Was Akhenaten Moses ... and even more?

[Richard Stanley]

The following short video is an interesting discussion about the mysterious Mittani, a powerful society that seemed to vaporize into thin air. As I have mentioned on other threads, they married into the Egyptian royalty, making one wonder if this relates to the Abraham and Sarah adventure with the pharaoh. The alternative historian, Sweeney, believes that the Mittani (elites at least) became the later Medes that helped found the Persian Empire with Cyrus. The Mittani were also early adopters of chariots, and thus this makes them attractive candidates for being the Hyksos Shepherd Kings. Again, we're only concerned with the elites, as literal nomadic shepherds and such are of relatively little consequence.

 

[Tito101]

Yes, this is syncretism, no argument here. When we transition from mere 'kings' and 'queen's to expansionary emperors (imperialism) then the syncretory and/or assimilation processes would seem to become institutionalized. Something such as Pontifex Maximus, Julius Caesar would clearly understand.

Yes JC would clearly understand having made no small effort to promote his own god like status (any different in our own times?). JC was a seasoned politician, militarist, and above these a dedicated Roman. While he may have played up to the local gods when he was Egypt or in Judea, he would not have brought them home to insult his fellow citizens in Rome who took Roman religions as seriously as anyone else for those times. In fact, we have an example for a different JC (Jesus Christ) section in Pilate's exploit where Tiberius throws out the Jews and Isis followers for indiscretions. Why? Most think there were regular moral purges performed in Rome to clean out "superstitions" from other religions.

But these Greeks (the Ptolomids) created Serapis, for a purpose beyond just religious consumerism right?

How about acceptance of the natives (Egyptians) of foreign rule?

[Post edited by JR to fix quoting issues, hopefully restoring Tito's original intent...]

 

[Tito101]

Follow up. Reference of JC in Pilate's section in Josephus Jewish war.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Hi Tito, you apparently manually typed '\QUOTE' instead of the proper '/QUOTE'.

Yes JC would clearly understand having made no small effort to promote his own god like status (any different in our own times?). JC was a seasoned politician, militarist, and above these a dedicated Roman. While he may have played up to the local gods when he was Egypt or in Judea, he would not have brought them home to insult his fellow citizens in Rome who took Roman religions as seriously as anyone else for those times. In fact, we have an example for a different JC (Jesus Christ) section in Pilate's exploit where Tiberius throws out the Jews and Isis followers for indiscretions. Why? Most think there were regular moral purges performed in Rome to clean out "superstitions" from other religions.

But, a Roman dedicated to what exactly? Perpetuating the status quo of Rome, or "building bridges", to enable the empire to spread? Such that we are now in something like Rome 5.33.

JC brought Cleopatra VII to Rome along with their son, and he got her pregnant by the time he was assassinated, according to Cicero. While the Romans were unusually particular about their gods and goddesses, they were otherwise very typical in the general assimilation processes that occurred with other growing empires. And so, while you point out some 'exceptional' instances of Romans kicking other gods and Jews out of Rome, the opposite was more the rule. Gods and such people as Jews were occasionally kicked out of Rome, only if their activities became perceived as problematic to the Roman order, or if a pretext was needed (that's why Jews exist in the first place, our system's institutional Suffering Servants).

When Pontifex Maximus JC rose to Heaven on the third day, the new Imperial Cult had its foundation, and the later avatar cult of Jesus (Julius' secret grandson and greatgrandson) quietly rose up using the Imperial Cult centers of Rome, thanks to the efforts of such as Paul and Josephus via their acknowledged close relations with the imperial court.

Of course, the pure of heart claim that there is no way that the imperium would sponsor 'Christians', much less 'Chrestians'. Well, for for one reason, the commentators of the day tell us that Rome persecuted said Christians. So, why not just 'faithfully' believe them?
Today's Rome is still using ISIS, and its spawn (like Al Nusra), to further its global geopolitical ends, as the time is ripe as JC would say. But, some people, like Pogo, don't give a damn about Fig Newtons.

 

[Seeker]

Yes, this is syncretism, no argument here. When we transition from mere 'kings' and 'queen's to expansionary emperors (imperialism) then the syncretory and/or assimilation processes would seem to become institutionalized. Something such as Pontifex Maximus, Julius Caesar would clearly understand.

Speaking of the Pontifex Maximus, the foundation of this office is attributed to the Sabine King of Rome, Numa Pompilius, and is now inscribed as an attribute of Pope Francis, the Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, who uses the Twitter handle @pontifex.

 

[Tito101]

Hi Tito, you apparently manually typed '\QUOTE' instead of the proper '/QUOTE'.


But, a Roman dedicated to what exactly? Perpetuating the status quo of Rome, or "building bridges", to enable the empire to spread? Such that we are now in something like Rome 5.33.

JC was a creature of his times; though, the duration of his influence was felt far and wide with distance and time. People's imagination is caught up by those coming prior. So what was he dedicated in his time frame? Maintaining and strengthening the influence of Rome at home and abroad, keeping his enemies at bay (like Cicero) and destroying them if necessary (like Pompei) , consolidating his rise in power and influence (...supporting more populists causes similar to modern day Workers Unions), and ensuring his future successor as he did through adoption of Octavia. He really didn't have to reinvent the wheel to do this. He not only had willing thugs like Crassus and Clodius (more on him later) to do his bidding, but also predecessors like Sulla the tyrant, or Tarquin the tyrant (assassinated by one of the ancestor's of Brutus) before Sulla on how to play power grab.

JC brought Cleopatra VII to Rome along with their son, and he got her pregnant by the time he was assassinated, according to Cicero. While the Romans were unusually particular about their gods and goddesses, they were otherwise very typical in the general assimilation processes that occurred with other growing empires. And so, while you point out some 'exceptional' instances of Romans kicking other gods and Jews out of Rome, the opposite was more the rule. Gods and such people as Jews were occasionally kicked out of Rome, only if their activities became perceived as problematic to the Roman order, or if a pretext was needed (that's why Jews exist in the first place, our system's institutional Suffering Servants).

Whether he got Cleopatra VII is subject to speculation. JC had enough enemies like Cicero to twist and contort for political purposes. The fact that JC didn't have Caesarion in his will is quite telling. The will by tradition would have been read on the Senate floor and it may just be that due to the sensation this would have caused he left him out (quite unroman of JC) or it was the nasty Octavian at work again. The Romans during JC's time had plenty assimilated with their local and Etruscan gods. Worship of the Roman gods was part and parcel of being Roman and they had a whole complicated set up for doing this. The Romans essentially had plenty of worshiping to do with their own gods at least from JC's time through and I would claim well into may be 90-100 AD range when there's inkling's of early forms of Christianity (rebirth of Serapianism may be) noticeable with the early Church fathers in Alexandria but not in Rome. Where the Romans romanticized by the Eastern religions, particularly those in Egypt? Of course they were. I'm of the camp that commentaries on Christianity in writers like Tactitus were inserted later when the Church's influence grew (well into late 200-early 300 AD time frame) and they were looking for a paper trail.

When Pontifex Maximus JC rose to Heaven on the third day, the new Imperial Cult had its foundation, and the later avatar cult of Jesus (Julius' secret grandson and greatgrandson) quietly rose up using the Imperial Cult centers of Rome, thanks to the efforts of such as Paul and Josephus via their acknowledged close relations with the imperial court.

Depends on what you mean by "cult of Jesus." Is this the NT Jesus as we know it now or something else? There's plenty of stuff between NT Jesus and textural sections in the OT and the Macabees and what's left out of the OT, that that evidence can't be ignored. The Pope tradition in Rome however is quite different and likely represents a merge of the eastern mystery cults with the Roman/Pontifex stuff that the modern version of what we see now could be explained in terms of some of the traditions (but not the NT Jesus).

Of course, the pure of heart claim that there is no way that the imperium would sponsor 'Christians', much less 'Chrestians'. Well, for for one reason, the commentators of the day tell us that Rome persecuted said Christians. So, why not just 'faithfully' believe them?
Today's Rome is still using ISIS, and its spawn (like Al Nusra), to further its global geopolitical ends, as the time is ripe as JC would say. But, some people, like Pogo, don't give a damn about Fig Newtons.

How much can we trust the commentators of old? The style of writing sometimes (not all the time) consisted of recycling stories and putting words in people's mouths; if they were to do it now, a simple google search will send them to the Principal's office.

Let's go back to the Josephus section on JC where he discusses the crucifixion of the Isis priests in Rome and the expulsion of Jews due to bribing a Roman woman. The details of the Isis story sound awfully similar to the story when Clodius dressed up as a woman and partook in the Bona Dea female goddess festival which was hosted by JC at the Ponitifex's home; JC defended Clodius (he needed his influence and money likely) and JC divorced his wife Pompeia (a set up?) and Clodius wife at that time was Fulvia (same name as Roman woman in the Jew's expulsion story). Josephus may have read or heard about parts of the Isis and Jews expulsions stories and made the rest of the stuff up using the Bona Dea scandal as his template, or he didn't write that section at all and this Jesus Christ stuff along with the Isis and Jewish expulsion part needs to be thrown out as hogwash.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Hi Tito,

It looks like we have branched off significantly from the Akhenaten thread topic, so maybe we can get Jerry to fork this discussion off onto a new thread.

The bases for your arguments here make me suspicious that you haven't spent much time on the forum or on the blog to know that we deviate significantly from mainstream historical interpretations, pretty much across the board.

Whether he got Cleopatra VII is subject to speculation. JC had enough enemies like Cicero to twist and contort for political purposes. The fact that JC didn't have Caesarion in his will is quite telling. The will by tradition would have been read on the Senate floor and it may just be that due to the sensation this would have caused he left him out (quite unroman of JC) or it was the nasty Octavian at work again.

This topic relates to a big one on the From Cleopatra to Christ thread where Ralph Ellis asserts that Octavian's 'gift' to the Parthian Phraates IV was Julius' and Cleo's secret daughter, known variously as Thermusa or Thea Musa Ourania. Somehow, she went from a mere courtesan to being the favored wife of Phraates IV and mother (and wife) of Phraates V, while the rival Parthian princes became typical hostages at Rome.

The Romans during JC's time had plenty assimilated with their local and Etruscan gods. Worship of the Roman gods was part and parcel of being Roman and they had a whole complicated set up for doing this. The Romans essentially had plenty of worshiping to do with their own gods at least from JC's time through and I would claim well into may be 90-100 AD range when there's inkling's of early forms of Christianity (rebirth of Serapianism may be) noticeable with the early Church fathers in Alexandria but not in Rome.

They had plenty assimilated, and yet they created the Imperial Cult, which had to grow with each succeeding emperor. We claim that the Jesus avatar was wittingly created to replace the separate emperor gods, while such as the other gods became demoted to saints. The most likely candidates for creating the Jesus avatar were the Flavians, including Josephus Flavius (who claims he was a Hasmonean Maccabee).

Yes, there were indeed inklings of early forms of Christianity. The earliest signs of the Christians were the fish, and the 'anchor and fish'. The latter was the imperial emblem of the Flavians, and Domatilla Flavia is accorded as one of these early 'Christians', while I claim her more likely to have been a Flavian 'Chrestian'. But who's nitpicking here? We're talking about a massive religious merger and acquisition process that should have taken centuries, and seems to have done just that. But in some case, Chrestians simply become Christians merely by using an eraser on the end of their pencils. To wit, that the 'E's of Chrest in the oldest NT manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) were erased into becoming mere 'I's.

To help us stay on topic, this is generally what I think happened with Akhenaton, i.e. that we are talking about much more than the Amarna experience.

Where the Romans romanticized by the Eastern religions, particularly those in Egypt? Of course they were. I'm of the camp that commentaries on Christianity in writers like Tactitus were inserted later when the Church's influence grew (well into late 200-early 300 AD time frame) and they were looking for a paper trail.

That's one possibility, which I had accepted. But, just which Christians or Chrestians are being discussed in these commentaries? Several researchers have written books discussing that we are dealing with two basic political factions that have been conflated in these terms. One faction is pro-Roman and the other anti-Roman ... and messianic. As such, the various researchers we discuss here equate the Pauline approach with the pro-Roman (and hence later Roman Catholic) faction versus the traditional temporal messianic approach of the Nazarenes and Ebionites.

With Ellis, there is no need for some literal carpenter named Jesus of Nazareth, but rather a real king known sometimes as Izates (the Muslims known him as Isa), or 'the Egyptian', who unsuccessfully pressed his bloodline claim (Julius and Cleo) to run the whole Roman empire. The fig tree was barren, meaning it was not his time. But later, the 'Syrian' Severans would become emperors.

Depends on what you mean by "cult of Jesus." Is this the NT Jesus as we know it now or something else? There's plenty of stuff between NT Jesus and textural sections in the OT and the Maccabees and what's left out of the OT, that that evidence can't be ignored. The Pope tradition in Rome however is quite different and likely represents a merge of the eastern mystery cults with the Roman/Pontifex stuff that the modern version of what we see now could be explained in terms of some of the traditions (but not the NT Jesus).

Our name, as Postflavians, refers to that we believe the Flavians were at the heart of creating Christianity as we generally know it. So, by "cult of Jesus" I mean that Jesus of Nazareth is a (very successful) fictional avatar that disguises the emperors and subsequent serial vicars of Christ. The name 'vicar' even means 'substitute'. As I explain elsewhere, the term 'Christ' (i.e. Christos) is, beyond 'merely' meaning 'anointed', is part of a sophisticated construct of Greek Pythagorean sacred geometry. It is an esoteric reference to the Sun, the geometric ratio number 888 is the 'good' Sun and the related number 666 is the 'bad' Sun.

Same Sun, different times.

Let's go back to the Josephus section on JC where he discusses the crucifixion of the Isis priests in Rome and the expulsion of Jews due to bribing a Roman woman. The details of the Isis story sound awfully similar to the story when Clodius dressed up as a woman and partook in the Bona Dea female goddess festival which was hosted by JC at the Ponitifex's home; JC defended Clodius (he needed his influence and money likely) and JC divorced his wife Pompeia (a set up?) and Clodius wife at that time was Fulvia (same name as Roman woman in the Jew's expulsion story). Josephus may have read or heard about parts of the Isis and Jews expulsions stories and made the rest of the stuff up using the Bona Dea scandal as his template, or he didn't write that section at all and this Jesus Christ stuff along with the Isis and Jewish expulsion part needs to be thrown out as hogwash.

If anybody knew anything, then Josephus Flavius certainly did.

It all depends on what you mean by "hogwash", just as what I meant by "the cult of Jesus".

This is all what universalizing religion is about, the unification of disparate peoples (and their 'cultures' that formed their social outlooks) under one schema. Since there was no real Jesus of Nazareth (the carpenter), they felt they had to create one. So they did. It worked very well for them, and so they are in the process of giving us another bloody global upgrade. As such, I'm guessing it will just be another layer superimposed upon the existing, as the NT was placed atop the OT.

But in any case, yes, I'd prefer it all be thrown out. But, there is a crapload of money at stake.

 

[Jerry Russell]

maybe we can get Jerry to fork this discussion off onto a new thread.

It seems like it could belong in the Cleopatra to Christ thread, or the Chrest to Christ thread, or a new thread; but it does keep circling back to Egypt. Let's leave it here until a clearer direction is established?

Let's go back to the Josephus section on JC where he discusses the crucifixion of the Isis priests in Rome and the expulsion of Jews due to bribing a Roman woman. ....

Interesting observations. Joseph Atwill thinks that this story is part of a triptych, with all three sections referring to Christianity. To quote from my introductory essay at the Wordpress site:

https://postflaviana.org/introduction-flavian-origins-theory-christianity/

Josephus’s knowledge of Christianity: the Decius Mundus puzzle​

​

While many scholars acknowledge that the Gospel authors were aware of Josephus, the topic of whether Josephus knew anything about Jesus Christ or Christianity is far more controversial, and has been an endless topic of debate.​

​

What is widely acknowledged is that two brief, famous passages in Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews specifically mention the biblical Jesus. In one of these, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum” (18, 3, 63-64), Josephus states that one Jesus (the Christ) was crucified under Pontius Pilate, but appeared alive “to those that loved him” after an interval of three days. This seems to be a clear enough statement of the basic tenets of the Christian faith, but the endless debate goes on over whether Josephus really said all these things. or whether the passage (or some part of it) was a late interpolation by pious scribes of the early Christian era.​

​

In the other passage, Josephus briefly mentions “…the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James…” (20, 9, 200). Again, this seems to indicate that Josephus was well aware of the existence of Jesus Christ, although there is some debate about what Josephus meant by “Christ” or whether those few words might have been a late interpolation.​

​

The vexing aspect of this, which is (or should be) so confounding to faithful believers, is that Josephus could have known this much about Christ and Christianity, and yet have said so little more about it. During the period between 30 AD and 70 AD, the years at the heart of Josephus’s historical tale — were Christ’s disciples not hard at work in Judea, growing their Church, doing great miracles, and generally promulgating their proud and excitingly novel religious faith? How could Josephus have been aware of this, and yet not dedicated at least a few chapters to giving his views of this ‘good news’? Josephus was certainly never at a loss for words, in describing any other popular Jewish sect of the time.​

​

Atwill argues that Josephus did indeed have an intimate knowledge of Christian narratives and theology, and that he referred to it often. However, instead of speaking plainly, Josephus wrote vicious satires of Christianity; and these satires were often placed within typological parallels to passages in the New Testament. Or in the case of the Testimonium Flavianum, Atwill argues that it can be recognized as genuine in its entirety, because it can be seen as part of a literary triptych, sandwiched alongside two enigmatic satires built on New Testament themes. Briefly stated: in the central satire, a rogue named Decius Mundus pretends to be the god Anubis, in order to trick a dignified lady named Paulina into having sex with her. The name ‘Decius Mundus’ is a pun on Decius Mus, the famous Roman war hero who gave himself as a sacrifice in battle to guarantee the Roman victory in war. ‘Mundus’ means ‘World’, so Decius Mundus is a ‘Sacrifice for the World’. Paulina and her husband, Saturninus, laughably agree that making love to a God would be no sin against Paulina’s chastity. So, Paulina and Mundus enjoy a night together, but then Mundus returns on the third day to boast that he is no God, much to Paulina’s chagrin. In the other pedimental satire, a woman named Fulvia (whose husband’s name, again, is Saturninus) is persuaded by three men to send her wealth to the Jewish temple; but in reality, the three men spend the money “for their own uses.” In the first satire, Mundus is an ‘antetype’ of Jesus; in the second, the three men may represent the Roman Trinity. The two stories are, of course, typologically coupled to each other as well, as they both tell essentially the same tale of a dignified lady with a husband named Saturninus who is tricked by a religious swindle. The choice to use the name ‘Paulina’ in the story may be a hint that the Romans viewed the original St. Paul, the author of the epistles, as a feminized victim of the swindle as well.​

​

Strangely enough, the fact that the Testimonium Flavianum tryptich was a satire of Christianity was apparently understood as early as the 4th century by the Christian author pseudo-Hegesippus, whose Latin paraphrase of Josephus elaborated on the satire by having Paulina and Mundus discuss the possibility of a pregnancy, thus making her into a parody of the Virgin Mary. This was pointed out by Albert A. Bell in his 1976 paper “Josephus the Satirist?”,[xxvi] who mentioned that a 1927 paper by C. Pharr had also fingered the Josephus passage about Paulina and Mundus as a parody of the Annunciation. Bell, however, withheld his own judgment on the matter, stating:​

​

[The view that Josephus was a satirist] has the decided disadvantage of being quite subjective. We must assume, on the basis of our own reactions, that the story of Paulina and Mundus appeared to Josephus as a parody of sorts of the Annunciation story and that he could depend on his readers to draw the same parallel. Lacking even a hint of literary evidence to support it, we are justifiably hesitant to accept this suggestion.​

I can only hope that Bell was being ironic himself with this brief, dry spoof of hidebound academic caution and humorlessness — especially after having titled his paper with the bold assertion of Josephus’s comedic aspect, hedged only with a question mark. However, I note with some discouragement that Bell’s argument disappeared with hardly a ripple (three obscure mentions in the English language since 1976, in the Google Scholar citation index); this in spite of its obvious and even decisive relevance to the endless academic debate about the Testimonium Flavianum.​

 

[Richard Stanley]

The suggested use of 'Paulina' might lead one to conclude that Josephus is cryptically stating that Paul is part of the underlying fraud, no?

Peter Cresswell's The Invention of Jesus argues that Josephus is mocking nascent Christianity via Paulina and Fulvia, and thus well aware of the Xian phenomenon. We could turn this argument on its side [sic] by claiming that, yes, Josephus is mocking his own creation, and thus insulating himself as the real author, except to knowing insiders.

 

[Seeker]

Peter Cresswell's The Invention of Jesus argues that Josephus is mocking nascent Christianity via Paulina and Fulvia, and thus well aware of the Xian phenomenon. We could turn this argument on its side [sic] by claiming that, yes, Josephus is mocking his own creation, and thus insulating himself as the real author, except to knowing insiders.

Roman Piso claims much the same thing, with his Roman aristocrat Arrius Calpurnius Piso (alias Josephus) employing sarcasm in writing books of the New Testament. He gives this Piso a descent from Mark Antony and Cleopatra, which could take him back to Akhenaten, and Roman Piso also believes that the Egyptian and Jewish rulers share the same ancestry.

 

[Claude Badley]

All quite correct, Richard.

The suggested use of 'Paulina' might lead one to conclude that Josephus is cryptically stating that Paul is part of the underlying fraud, no?

And that remains so even if Ralph Ellis is suggesting that Josephus and Paul are one and the same person - and Piso could even be identical to them too, Seeker!

Peter Cresswell's The Invention of Jesus argues that Josephus is mocking nascent Christianity via Paulina and Fulvia, and thus well aware of the Xian phenomenon. We could turn this argument on its side [sic] by claiming that, yes, Josephus is mocking his own creation, and thus insulating himself as the real author, except to knowing insiders.

Very likely - and we know this to be true because the husband in both the latter stories of the Triptych is Saturninus, the name of a leading Gnostic who has been misdated to the 2nd century AD. No problem with Josephus mocking his own creation when he knows the "uses" Jesus Christ can be put to!

What I now have to do is read your (Richard's) complicated description of Ralph Ellis's earlier books since he is correct about many things in Jesus King of Edessa.

Yours faithfully
Claude

 

[Richard Stanley]

And that remains so even if Ralph Ellis is suggesting that Josephus and Paul are one and the same person - and Piso could even be identical to them too, Seeker!

The Pisos go back some way, Julius being married to Calpurnia Piso. It is the Piso villa and library at Herculaneum that was buried in volcanic ash in the late 70's, which would make me think that Josephus would not likely have been working there, but in his imperial accommodations in Rome. But, given my suspicions that the elite Romans are part of the same larger (Sabxx) 'family' this relationship seems plausible to me.

As to Fulvia, the word fulvus means yellow or tawny (reddish brown), the latter our red-heads again?

Very likely - and we know this to be true because the husband in both the latter stories of the Triptych is Saturninus, the name of a leading Gnostic who has been misdated to the 2nd century AD. No problem with Josephus mocking his own creation when he knows the "uses" Jesus Christ can be put to!

This also gets to the question of whether either the 'creators' or upholders of a particular religion are likely to be true believers or the inverse. Such as Tito's argument about the Romans being obsessed with their domestic observances, ignoring their foreign obsessions.

In one of Julius Evola's books he discusses that prior to the formalization of Rome's various native cults into what can be termed a religion of sorts, that the familial patriarchs were very concerned about exacting and timely performance of their rituals, some rather dry in terms of seeming spiritual content. According to Evola, they believed that the failure to perform their rituals properly would mean the collapse of their world order. This makes me wonder if what was really being indulged in, witting or not, was in both individual and mass psychological entrainment induced by the repetition of a respective ritual. These performed either at home or in such as the Campus Martius, with the latter the patrones whipping the crowds 'patriotically' into a war frenzy.

But if one goes to such great literary lengths to create a religion ex imperium, are the conductors of such a creation likely to be true believers? I say no. It's just shepherds being shepherds.

But in any case, if one writes that red-headed Esau will regain his inheritance, then eventually somebody has to make it come to pass. Which is what I suggest happened in 70 CE, when a certain Maccabee colluded with his Sabine cousins.

Collusion?

 

[Seeker]

But in any case, if one writes that red-headed Esau will regain his inheritance, then eventually somebody has to make it come to pass. Which is what I suggest happened in 70 CE, when a certain Maccabee colluded with his Sabine cousins.

Especially if, looking at the big picture, they were all of Egyptian heritage, going back in time to Akhenaten, Moses, and one God ruler over all.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Yes, 'Egyptian' at least back to the Hyksos period. Then red-headed "sheperd-kings" convince the famine ridden, dark-headed Bedouins of the day to follow them to Egypt, where said "shepherd-kings" mingle themselves into the royal lineup. Ironically(?) they started out in ... Urfa (Edessa), from the context of 'Abraham' that is.

 

[Tito101]

Hi Tito,


This topic relates to a big one on the From Cleopatra to Christ thread where Ralph Ellis asserts that Octavian's 'gift' to the Parthian Phraates IV was Julius' and Cleo's secret daughter, known variously as Thermusa or Thea Musa Ourania. Somehow, she went from a mere courtesan to being the favored wife of Phraates IV and mother (and wife) of Phraates V, while the rival Parthian princes became typical hostages at Rome.

So the rumor was that JC had a daughter instead of a son? Where did you pick this up (other than via Ralph Ellis)?

One interesting thing to note during the Cleo break out in Egypt was that she was promoting herself and her son as Isis and Horus to the Eygptian audience (recall that she allied with Caesar to finish off her husband-brother during a power struggle in Egypt).

They had plenty assimilated, and yet they created the Imperial Cult, which had to grow with each succeeding emperor. We claim that the Jesus avatar was wittingly created to replace the separate emperor gods, while such as the other gods became demoted to saints. The most likely candidates for creating the Jesus avatar were the Flavians, including Josephus Flavius (who claims he was a Hasmonean Maccabee).

It might also seem that way because we have Josephus handed out down to us, and not many others, because supposedly he was a witness to Christ. We can be thankful for this because Josephus would have likely ended up in obscurity if not when craziness of when the Church was in power and destroyed many ancient texts that were antithetical to X-ity.

Yes, there were indeed inklings of early forms of Christianity. The earliest signs of the Christians were the fish, and the 'anchor and fish'. The latter was the imperial emblem of the Flavians, and Domatilla Flavia is accorded as one of these early 'Christians', while I claim her more likely to have been a Flavian 'Chrestian'. But who's nitpicking here? We're talking about a massive religious merger and acquisition process that should have taken centuries, and seems to have done just that. But in some case, Chrestians simply become Christians merely by using an eraser on the end of their pencils. To wit, that the 'E's of Chrest in the oldest NT manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) were erased into becoming mere 'I's.

"Ichthus?" Lots of symbology to go by from ancient Egypt like the "ankh" symbol and Goddess Diana one of the Roman goddess. Depending on where we can claim Christianity took off, these symbols were assimilated to gain local supporters. I don't know enough about Chrestians vs. Christian to comment. I believe in the Tactius commentary during Nero's time there is debate about whether Tactius was referring to a "good" "("Chrestus") teacher vs. "Christian." I don't believe this for a second. Nero may have blamed "foreigners" (again doubtful...and he had plenty to choose from ranging from Parthians to non-allied Gauls to Germans to fill in the blank) for the fire and was likely used as rallying cry in hindsight looking back in time by later writers.

Our name, as Postflavians, refers to that we believe the Flavians were at the heart of creating Christianity as we generally know it. So, by "cult of Jesus" I mean that Jesus of Nazareth is a (very successful) fictional avatar that disguises the emperors and subsequent serial vicars of Christ. The name 'vicar' even means 'substitute'. As I explain elsewhere, the term 'Christ' (i.e. Christos) is, beyond 'merely' meaning 'anointed', is part of a sophisticated construct of Greek Pythagorean sacred geometry. It is an esoteric reference to the Sun, the geometric ratio number 888 is the 'good' Sun and the related number 666 is the 'bad' Sun.

Flavians may have shown more tolerance for other religions and Rome after having gone through the Julii clan for almost 100 years was probably tolerant to this. But I don't really believe that the Emperors were out there creating long terms religious cults expecting people to worship them as "Gods" forever and ever. Caligula was a one off nut, after ruling the first 4 years within a strong Roman tradition. He insulted the Romans just as much as he did the Jews by having his statues be placed in Roman houses of worship and he was soon dispatched by Roman army officers after these insults.

 

[Tito101]

It seems like it could belong in the Cleopatra to Christ thread, or the Chrest to Christ thread, or a new thread; but it does keep circling back to Egypt. Let's leave it here until a clearer direction is established?



Interesting observations. Joseph Atwill thinks that this story is part of a triptych, with all three sections referring to Christianity. To quote from my introductory essay at the Wordpress site:

https://postflaviana.org/introduction-flavian-origins-theory-christianity/

Josephus’s knowledge of Christianity: the Decius Mundus puzzle​

​

While many scholars acknowledge that the Gospel authors were aware of Josephus, the topic of whether Josephus knew anything about Jesus Christ or Christianity is far more controversial, and has been an endless topic of debate.​

​

What is widely acknowledged is that two brief, famous passages in Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews specifically mention the biblical Jesus. In one of these, known as the “Testimonium Flavianum” (18, 3, 63-64), Josephus states that one Jesus (the Christ) was crucified under Pontius Pilate, but appeared alive “to those that loved him” after an interval of three days. This seems to be a clear enough statement of the basic tenets of the Christian faith, but the endless debate goes on over whether Josephus really said all these things. or whether the passage (or some part of it) was a late interpolation by pious scribes of the early Christian era.​

​

In the other passage, Josephus briefly mentions “…the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James…” (20, 9, 200). Again, this seems to indicate that Josephus was well aware of the existence of Jesus Christ, although there is some debate about what Josephus meant by “Christ” or whether those few words might have been a late interpolation.​

​

The vexing aspect of this, which is (or should be) so confounding to faithful believers, is that Josephus could have known this much about Christ and Christianity, and yet have said so little more about it. During the period between 30 AD and 70 AD, the years at the heart of Josephus’s historical tale — were Christ’s disciples not hard at work in Judea, growing their Church, doing great miracles, and generally promulgating their proud and excitingly novel religious faith? How could Josephus have been aware of this, and yet not dedicated at least a few chapters to giving his views of this ‘good news’? Josephus was certainly never at a loss for words, in describing any other popular Jewish sect of the time.​

​

Atwill argues that Josephus did indeed have an intimate knowledge of Christian narratives and theology, and that he referred to it often. However, instead of speaking plainly, Josephus wrote vicious satires of Christianity; and these satires were often placed within typological parallels to passages in the New Testament. Or in the case of the Testimonium Flavianum, Atwill argues that it can be recognized as genuine in its entirety, because it can be seen as part of a literary triptych, sandwiched alongside two enigmatic satires built on New Testament themes. Briefly stated: in the central satire, a rogue named Decius Mundus pretends to be the god Anubis, in order to trick a dignified lady named Paulina into having sex with her. The name ‘Decius Mundus’ is a pun on Decius Mus, the famous Roman war hero who gave himself as a sacrifice in battle to guarantee the Roman victory in war. ‘Mundus’ means ‘World’, so Decius Mundus is a ‘Sacrifice for the World’. Paulina and her husband, Saturninus, laughably agree that making love to a God would be no sin against Paulina’s chastity. So, Paulina and Mundus enjoy a night together, but then Mundus returns on the third day to boast that he is no God, much to Paulina’s chagrin. In the other pedimental satire, a woman named Fulvia (whose husband’s name, again, is Saturninus) is persuaded by three men to send her wealth to the Jewish temple; but in reality, the three men spend the money “for their own uses.” In the first satire, Mundus is an ‘antetype’ of Jesus; in the second, the three men may represent the Roman Trinity. The two stories are, of course, typologically coupled to each other as well, as they both tell essentially the same tale of a dignified lady with a husband named Saturninus who is tricked by a religious swindle. The choice to use the name ‘Paulina’ in the story may be a hint that the Romans viewed the original St. Paul, the author of the epistles, as a feminized victim of the swindle as well.​

​

Strangely enough, the fact that the Testimonium Flavianum tryptich was a satire of Christianity was apparently understood as early as the 4th century by the Christian author pseudo-Hegesippus, whose Latin paraphrase of Josephus elaborated on the satire by having Paulina and Mundus discuss the possibility of a pregnancy, thus making her into a parody of the Virgin Mary. This was pointed out by Albert A. Bell in his 1976 paper “Josephus the Satirist?”,[xxvi] who mentioned that a 1927 paper by C. Pharr had also fingered the Josephus passage about Paulina and Mundus as a parody of the Annunciation. Bell, however, withheld his own judgment on the matter, stating:​

​

I can only hope that Bell was being ironic himself with this brief, dry spoof of hidebound academic caution and humorlessness — especially after having titled his paper with the bold assertion of Josephus’s comedic aspect, hedged only with a question mark. However, I note with some discouragement that Bell’s argument disappeared with hardly a ripple (three obscure mentions in the English language since 1976, in the Google Scholar citation index); this in spite of its obvious and even decisive relevance to the endless academic debate about the Testimonium Flavianum.​

And this Paulina and Decius Mundus story is strikingly similar to the Bona Dea story (Clodius dressed up as a women to intrude into the all female Bona Dea festivities and rumor had it that he had sex with JC's wife Pompeia...) when JC was Ponitifex. This story caused a sensation in Rome and was well known story for decades after JC's time. Josephus not being from Rome or familiar either heard this story from other Romans, or as suspected, he had other Roman write parts of for him when he was unfamiliar and those Romans inserted the material to help explain something else like the crucifixions of the Isis priests (if that story is indeed true). What's striking for that section, is that Josephus suddenly moves from happenings in Judea to happenings in Rome (why ?).

 

[Richard Stanley]

So the rumor was that JC had a daughter instead of a son?

No, Cicero mentioned in a letter that he hoped Cleo would have a miscarriage, as she was fleeing Rome after the assassination. If Cicero stated this, then would you agree that he believed she was pregnant with a second child of Julius (presumably)? Caesarion was a young boy by then.

The assassination with all the parallels to cruci-fiction of Jesus of Nazareth.

It might also seem that way because we have Josephus handed out down to us, and not many others, because supposedly he was a witness to Christ. We can be thankful for this because Josephus would have likely ended up in obscurity if not when craziness of when the Church was in power and destroyed many ancient texts that were antithetical to X-ity.

Have you read Atwill's Caesar's Messiah? I suppose that you could argue that all of Josephus' material was written later, ala late dating for the canonic gospels, because Atwill demonstrates that the canonic gospels are textually interwound with the parallel aspects of Josephus. This where they seem to repeatedly answer each other as to various cryptic aspects raised in each.

However, then there are the issues of the Matthew prophecy regarding the fate of the temple 'within the disciples' generation' (commonly used back in the day for a period of 40 years), placing the Second Coming in 70 CE according to orthodox chronology. Who knocked down said temple? Titus Flavius, the son of the future god Vespasian. And this fulfills the graft in Romans 11, of the gentile olive tree branch onto the Jewish olive tree's "root of Jesse".

The archaeologist, John Bartram had [sic] a significant amount of material posted on his Google+ account regarding the heavy 'Chrestian' nexus of the Flavians, based upon epigraphy and such. Then there are matters like Domatilla Flavius and her sarcophagus. I could go on, but now you are making my reiterate things which I and others have already written about.

"Ichthus?" Lots of symbology to go by from ancient Egypt like the "ankh" symbol and Goddess Diana one of the Roman goddess. Depending on where we can claim Christianity took off, these symbols were assimilated to gain local supporters. I don't know enough about Chrestians vs. Christian to comment. I believe in the Tactius commentary during Nero's time there is debate about whether Tactius was referring to a "good" "("Chrestus") teacher vs. "Christian." I don't believe this for a second. Nero may have blamed "foreigners" (again doubtful...and he had plenty to choose from ranging from Parthians to non-allied Gauls to Germans to fill in the blank) for the fire and was likely used as rallying cry in hindsight looking back in time by later writers.

For the fishies and anchor, you should read Valliant and Fahy's Creating Christ, which I have a separate thread on. They also discuss the narrative (at least) role of Paul as an agent of Rome in regards to co-opting the nationalist movement Zealots, aka Nazoreans, and as some others which consider that, at that time, hellenized diaspora Jews likely identified with the term christiani. Hence, the Flavians use of 'chrestian' might seem to work as a parallel 'agency' with which to, over time, steer people towards the imperial zeitgeist.

Bartram showed that the Chrestian movement was well placed in Anatolia, where Flavians liked to 'exile' supposedly naughty Romans not otherwise suited for execution. Bartram believes that Nero had it out for these impertinent Chrestians, which he includes Poppaea and Epiphroditus, the latter who links to Josephus and Paul. However, I think that this conflict is 'merely' framed wrong. We are discussing here counter-intelligence and establishing reputations for the rebels' baiting. And as well, we are discussing what I believe became in inner church, the esoteric Christianity initially ran inside of Roman Mithraism, ala Flavio Barbiero's scenario (you would not doubt an Italian admiral would you?).

Flavians may have shown more tolerance for other religions and Rome after having gone through the Julii clan for almost 100 years was probably tolerant to this. But I don't really believe that the Emperors were out there creating long terms religious cults expecting people to worship them as "Gods" forever and ever. Caligula was a one off nut, after ruling the first 4 years within a strong Roman tradition. He insulted the Romans just as much as he did the Jews by having his statues be placed in Roman houses of worship and he was soon dispatched by Roman army officers after these insults.

Ah, so you are yet a man of faith.

No sir, Rome (not just Flavians and the Iulii) were always very tolerant of of other religions and cults, excepting when they were perceived as threats to the power structure. They were uber-cosmopolitans, albeit they (except for Julius) did not like granting Roman citizenship rights to others.

As you have admitted, you are not familiar with the breadth of material we discuss here. Hence, it has not dawned on you that the new cult's purpose was not intended to become a Religion, much less the new imperial state religion, by the fiat flip of an imperial switch. You are talking about a major disruption of Culture(s), and such takes a lot of time and effort, multiple generations. And, the instigators can't be telling the hoi polloi what their intentions are can they?

Are you stating that the Roman imperial cult did not place statutes of the emperor gods in their cult basilicas? These major basilicas in the same cities that Paul writes his epistles to. I know, just a coincidence, but how convenient to be able to use the covert resources of the imperial cult to help such agents as Paul. Whenever Paul gets in trouble, the Roman soldiers are Johnny-on-the-spot to save his ass.

And then there are matters like the 153 fishies. Is this merely another coincidence Tito?

Out of the 50+ 'gospels' circulating back in the day, esoteric Pythagorean/Platonic material like the fishies and the Logos ends up in what became a religion for the masses. Yet it is with people like the Flavians (still elite Sabines despite their supposed lowly stature - like Jesus's tekton occupation) who would appreciate such content. And similar works like Juvenal's Big Fish story, Satire #4, where the Roman poobahs have an important meeting at Domitian's villa about the fish that is just tooooo big. Yes, the villa that now is the summer residence of the Pope.

Christians have ever reveled in the conceit that Jesus ultimately conquered the evil Romans. Unfortunately, those fleeing the ship, like me once, were content to merely write off the belief system as some form of organic sludge upon the growth of civilization. Surely the mere Romans weren't capable of any sophisticated Machiavellian behaviors. After all, Machiavelli came much later, right? Weaving disparate religions together, deceiving people (beyond simpler "divide and conquer" techniques that they were famous for that is) and such? And worse, that this might imply that our 'modern' world operates on generally the same basis.

Ha!!!, how do you think 'Jews' came to exist in the first place? Their very canon (the basis for their Identity) explicitly states that some guy from the Egyptian royal court informed them that they needed to stop doing 613 cultural things that their neighbors were doing. Why? Well, we know for a fact that many of these 'tribes' were originally pagan Canaanites (e.g. Asher) or Greek Philistines (e.g. Danoi).

We're back to Akhenaton!!!

 

[Tito101]

No, Cicero mentioned in a letter that he hoped Cleo would have a miscarriage, as she was fleeing Rome after the assassination. If Cicero stated this, then would you agree that he believed she was pregnant with a second child of Julius (presumably)? Caesarion was a young boy by then.

May be a daughter of Marcus Antonius. Assuming JC fathered Caesarion (doubtful) while he was for a short time in Egypt, he couldn't have had enough time to have another go around with Cleo. The hollywood version would have Caesar monkeying around with Cleo which is not the way it really was.

The assassination with all the parallels to cruci-fiction of Jesus of Nazareth.

Have you read Atwill's Caesar's Messiah? I suppose that you could argue that all of Josephus' material was written later, ala late dating for the canonic gospels, because Atwill demonstrates that the canonic gospels are textually interwound with the parallel aspects of Josephus. This where they seem to repeatedly answer each other as to various cryptic aspects raised in each.

If the gospels were around prior to Josephus, he would have called those out (see the Letter to Apion on how felt about insults to Jews) and so would have others like Philo. I don't see why we shouldn't believe what Josephus himself states which is that he was captured by Vespasian, predicted Vespasian's rise as emperor (nice trick), went around with Titus during the siege and destruction of Judea, and then to Rome where he wrote. Whenever I see stuff like brother of James, John (John the gospel) and other Christian affinities in Josephus, that's a warning sign to me to tread with caution.

Stories were cycled and recycled galore in the ancient world and it's difficult to separate fact from fiction from inspiration, and the gospels are in a class to themselves in this department.

However, then there are the issues of the Matthew prophecy regarding the fate of the temple 'within the disciples' generation' (commonly used back in the day for a period of 40 years), placing the Second Coming in 70 CE according to orthodox chronology. Who knocked down said temple? Titus Flavius, the son of the future god Vespasian. And this fulfills the graft in Romans 11, of the gentile olive tree branch onto the Jewish olive tree's "root of Jesse".

The archaeologist, John Bartram had [sic] a significant amount of material posted on his Google+ account regarding the heavy 'Chrestian' nexus of the Flavians, based upon epigraphy and such. Then there are matters like Domatilla Flavius and her sarcophagus. I could go on, but now you are making my reiterate things which I and others have already written about.

Will the Chrestians be the last word on this? Not likely .

For the fishies and anchor, you should read Valliant and Fahy's Creating Christ, which I have a separate thread on. They also discuss the narrative (at least) role of Paul as an agent of Rome in regards to co-opting the nationalist movement Zealots, aka Nazoreans, and as some others which consider that, at that time, hellenized diaspora Jews likely identified with the term christiani. Hence, the Flavians use of 'chrestian' might seem to work as a parallel 'agency' with which to, over time, steer people towards the imperial zeitgeist.

There's also material from the conflict between traditionalists and hellenized Jews during the Macabees revolt that could have been used as a template.

As you have admitted, you are not familiar with the breadth of material we discuss here. Hence, it has not dawned on you that the new cult's purpose was not intended to become a Religion, much less the new imperial state religion, by the fiat flip of an imperial switch. You are talking about a major disruption of Culture(s), and such takes a lot of time and effort, multiple generations. And, the instigators can't be telling the hoi polloi what their intentions are can they?

The emperor's wouldn't have insulted the Romans by instituting their cults when they had state religions; that would have been like communist Lenin gone Adam Smith capitalist.

I agree that cultural change and movements like Christianity would have taken time and the the rapidity of the clock (spread) for these cultural movements is a function of state-of-affairs which provides them the oxygen to keep going. I also agree that the instigators have no idea what becomes and will become of their creations (is that the stupidity of mankind?).

Are you stating that the Roman imperial cult did not place statutes of the emperor gods in their cult basilicas? These major basilicas in the same cities that Paul writes his epistles to. I know, just a coincidence, but how convenient to be able to use the covert resources of the imperial cult to help such agents as Paul. Whenever Paul gets in trouble, the Roman soldiers are Johnny-on-the-spot to save his ass.

May be it was emperor envy.

Christians have ever reveled in the conceit that Jesus ultimately conquered the evil Romans. Unfortunately, those fleeing the ship, like me once, were content to merely write off the belief system as some form of organic sludge upon the growth of civilization. Surely the mere Romans weren't capable of any sophisticated Machiavellian behaviors. After all, Machiavelli came much later, right? Weaving disparate religions together, deceiving people (beyond simpler "divide and conquer" techniques that they were famous for that is) and such? And worse, that this might imply that our 'modern' world operates on generally the same basis.

By the time Christianity came around the whole concept of what it was to be a Roman was a world apart from what it was during the Republican years and following dictatorships during early stages empire. Later pagan Roman emperors like Maximinus Daia made a last ditch fight to stamp it out and that time period is quite illuminating for the exhibits (anti-christian) produced to snuff out Christianity.

Ha!!!, how do you think 'Jews' came to exist in the first place? Their very canon (the basis for their Identity) explicitly states that some guy from the Egyptian royal court informed them that they needed to stop doing 613 cultural things that their neighbors were doing. Why? Well, we know for a fact that many of these 'tribes' were originally pagan Canaanites (e.g. Asher) or Greek Philistines (e.g. Danoi).

We're back to Akhenaton!!!

Yes and we are back to how people evolve, adapt, and adopt beliefs.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Yes and we are back to how people evolve, adapt, and adopt beliefs.

Yes, and you are of the contemporary, now mainstream Postmodernist School and we are of the older, Modernist School.

That said, I find it interesting that you are so willing to take the writings of historical commentators back in the day as if it were religious canon, rather than propaganda.

Again, which Christians were intended to be snuffed out. The pro-Roman ones or the anti-Roman ones? Today's Rome on the Potomac, thanks to a few sacrificial assassinations, is now run by the pro-Roman Christians rather than exclusively the antiRoman Christians only a few decades ago. And now the fake Presbyterian, Trump, is virally [sic] encouraging his lil MAGA Evangelical base to virtually swap spit with each other. I say this is Machiavellian and purpose driven (as Pastor Rick Warren would say), and you say ... ? What ... random shit happens, and/or this just what (elite?) people do under the circumstances? That's what God made "plausible deniability" for.

There is an institution that primarily mans the White House today, whose roots extend back to the Flavians, its first leader arguably a Flavian cousin who was tied upside down to an anchor and drowned (not fixed to a cross upside down).

 

[Jerry Russell]

And this Paulina and Decius Mundus story is strikingly similar to the Bona Dea story (Clodius dressed up as a women to intrude into the all female Bona Dea festivities and rumor had it that he had sex with JC's wife Pompeia...) when JC was Ponitifex.

Part of our narrative (following Francesco Carotta in 'Jesus was Caesar') is that the Christian (or Chrestian) religion originally was built around Julius Caesar as the quintessential savior figure. So perhaps another point of the Decius Mundus story is that Julius Caesar was 'cuckolded' by the new Jewish version of Jesus Christ, here expressed in vaudeville terms.