Rzymianie wymyślili Jezusa i całą biblię. Fakty znane Nauce, poniżej.
Czas najwyższy, by fakty te, zbłądziły wreszcie pod polskie strzechy, trafiły do zmętniałej świadomości, obłąkańczych polskich zindoktrynowanych mózgów. Przykład: „Rozmowa z wyznawcami Jarosława Kaczyńskiego jest po prostu… niemożliwa!”
-z cyklu: a czy katolik to wie?
Już jakiś czas temu, w ramach studiowania antropologii kulturowej na moich studiach socjologicznych, miałem przyjemność zapoznać się z tezą, iż najbardziej znaną na świecie książkę (znaną przynajmniej z tytułu), czyli biblię (wyraz pochodzi z łaciny, w tłum.: książka; mamy więc wydawniczego dziwoląga, książkę pod tytułem „książka”), wydali i wypromowali Rzymianie (a w zasadzie narzucili siłą, mordem, ogniem i mieczem). Zrobili to na podstawie pozbieranych i wyselekcjonowanych lokalnie (semicko-palestyńskich i greko-aleksandryjskich) ludowych podań, miejscowych wyzwoleńczych życzeń i wizji, które miały charakter spirytualno-polityczny, ku duchowemu pokrzepieniu serc. Faktem jest, iż ówcześnie miał miejsce, palestyński ruch oporu, skierowany przeciwko rzymskiemu okupantowi, ale wcześniej też greckiemu okupantowi z Egiptu. Podobnie, jak polski mesjański ruch powstańczy w czasach zaborów (Polska męczennikiem narodów – był nawet taki temat na maturach z j. polskiego w szkołach średnich za moich czasów, przełom lat 80’/90′), czy też polska leśna partyzantka za hitlerowców – pamiętamy, to dotyczyło przecież naszych własnych ojców i dziadków.
Od 1947 roku mamy wreszcie źródła archeologiczne, które bardzo pomagają w ustaleniu faktów, w oddzieleniu ziaren od plew w publicznym dyskursie (publicznej dyskusji – niektórych katolików razi słowo „dyskurs”) o polityce i socjo-ekonomii. Czy dalej powinniśmy płacić podatki? Zamiast na szpitale i szkoły, to wciąż utrzymujemy legiony sukienkowych darmozjadów w parafiach i diecezjach, gęsto rozsianych po całej Polsce. Takim więc uznanym naukowym źródłem, są dla przykładu Rękopisy z Qumran (tzw. zwoje znad M. Martwego) spisane w jednym z południowych dialektów j. fenickiego (zwanego współcześnie j. hebrajskim – zupełnie nie wiem dlaczego, gdyż jest to nieuprawnione, ale przypuszczam, iż z powodów politycznej, agresywnej, globalnej ekspansji syjonizmu, finansowanego przez ponadnarodowy korporacjonizm na funduszach światowych banków, utrzymując w uniwersyteckim obiegu i mass-mediach właściwą im poprawność polityczną), ale też w języku aramejskim i greckim. Tamtejsza ludność semicka Palestyny (rodowodu fenickiego, starożytny kult saturna) podzielona była na historyczne palestyńsko-fenickie (czyli kananejskie) tradycyjne regiony (krainy) Lewantu (termin włoski na określenie wschodniego wybrzeża M. Śródziemnego), jednak wydzierane sobie przez wieki pomiędzy sąsiadujące tam imperia, jak semicki Babilon, semicką Assyrię, aryjskie Imperium Hetytów, aryjskie Imperium Mittani, czy „berberyjski” Egipt. Regiony te, to: Kannan (Fenicja właściwa), Galilea, Judea, Samaria, Perea, itd. Ludność tamtejsza znajdowała się na pograniczu wpływów kulturowo-politycznych, gdzie południowe regiony były zależne politycznie (przymus płacenia danin/podatków na obce Imperium) od greckiego Egiptu, a północne regiony od rzymskich Latynów (odłam Celtów). Z wiekami, siła militarna Greków w regionie na korzyść rzymskich legionów malała, aż w końcu została zredukowana przez Rzym do zera. Z semickimi Fenicjanami Rzym sobie poradził dużo wcześniej, likwidując stopniowo, ale konsekwentnie, też do zera, fenicką siłę polityczną i militarną Kartaginy, kontrolującą wcześniej cały obszar basenu Morza Śródziemnego, do II w p.n.e.
Wracając jednak do rzymskiego okresu historycznego politycznych buntów w Palestynie, jedni powstańcy prowadzili działania zbrojne jak Zeloci, inni zaś prowadzili aktywność pokojowo, polityczno-filozoficznie, jak Esseńczycy. Ale główna przyczyna i teza tego wpisu jest taka, że nie tylko biblia, ale całe tzw. chrześcijaństwo (którego nasi słowiańscy przodkowie nad Wisłą niestety padli ofiarą), jako państwowa nowa rzymska imperialna religia, została zaczerpnięta z lokalnych ludowych tradycji, z podbitych zbrojnie helleńsko-egipsko-semickich prowincji Bliskiego Wschodu. Pokierowana logistycznie poprzez pokolenia, przez rzymskich cezarów dowodzących ze wschodniej części Rzymskiego Imperium od Wespaziana po Konstantego. Formowanie się nowej społecznej tradycji w Europie, politycznie podyktowanej na potrzeby ówczesnych rzymskich gubernatorów i władców, zajęło ok. 20 pokoleń.
Zniewoleni przez Rzym tubylcy zaczęli nazywać swą niewolę Kulturą, lub Cywilizacją. Do dzisiaj polscy zniewoleni katolicy przebąkują z dumą, iż są częścią tzw. „Cywilizacji Łacińskiej”( nazwa za prof. Konecznym).
Wespazjan i jego syn Tytus (cesarska rodzina Flawiuszy znana współczesnym turystom chociażby z budowy amfiteatru walk gladiatorskich – Koloseum) stłumili skutecznie semickie powstania wyzwoleńcze w Palestynie w I wieku n.e., oraz za pomocą policyjnego narzędzia socjotechnicznego, którym była na tę okazję sporządzona biblia, wyciszyli niemal całkowicie żywioł powstańczy w semickim etnosie Lewantu dawnej Fenicji (Kannanu).
W pracach edytorskich nad biblią, obok rzymskiego konsula Arniusa Calpurniusa Piso (video w j. angielskim o tym poniżej), znanego w archiwach jako CAESENNIUS PAETUS, Wespazjan posłużył się pojmanym, wysokiej rangi powstańcem z Palestyny (Galilei), którym był znany z późniejszego akademickiego piśmiennictwa tzw. Józef-historyk. Był to człowiek wyedukowany, oczytany i piśmienny, a do tego pochodził z samego „gniazda” powstańczych semickich liderów, który wykonał dla Wespazjana swą agenturalną pracę pierwszorzędnie. W konsekwencji, zdradził swój semicki lud, mesjańskie wyzoleńcze idee, i poszedł na ścisłą współpracę z Rzymianami służąc od tamtej pory wyłącznie interesowi Imperium. W nagrodę Wespazjan nie tylko darował mu życie, ale adoptował jako swojego syna, czym zapewnił mu dostatnie i bezpieczne życie na poziomie ówczesnych rzymskich arystokratów. Ponoć w pierwszym kontakcie zaskarbił sobie względy jeszcze wtedy generała Wespazjana wróżbą, iż ten zostanie wkrótce cezarem. Co się faktycznie stało…, tuż po śmierci cezara Nerona. Senat Rzymu nie tylko wybrał go cezarem za zasługi w skutecznym stłumieniu rebeli w Palestynie, ale i po śmierci urzędowo uznał za postać boską (uchwała Senatu). Następca Wespazjana – syn Tytus, został więc z automatu synem Boga. Zaś urzędowo uznany przyrodni brat Tytusa – Józef Flawiusz (wspomniany już wyżej Józef-historyk), również jako przyrodni syn Boga, wpisał siebie, albo Tytusa (tego już nie rozstrzygniemy), na karty Nowego Testamentu jako bohatera lirycznego w roli Jezusa – solarnego boga, żyjącego wg naturalnych rytmów cyklicznych pór roku (skopiowanej tradycji astro-teologicznej z czasów jeszcze pre-historycznych Azji Centralnej), reformującego stare, złe (z punktu widzenia Imperium), semickie zdegenerowane (punkt widzenia Józefa) życie społeczne w Palestynie. Józefowi szczególnie chodziło o rozprawienie się ze świątynnym zdemoralizowanym i skorumpowanym kapłaństwem, z rodów którego sam pochodził. Oryginał Nowego Testamentu wymyślony i sporządzony został wtedy w j. greckim, ówczesnym lingua franca we wschodnich regionach rzymskiego Imperium, i tylko na te regiony Wespazjan skierował tę socjotechniczną broń. To był typowy akt wojskowej dywersji, stricte polityczna propaganda mająca na celu zapewnić spokój w regionie, wyhamować dalsze powstańcze zapędy, wykorzenić wyzwoleńczego ducha w podbitych i eksploatowanych ludziach Lewantu. Zabieg socjotechniczny Wespazjana polegał na tym, że dokonano podmiany tekstów (podobnie jak za PRLu, syjonistyczny premier „Cyrankiewicz” nakazał syjonistycznej „ubecji” zdyskredytowanie „chodzącej w obiegu po ludziach” prawdziwej listy polskich żydów ze zmienionymi nazwiskami poprzez dopisanie tam nazwisk katolickich Polaków i kolportowanie tej fałszywej już listy z podwójnym natężeniem – opowiadał o tym świadek epoki – śp. Albin Siwak, jego świadectwo osobiste jest wciąż na YouTube). Posłużono się więc za Wespazjana narracją oryginalnych aktywizujących lud wyzwoleńczych tekstów semickiego mesjańskiego oddolnego ruchu, zamienając ich wymowę na uległą i bierną, więc nie zagrażającą więcej rzymskim imperialnym rządom. Służby rzymskie na tę okazję reaktywowały też (suto finansując) filozofię dawnych greckich stoików. Taką rolę odegrały też wplecione w kontekst opowieści biblijnej liczne przepowiednie, np. gdzie Flawiusz w roli biblijnego boga Jezusa (Mateusz, 24:2), zapowiadał Judejczykom (mieszkańcom Judei) zniszczenie jerozolimskiej świątyni Heroda, po czym w realu, Tytus Flawiusz, zebrał kilka rzymskich legionów i zrównał ową świątynię z ziemią wypełniając czynem tę „boską” przepowiednię. Współczesnym chazarskim banksterskim klanom i nieformalnym władcom spod znaku Rodszylda, widać spodobała się ta wespazjańska taktyka, gdyż oni za pomocą kinematografii hollywood’u na usługach CIA, zawsze z wyprzedzeniem informują widzów, kiedy i gdzie zburzą jakiś budynek w realu, dokonają aktu terroru, czy w jaki inny sposób planują zgładzić część ludzkości, … po czym to robią(!). Film hollywood’zki – „Elizjum„, dla przykładu, zapowiada nam dystopijną przyszłość, nad jaką w pocie czoła pracują wszystkie obecne rządowe służby USraela – naszym kosztem, za nasze pieniądze i o zgrozo… za naszym milczącym przyzwoleniem(?!).
Na polskim przykładzie, można to porównać do zabiegu peerelowskiej wojskowej bezpieki Kiszczaka, zamieniającej wywrotowy w swym charakterze, 10. milionowy ruch robotniczej pierwszej Solidarności wielkich zakładów przemysłowych, w drugą „Solidarność” – pseudoruch, kooperujący i ugodowy z totalitarnymi władzami. Bezpiecznie dla władz i w sposób kontrolowany kanalizujący społeczne masowe niezadowolenie, na czele którego ustawiono tajnego agenta bezpieki – Wałęsę, prowadzonego pod czujnym okiem polskojęzycznych syjonistycznych „doradców” z KORu, wyciszających polski wywrotowy żywioł wraz z wyciszaniem wielkoprzemysłowej gospodarki, która była zapleczem solidarnościowego reformatorskiego ruchu. Syjonistyczny KOR (dla zmylenia polskiej czujności: Komitet Obrony Robotników), umocowany politycznie do przejęcia władzy w IIIRP na podstawie ponadnarodowych uzgodnień mocarstw, radzieckiego z amerykańsko-izraelskim (rodszyldowskim) w celu utworzenia pasa buforowego w charakterze Judeopolonii. Słabnące ekonomicznie mocarstwo radzieckie w osobie przewodniczącego Gorbaczowa wyraziło ustępstwa i zgodę na taki polityczny dyktat ze strony syjonistów z USraela. Syjoniści z dzisiejszego państwa Izrael, USA, Australii …, z całego świata (często nie znających nawet j. polskiego), otrzymali już od władz IIIRP (po 2000 roku szczególnie się ten proceder nasilił), aktualne polskie paszporty i polskie obywatelstwa. Polacy ze stalinowskich zsyłek na Syberię/Kazachstan, czy polscy potomkowie (wciąż mówiący po polsku) powstańców styczniowych/listopadowych z Ameryki Łacińskiej nie mogą jakoś liczyć „dziwnym trafem” na taką szczodrość rządów IIIRP.
Wracając do czasów rzymskich. Konstantyn Wielki dopiero kilka wieków później powrócił do tego socjotechnicznego sukcesu poprzednika, zmagając się z podobnym problemem, jak tu utrzymać spójność i spokój w targanym niepokojami i konfliktami społecznymi, wielokulturowego i wieloreligijnego molocha, jakim było Imperium, rozchodzącego się na jego oczach w szwach. Powrócił więc do pomysłu Wespazjana z Biblią i chrześcijaństwem, ale rozciągnął to policyjne narzędzie socjotechniki już na całe Imperium, Wschód i Zachód razem. Od tego momentu mamy historycznie do czynienia z politycznie motywowanym katolicyzmem, czyli państwowym kulturowym uniwersalizmem obowiązyjącym pod groźbą utraty życia każdego mieszkańca Imperium (Konstantyn nie wahał się zamordować z tego powodu wielu członków swojej najbliższej rodziny – a mimo to, wciąż jest wymieniany wśród świętych Prawosławia). Pojawiła się więc potrzeba przetłumaczenia dawnej oryginalnej greckiej językowo biblii, wschodniej wersji cezara Wespazjana, na j. łaciński, wciąż obowiązujący wśród szczątkowej arystokracji rzymskiej z centrali zachodniej części Imperium. Konstantyn rozpoczął więc pracę intelektualno-edytorską przeredagowywania, tłumaczenia, poprawiania kolejnych wielu wersji, by nowa biblia pasowała do aktualnych politycznych potrzeb jego czasów, ale proces tłumaczenia i adaptacji dokończyli już po śmierci Konstantego, jego bezpośredni polityczni spadkobiercy, i tak ostatecznie powstała tzw. wulgata (znaczy: tłumaczenie), urzędowo dopasowana do aktualnych politycznych potrzeb chylącego się ku upadkowi Imperium Rzymu przełomu wieków IV i V naszej ery. Wulgata była głównie kolportowana (politycznym szantażem ale również wojskową przemocą) w Europie Zachodniej, a że zbiegło się to czasowo z całkowitą już zapaścią i niewydolnością militarną części zachodniej Imperium, powstały w rezultacie dwa polityczne twory dzielące i konstytuujące Europę na następne wieki. Niestety, przy okazji dzieląc politycznie również etnos Słowian, na tych zmuszonych do podążania z łacińską wersją biblii Zachodniego Cesarstwa, papieskim klerem z miasta Rzym i germańską strukturą wojenną i dynastyczną (np. Piastowie nad Wartą i Wisłą) oraz na tych zmuszonych do podążania z językowo grecką wersją biblii, bizantyjskim duchowieństwem z Konstantynopola i wschodnią strukturą militarną. Starożytny kult słońca, znany z Egiptu (a wcześniej z Azji Centralnej), przerobiono stylistycznie na judaistycznie brzmiącą narrację, dano judaistyczne nazwy w miejsce egipskich, i ta da(!) … mamy nową religię pod władzą i kontrolą tego, czy innego rzymskiego cezara, która o zgrozo przetrwała do naszych czasów XXI wieku, i wciąż każdego dnia dyktuje destrukcyjną jakość i zakres, naszego politycznego i społeczno-ekonomicznego życia. Marnego życia każdego Kowalskiego znad Wisły w roku 2013 i zapewne w latach następnych.
Akademik, religioznawca z uniwersytetu stanowego w Adelajdzie w Płd. Australii ma wiele ciekawego do powiedzenia o arystokratycznej rodzinie Flawiuszy zarządzających w imieniu cezara Wschodem i ich roli w utworzeniu państwowego chrześcijaństwa.
The Flavian Thesis: Origin of Christianity, Rod Blackhirst,PhD – YouTube
Jak powstało chrześcijaństwo, wersja krótsza, 10 minut:
Wersja dłuższa, ponad godzinę:
Tu poniżej dr Richard Carrier wyłożył (j. angielski), dlaczego wymyślono Jezusa?
W ramach uzupełnienia do poprzednich filmów, wykład o rzymskim współautorze Nowego Testamentu – Arrius Calpurnius Piso, znanym z archiwów jako CAESENNIUS PAETUS.
Mr. Aberald Reuchlin: New Testament Bible Co-Authored by the Arrius Calpurnius Piso’s of Rome – książka do kupienia (on-line)
Dla porządku tylko podam poniżej wyjaśnienie badacza łączące nazwisko Piso z Paetus. Jest po angielsku i trochę skomplikowane, wynik pracy analitycznej na archiwach, mniej zainteresowani tym tematem, mogą ten fragment pominąć:
There is a listing for Piso, by Roman Piso, July 2000, from Roman Piso homepage „FOLLOWING THE TRAIL” (from the family of Vespasian to the Pisos):
The tie-in is that Arria the Elder was married to the emperor Vespasian’s brother (before Vespasian became emperor). He was T. Flavius Sabinus. From this relationship we find the connection to the alias names of the Pisos as “Paetus”. Quoting from “@0930808029,” by Abelard Reuchlin:“Vespasian relied upon Piso because he was grandson of his own brother – Vespasian’s brother, T. Flavius Sabinus, had married Arria Sr. (i.e., Arria the Elder), who was Piso’s maternal grandmother. Piso’s identity as thus also a Flavian is decipherable from the appearance in the Flavian family line of L. Caesennius Paetus(Townend, Gavin, “Some Flavian Connections,” Journal of Roman Studies, LI. 54, 62, 1961).That was an alias (like Thrasea Paetus) of Piso’s father, L. Calpurnius Piso [Note: we now know Arrius Piso’s father to have been Gaius Calpurnius Piso who was executed by Nero]. See page 20 supra, wherein Piso himself also is mentioned as a Caesennius Paetus. That is the true reason Piso used the literary pseudonym of Flavius; it was not because of his alleged – but untrue and hardly necessary – adoption by Emperor Flavius Vespasian. He was in fact (already) a Flavian.” This information leads us to:(1) The son of Thrasea Paetus/Gaius Calpurnius Piso (who is unnamed in history). And then to… (2) Flavius Josephus, and to… (3) Montanus, as another alias name of Arrius Piso.There are elements of this that are given in “The True Authorship of the New Testament” that may not be necessary to repeat here in detail such as how it is that Thrasea Paetus and Arria are seen as actually being Gaius Piso and his wife. You can find that with the use of that booklet and your own research. Instead, I will try to stick to the main issue here rather than side-track or let this get too confusing for you the reader/researcher. I will concentrate upon what you need to know in order to ‘follow the trail’ from one alias name to the next. To fill in the gaps and further deduce from this information, we examine more closely the family of Thrasea Paetus and both of the Arrias (Arria the Elder and Arria the Younger). From this, we find the daughter of Arria the Younger as one “Fannia”. “Fannia” too, is an alias name. Her real name was used to make her alias name. She was Flavia Arria. The feminine form of “Flavius”, and the name of her mother and grandmother – Arria. They used the “F” in “Flavia” as an initial and left it in front of her Arria name and changed the “r”’s in her name to “n”’s (which is explained by the use of “royal language”). This rendered the alias name of “Fannia” (F.Annia). Her brother, likewise also already carried/used the Flavius name and he would have the masculine form of his mother’s name and therefore would be “Arrius”. And now we have the “Arrius” portion of his name. But we will also find much more confirmation of this as we research and deduce further. Quoting from “The True Authorship of the New Testament”:“Likewise “Montanus” (the mountain?) “is spared out of consideration for his father [having died because of Nero]” when Thrasea Paetus is killed.” (pg. 20). Ref. Tacitus, Annals, XVI. 33., Loeb Classical Library edition.See the Bibliographical Index in the Letters of Pliny the Younger (Letters and Panegyricus), Loeb Classical Library edition, for data on:Thrasea Paetus, Arria the Elder, Arria the Younger, Fannia, Montanus and Arrius Antoninus. Note that Arria the Younger is called “Caecina ANNIA” also in history.Ref. Tacitus, The Annals, Book XVI, XXXIV, pg. 387, Loeb edition. EVIDENCE:(Flavius Josephus was a penname of Arrius Piso) This next section is called “Evidence”. Some of the items from above may be repeated here for various reasons; emphasis, clarification or because it also relates to other items that we are examining here. First of all, this particular subject really requires a full book length treatise to illustrate it fully – or ideally, several books which explore the whole thing in detail. But this is simply a short article and so we will do our best that we can here. One of the first things that comes to mind in trying to explain this is just “where to start?” And next is the reality of the fact that the average reader is unprepared and not fully familiar with primary information that they would need in order to fully comprehend what would be stated regarding this. So, there is an extreme disadvantage here right from the start. Because of this and the fact that this is just a short article, it would probably be best to just give a “list” of the various proofs that(1) Flavius Josephus was really Arrius Piso, and(2) Arrius Piso was/played “Jesus” in the New TestamentIn terms of Arrius Calpurnius Piso himself, he indeed made certain that his full and real name was never to be found anywhere that was obvious in history – therefore hiding his true identity from everyone but a small few. To restate this, the name “Arrius Calpurnius Piso” is not found outright in ancient history. But, it can be deduced and therefore reconstructed, because it is found in parts or ‘chopped up’ here and there. It is a matter of putting all of the ‘parts’ together to get his true full name. Remember, this name was deliberately hidden and for an express purpose. Abelard Reuchlin puts it this way:“He does not appear (in history) as Arius Calpurnius Piso. His true identity is decipherable only by reconstruction.”Ref. “The True Authorship of the New Testament,” pg. 3.When his true name and identity are discovered and known the rest starts to fall into place and the truth unravels. The easiest way to find that “Arrius Calpurnius Piso” is his real name is to find him as (C.)Caesennius Paetus when his father as Thrasea Paetus is found out to really be Gaius Calpurnius Piso, who was put to death (by order of suicide) by Nero in 65 CE. At that point, you know that he is the son of Gaius Calpurnius Piso, and that therefore the “Calpurnius Piso” part of his real/true name becomes known. From there one may deduce from information available in ancient history and in articles dealing with specifics of it that his firstname was “Arrius” as the masculine form of his mother’s name (Arria). You may well wish to note that the Jewish historic commentary tries to point this out with the “Pantera” riddle. This will be explained in more detail later on in this article. And one may also wish to note that Arrius Calpurnius Piso’s real name was not “Gaius Calpurnius Piso, Jr.”, as he just assumes that as an alter or alias name for the specific purpose of indicating that he was the son of Gaius Calpurnius Piso. His true name is the one that people in his family knew him as and called him by – and as we go on in our studies, it will become more and more apparent that this name was indeed “Arrius”. One of the best proofs for Flavius Josephus being the primary author of the Gospels and the inventor of “Jesus” is simply the correlations that are found between the works of Flavius Josephus and the New Testament itself. Those correlations will be made available to the public in the upcoming years. It is quite fortunate for us that the Romans were not the only ones who were leaving us records and information of persons and history in those times. The Jews (Pharisees), whom Rome was at war with over this very issue likewise left us what information that they could within their particular circumstance. Like the Romans, they too used what we refer to as ‘royal language’ as they could not write about this openly either and had to resort to hints, riddles and clues as well. But now that we know just how to read that ‘royal language’, we can also read what they had written – just as they had wrote it and intended it to be read by those whom could do so. Because of what this reveals, it demonstrates to us that history (especially ancient history) as we think we know it, did not happen in the way in which we had previously thought that it had and we must now expect that more and more evidence likewise will be found that is consistent with the way in which it DID happen. What this also means is that because the ancient authors were in complete control of what kind of evidence (in terms of their literary creations) and how much of various facts and information that they would give to us, we more or less find ourselves at their virtual ‘mercy’ as far as just what evidence they chose to leave to us for the purpose of finding out the real truth of matters in ancient history. And this should be considered when one is expecting to find one type of evidence or another. But this also means that what WAS left was left to us in what may be called ‘near pristine’ condition as far as what we find in the original texts – and that is much better than what we had previously thought we had in terms of what texts and info we had from those times. What I mean by this is that they did not write about just anyone, all persons that they made mention of in history was a relative of theirs whether by use of an alias name or not. There were not a lot of different persons writing either, which makes identifying just who wrote what much easier for us. Now, a bit about Josephus and Joseph the father of Jesus. Jesus’ father is Joseph (Josephus), his mother is not impregnated by a mere mortal man, but rather “God”. “God” came to mean something different to us in this time than it did to those authors living in those times. “God” had previously been a generic title inherited and used by Kings and other rulers. But because we (as a society) do not know this today, in our own time, we tend to think that Jesus’ mother had to be impregnated by “God” and that “God” could not also be her husband (figuratively speaking… remember, we are talking about a fictional story). While writing his ‘histories’, etc., Josephus deliberately mislead his readers (deliberate deception). And as Josephus he is the first ‘historian’ to mention “Jesus” outside of the New Testament. Josephus, as “Joseph”, the father of Jesus was a High Priest, but he was also a ruler/king (kings were sometimes called ‘governors’ in ancient history – which is something recently revealed by our research). However, as just stated, he (Josephus) would theoretically not actually have to be a king or ruler to use the inherited name/title “God”, if he was of the/a royal line. He would just have it as a “birthright” to use when and how he pleased – which, is precisely what he did. Another thing that is quite telling about the Piso family and their close relatives is that the Piso family had a history of being ‘governors’ of Syria. That is to say in actuality, kings installed there by Rome. Syria was generally a region that was ruled over by the Pisos for many generations consecutively, with perhaps a close relative of theirs stepping in as a figurehead occasionally. But primarily, Syria was the territory of the Pisos for a very long expanse of time. The Pisos and Syria in ancient history had very nearly become synonymous with each other – and so, this is another way of knowing what is being said regarding the Pisos in a secretive way. There is a place where “Jesus” is said to have been “famous” in Syria, for instance. It wasn’t “Jesus” most certainly who was “famous” in Syria, but rather the person who was playing Jesus in the NT (Ref. Matt. 4:24, “Jesus” famous or well-known in Syria). As Caesennius Paetus, Arrius Piso was the governor of Syria (Ref. Flavius Josephus, Jewish War II, VII, 59, Whiston translation; and also “The True Authorship of the New Testament”, by Abelard Reuchlin, pg. 20). Reuchlin says”Then Caesennius Paetus appears as governor of Syria, but because he is still Caesennius, he is still Josephus.”As Claudius Ariston “he was called the “leading citizen” of Ephesus (Ref. Pliny, VI.31.3.). Ephesus, was the Chief City of the Roman province of Asia which was to the South West of Bithynia. We also find him as Flavius Archippus who was supposedly a philosopher whom emperor Domitian commended to Pliny the Younger (under Pliny’s alter name/identity of Lappius Maximus, see “True Authorship of the New Testament,” pg. 15-16). The emperor ordered Pliny to “buy” him a farm near Prusa (in Bithynia) and out of public funds it would appear, or else by ruthless means to obtain this farm property. The people of Prusa (supposedly) voted to put up a statue as tribute to him (Flavius Archippus aka Josephus). Now, if we could just find one of these statues or other likenesses of Piso from his time we would really have something to show what he looked like. IMPORTANT ITEMS TO NOTE IN THIS ARTICLE:1. The Pantera Riddle, solved and explained 2. The Correlations between the works of Flavius Josephus & the New Testament 3. “Jesus” and Piso are BOTH famous in Syria 4. The word “Denarius” used in Revelations as a question! 5. Alias names can be used to build profiles of the actual persons 6. Arrius Piso’s descent from Marc Anthony (and Cleopatra) 7. The word “nini” and “dragon” meaning “baby boy”, which is “Jesus” 8. Arrius Piso as founder of Annii Verii and Annii Anicii 9. Arrius Piso’s inherited name of “Pollio” 10. Listing of those ‘historians’ who were involved in the fraud BACK ON THE TRAIL(following Arrius Piso through his alias names) Here is the order in which we will go so as to keep this organized in a way that will be easier for the reader to understand and to follow:1. (C.) CAESENNIUS PAETUS leads us to Arrius Calpurnius Piso 2. ARRIUS CALPURNIUS PISO (his real name) leads us to Montanus 3. MONTANUS leads us to Arrius Antoninus 4. ARRIUS ANTONINUS leads us to Arrius Verus 5. ARRIUS VERUS leads us to Annius Gallus 6. ANNIUS GALLUS leads us to Cestius Gallus 7. CESTIUS GALLUS leads us to Gessius Florus 8. GESSIUS FLORUS leads us to ANTONIUS PRIMUS 9. ANTONIUS PRIMUS CAESENNIUS PAETUS We have already examined (C.) Caesennius Paetus and will have references for that and other items here at the end of this article. So, we can go on to examine Arrius Calpurnius Piso. ARRIUS CALPURNIUS PISO C(ENTURIO) ARRICenturial Stone ‚The century of Arrius (built this) The term ‚centurial stone’ is given to building stones of Hadrian’s Wallon which a century of 80 Roman soldiers scratchedthe name of their unit on completing ‚their’ stretch of Hadrian’s Wall. Arrius Calpurnius Piso definitely had many, many more alias names. But for now it is important to know these names before going on to the rest. Below you will find examples of his “Arrius” name used both in the history of his time and in the New Testament as well. 1. He is “Arrius” as Arrius Antoninus, in the history of his time. 2. He is Areios/Arrius as the god Mars incarnate and is mentioned as the god Mars throughout the works of Juvenal (Loeb editions). 3. He is “Arrius” (Annius) as the brother of Flavia Arria (i.e. Fannia). 4. He is “Arrius”, because as Jesus he is called by the Jews “ben Pantera”, meaning that he is “son of his mother”. The Jews were pointing out that his name was “Arrius” as the masculine form of his mother’s name (Arria). One of the other things that we found in our research of royal language is that “T” and “TH” were often switched or used interchangeably. So, “Pantera” (or “Pentera”) could also be “PenTHera”, which is “mother” (i.e., HIS mother, “Arria”). Knowing this shows us that “ben PenTHera”, means “son of mother” (Arria). The Jews say that he is “son of mother”, so that when one finds out that “Jesus” was really being played by the person who invented him, and we know that person to be Josephus and/or even (C.) Caesennius Paetus, that we would be pointed to his MOTHER so that we could find his name as being “Arrius” as the masculine form of his mother’s name. Another thing that they knew and used was the hints and clues given by the authors of the New Testament themselves! The Greek word “PenTHera” for “mother” is in Mark 1:30, Matt. 8.14, Luke 4:38. In Matthew 12:48, Jesus (or the person who was playing him rather) says; “Who is my mother?” He is asking a question, a question that of course the average person thinks that they know the answer to – “Mary” (“Mary” is another form/spelling of “Arria”), but it is a deceptive one. The question is asked by him, Arrius Piso, to point towards his own mother as the source of his real name of Arrius… and so more is said in the form of questions. Matt. 13:55; “Is not HIS (Jesus/Arrius Piso) mother called “Mary?” If his name is “Arrius” as the masculine form of “Arria” (his mother), then his sister would also have the same name as his mother, i.e. “Arria”. Her name was hidden in history by simply changing the r’s to n’s, and by putting the initial of her first name (“F”) in front of her name instead of spelling it out (“Flavia”). 5. As Jesus, he is the “Lamb”, and the word for lamb is “Arnius” in Greek and in the royal language it is seen as “Arrius” because r’s and n’s are interchangeable (Ref. John 1:29, Greek/English Interlinear New Testament). 6. His name is inserted into the New Testament by several means. One of which is by the mention of the marketplace of “Appius”, as in the royal language r’s and p’s are interchangeable to render the name “Arrius” (Acts 28:15, Greek/English Interlinear New Testament). 7. In the Revelations, 6:6, “Arrius” is inserted by mentioning the word “denARIUS”. And in his true ingenious style the author of the Revelations (Julius Calpurnius Piso) also makes this secretly as a question. And the reason we know this is this, “den” means “did not”, and so it actually reads; “did not Arrius?” And when one knows this, we also get to read the question with the inferred words to give the full question of; “Did not Arrius (Piso) do/create it?” Sheer genius on the part of Julius Piso.Now, with the combined knowledge that (C.) Caesennius Paetus was an alias name of Arrius Calpurnius Piso, we now go on to examine the name Montanus in comparison with what we already know. MONTANUS Well, we have already found that Thrasea Paetus and Caesennius Paetus were alias names of Gaius Calpurnius Piso and his son Arrius Calpurnius Piso because of the many factors involved with each and their other family members. Thrasea Paetus and Caesennius Paetus were not just alias names, but were also “composites” for the real persons behind the names. Note that this allows us to build profiles of these persons as their alias names are revealed. That is the way that these ancient authors had ‘designed’ this so that it WOULD be found out. And so, we look to find other similar composites that may be telling and we find the same similarity in the name and figure of “Montanus”. So, we examine this critically. Why “Montanus” for an alias name of Arrius Piso? Because he saw himself as a large immovable object such as a large hill or mountain. And he saw himself as the god Mars, who was the God of War, incarnate. And then he could also joke about this in the New Testament were “Mar’s Hill” is mentioned – because “Mar’s Hill” in Greek is “Areios Pagos”. And a “mount” (like Olympus), a large hill or mountain in Greek is “Pagos”, so here we have “Areios (Arrius) Mountain/Montanus”. But “pagos” can also be “opos” or “ipos” in Greek when viewing it in royal language and “ip(p)os” is “horse” or “beast” which is also what Arrius Piso was referred to. “Ippos” is the name “Piso” rearranged, and in the Revelations, Julius Piso refers to his father (Arrius) as “the Beast”. So, to say “Mar’s Hill” we could say in our meaning in Greek “Arrius Ippos/Piso” (Ref. Acts 17:19 and 17:22). A more detailed explanation of things not explained more fully here will be found in other works on this subject. There is also another joke in the New Testament where as Jesus, he (Arrius Piso) is slyly referred to as a “Mountain” (John 4:21). But bear in mind that many of these jokes and names cannot be seen in translated or interpreted versions of the New Testament. To ‘see’ these, you’ll have to use a good Greek/English Interlinear New Testament. You will have to go to the earliest Greek translation (not “interpretation”) to see/read this. In any case, this particular joke is rather interesting as it shows the author clearly “talking out of the side of his mouth.” In John 4:21, Jesus (Arrius Piso) says;“Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you shall worship the (ancestral) Father neither in (the form of) THIS MOUNTAIN (“Montanus”, i.e. Arrius Piso), nor in Jerusalem.”He is saying more than one thing here. He is referring to himself as “this mountain”, that is HIMSELF as “the Mountain” because he is “Montanus”. The reason he says that she will not worship the (ancestral) Father (i.e. “god”, whom was the original “god”, that being Pharaoh Adamenhept I whom Arrius Piso derives his ‘power’ and inherited name/title of “god” from) in Jerusalem is because he was pointing to the fact that Jerusalem by that time had been destroyed. It was later than 70 CE when this was being written. And he is also saying that the day when Christianity will end will eventually come. There is more and more evidence pointing towards Arrius Piso’s son Julius Piso having a great concern about Christianity, and that they, as the authors should make statements in the New Testament that will allow humanity to one day find out about all of this. And so, it appears that statements referring to the end of Christianity that were inserted into the New Testament were done to appease this son of Arrius Piso. In Pliny (the works of Pliny the Younger), we find “Montanus” as a senator. From the Bibliographical Index in the works of Pliny the Younger (Loeb Classical Library edition): “Montanus, unknown senator; letters on monument to freedman Pallas and honors voted him, VII. 29; VIII. 6.” We also see as we follow the trail, all of these who were involved in this fraud as well (such as Pliny the Younger). And we find, eventually, that this involved ALL of the Roman authors and we also find them to be closely related to each other – the Roman emperors and those who were writing their histories. Note that this is not a “conspiracy”, but more like what would be called an “oligarchy”. This should make some people sit up and take notice. “Montanus” was spared (by Nero) out of consideration for his father (Gaius Piso, who was forced to commit suicide by Nero), with the proviso (provision) that his official career should not be continued” (Ref. Tacitus, Annals, Book XVI, XXXIII, pg. 387, Loeb). “Montanus” is also mentioned in many other places. A list of these will appear at the end of this article. Now knowing that “Montanus” is Arrius Piso, we continue looking for “Arrius” and we now find “Arrius Antoninus”. ARRIUS ANTONINUS Why the alias name of Arrius Antoninus? We have already found his name as “Arrius”. So, we wonder why “Antoninus”? We have found examples of other alias names that were used that incorporated the use of component parts of other names and/or initials or abbreviations in some instances to create alias names/identities. And it may well be further found that there were indeed various purposes involved for the use of alias names and their component parts as yet not fully recognized, such as the use of these as “indicators” of ancestry. We are finding out more and more about these things all of the time.Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus (138-161 AD)AR denarius of Antoninus Pius (138-161 AD). Minted in 155/156 AD.ANTONINVS AVG PIVS PP COS III on obverse, Pius facing right.AEQVITAS AVG on reverse, with Aequitas standing, holding spear and scales Now we look at “Antoninus” and find an obvious indication of descent from the Antonii line – and as we will find as we go along, this WAS purposeful. It was given as an indication that Arrius Piso was indeed descended from Marc Antony himself. And that explains the “Antoni” portion of the invented name. When one stops to think of all of this it is truly amazing that all of this was done and remained hidden from the public for so long – but there were a variety of methods and means used by them specifically for that purpose. Even fooling the brightest of scholars up to this time. But now all of this is known and available to everyone on the Internet – that “Dark Age” will now end. Remembering the purpose of these alias names and also realizing that great pains were taken specifically to HIDE these things, and not to make the appear obvious (except in small bits and pieces), while likewise bearing in mind that they… the authors were most ingenious, used the royal language, etc., we can easily envision them making “double use” of letters already used in these names as just another way of further hiding hints, clues and other info. In the alias name “Antoninus” we find the use of “ninus”. What is “ninus”? “Ninus” is a secret title. It is really the Greek “nini”, which is “baby” or infant – which, in reality refers, indicates and confirms that this person was “a baby” – the baby JESUS! Do you remember that it was mentioned above that Julius Piso called his father a “dragon” in the Revelations? That was because by doing so he was also pointing out that his father was “a baby boy” as that is what the word used for dragon refers to – he too was saying that Arrius Piso was JESUS! Let’s take a moment to review what we have found so far. We found that Flavius Josephus was really just a penname of Arrius Calpurnius Piso, and that Arrius Piso had played the fictional character “Jesus” in the New Testament. We also found that Tacitus, the historian, was involved in this fraud as well as Pliny the Younger. I sincerely hope that now that all of this is known that ancient history will NEVER be viewed in the same way again. How deluded must a person be to not recognize that this is the true way in which all of this had happened? Who could read and investigate all of this and say that it is merely a coincidence? No one at all I should think, as long as they have a working brain, basic information – and are honest with themselves. “Heart” and emotionalism does not enter into this as far as the premise of “Jesus” being good, etc., because all of that is depends upon the information about “Jesus” being true – and it is not, it is a fraud. ARRIUS VARUS Now why “Arrius Varus” as an alias? Well, it gives Arrius a chance to use his real name of “Arrius”, and that is one reason. But another is because he can really play with and use this alias while honoring himself and his descendants. The name “Varus” is the Roman form of the Egyptian “Veru,” meaning “great men”, but when used as a ‘name’ of an individual it means that the man who has and uses the name is a “great man”. As Arrius Verus, he is found as the founding ancestor of the later great Roman family – the “Annii Anicii.” “Annius” and “Arrius” are the same as explained previously. And he (Arrius Piso) is also the founder of the “Annii Verii.” Using the royal language one sees in this alias name another name that was used – “Severus.” Let’s look at this. “Arrius Verus” (vowels were interchangeable always because they are seen as not really being there excepting as to be used to make names appear to readers to be different), the ‘s’ from Arrius is given a vowel (“e”) to bind it to “Verus”, thus rendering “Severus”. This is a name used by Arrius Piso’s son Julius Piso as a commander of the Roman forces against the Jews in the Bar Cochba revolt. Tacitus says:“As Antonius (that is, “Antonius Primus”) hurried forward some dispatchments from the cohorts and part of the cavalry to invade Italy, he was accompanied by Arrius Varus…”He was “accompanied” by Arrius Varus, in this instance, because he was one and the same person. Naturally, where ever Antonius Primus went, Arrius Varus was sure to go… as they are the same person! Are you starting to understand just how ancient history was REALLY written? I hope so. In the same passage, Tacitus says:“However, Antonius (Primus) and Varus (of course!) occupied Aquileia…”Yes, they were BOTH there, in one place, and in one body! Another interesting thing that Tacitus does is to call “Antonius Primus” – “Primus Antonius”. One would think the purpose that Tacitus had in mind was to further confuse/confound the reader into thinking that he is speaking of two different persons, just as he does in calling Arrius Piso several different (alias) names. He is VERY actively participating in this fraud (Ref. Tacitus, II, Histories, Book III, VI, pg. 337, Loeb Classical Library edition). ANNIUS GALLUS We will start to see proof that the other historians of the time were also very actively involved in this fraud as well. This name is particularly telling when we find just which authors of the day had used this alias name to refer to Arrius Piso. As if the circle has not been completed by this point, still there is more to bring this all around “full circle” again. We know by now that “Annius” is just another spelling of “Arrius”, so we look for “Gallus”. Turning now to Suetonius we find that the person who killed the emperor Vitellius was none other than our “friend” Antonius Primus, and he is called “Gallus” there by saying that he is a (“c” word for male chicken) “rooster” and a person from Gaul. By the way, “Gallus” is also another way of using the “Pollio” name that Arrius Piso had also inherited, as they are the same in meaning. They both refer to the “rooster” and in turn, the “rooster” is also a secret way of alluding to the Phoenix, which ones finds to be synonymous with the phallic symbol and in meaning, “god”. So, in a very hidden way, calling Arrius “Gallus” is in fact saying or acknowledging him as “god”. So, note that we now add Suetonius to the list of authors who were contributing to this fraud. We also find “Annius Gallus” in Plutarch’s “Lives” under “Otho”. And Juvenal also makes mention of a “Gallus” in his works (Juvenal, VII. 144, Loeb). Tacitus did not miss the chance to use this alias name of Arrius Piso either. See: Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, XLIV, pg. 233; and Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, XXXIII, pg. 215; as well as Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, XI; and Tacitus, II, Histories, Book I, LXXXVII, pg. 151. “Annius Gallus” by now should be easy to see as an alias name of Arrius Piso and should be seen as “Arrius Gallus”. This is a connecting/affirming alias name that allows the reader who is able to deduce things such as this and who has the ability to make use of their knowledge of ‘royal language’ to make the affirmation and connection to the fact that “Cestius Gallus” also was an alias name of Arrius Piso. This is, after all, a “trail” that was left to follow… and add Plutarch, Juvenal and Suetonius to our list of participants in the fraud. CESTIUS GALLUS & GESSIUS FLORUS (We will look at both of these in comparison to each other to help us better understand the other alias names that have been listed and those that we are yet to find out about) Why Gessius Florus? He disguises an ancestral name which is “Cassius”, as “Gessius” and gives “FL” from “Flavius”, while enjoying the name/title of (H)orus – as the Egyptian god which is reborn/incarnate now in the form of Arrius Piso. As Gessius Florus, he is a Roman procurator in Judea and is the cause of the Jewish revolt at that time. Writing as Josephus, Arrius Piso tries to make it appear that Gessius Florus is a different person from Cestius Gallus, but the name Cestius Gallus is telling. The name “Cestius” is the same as “Gessius” as seen in royal language because “C” and “G” are interchangeable to the point of being exactly the same anyway. And “S” and “T” are likewise as well. While we are on the subject of Arrius Piso and his use of the name “Gallus” and that being another way of saying/using his inherited name of “Pollio”, we should not forget another name that he was known by; that of “Annius Pollio”. Again, we should be used to ‘seeing’ the “Annius” name as “Arrius” and now we see the use of the name that came down to him from many of his ancestors and relatives -“Pollio”. Arrius Piso as “Annius Pollio” is incriminated in the Pisonian Conspiracy (plot) against Nero and sent into exile. Which is exactly what happened to him under other alias names! Refer to the article “Domitius Corbulo” by Ronald Syme in the JRS (Journal of Roman Studies), post 1969; and also Tacitus, Annals, XVI, 30, 3.; and Tacitus, Annals, XVI, 21, I. Arrius Piso as “Annius Pollio” was sentenced to exile (in Tacitus, Annals, Book XV, LXXI, pg. 329, Loeb). And by the way, the Roman writer Martial mentions Cestius Gallus in his works (Ref. Martial, XLII, 2., Loeb). Add Martial to our list of participants in the fraud. And the name “Gallus” is very telling because:a) it is another way of saying “Poll(i)o”, which is an ancestral name of the Flavians, andb) because they both mean chicken or “fowl” in general, as previously stated. Moreover,c) chicken or fowl refers to the winged-phallus that Jesus also was synonymous with, andd) Arrius Piso as Antonius Primus is supposed to have been born in Gaul (and so can be referred to as “Gallus”) according to Suetonius, ande) Suetonius adds that as a boy, Antonius Primus had the “nickname” (alias name) of “becko” (rooster’s beak). And further…f) as you can see, this and other alias names of Arrius Piso lead us to yet another one – that of “Antonius Primus.” ANTONIUS PRIMUS Why “Antonius Primus” as an alias name for Arrius Piso? Well, for one thing we were led to this name by the process of logical deduction. And here, we find the use and emphasis of the “Antonius” name again. And “Primus” is used because he considered himself the “prime” one or prime source (which he was, because he made himself so), and numero uno – number “1”, the big shot. He was/is the “key” to finding out about all of the rest of this. No one gets to anything of any real consequence regarding this unless they first “go through him”. One needs to know that Arrius Piso used many, many alias names (more than anyone else that I could find!), and the rest of this comes out as a result of that. The name “Antonius Primus” was used by Arrius Piso himself in the works that he wrote as Flavius Josephus, and that name is also found used in reference to him (Arrius Piso) in the works of Suetonius, and in Tacitus (Ref. Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, LXXXVI, pg. 131, Loeb). It seems that one way that reconciled to themselves the use of alias for the purpose of deception was to think of them as “nicknames” – nicknames for which only they were fully aware of the full and true meanings. Arrius Piso was rather proud of his ancestry and particularly that of his descent from Marc Antony. His ancestry from Marc Antony has been reconstructed by us and we were able to do it because he made certain that it was given out in bits and pieces for those who were able to, to figure out and to see this for themselves. NOTES & REFERENCES FOR:Caesennius Paetus and family: C. Caecina Paetus M. Arria the Elder | Caecina Arria the Younger M. Thrasea Paetus | Fannia M. Helvidius Priscus References“Domitius Corbulo”, Ronald Syme, JRS. Pliny the Younger, Epp. III, 16, 7ff. Tacitus, Annals, Book XVI, XXXIV, pg. 387, Loeb. Thrasea Paetus’ wife Arria the Younger was a relative of Persius the Poet. Ref. Suetonius, “Lives of Illustrious Men”, “On Poets – Persius”, pg. 497, 499. Tacitus is careful not to mention that Thrasea Paetus and Arria had a son (Arrius Piso) also. He says; “To touch Nero with shame for his infamies was an idle dream, and it was much more to be feared that he (Nero) would exercise his cruelty on Thrasea’s wife, his daughter, and OTHER objects of his affection.” He does not mention son directly, but leaves open the possibility that one (or more) might exist. Then, to further hide the existence of this son (Arrius) he says; “Arria, who aspired to follow her husband’s ending and the precedent set by her mother and namesake, he (Thrasea Paetus) advised (her) to keep her life and not to deprive the child of their union of HER one support.” He could say this because Arrius was in exile! And that meant that he was not THERE to support his sister – as it also implies that Fannia did not or would not have a husband at that time (Ref. Tacitus, Annals, Book XVI, XXVI). There is quite a bit of information about this family in an article titled “People in Pliny”, by Ronald Syme, JRS (Journal of Roman Studies), 1968-69, pg. 144, 146, 148. Such as,(1) A. Caecina Paetus, suff. 37 CE, of Patavium.(2) P. Clodius Thrasea Paetus (also of Patavium), who married the daughter of the above A. Caecina Paetus.(3) Arria the Younger as wife of Thrasea Paetus.(4) C. Fannius (Arrius Piso) as barrister who wrote the biographies of Nero’s victims. To quote: “Supposed relative of Fannia, the daughter of Patavine (P. Clodius) Thrasea Paetus by marriage with Arria, the daughter of A. Caecina Paetus (suff. 37), cf. Groag in PIR-2, F 116.” Syme here says; “Why she should be called “Fannia”, no clue.” He is right, one would think a daughter of an “Arrian” would carry the name of her own mother – somewhere. It is there. She is “F.” Arria/Annia w/ r’s as n’s. Ref. for Thrasea Paetus and C. Caecina Paetus; “Domitius Corbulo”, by Ronald Syme, JRS, (post 1969). His source was Pliny the Younger, Epp. III, 16. 7 ff. As Caesennius Paetus, Arrius Piso married Vespasian’s niece, who was probably his first wife (Ref. “Some Flavian Connections”, Gavin Townend, JRS (Journal of Roman Studies), 1961. Also see Syme, “Tacitus”, 595, n5). Ref. for Caecina Paetus and Arria the Elder; Dio Cassius, 7. 407f. Polla, the wife of Lucan the Poet is called “Queen” by Martial. Note that “Polla” is the feminine form of “Pollo/Pollio” (Martial, Book X, LXIV, Loeb). Arria mentioned by Martial (I. XIII). Pliny the Younger mentions Arria in Epist. III, 16.3. Tacitus speaks of Arria (Tacitus, Annals, XVI). “Thrasea” is mentioned in Juvenal (Juvenal, V.36, Loeb). Thrasea Paetus, Arria the Elder, Arria the Younger, and Fannia are all mentioned in the Annals of Tacitus; Book XVI, XXIV, pg. 373; Book XVI, XXV, pg. 375-377; Book XVI, XXVIII, pg. 379-381; Book XVI, XXXIV, pg. 387. Read through books: XVI, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXIX, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV (Loeb). In Appian’s Roman History, there is C. Philo Caesennius (Paetus). “Paetus” is inferred the same way that “Piso” would be when the name “Frugi” is used (Appian, Roman History, IV. 27, Loeb). Note that it has been discovered that Arrius Piso wrote as Philo of Alexandria, and so it is natural to find “Philo” as another alias of his or used to produce one. Arrius Piso wrote as Philo for several reasons, not the least of which to historicize characters and make mention of those which he wised to emphasize. Case in point, (Pontius) Pilate (Ref. Philo, Vol. X, “The Embassy to Gaius (Caligula)”, pg. 151, 153, Loeb). History records that both Arria the Younger and Fannia were alive when Nerva became emperor in 96 CE. They had been in exile under Domitian. Arrius Piso as “Caesennius Paetus” was the governor (president/king) of Syria, as the Pisos were noted for being “governors of Syria” (Ref. Flavius Josephus, Jewish Wars, II, VII. 59; or Flavius Josephus, Whiston translation, pg. 597). Montanus: “Likewise “Montanus” (the mountain?) “is spared out of consideration for his father” when Thrasea Paetus is killed.” Ref. “The True Authorship of the New Testament,” in “The Proof that Josephus as Calpurnius Piso,” pg. 20, Abelard Reuchlin, 1979, 1986.Note that this is found in the Annals of Tacitus, XVI, 33, Loeb. “Montanus” is found in “People in Pliny”, Ronald Syme, JRS, 1968-69, pg. 149-150. And in Tacitus, Histories, III, 35. 2; and in Tacitus, Annals, Book XVI, XXIX, pg. 381, Loeb. Tacitus, Annals, Book XVI, XXXIII, pg. 387, Loeb. “Montanus” is mentioned in Juvenal, IV. 107, 131, Loeb. Arrius Antoninus: Arrius Antoninus was proconsul under Vespasian in 69 CE (Ref. “The Consulate of the Elder Trajan”, by John Morris, JRS, Vol. 43-45, 1953-1955, pg. 79-80. And Josephus, BF, 4, 9, 2 (499); Tacitus, Histories, II, I, cf. 1, 10; Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars”, under “Titus”, 5. He is also in the Historia Augusta by this name. He is grandfather of emperor Antoninus Pius. And we have found that Antoninus Pius and Suetonius were one in the same (Ref. Antoninus Pius, 1, 4; and “The True Authorship of the New Testament,” Abelard Reuchlin. Also see “”Marcus Aurelius” (A Biography), Appendix 2, “The Antonine Dynasty”, B: ANTONINUS PIUS, pg. 242, Birley, published by Yale University Press, c. 1986. Annius Varus: In the Historia Augusta, Annius Verus is given as the great-grandfather of Marcus Aurelius (Ref. Marcus Aurelius, 1. 4) This “Annius Varus” (Arrius Piso) was obviously the founder of the “Annii Verii” (i.e., the Antonine Dynasty). You will find quite of bit of information regarding this family and the names that they used in the work titled “Marcus Aurelius” (A Biography), Appendix 2, “The Antonine Dynasty”, C: ANNII VERII (pg. 243-244), by Birley, pub. by Yale Univ., c. 1986. Arrius is “M. Annius Verus” (even dared give us the “M” for “Marcus in Marcus Antonius!), suff. in 97 (Ref. “People in Pliny”, Ronald Syme, JRS, 1968-1969, pg 137). Annius Gallus: “Annius Gallus” is in Plutarch’s “Lives” under “Otho”. And Juvenal also makes mention of a “Gallus” in his works (Juvenal, VII. 144, Loeb). Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, XLIV, pg. 233; and Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, XXXIII, pg. 215; as well as Tacitus, II, Histories, Book II, XI; and Tacitus, II, Histories, Book I, LXXXVII, pg. 151. Cestius Gallus and Gessius Florus: The Roman writer Martial mentions Cestius Gallus in his works (Ref. Martial, XLII, 2., Loeb). Josephus speaking about Gessius Florus (.ie., himself as Roman General and procurator of Judea says; “… nor could anyone out do him in disguising the truth.” He is right about that, his is the all-time champion at doing that! Ref. Josephus, pg. 484, Whiston. Also note that as “Gessius”, Arrius could pronounce his alias name as “Jes(I)us.” And in the royal language he could change vowels to render “Josi(ph)us” or simply “Jos” as short for “Josephus”. Antonius Primus: Antonius Primus is found described in Tacitus, Histories, Book II, LXXXVI, pg. 299. In the works of Flavius Josephus, “Antonius Primus” turns into “Antonius Julianus”. Church father Origen says that to find out about the destruction of the Temple look in (the works of) Flavius Josephus and “Antonius Julianus” (as if Antonius Julianus was a contemporary historian with Flavius Josephus and well-known. But there is NO historian “Antonius Julianus” except for being another name of or alias of Arrius Piso! Note that the name “Antonius Julianus” is in the works of Flavius Josephus, but that is just another alias name that is used by Arrius Piso It should be appropriate to end with a few words from Flavius Josephus himself:Josephus calls himself „Joseph” (as in the father of Jesus), on pg. 427 of the works of Flavius Josephus, Whiston. There is a joke/allusion to Josephus being Arrius Piso by use of a reference to a passage in the works of Flavius Josephus which appears in the New Testament as given by Julius Piso in the Revelations. It is the „I am Alpha and Omega, beginning and end.” The name „Arrius Piso” starts with „A” (Alpha) and ends with „O” (Omega). Julius refers to a statement that may be found on pg. 427 of the works of Flavius Josephus, Whiston. Ref. Rev. 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13. And here is a great piece of rhetoric in the works of Flavius Josephus:”…and where it must be reproachful to write lies, when they must be known by the reader to be such.”Note that he says „known by the READER,” not the writer!!! (pg. 428, Josephus, Whiston). Like Alexander (the brother of Aristobulus), Arrius Piso „composed 4 books against his enemies.” Those, of course, are the „Gospels”. This is what we know of as and call „propaganda”, and this was used during the ‘war’ as a part of the tactics against their enemies. So, when it is said that the New Testament was written as a part of the war, this is what is meant. Arrius Piso, writing as „Flavius Josephus” was here alluding to what HE did by writing the Gospels (Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg. 458, Whiston).”…and by degrees he laid blame on these men (his enemies) whose names were in these books, …”Again, alluding to what HE did. And we have found that this is true. He does place ‘blame’ on the Jews for the death of Jesus in his story and he does get more and more antisemetic in the Gospels as each one was written. Another thing is that he does place them in his works by their real names and by alias names with their ‘profiles’ so that people who knew these persons with a great familiarity would KNOW of whom he was speaking (Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg. 459, Whiston). And here is an admission to what he was doing:”yet were there fictitious stories added to what was really done.”(Ref. Josephus, pg. 517, Whiston)And about the ‘signs’ that the Temple and Jerusalem would be destroyed, he says:”… the signs were so evident…” and that „… (the Jews) did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. [„God” in this case being Arrius Piso himself] Thus, there was a star resembling a sword [he is referring to his ‘sword’, i.e. „Jesus” which was his strength as the bright morning star, like Achilles had with his „evening star”], which stood over the city (of Jerusalem), that continued (lasted) for a while year.”There at the end he could be referring to his position as Roman procurator in Judea. He states further…”I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, ….” Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg 582, Whiston And „… as if they had been ready to (play as)/be „actors” against them.” Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg. 602, Whiston. „Some of them betook themselves to the writing of fabulous narrations…” Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg. 608, in „Against Apion”, Whiston. „As for myself, I have composed a true history of that whole war…” Josephus calls it a „war”, not a „revolt” as most others do. He says; „I „acted” as general…” Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg. 609, in „Against Apion”, Whiston.Josephus the Actor… He says:”…and as for the History of the War, I wrote it as having been an „actor” myself…” Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg. 610, in „Against Apion”, Whiston. „I say nothing of such kings as have been famous for piety, particularly of one of the whose name was Cresus,…” „Cresus” is part „C(h)r(ist)” and part „(J)esus”… what a joker! Ref. Flavius Josephus, pg. 628, in „Against Apion”, Whiston translation.
Przykład na wyjaśnienie terminu SYNKRETYZM
Do niektórych komentujących na forach dyskusyjnych w sieci o tej tematyce wciąż nie dociera zebrana akademicka wiedza antropologiczna. Temat jest oczywiście obszerny, jak cała antropologia, więc nie sposób wszystkiego zmieścić w jednym blogowym artykule. Po to się idzie na uniwersytet, by studiować daną dziedzinę wiedzy (tu, wiedzy o człowieku kulturowym) jeśli chce się coś wiedzieć, tę poukładaną podróż za wiedzą tam należy zacząć. Ale są też w sieci osoby, które zebrały jakąś tej wiedzy część, gdyż im nie było ciężko chodzić do bibliotek i czytać, więc szczodrze na „srebrnym talerzu” teraz przekazują to szerszej publiczności „pro publico bono”. Ja mogę polecić dla uniwersyteckiego kontrastu chociażby Jordana Maxwell’a z USA i Santosa Bonacciego z Australii (Melbern)- niezależnych badaczy, by nie stawiano mi zarzutu, że polegam tylko na akademikach (większość z nich jest faktycznie skorumpowana, na smyczy płatników ich wynagrodzeń), czy wielu innych badaczy prezentujących tematykę astro-teologii.
Trzeba wreszcie chcieć zrozumieć, że znany wszystkim z biblii „Jezus”, to opowiastka o ruchu słońca po niebie widzianym z Ziemi od zarania ludzkości. To taki przekazywany z ust do ust kalendarz (kiedy nie było jeszcze pisma, bo na aryjskich stepach nie było ono potrzebne) z dawnych starożytnych czasów, by ludzie mogli sobie zaplanować, tak jak dziś planujemy, kiedy sobie kupimy ciepłe zimowe buty, widząc w kalendarzu, że lato się kończy.
Więcej z tej tematyki na tym blogu, tutaj.