Was Akhenaten Moses ... and even more?

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.
Julius Caesar was also a "sponsor" of Clodius, and the cult of Caesar may have sponsored the later cult of Christ. Also, if Jesus was originally a patrician but later becoming a plebian (for the masses), Clodius was also originally a patrician who became a plebian, with the help of Caesar. Like Caesar and Christ, Clodius could also be considered to be "martyred" by the Romans. While Clodius was accused of infiltrating the Bona Dea female rites, Jesus was supposed to have actually married the priestess Mary Magdalene, maligned in popular culture as a sinner and a harlot, role reversal in these two situations.
And then there was Marcilla's take:

To me, this piece is key. In mainstream thought, it is already recognized as the pre-eminent, if not the only first century link between the secular world and the story of Jesus. If one subscribes to the "Josephus was in on it" theory, it looks to me like a gun case with a trail of smoke rising from it.

Further, I speculate that Saturninus most likely represents the Hebrew/Christian deity, as Saturn is considered to equate to El (thus, the day of Shabbos is called "Saturday" for "Saturn's day"). The wives, then, I would suspect of representing the surviving hearths and homes of El - Paulina for the Christian branch, and Fulvia for the Rabbinic. ...
The case for Geoffrey Ashe's Altai origins thesis and DeVere's red-headed thesis gets stronger with this discussion of the latest archaeological and DNA evidence. DeVere asserted that the Arya were a select clan of shaman, so it is interesting to note the focus on 'priests' with this term.

I was hoping to see mention of the Ashina, but a group spelled as 'Asii' was mentioned.

It is also of great interest to me that the Tocharian group is dated back to around 9,000 BCE, along with the Hittites.

In an attempt to get back to writing the OT analysis series, picking up with where we left off with Joseph at the end of the Isaac post, I am going to post some research material here that in some cases appears to stray considerably far afield, and sometimes appears contradictory to what we've already looked at. This is an inherent problem in trying to integrate the viewpoints of many others that have looked over this area from their different perspectives.

This first material is from the Sabbah brothers' 2002 book, Secrets of the Exodus, which is part of a wider trend in examining the central role that the 18th and 19th Egyptian Dynasties played in founding the Abrahamic religions. In the case of this first material, I had forgotten that the authors compress most all of the Genesis and Exodus narratives from Creation till Moses and Joshua into this period centered upon the monotheist period of Akhenaton at Amarna ( aka Akhet-Aten, aka Eden to such as Ralph Ellis).

BTW, these brothers are Jewish rabbis, and are thus also part of a most helpful trend of numerous Jews (Freud, Velikovsky, Shahak, Feather, Sand, etc.), besides others (Osman, Ellis, etc.), in getting to the actual Egyptian tap root historical foundation of today's Western Civilization. Interestingly, there are many Jews who do not like such honest examinations of their CULTURE, and thus people like these run the risk of being labeled self-hating Jews by their own kind. And, of course, there are many goyim (both the gentil variety and uppity Collectivist peasants alike) who are scared witless by such examinations that also threaten the artificial 'Gentile' cultural Identity, spoon fed to them from cradle to grave. Truth can be a double edged sword.

Such as the Secrets of the Exodus should have gotten much more notice, but for the above petulant and neurotic cultural insecurity factors. But, as well, we should acknowledge once more what Martin Bernal exposed in great detail (Black Athena Vol. 1) about the massive, top down, institutional academic effort (via the 1730's formulation of Romanticism) to deny the massive input to Western Civilization from Egypt, and claim instead that the Classical Greeks developed it all, despite the Classical Greeks' denial of same.

To set the tone, let's first go astray with the Sabbahs' proposed real meanings of Elohim and Nefilim as they pertain the Jerry's and my thesis that we should really be concerned with the average human's relationship with the elites, rather than being distracted by the cultural distinctions and foibles of the other human sheep. Here, with the notion of societal elites going by the honorific titles of ba'al, lord, elohim, yah (as in yarl > jarl > earl).

Mentioned is Ay, the father-in-law of Akhenaton, father of Nefertiti. In some senses he can be seen as Joseph, in others as God the Father himself as the later bible stories were politically redacted over time. Rashi was a famous rabbi of yore.

From Chapter 10, The Elohim page 74-76:

The scribes of both the Aramaic and Hebrew Bibles often use the first person plural to describe God, as in Genesis 1:26: "Let us make man in our own image, in our own likeness." Rashi explains this plural form for God by saying that God speaks in the name of his "family," the celestial beings (the elohim). "Man, being in the image of the celestial beings, could make the Elohim jealous. God took care to consult them. And when God judges the kings of the earth, He, in the same way, takes counsel with his 'family.'"
According to Rashi, the "upper" world is made up of a celestial host, the angels, sitting on the right and the left hand of God, who is seated on His throne. The divine family is a mirror image of Pharaoh and his assembly. The expression "on the right (or the left) hand of the king" was included in the titles of the nobility of ancient Egypt. Ay held the title of "fan bearer seated at the right hand of the king, responsible for all his majesty's horses, true scribe of the king, father of God." For important decisions Pharaoh had to seek the counsel of the nobles seated around him. He also had to consult the gods, those celestial beings with whom he communicated. The upper world was multiple, in the image of ancient Egypt.
In the expression "as one among us," the Bible reveals Ay's (Adonay's) membership in the Elohim, the pharaohs of Egypt [apparently preceding him in ascending to the heavens -RS].​
Once Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden, earth's population began to increase. By the time of Noah, there were many attractive human women. "When mankind began to increase in population on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of the Elohim saw that the women were beautiful. And they married those of them that they wanted" (Hebrew Bible, Genesis 6:1-2).
Rashi offers this explanation about the beings that appear in these verses:
The sons of the Elohim: children of princes and judges. Another explanation of the Midrash [Hebrew commentary on the Bible]. They were heavenly beings, accomplishing a divine mission. They were also mixing with the women. In any case, the word Elohim always carries with it the sense of supremacy. It is thus that God said to Moses: "Thou shalt be for Aaron one of the Elohim" (Exodus 4:16), Or again, "Behold, I shall cause you to be one of the Elohim for Pharaoh." (Exodus 7:1)

The commentary gives us a better glimpse of the priests of ancient Egypt. The pharaohs succeeded one another in the course of the different dynasties, and each one had numerous wives and children. They assured the futures of the princes by assigning them functions in government, the army, and above all, the priesthood. The priests of Akhet-Aten and the prominent citizens and functionaries formed the people of the Elohim (sons of the gods). These were the children of all the pharaohs of the past, who were seen as the gods of Egypt. They belonged to the secular pharaonic royalty (the heavenly beings). Describing the Egyptian nobility in general, and of Akhet-Aten in particular, Cyril Aldred states:
In Egypt, the aristocrats often had direct ties with the sovereign. They were the "children of the court," descendants and relatives more or less close to the pharaohs, through the pharaohs' secondary wives. And they played an important role in the government, as for example, Yuya, the commandant of chariots under Thutmose IV, or Ay, chief of cavalry under Akhenaten.

The true meaning, then, of the word Elohim is the pharaohs of Egypt. It is thus that the first verse of the Bible meets the Pyramid Texts, proclaiming loud and clear that the king of Egypt is a cosmic being, called upon to mount the celestial ladder or stairs, to sit on a shining throne, nourished by heavenly fruit and reigning over a celestial world.
"The Nephilim were on the Earth in those days and afterward too, when the sons of the Elohim mixed with the daughters of men. And those daughters bore children to them. They were the ancient heroes and men of renown" (Hebrew Bible, Genesis 6:4).

Although the Hellenists translated nephilim as "giants," the sense of the verse was contested by Fabre d'Olivet:
The simplest things are always those the scholars see least. They go searching into the beyond, with infinite pains, neglecting the truth right under their noses. The savants had the Latin word nobilis, under their eyes, which carries the same root as the Hebrew Nephilim ... and which has to be seen in the Nephilians of Moses, not as giants of men of colossal height, but the grandees, distinguished, illustrious men, In short, the nobles.

This explanation, based on semantics, permits us to reinforce the sense of "sons of the Elohim" as those belonging to the pharaonic nobility, ambitious and proud of the past [and their culture -RS]. The new nobility, mentioned by those Egyptologists who are specialists in the Amarna reform, represented the majority of the population of Akhet-Aten, both in the government and the clergy. The power, thus constituted, rapidly disquieted the old Theban nobility, which had to find an ally in the person of the Divine Father Ay.

Note in the last paragraph the creation of an (epic) culture war, even before the mention and equation of Moses with Akhenaten and the ~600 Mosaic laws of (epic) cultural inversion. Note the equation of the terms Nephilim with nobilis via the common root. Is this similar to the 'Roman' Livy making laws for the Romans? If the Roman poet Horace, had Jewish parents, would that make Horace a Jew?

When we get more into Akhenaton and his family, we'll discuss some reasons to consider that this particular elite schism carried forward onto Rome, and the rest of so-called 'Gentile' Europe. Jerry and I assert that this represents Ephraim and Manassah (Joseph per the papal assertion of John XXIII), while, the Sabbah brothers lay out the case that the Yehud (Judah) and Levi were the lower court senechals of Amarna, who left the city in an organized and peaceful fashion, for the 'wilderness'. Like Disestablished Jesuits ... who will pop up time and again carrying the illuminated torch of the Aten - and Adonay.

Enough for now.

Speaking of Black Athena:
The video says that King Tut's widow Ankhesenamun sent a letter to the Hittite king Suppiluliuma after Tut's death, seeking one of the Hittite king's sons to become her new husband, and new ruler of Egypt. She says "it is repugnant to me to take one of my servants (or subjects) as a husband."

This is an excellent illustration of our view that the members of the ruling class often have more feelings of loyalty and fellowship towards their counterparts in other nations, than they do towards their inferiors in their own nations. But in this story, the Hittite king feels that the Egyptian queen's request is odd and unusual -- unlike medieval Europe, where the royals essentially comprised one big family.

In this case the interbreeding of royal strands failed to take place, as Tut's vizier Ay wound up marrying the Egyptian queen Ankhesenamun, presumably after murdering Suppiluliuma's son.

The text described in the video is also available at this link: