaic references such as the various OT prophecies, the business about the Nativity and John the Baptist, etc..
Carotta explains that there were a range of factors that would additionally make the original texts easy to repurpose, including convenient similarities in names and such. This includes that Julius Caesar's favorite troops were from Gaul, similar in name to the region of Galilee. But, there were also many 'gentiles' living in this region, including legionary veterans. Herod the Great had settled five Roman legions in his domains.
And, in looking up the history of the Legio X Fretensis, used in the Jewish War, they had been deployed to such as Syrian Palmyra:
Not much later, Legio X Fretensis went to Syria.[4] An inscription in the temple of Bel in Palmyra dated AD 14-19, signed by the commander of the legion, was dedicated to members of the emperor's family.[5] This has led experts to believe X Fretensis took part in Germanicus' campaign in the East, as well that the legion was stationed at Zeugma to secure the frontier with Parthia.[4]
This would be in the general time frame that the family of Thea Muse Ourania was setting up house in the region.
How convenient to have retired veterans (and their sons) living in the region of 'Jesus' Galilean 'ministry'. Agent provocateurs anyone? No, they would never do such a thing.
As such, I'll next add some choice quotes from this chapter.
As you have seen, the Roman Piso pedigree charts show what you have postulated, that Hasmoneans and Herodians did intermarry with the noble Sabine families. Besides the Sabine family of Vespasian in the male line, the Pisos, a branch of the Calpurnii, were said to be descended from Calpus, son of the Sabine 2nd King of Rome, Numa Pompilius, and a later pedigree has Josephus/Piso as a great-grandson of Julius Caesar, just as "Jesus" was, only by his wife Calpurnia. Since Caesar and Calpurnia had no known children, if they had a son who was a Calpurnii through his mother he must have been raised as the son of a Piso after the assassination of Caesar, to prevent his early demise by Octavian, like that of his half brother Caesarion. Perhaps this is why we hear no more of Calpurnia after the end of Caesar, she went into hiding during her confinement. In the first century the Calpurnii were second to the imperial family alone, and Roman Piso believes that members of the Piso family were members of an imperial writing team, as you also postulated, and that Arrius Calpurnius Piso/Josephus was a master of deceit, using many pseudonyms, which we are still trying to untangle.I like to think of Josephus as a type of Joseph Geobbels (or vice-versa), and that he is willingly playing his propaganda role within the elite Western system of naughty Identity games. As Cyrus H. Gordon noted in his books on the Old Testament, the actions depicted for the Patriarchs show a constant level of Deceit, which for their times was not assigned the moral stance for later Christian sheep society. As I have discussed elsewhere, Deceit (and thus Consciousness of Deception - as an evolved reaction) is recognized by modern science (the Science of Mind) as one aspect of animal intelligence. Birds and bees do it, so why don't (the royal) we (Josephus and the Sabines)?
As to Constantine, I have discussed several times (Simcha Jacobovici's TV episodes) about Constantine's Arch, that it's placement pays homage to the Flavians, e.g. Titus' Arch and Vespasian's Colosseum. But, I don't remember him saying that Constantine descended from Josephus, who accorded himself as a Hasmonean, i.e. a Maccabee. Remember that it was a Hasmonean who traveled to Rome and invited the Romans to play with them against the Seleucids(?). Sound familiar?
Also that Joseph takes after ... Joseph, who colluded with Pharaoh (Gen 47) to manipulate the Egyptian markets to the extent that all free Egyptian (happily) sold themselves into feudal bondage in order to survive this crony capitalism. It would not be long before Europe was placed under just such a system after Roman Christianity took hold.
In any case, I do remember that Barbiero asserts that the family of Josephus took over from the (Sabine) imperial Romans, but he offered up no proof of this. I think it far more likely that these Hasmoneans (and Herodians - Biblical Esau) would have intermarried with noble Sabine families, thus forming what became the inbred Euro-royals and nobility that we know and 'love' today.
The Genesis org chart of the descended tribes of Abraham predicts the later association of the same elites throughout Western history. This is one of the key elements of our OT analysis series on our blog. The False Dialectic of Western Civilization is thus the Mother of all Divide and Conquer ploys. The goal of which is the common subtext of the OT and the NT, global domination. One sees this general modus operandi at work, in a cruder context, with such as the Roma and the Travelers, who have their own religious interpretations for their imitative tribal immorality. But we (happily) let our elites get away with whatever they want, while blaming various 'invaders', who are invading us, because of what our elites have been causing for generations.
Regarding Piso, given the importance of Piso's library and the family's relationship to such as the god, Julius Caesar, it might be that Josephus, a self-proclaimed expert of his Jewish people and culture, was assigned to work with Piso (and others forming an imperial writing team). If Carotta is correct, then the historical corpus of Asinius Pollio, already used in a religious context under the imperial cult, would have needed such an expert on Judaism to salt the Pollio text with such as Judaic prophecies in producing what eventually became the Christian canon (but likely first the Chrestian canon - per Bartram).
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
It is my theory that the assassination of Julius Caesar was staged, fake, and this is one reason that he was joking about it at the Last Supper with such as Brutus, the son of his long time mistress. And, if so, this may be why we don't hear from Calpurnia, because she went to the Hidden Resort of the day with JC.
JC has a fake assassination, and then another JC has a cruci-fiction (fiction as in fake)? And then the latter goes to a new Hidden Resort?
Imagine if those Norman (from the Fitzgeralds) Kennedys understood the typology and Camelot boy went to yet another Hidden Resort, ala Miles Mathis' and Postflaviana member Tyrone McCloskey's theories. As I have discussed several times, there was nothing more effective in defanging the Reformation than the JFK assassination, as it was no longer tenable for Protestants to complain about Catholics in American politics.
Of course, Jackie Kennedy didn't go along to the Hidden Resort, but maybe Marilyn did. Mary?
JC has a fake assassination, and then another JC has a cruci-fiction (fiction as in fake)? And then the latter goes to a new Hidden Resort?
Imagine if those Norman (from the Fitzgeralds) Kennedys understood the typology and Camelot boy went to yet another Hidden Resort, ala Miles Mathis' and Postflaviana member Tyrone McCloskey's theories. As I have discussed several times, there was nothing more effective in defanging the Reformation than the JFK assassination, as it was no longer tenable for Protestants to complain about Catholics in American politics.
Of course, Jackie Kennedy didn't go along to the Hidden Resort, but maybe Marilyn did. Mary?
http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=ma6tkr9r0jpg15sv8uo837gmc5&board=14.0 Since you are obviously into "Hidden Resorts", this link will take you to a very small part of the "Domain of Man" site by Charles N. Pope, where he postulates afterlives for both Caesar and Jesus. No English golden cage for this Jesus, he's the winner in this version, the Great King of the World like "granddaddy" Divine Julius!
Tyrone McCloskey
Active Member
According to Miles Mathis, Marilyn went to Hawaii and then to Hollywood Florida. Charles Stanley Gifford is allegedly Monroe's biological father. Any relation? http://mileswmathis.com/monroe.pdf
Richard Stanley
Well-Known Member
To me? Not that I know of. Some people get their given or middle names from relations, so maybe there is some distant connection that I'm not aware of.
Hi everyone, sorry to have been AWOL a few days. Nice to see so much constructive activity here.
As my small contribution, I'd like to point out that in addition to his recent book "Piso Christ", "Roman Piso" posts most of his work nowadays at:
https://independent.academia.edu/RomanPiso
For example, this paper on Arrius Calpurnius Piso gives the following evidence about this person's existence. It all seems rather tenuous to me, and I can well understand why no other historian has ever noticed that this person existed, if indeed he did. (Sorry, screenshot, couldn't cut and paste from the PDF).
https://www.academia.edu/33328631/Flavius_Josephus_aka_Arrius_Calpurnius_Piso.pdf
As my small contribution, I'd like to point out that in addition to his recent book "Piso Christ", "Roman Piso" posts most of his work nowadays at:
https://independent.academia.edu/RomanPiso
For example, this paper on Arrius Calpurnius Piso gives the following evidence about this person's existence. It all seems rather tenuous to me, and I can well understand why no other historian has ever noticed that this person existed, if indeed he did. (Sorry, screenshot, couldn't cut and paste from the PDF).
https://www.academia.edu/33328631/Flavius_Josephus_aka_Arrius_Calpurnius_Piso.pdf
Last edited:
Also, I have a question. There are a number of men named "Jesus" that are mentioned briefly by Josephus. These include Jesus of Gamala and Jesus of Sapphias, both described briefly as rebel leaders; a Jesus from Idumea who is a high priest that gives a speech; an otherwise unspecified Jesus who leads the "fishers of men" incident at the Sea of Galilee; and Jesus ben Ananias, identified by Joe Atwill as the "woe-saying Jesus", who seems to be an obvious satire of Biblical Jesus with his curses on the Pharisees copied word for word.
Ever since "Jesus Last of the Pharaohs" (first published 1998), Ellis has been claiming that most or all of these Jesus characters are one and the same, and that they collectively can be identified as "Biblical Jesus". And I can see that each of the four has some shared typology with Biblical Jesus, but I have trouble conflating them together as the same person. Gamala is not the same place as Tiberius home of Jesus ben Sapphias, and neither of them is in Idumea. Jesus ben Ananias is a peasant farmer, not a priest or local governor like the others. There's nothing to connect them together, other than their disparate typological connections to Biblical Jesus.
Furthermore, none of these Jesus characters is identified as Josephus's arch rival and predominant leader of the rebels. The most dominant rebel leader, according to Josephus, is John of Gischala. I'm wondering if Ellis is conflating this John of Gischala as yet another identity of Jesus of Gamala / Jesus of Sapphias? I think so, but I can't find where Ellis says so outright, or justifies the connection.
Moving right along: Ellis also conflates this "Jesus of Gamala" (or John of Gischala?) with Izates Monobazus. Izates is then identified as King Manu V Abgarus of Edessa, who is linked at least by marriage to the Adiabene dynasty including Queen Helena and Thea Muse Ourania.
And here's where I'm having the most trouble. Josephus traces the Jewish rebellion to its origin with Judas of Galilee aka Judas of Gamala, who founded the "fourth philosophy" and was probably killed about 6 AD. His sons and descendants included James, Simon, Meneham and Eleazar, all noted by Josephus as powerful rebel leaders.
I believe James son of Judah the Galilean is the one that Eisenman studied extensively in "James Brother of Jesus". But, Eisenman found a great historical emptiness where this "Jesus brother of James" ought to have been.
So, my question is: are y'all comfortable with the idea that there were at least two dynastic families affiliated with the Judean rebel leadership? That is, one dynastic group was the family of Judah the Galilean, representing the "fourth philosophy" and also linked to the Essenes of Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls? (And if I'm not mistaken, with claims of descent from the Maccabees?)
And the other would be the dynasty of Edessa & Adiabene, which Ellis claims is descended from Caesar, Cleopatra and the Parthians? These would be the "controlled opposition" rebel leadership, as opposed to the descendants of Judah the Galilean, who were real nationalist zealots?
How sure are we that John of Gischala is the same person as Izates/Manu? What's the evidence?
Ever since "Jesus Last of the Pharaohs" (first published 1998), Ellis has been claiming that most or all of these Jesus characters are one and the same, and that they collectively can be identified as "Biblical Jesus". And I can see that each of the four has some shared typology with Biblical Jesus, but I have trouble conflating them together as the same person. Gamala is not the same place as Tiberius home of Jesus ben Sapphias, and neither of them is in Idumea. Jesus ben Ananias is a peasant farmer, not a priest or local governor like the others. There's nothing to connect them together, other than their disparate typological connections to Biblical Jesus.
Furthermore, none of these Jesus characters is identified as Josephus's arch rival and predominant leader of the rebels. The most dominant rebel leader, according to Josephus, is John of Gischala. I'm wondering if Ellis is conflating this John of Gischala as yet another identity of Jesus of Gamala / Jesus of Sapphias? I think so, but I can't find where Ellis says so outright, or justifies the connection.
Moving right along: Ellis also conflates this "Jesus of Gamala" (or John of Gischala?) with Izates Monobazus. Izates is then identified as King Manu V Abgarus of Edessa, who is linked at least by marriage to the Adiabene dynasty including Queen Helena and Thea Muse Ourania.
And here's where I'm having the most trouble. Josephus traces the Jewish rebellion to its origin with Judas of Galilee aka Judas of Gamala, who founded the "fourth philosophy" and was probably killed about 6 AD. His sons and descendants included James, Simon, Meneham and Eleazar, all noted by Josephus as powerful rebel leaders.
I believe James son of Judah the Galilean is the one that Eisenman studied extensively in "James Brother of Jesus". But, Eisenman found a great historical emptiness where this "Jesus brother of James" ought to have been.
So, my question is: are y'all comfortable with the idea that there were at least two dynastic families affiliated with the Judean rebel leadership? That is, one dynastic group was the family of Judah the Galilean, representing the "fourth philosophy" and also linked to the Essenes of Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls? (And if I'm not mistaken, with claims of descent from the Maccabees?)
And the other would be the dynasty of Edessa & Adiabene, which Ellis claims is descended from Caesar, Cleopatra and the Parthians? These would be the "controlled opposition" rebel leadership, as opposed to the descendants of Judah the Galilean, who were real nationalist zealots?
How sure are we that John of Gischala is the same person as Izates/Manu? What's the evidence?
Hello Jerry, I agree, I have yet to find an actual historical reference to this man, but as an amateur genealogist, when I look at his ancestry chart, it all correlates so well with what I believe Postflaviana is trying to postulate, that Hasmoneans, Herodians, Flavians, Sabines, even Caesars all seem to have to intermarried and been related to each other as one "Uber-Elite" family, that I have not given up on Roman Piso yet, perhaps to my eventual chagrin! I am still trying to figure this out, but right now I think that the "historical Jesus" of Ralph Ellis was a prototype for the "Imperial Jesus" crested by the Josephus/Arrius Capurnius Piso of Roman Piso, who got into that character so much as a writer (1st century Method actor?), when creating it for the New Testament, that he was at various times "Jesus" himself, and sometimes he made his father "Jesus" also, as Charles N. Pope of the "Domain of Man" website seems to think. Mr. Pope also believes that this "Imperial Jesus" eventually moved on to bigger and better things, as the "Great King" of this "Uber-Elite" family under different royal names in the East. In other words the "historical Jesus" lost the crown, but his opposite number the "Imperial Jesus" gained it, and much more, establishing a dynasty that ruled the world for many centuries. Cain and Abel, Castor and Pollux, ying and yang, winner and loser, I really don't know what this means so far. As far as establishing a Caesarean Roman World Empire was concerned, it all seems to lead back to Julius Caesar, per Tupper Saussy in "Rulers of Evil", and the Divine Julius may also be the ancestor of both of these Jesus characters, from my reading of several of these "sources", creating his own bloodline dialectic for the future, but as of this moment this is still in the "fantastic" stage for me, and needs a lot more work and investigation, as I am still too new at this.Hi everyone, sorry to have been AWOL a few days. Nice to see so much constructive activity.
As my small contribution, I'd like to point out that in addition to his recent book, "Roman Piso" posts most of his work nowadays at:
https://independent.academia.edu/RomanPiso
For example, this paper on Arrius Calpurnius Piso gives the following evidence about this person's existence. It all seems rather tenuous to me, and I can well understand why no other historian has ever noticed that this person existed, if indeed he did. (Sorry, screenshot, couldn't cut and paste from the PDF).
https://www.academia.edu/33328631/Flavius_Josephus_aka_Arrius_Calpurnius_Piso.pdf