Teotihuacan, "City of the Gods"

Friday's episode of Ancient Aliens featured a theory of Hugh Harleston, Jr. that the architectural layout of Teotihuacan includes a scale model of the planets of the solar system.


Harleston concluded that the Temple of Xochitl on the volcanic mountain Cerro Gordo represented the location of a planet that was (at that time) unknown to science, and dubbed it Xiknalkan. It's location corresponds quite closely to Sedna, which was discovered by Mike Brown in 2004. The Ancient Aliens program, however, suggested that the location of Xochitl Temple might instead represent the planet that Mike Brown is currently looking for. Yet, this doesn't compute in that the expected perigee of Brown's "Planet 9" is about twice that of Sedna.

I'm wondering then if there might be some other temple or ancient site on the other side of Cerro Gordo. Looking at Google satellite view, there's something interesting along that same axis at:

19.815125, -98.797963

There's not enough detail in the imagery to tell exactly what it is.

I suppose we should also be looking for something at that range on the opposite side of Teotihuacan (as Sedna and Planet 9 theoretically cannot line up on the same side of the sun in perigee).

Anyway, if anyone has knowledge of the archaeology of the area, please enlighten us!

The Magic Brick in Tut's Treasury

The latest episode ("Pharaoh's Curse") of Ancient Aliens airing this past Friday featured Ahmed Osman as one of the talking heads!

There will be a number of additional showings in case you missed it:

Ahmed explains the purpose of magic bricks in royal burials (among other things). The program goes on to discuss a rare/unique fifth magic brick located in a side chamber of Tut's tomb called "The Treasury". On the brick it was written:

"It is I who hindered the sand from choking the secret chamber,
and repel that one who would repel him with a desert flame.
I have set aflame the desert.
I have caused the path to be mistaken.
I am for the protection of the deceased."

This inscription has a decidedly Moses-like flavor! Recall that in the Biblical story that Moses is first repelled by "pharaoh" and then the pharaoh is prevented from chasing after Moses. And as Moses and the Israelites wandered about in the desert, they were accompanied by an intense fire during the nights.

The magic brick was evidently alluding to Akhenaten in his role as the "Moses"/Ra, however the intended speaker could have been Tut in the role of the Horus/"Joshua" (and as such, the protector of Akhenaten/Moses). It seems to have also been the role of Horus to combat the encroachment of sand (ala the slightly earlier Thutmose IV, who cleared the Sphinx and erecting of an associated stela). It was also the role of the Horus to defend Ra in Exodus. Biblical Joshua is raised up to become the champion of Moses in the desert and then become his kingly successor.

Akhenaten, Aye and Tutankhamun were patterning their actions after specific Middle Kingdom ancestors, who were forced to lead an evacuation of Egypt during a devastating flood event. This was a cyclical event in Egypt, which owed its inspiration to the myth of Ra. In that story, the old and senile god Ra had became disrespected and was encouraged by Thoth to unleash a killing flood upon the land. A remnant was saved only after Ra repented of his anger and turned the Nile red.

The Exodus of Akhenaten was motivated more from a killing drought (ala the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom), but the tradition of Ra was repeated nonetheless. Upon the death of Akhenaten, it was necessary for "the Lord" to return his body to Egypt for burial and be placed in a tomb originally built for someone else, namely for that Lord himself! (It is thought that Tut's tomb was originally intended for Aye.)


The program states that "some researchers" believe that Tut's tomb may be
hiding the burial of Akhenaten. I wonder who the (other) researchers are (haha)? Anyway, there does seem to be a growing justification to continue the search for Akhenaten! Let's get on with it. To break a curse you have to be willing to get cursed (at) (lol).

See also this blog and post from one year ago:

2017: Year of the Grail (Epi-Blogue)

The following is an excerpt (#20 of 20) from:

"Jesus Among the Julio-Claudians"
copyright 2017 Charles N. Pope

Previous attempts at understanding the “Holy Grail” have been frustrated by a general lack of understanding of royal culture. That has now been largely remedied and we can finally achieve a satisfying resolution to the age old “Mystery of the Gospel.” In short, the royal family was responsible for creating messianic figures in every era. Jesus was simply one in a long line of royal set-men.

Around the turn of the year (2017), I came up with the basic concept for comparing the Julio-Claudian dynasty with that of the Ptolemies. I had already done extensive study of both periods in years past. However, many of the details presented in this new study were figured out on the fly (over the past several months as the forum posts were being made). After taking a short break, I’ll likely produce a longer work later this year and make that available.

In the meantime, the following chart can be used for a handy reference to the associations made in this blog series.

Julius Caesar/Emperor Yuan = neo-Alexander III (“The Great”)/Chandra-Gupta

Pompey = neo-Darius III/Oxyathres/Perdiccas

Crassus = neo-Artaxerxes III/Seleucus

Octavius/Augustus = neo-Antiochus I/Ochos

Caesarion/Jihonika = neo-Alexander IV/Antigonus Gonatus/Bindusara

Tiberius = neo-Ptolemy Epigone/Onias

Marc Antony = neo-Ptolemy I (Soter)

Herod the Great = neo-Heracles/Ptolemy Ceraunus

Gaius Caesar = neo-Ptolemy III/Ashoka/Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi
(but later replaced in the role by Lucius Caesar/Emperor Guangwu)

Lucius Caesar = neo-Antiochus III/Xiang Yu
(role usurped by Caesarion/Drusus I/Sejanus)

Germanicus/Emperor Wang Mang = neo-Philip V/Emperor Gaozu
(see note below)

Drusus II = neo-Prince Alexander (posthumous son of Ptolemy II)
(see note below)

Caligula = neo-Ptolemy IV (first 4 years)

Nero = neo-Ptolemy IV (final 13 years)

Torquatus /Kujula Kadphises/Emperor Ming = neo-Ptolemy V & VI/Emperors Wen & Jing

Agrippa II/Herodian = neo-Ptolemy VII

Galba/Lepidus (the Younger) = neo-Ptolemy VIII

Otho/Aristobulus= neo-Ptolemy D/Zoilos/Emperor Wudi

Nerva/Josephus/Vima Kadphises = neo-Ptolemy IX

Hyrcanus/Josue/Kanishka/Emperor An = neo-Ptolemy X

Note: Although Drusus II was younger than Germanicus and was logically in the role of Philip V, it was Drusus II that fulfilled representative elements from the life of Philip V (such as turning against and “striking” the Antiochus the Great figure). Conversely, Germanicus was patterned more after the wide-ranging Prince Alexander of early Ptolemaic times. These roles were essentially crossed, and even as the younger prince, Torquatus, took on the role of mild-mannered Ptolemy VI while the older prince, Galba, was patterned after the aggressive Ptolemy VIII. The important thing was that all of the major roles were played.

Note: Pompey or Cinna likely had a very brief stint as a pharaoh (Ptolemy XI).

Note: Crassus was also known as Ptolemy XII.

Previous blog in the series:

First blog in the series:

The prequel "Heroes of the Hellenistic Age" is posted at the page below: http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

The Vulture Stone at Gobekli Tepe

Just after posting my review of Graham Hancock's Magician of the Gods, a related announcement was made by the Engineering Dept. at Edinburgh University in Scotland. According to their analysis, Pillar 43 ("The Vulture Stone") is not predicting a cataclysm but commemorating the cataclysm that initiated the Younger Dryas Period. The Edinburgh team deduced that the ball in the figure represents the summer solstice sun (rather than the Galactic Center as proposed by Hancock) in 10,950 BC, which is very close to the accepted date for the Younger Dryas event.


If the catastrophe was related to a cyclical event (such as a comet strike), then keeping track of the elapsed time from that event would have been critical (in order to prepare for future occurrences).

My review of Magicians of the Gods:


Other articles discussing the Edinburgh University announcement:
(each of these articles emphasizes particular details of the Edinburgh study, such as a possible alteration of the Earth's tilt from the impact event)


... Until All Things Be Fulfilled

The following is an excerpt (#19 of 20) from:

"Jesus Among the Julio-Claudians"
copyright 2017 Charles N. Pope

The Julio-Claudian emulation of the Ptolemaic Period was nearly complete. The only major roles left to play were those of the childless Ptolemy VII (John Hyrcanus) and his three “sons” – Ptolemy “D” (Aristobulus/Sulla), Ptolemy IX (Antigonus/Cinna) and Ptolemy X (Alexander Jannaeus/Marius).

Almost by definition, the role of John Hyrcanus had to be played by a prince who ruled as king in Jerusalem. The long reign of Agrippa II (“Herodion”) served to fulfill that precedent quite nicely. As Agrippa II was the final king before the fall of Jerusalem, there really are no other candidates. Considering this, we would also expect Agrippa II to have performed at least a token stint as High Priest in order to emulate John Hyrcanus as both High Priest and King of Jerusalem. The most likely alter ego of Agrippa II as High Priest would have been Ananias, son of Nebedaius, 47-55 A.D, appointed during the reign of Emperor Claudius (the former Agrippa I). In this case, Agrippa II was already High Priest when his kingship in Israel began in 53 AD.

The role of the first Hasmonean prince named Aristobulus (a.k.a. Prince Ptolemy “D” of Egypt) was logically played by the last Herodian prince (with any recognized Hasmonean pedigree) by that same name, Aristobulus (“Jesus Justus”) son of Aristobulus of Chalcis. It was determined in Heroes of the Hellenistic Age that the Roman identity of the first Aristobulus was that of Roman Dictator Sulla/Syla (Indo-Bactrian/Greek King Zoilos and long-time king of China, Emperor Wu-Di). Interestingly enough, Emperor Zhang (“Aristobulus”), the successor of Emperor Ming (“Jesus”), was directly compared to Emperor Wu-Di. Each suffered the misfortune of having a capable son that was incapable of continuing a dynastic line due to infertility and bad fortune.

(See the paragraph, “Late reign,” for the surprising link between Zhang and his role model Wu-di.)

During the Jewish Revolt and Roman siege of Jerusalem, this Aristobulus (son of Aristobulus of Chalcis) assisted Vespasian in suppressing the region of Commagene along the Euphrates, which was justified as a “precautionary measure” against an “expected” Parthian invasion. At the same time a group identified as the “Alans” invaded Media and drove out its king Parcorus/Pacorus. These interlopers also supposedly threatened the king of Armenia, who was still being called Tigranes (II).

The role of Antigonus (from the Ptolemaic/Hasmonean Era associates well with Josephus/Agrippa III. Antigonus (Roman: Cinna) had been the quintessential side-kick to his fellow princes, and particularly Aristobulus (Roman: Sulla). Antigonus/Cinna was best known in Rome as a leading facilitator of dynastic transition from that of Aristobulus/Sulla and his faction to that of Alexander Jannaeus/Marius. In the Ptolemaic Era, Cinna was not first in line for succession, but second (after Sulla/Aristobulus). Similarly, Josephus was next in line after his older brother Aristobulus/Jesus Justus, and known (by his own detailed histories) for diplomacy and close relationships with contemporary mover and shakers.

Note: The name Agrippa (or the Greek analog, Grypos), suggesting “hooked-nose,” appears to have been applied to various princes with that distinctive “bird beak” facial feature, most recently by Marcus Agrippa the Elder and Marcus Agrippa the Younger (who were not literally father and son, but had a shared “profile”).

All of the major Ptolemaic roles are now accounted for, however only with the emergence of a neo-Alexander Jannaeus (Marius) could the grand cycle be considered finished and the Julio-Claudian Dynasty with it. According to the research of Laurence Gardner (Bloodline of the Holy Grail, pp 140, 236), the oldest son of Jesus Justus, namely Galains (or Alain of Grail legend), was unable to sire an heir and the kingly birthright passed to the second son of Jesus, namely Josephes (“Joseph son of Jesus”). This does appear to have been the case, however it can now be understood that the secret lineage of Jesus Christ was not one of a minor or bootleg royal house (if there ever was such a thing), but that of the ruling royal house of the entire known world going forward. Emperor He (“Alain/Galains”), successor of Emperor Zhang, failed to produce any surviving sons and the throne of China (and Great Throne of the world empire) was subsequently passed to a collateral line. Although more study is required, this new dynast, called Emperor An, appears to correspond to Hyrcanus (Josue) the eldest son of Josephus/Agrippa III (Josephes). If so, then it is for this prince that circumstances conspired to place in the role of a new Alexander Jannaeus.

Note: The Grail name Josue makes for a ready Hebrew short-form of another renowned contemporary historian, Suetonius.

Note: The association between Emperor Nerva and Josephus can be made using the following historical details:

1) As Emperor, Nerva emphasized water-works and granaries (the traditional preoccupation of a Joseph-figure).
2) Nerva was renowned for his literary talent, and idolized for it by Nero.
3) In addition to being honored by Nero, Nerva was also made Consul of Rome by both Vespasian and Domitian.
4) Nerva was admired for good looks despite having a large hooked nose.
5) Nerva was the last person interred in the Mausoleum of Augustus
6) The life of Nerva had been threatened and he was unjustly imprisoned. He was released only after the execution of those who conspired to kill the former king (Domitian), his predecessor. (Recall the story of Joseph who was joined in prisoned by a cupbearer and baker accused of poisoning Judah, the crown prince and co-regent.)
7) Nerva was, politically speaking, a Flavian. Josephus was a Flavian by formal adoption.
8) Nerva was hailed with the title, “Father of the Nation,” i.e., Great King. Despite supposedly having died childless, almost all of the emperors of the 2nd Century AD considered him to be their ancestor. (We must suspect that Nerva did have children, but under another name. Josephus had a number of children, including at least three sons.)
9) Nerva reformed the Jewish tax instituted by Vespasian and intensified by Domitian.
10) Nerva, like Cinna, emerged from obscurity to lead Rome in a time of unrest and transition. Nerva summoned Trajan as Cinna had summoned Marius.

Previous blog in the series:

Next blog in the series:

First blog in the series:

The prequel "Heroes of the Hellenistic Age" is posted at the page below: http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

Who Built the Moon? (Reviewed)

In my own research for "Twisted History: Genesis and the Cosmos", I came across very little in the way of a mythological/biblical explanation for the cosmology of our Moon, which is strange considering how important it is to life on Earth. As lucky and improbable as Planet Earth may be, it still required an equally improbable moon to make it complete. It does beg the question as to whether an already well-endowed Earth got further enhancements along the way. It's a great idea for a book and a great way for Knight and Butler to continue showcasing their fabulous work on ancient units of measure. However, I think they were resting on their laurels a bit in this book. Sadly, it didn't even come close to reaching its full potential.

1) The authors mention an early Russian theory related to a hollow moon, but dismiss it as space-race propaganda on the part of the communist regime. Discussion of subsequent English works on the subject would have been very helpful and appreciated.

2) An in-depth discussion on the artificiality of the Moon's cratering (rather than a passing mention) would have been extremely useful. For example, how could the Moon have maintained its incredibly long stabilizing role if it had been rocked by so many impacts over billions of years? Doesn't this imply the need for some type of regular adjustment/intervention rather than a "make it and forsake it" (Deist-esque) approach argued by the authors.

3) If the Universe is 14 billion years old (at the youngest), then was that enough time for intelligent life to already be established by the time our own solar system was forming? Or are there tell-tale signs that the emergence of "intelligent design/god's handiwork" began taking place sometime after the formation of our solar system? For example, the "Cambrian Explosion" of animal life on Earth around 540 million years ago. Or, if the Moon is primarily responsible for plate tectonics (as the authors agree), then that would be a significant clue in determining the date of the Moon's creation. Unfortunately, scientists do not have a clear idea as to when plate tectonics began or how many times that a super-continent has formed and then broke up. Pangaea existed around 300 million years ago, but it may have not been the first. Still, there is reason to think that this process began closer to a billion years ago than over four billion years ago. (Scientists are likely motivated to postulate crustal plate movement further back than is actually justified.)

4) The authors do not satisfactorily deal with the appearance of the very Megalithic measuring system that they have discovered? They don't like the idea of received knowledge from ET. Nor do they even suspect that this knowledge, once established, was transmitted from the Stone Age to Sumerian and Egyptian civilization and again to the more modern English and Metric systems through some type of cultural mechanism. They seem to think that it was reinvented from scratch each time. Strangely, the authors digress into a discussion on how extinct hominoid species probably interbred and passed on their genetic traits to their successors. However, the authors don't seem to fancy the idea of knowledge being transmitted from one time period down to the next, and even between representatives of the same species!

5) If the Moon is artificial, as the authors conclude, then why must we accept that it was created at the same time our solar system was forming? Wouldn't the sweeping up of solar system debris (and especially hazardous materials within Earth's gravity or orbital belt around the Sun) be something that could have been done at any time in the past 4 billion years? Wouldn't an artificial satellite make for an ideal waste dump for such materials? This makes more sense than the author's suggestion that the great oceanic trenches were scooped out and fashioned into the Moon.

6) If the oldest Moon rocks are a billion years older than the oldest Earth rocks, doesn't that tell us something potentially useful. Unfortunately, the authors don't explore that discrepancy.

7) The authors are enamored by the "message-in-a-bottle" meme, i.e., that when mankind became sophisticated enough they would recognized the creator's work. But, they also cling to a more pragmatic motivation for the Moon's existence, i.e., to simply make Earth conducive to life. There is no reason to think that mankind is the species to end all intelligent species on Earth. In fact, we are not even the best or brightest thus far!

8) The climax of the book occurs when the authors declare that Unidentified/Unknown Creative Agents (UCA's), which they had earlier introduced to the reader quite informally, were not responsible for building the Moon, but that we humans ourselves will in the future travel back billions of years in time and do it! Yet, if going back in time is in fact possible, we would only be able to seed some other early solar system and not bring about our very own. Even in a recursive Universe there must be some sense of causality!

Divining Planet 9 (Twice Baked)

{Updated analysis is found at the bottom of the blog.}

I've taken another look at the Planet 9 debate and there are some helpful on-line articles. This one puts things in laymen's terms very nicely:


There is a growing consensus that the hypothetical Planet 9 is in a 3:2 resonance relationship with Sedna. That means that Planet 9 orbits the Sun twice for every three orbits that Sedna makes. If I understand correctly (assuming counter-clockwise rotation), then the two bodies will line up on the same side of the Sun when Sedna is its closest to the sun (perihelion) and Planet 9 is its furthest from the Sun (aphelion). Coincidentally, Sedna is now reaching its closest approach to the Sun. However, Planet 9 is not necessarily in the same direction as Sedna. It only lines up with Sedna once every three orbits of Sedna.

According to the above linked article, French scientists do not think that this is one of those alignments. Instead, the two bodies will next line up on the following perihelion of Sedna (around 11,000 years from now). The above article includes a chart that shows the three basic regions where Planet X should/could be right now based on its expected resonance relationship with Sedna. This makes very good intuitive sense to me. However, the most probable region (according to the French) does not appear to match the one being searched by Mike Brown using the Suburu Telescope, which instead seems to assume that the two bodies are roughly aligned at this time on the same side of the Sun.


From a mythological perspective, there is at least some suggestion that there is still some life left in the "old devil" Sin/Nannar/Apophis. In other words, the brown dwarf occasionally flares up and reveals itself (even if it can't do any direct damage). Intuitively, this would most likely happen when it is at perihelion. But, if it can never be at perihelion when Sedna is also at perihelion (due to resonance), then we will have to wait a very long time to witness this! Depending on where "Planet 9" currently is at in its resonance cycle with Sedna, the last time it reached perihelion was either ~850 BC, ~6,550 BC or ~9,400 BC. All of these dates are within human memory.

There are of course other known unknowns. Particularly, what gravitational effects did Scholz's Star have when it passed through our outer solar system 70,000 years ago?


1st Update:

Another way to figure out the general location of "Planet 9" is to chart variation is solar output. When "Planet 9" approaches its perihelion we would expect increased activity from the Sun in response. I made a quick google search and did not come up with much. However, the article below does suggest that there was in fact increased solar activity at the end of the Last Ice Age, and probably even during the Younger Dryas Period.

"A History of Solar Activity over Millennia"


Paul LaViolette and Robert Schoch have explored cosmic sources for solar disruption during the Younger Dryas. However, it may be that the major source is right here within the solar system itself. If the perihelion of our sun's "failed twin" is close enough to effect our sun, then we would expect increased radiation and also "Carrington Events" during that portion of its orbit. (Increased solar radiation might also at least partially explain gigantism, and again without needing an extra-solar system cause.) It also means that the Younger Dryas mini-Ice Age was not the result of reduced solar output, but other factors (such as impact events).

If I'm reading the chart correctly (in the Universe Today article, above), then if "Planet 9" is where the French scientists are looking, then the last time it was at perihelion was at the end of the Ice Age. Hmmm.

Another curiosity is that the proposed orbit of hypothetical Planet 9 is 1.5 times (3:2 resonance) that of Sedna or 17,113 years. If you multiply the hypothetical orbit of Planet 9 by 1.5 you get 25,668 years and this is the approximate length of a precessional cycle. Double Hmmm. In other words, there is reason to expect that Planet 9 is associated with the phenomenon of precession itself.

2nd Update:

Surely the astrophysicists have also considered other possible resonance relationships. A 2:1 resonance is actually even more interesting to me. In that case, "Planet 9" should be in the same general direction as Sedna right now, but further out than for a 3:2 resonance scenario. Unfortunately, that may also mean that it is beyond recognition range using the current technology, because of the more elongated orbit (22,816 years vice 17,112 years). I suppose 3:1 and other resonance relationships could also be considered, but I don't have a feel for whether these are workable or not. Obviously, a 2:1 (or 3:1) resonance would place a greater loading on the Sun (and produce a greater "wobble") in comparison to 3:2.

For the 2:1 resonance, the last perihelion of "Planet 9" was 11,408 years ago, i.e., also at the end of the last Ice Age.

Join the "Citizen Scientist" search for Planet 9 at NASA:


3rd Update:

An interesting (and unexplained) aspect of precession is that it is not uniform and is currently accelerating. According to Walter Crutenden, "the companion star must have just turned the corner at their aphelion point and is now beginning to approach Earth [from its furthest separation].


Crutenden concedes that the same change in the rate of precession could also be associated with the binary reaching their perihelion. However, he is of course justified in assuming the opposite, as we would have detected the mystery body by now if it were now at its closest approach.

The additional "strain" of this turning event could conceivable be effecting (increasing) solar activity, as well:


4th Update:

A brown dwarf with an orbit the same length as the precessional cycle could be in a 9:4 resonance with Sedna. However, I don't know if resonance is a straightforward calculation in this case due to the currently unknown number of other ETNO's that would be in resonance with the hypothetical "Planet 9" as well. In any event, this would certainly complicate the search due to the more elliptical/longer orbit and larger number of regions where the body could be potentially located.

And as mentioned above, we don't know if the orbit of a large outer planet/small sun had been disturbed by the passing of Scholz's Star. This could, of course, still be effecting precession to this day (if not outright destabilizing the system).

This Generation Shall Not Pass Away

The following is an excerpt (#18 of 20) from:

"Jesus Among the Julio-Claudians"
copyright 2017 Charles N. Pope

James and John on Thrones Beside Jesus

The Roman Jesus (Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus) had three royal full-brothers, i.e., the putative sons of Germanicus (actual sons of Caesarion/Drusus I) by Agrippina the Elder. This would have been a rarity in any period. In the Gospels, Mary mother of Jesus is actually credited with four named sons in addition to Jesus. James brother of Jesus would logically correspond to Nero (a.k.a. Titus Flavius Sabinus); Joses brother of Jesus to Drusus III (Vespasian); and Judas brother of Jesus to Caligula. The identity of the fourth brother, called Simon, is not as obvious, but likely represented either Paul (Simon Magus) or Simon Peter. Like Jesus, both Paul and Peter would have been true sons of Caesarion/Drusus II (“Joseph”), even if they were not also the biological sons of Agrippina.

The infamous Caligula may have become alienated from his older brothers, and it is possible (though not likely) that he was literally killed for taking himself too seriously in the role of a Roman Akhenaten. Caligula was still in his 20’s when his tenure as Imperator abruptly ended. However, unlike other contemporary royal males, an apostolic identity is not readily discernible for this brother/”disciple” of Christ. In contrast, the Gospels suggest that the other two full-brothers of Jesus, called James and Joses or, variously, James and John (the “sons of Zebedee”) remained supporters of Jesus after his elevation to the status of Great King. Considering that each of them were credited with two sons of their own, their continued allegiance is remarkable and the Gospels also indicate that it had been maintained with appropriate inducements/rewards.

In the Gospels, the Sons of Zebedee approach Jesus and brazenly ask to sit on thrones to his left and right when he entered into his expected inheritance. It can be deduced that Jesus, upon succeeding Caesarion/Drusus (and Julius Caesar before him) as Great King, commissioned John (Drusus III, putative second son of Germanicus) to rule over Rome (under the name of Vespasian) and James (Nero, putative eldest son of Germanicus) with the Parthian throne (under the assumed name of Vologases). Sandwiched in between these two powers was the seemingly lessor kingdom of Armenia, which Jesus ruled under the name of Tigranes (II). Such an arrangement would not have been based on sound judgement if it were not for the fact that Jesus (under the alias Kujula Kadphises) also held an even more dominant throne as successor to Jihonika (Caesarion/Drusus I) over the mighty Kushan Empire to the east of Parthia. In Gospel parlance, James and John were sitting on thrones to the “left and right” of Jesus. Whether this was in relation to the throne of Jesus at Chalcis, Armenia, Kushan Bactria/India or Han Dynasty China is somewhat immaterial. In a global/geographical sense, Rome and Parthia could be considered to the “west/right” and the other to the “east/left” with respect to the central and superior throne of Christ.

Note: It is not entirely clear whether Jesus/Aristobulus succeeded Herod of Chalcis as king of Chalcis. It may be that he “humbly” allowed this distinction to pass directly to his eldest son and heir, also named Aristobulus.

By 66 BC, Torquatus/Jesus was long established as Great King of a world-wide royal franchise. By then, he would have also been able to claim fulfillment of the outstanding Ptolemaic roles of Ptolemy IV, Ptolemy V and Ptolemy VI (or at least a share of their fulfillment). It is a staggering realization that Torquatus (Aristobulus of Chalcis) and his father Drusus I (Antipater of Jerusalem) - two figures entirely outside of our modern consciousness - were the bosses of both Rome and Jerusalem throughout most of the Julio-Claudian/Herodian Period, and neither found it necessary to assume the title of Emperor or King in either capital! It was not necessary for a Great King to be recognized as the king of every kingdom, and particularly not lessor kingdoms. As it turns out, neither Julio-Claudian Rome nor Herodian Israel was the most important region during that time period. The basis of royal power continued to remain much further to the east. And, this is one reason why the two immediate successors of Julius Caesar, those being Caesarion and Torquatus/Aristobulus, did not see fit to claim kingship in Rome or Jerusalem directly.

The “Year of Four Emperors” that resulted in Vespasian coming to power in Rome can now be recognized as a scripted replay of the far older “Who Was King, Who Was Not King?” scenario. There had been such an episode in the Ptolemaic Period, therefore it was considered necessary to include one in the Julio-Claudian Dynasty as well. The repeatedly altered will of Herod the Great (as “Ceraunus”) created a type of Herodian fulfillment of the precedent. However, the end of the reign of Nero (as a type of Roman Heracles) provided an appropriate juncture for the Roman version. Galba, who has already been associated with the Apostle Paul, was the first of the four ephemeral emperors. He could finally boast in more than just his humility. Galba also put forward a somewhat younger prince, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus (born c. 38 AD), as his adopted son and designated successor in the Roman Principate.

Purportedly, feeling betrayed by his revolutionary partner Galba’s decision to adopt Piso and make him successor (rather than himself), Otho immediately supplanted both Galba and Piso by exploiting Galba’s unpopularity among the military and populace. However, this maneuver incited the jealousy of another magnate, Vitellius, who promptly invaded Italy with the legions under his command in Germany. As the older brother of Vespasian, Titus Flavius Sabinus may have also been allowed a cameo appearance as Roman Emperor under the name of Vitellius. Rather than embroil Rome in a protracted civil war, we are told (by Cassius Dio) that Otho nobly deferred to Vitellius and thereby lay down his life for the good of the many. This chivalrous behavior, of course, served to associate him with Aristobulus the son an heir of Aristobulus (Jesus), born in the same year (32 AD) as Otho.

It is quite probable that the four emperors of the Year of Four Emperors represented two sets of full-brothers, with Piso Frugi and Salvius Otho (Josephus/Agrippa III and Aristobulus) being one set and Vitellius and Vespasian (Nero and Drusus III) being the other. Piso was very close in age to Josephus/Agrippa III. Seneca also gave Josephus the epithet "episemos," meaning prominent, but connoting “son of Piso.” In effect, the younger princes (Frugi and Otho), although of higher rank, allowed the elder princes (Vitellius and Vespasian) to have their turn to rule before claiming it for themselves. Alternatively, Galba may have been prematurely placing Titus son of Vespasian forward as successor. Both Titus son of Vespasian and Josephus/Agrippa III (as Nerva) later became emperors of Rome in their own right. Galba was using the election of Piso Frugi as a deliberate (but also contrived/staged) provocation in order to propel the drama forward. It also may have served to “prophesy” the future succession within the royal family or to signal that Paul was transferring his claim to the foremost collateral line to the younger son of Jesus (or, variously, the older son of John the Beloved/ Vespasian).
Note: Otho/Otto is a name that became very prominent again in later Roman/ European history.

Caesarion had become seriously conflicted (primarily due to his selfish and controlling nature) over the decision to succeed (or not to succeed) Herod the Great as King of the Jews, directly. With much vacillation, he ultimately deferred to his eldest son Archelaus (Roman Germanicus) rather than taking that throne himself. Caesarion’s leadership style in Rome, which took the form of the ogre Sejanus, was even more unstable, unsubtle and disturbing. Caesarion obsessed about everything. In stark contrast, Jesus of the Gospels advocates striving for and worrying about nothing. This was perhaps more in line with the true spirit of Antiochus III, or should we say, the true spirit of Ptolemy IV, who had everything handed to him on a silver platter.

The real-life Jesus nobly declined a token reign of his own in Rome, and instead allowed his two sons to experience that honor (in preparation for even greater responsibilities). He was also contented with the children of a single wife, but then again, he had no reason to despair of a male heir. He also allowed the sons of his rivals, such as Titus son of Vespasian and Agrippa II son of Agrippa I, to have their own day in the sun. Easy come, easy go! In other words, Jesus was more liberal than most (including his own father) in delegating authority (“sharing the glory and wealth”) with his royal brethren.

Previous blog in the series:

Next blog in the series:

First blog in the series:

The prequel "Heroes of the Hellenistic Age" is posted at the page below: http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

The Jewish Revolt

The following is an excerpt (#17 of 20) from:

"Jesus Among the Julio-Claudians"
copyright 2017 Charles N. Pope

The Jewish Revolt (Three Jesus Figures)

Despite siring a large number of sons (up to eight) Caesarion only had two royal grandsons by the mid-30’s AD, at which time his advanced age made it imperative to declare a successor. His eldest grandson would have actually been Herodian (the future Agrippa II, born around 27 AD). Herodian was the son of future Emperor Claudius. His second grandson would have been Aristobulus (Jesus Justus/Otto, born 32 AD), who was the son of Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus (Aristobulus of Chalcis, husband of Salome). A third grandson, Agrippa III (Josephus/Josephes, second son of Jesus) was not born until around 37 AD. A likely fourth grandson, the future Emperor Titus (son of Vespasian, the former Drusus III) was born in 39 AD, and a fifth, Brittanicus, in 41 AD. Brittanicus would have been the second royal son (after Herodian) of Claudius.

Note: Titus (son of Vespasian) would have been viewed as a prospective neo-Seti (son of Ramses), who emerged during the Amarna Period as a vigorous and capable replacement for the abortive Joshua figure, Tutankhamun.

The two true sons of Torquatus/Jesus (the “Jewish Alexander the Great”) were born after his “Passion Play” in Jerusalem, even as the two sons of Alexander the Great were born after his own “Passion Play” in Babylon. Although, Claudius was older than Torquatus and produced Caesarion’s first grandson, Torquatus won the race to produce two grandsons (ala Ptolemy IV). Torquatus was himself the grandson of Julia the Elder, whereas Claudius was probably the son of the lower-ranking Antonia Minor. Claudius was the older of the two (by about ten years), but his genetic defects were an obvious factor. Even so, there could have been genuine debate as to whether Claudius or Torquatus was the proper choice as successor. It is possible that the succession of Caesarion remained in limbo until the birth of the second true son of Torquatus (“Jesus”) in 37 AD. The second son was born to Claudius by 41 BC, but this likely came too late to impact the succession, i.e., after the actual death of Caesarion. Regardless, due to the severe infertility of the royal family, collateral branches remained essential. Any viable male lines stemming from Claudius (or even other royal males) could conceivably gain the succession in following generations were the dynastic “House of Jesus” to fail.

If the succession had not been decided before the reign of Caligula began (in 37 AD), it certainly was by the time it ended (41 AD). Caligula was unable to sire a royal son, whereas Torquatus and Claudius now had two apiece. And, this may have been the reason Caligula’s reign was made mercifully short (less than four full years). With Caligula typecast as the Roman Akhenaten, it fell to Claudius to follow him as a tragic Roman Smenkhkare (first successor of Akhenaten). Claudius was in fact a John/Osiris figure in his personal birth position and role playing. Nero then logically followed Claudius in the role of an ill-fated Roman Tutankhamun. However, intriguingly, the reigns of Caligula and Nero summed up to 17 years (the same length as that of Akhenaten and Ptolemy IV).

Nero was the putative (if not actual) son of Ahenobarbus/Lucius Caesar, who (as previously noted) was originally typecast as Antiochus III before that role was abruptly usurped by Caesarion/Drusus. Nero was born when Ahenobarbus was in his mid-50’s and had (by then) already been written off for succession. Nevertheless, Nero was evidently allowed a share of the Akhenaten/Ptolemy IV role, and infamously fulfilled it in addition to that of the Roman Tutankhamun/ Ptolemy V. Nero (or more likely his unfortunate surrogate) was subjected to a traumatic death, even as King Tut had been savagely attacked and killed. The martyrdom of Ptolemy V occurred when he was officiating under the guise of High Priest Jonathan and was treacherously induced to enter the city of Ptolemais with a relatively light guard during a declared truce. Jonathan was said to have been ambushed, taken captive and just as treacherously executed a short time later.

Note: The fatherhood of Emperor Nero (born 37 AD) is very much in doubt. He is considered the son of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, but this seems doubtful. Tiberius, Germanicus or even others could be proposed. If he was born to Ahenobarbus (as is generally assumed), then he was the grandson of Tiberius. Tiberius carefully cultivated the career of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, but in the end became frustrated with his lack of a son, even as Caesarion/Sejanus eventually lost his patience with Germanicus and Drusus II. This Ahenobarbus emerges as the likely aristocratic identity used by Lucius Caesar after his royal identity was suppressed (also due to infertility). If Nero was a true son of the former Germanicus, then he would also have been a grandson of Caesarion/Drusus I. If he was a true son of Tiberius (a more likely scenario), then his birthdate was shifted as a dynastic precaution to avoid the appearance of having been born posthumously to Tiberius.

It was late in the reign of Nero that the Jewish Revolt began, and which was violently put down by order of Nero. However, it was of course the decision of the current Great King, Torquatus/Aristobulus of Chalcis/Jesus, to go through with a planned Roman repetition of the Ptolemaic sacking of Jerusalem. This event may have had to wait until the literal passing of Claudius/Agrippa I. In any event, the son of Claudius/Agrippa I, namely Herodion/Agrippa II, did not resist the invasion (and to some extent even supported it). He was rewarded with a comfortable retirement in Rome thereafter. The apparent delay in the fulfillment of tradition with regard to the expected pillaging of the Jewish temple may also have served to better fulfill that tradition. The Egyptian Amarna Period lasted only about 30-40 years, depending upon how one defines it. However, the Great Revolt of the Ptolemaic Period last around 60 years.

In the lead-up to Jewish Revolt of Jesus’ generation, there was bitter contention over control of the High Priesthood, even as in Ptolemaic times. The High Priest Ananias son of Ananias was sacked for having over-stepped his authority in the “killing” of the Apostle James. He was replaced by one Jesus son of Damnaius/Damneus, a name or epithet with a number of very interesting connotations. Damnaius/Damneus could refer to the same James that was unjustly condemned to die by the previous High Priest Ananias son of Ananias. In other words, the son of this James was given the priesthood as compensation for “wrongful death.” Alternately, Damneus might also allude to the (condemned/rejected) daemon/spirit of an Alexander-figure. In that case, the priesthood was instead being bestowed upon a son of the rejected and “crucified Christ.”

When this second Jesus (whoever he might have been) was deposed as High Priest, he was replaced by yet another Jesus, Joshua ben Gamla, who we are told had essentially bought the High Priesthood, even as a certain Jason (Greek form of Jesus) had done in Ptolemaic times just prior to the attack and “abomination of desolation” of Antiochus (IV) Epiphanes. Finally, this second Jesus was also removed and replaced by a Mattathias ben Theophilus, in whose tenure the Jewish Revolt broke out. This particular name would have been an excellent pseudonym for a third Jesus, that being Jesus son of John the Elder (Caesarion/Drusus/ Jonathan/Sejanus/ Junius) in the role of Ptolemy VI (a.k.a. Mattathias son of Johanan/John, leader of the Maccabean counter-revolution). The handwriting was on the Western Wall. The revolution, its suppression and the subsequent counter-revolution of Ptolemaic times were being combined into a single conflict and cataclysm in the Roman Era. Another Jewish temple was about to be ruined, but this time only a non-Jewish New Jerusalem was envisioned to replace it.

The precedent for three Jesus figures can also be found in the Amarna Period, at which time Harsiese (“Joash”) and Seti (“Jehoash”) stood ready to replace the frail and dying Tutankhamun (“Elisha/Jehonadab”) in the “Joshua son/successor of Moses” role. In the Ptolemaic Period, a triad of messiahs again found expression in the persons of Ptolemy V (“Jonathan/Johanan”), Ptolemy VI (“Mattathias”) and Alexander Balas (“Judas Maccabee”). All three were associated with the High Priesthood. However, the first two of these three were tender, even effeminate saviors (after Tut and Harsiese of the Amarna template). Only Alexander Balas (patterned after Seti) was overtly manly and militant. The Julio-Claudian Messiah, Aristobulus of Chalcis, assumed the role of both Ptolemy V and Ptolemy VI. He was not placed in the role of an overthrowing/counter-revolutionary leader. That role was instead divided between Paul/Judas Iscariot and Simon Peter/Simon Gioras, and was deliberately scripted to fail this time.

Note: Of the three men “on the cross” in the Gospels, only two were “politically correct.”

Note: The “Roman Amarna Period” also lasted around 60 years, or about the same duration as that in contemporary Herodian Jerusalem (i.e., ~60 years between the Herodian Akhenaten, Archelaus successor of Herod the Great, and the devastation wrought by the “Coming of Titus”). There was also an expectation at this time that Rome itself would fall. Certainly, the Roman Emperors of this period did all they could to disgrace the Julio-Claudian Dynasty and justify its demise. Jerusalem was destroyed by fiat of Jesus, but Rome was spared (“saved”) by will of Torquatus.

Note: It would have been the decision of Jesus to go forward with the invasion, however he chose not to personally lead it. The informed aristocrat would have known that the Roman name of Antiochus IV Epiphanes had also been Titus, and more specifically, Titus Flamininus.

Previous blog in the series:

Next blog in the series:

First blog in the series:

The prequel "Heroes of the Hellenistic Age" is posted at the page below: http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

Simcha Back at It for Easter

Fresh of "Atlantis Rising", Simcha Jacobovici has produced a new documentary (with his partner Professor James Tabor) about the Passion of Christ called "Last Days of Jesus".


Like Atlantis Rising, it is another poorly titled work. It appears to be something of a remake of another recent documentary, "The Last Days of Jesus", that features at least a couple of the same talking heads:

See video

Bill O'Reilly also put out a work by this almost identical name:


In their rendition, Simcha and Tabor have built up a grand theory around the famous Gospel episode of "overturning the tables." They transform this event from a minor, token act into some kind of grand "Occupy the Temple" event. And because the authorities (Jewish and Roman) supposedly did nothing in response, Simcha and Tabor conclude that Jesus must have a secret deal with Herod Antipas to overthrow the existing Jewish priestly caste. As evidence, they point to the Gospel record that Herod Antipas' Steward, Joanna, was among the disciples and sponsors of the Jesus movement. Also, included in the entourage of Jesus was one Manahen, who is believed to have been raised with Antipas.


Simcha and Tabor assert that the conspiracy of Antipas and Jesus fell apart after the Roman thug Sejanus was brought down and Tiberius promulgated a new Roman policy of religious laissez faire, and particularly a "hands-off" policy toward the Jewish priesthood. With the Jewish establishment no longer a target sanctioned by Rome, Antipas had no further use for Jesus and had him arrested and killed. The problem with this argument is that the active participation of Joanna and Manahen did not end with the demise of Jesus. They remained among his leading followers well after the Passion.

The theory of Simcha and Tabor hinges on the Passion of Christ occurring at a very specific moment in time, that being the downfall of Sejanus in 31 AD. It is likely that the Passion took place between the births of Salome's oldest two sons, the first (Herodian) being sired by John around AD BC and the second (Jesus Justus) by Jesus around 32 AD. Regardless, it is time to now realize the Passion (in whatever form it actually took) was a scripted scenario and supported by the entire royal family to consciously cultivate a Messianic image for the heir apparent to the Great Throne. Retirement of the role of Sejanus (the former Caesarion and true father of Jesus/Aristobulus of Chalcis) in Rome did not jeopardize the succession of Jesus, but only signaled that it was all the more certain and imminent.

While I appreciate the amount of critical thinking that went into "Last Days of Jesus" (if not the title) the theory is still rather flimsy. And while I also share the idea that Jesus had royal connections, the success of Jesus as a savior-figure would not have depended upon the rise and fall of Sejanus or Herod Antipas for that matter. Jesus was the Messiah that the royal family had determined to give the Jews, and one that was also intended to be rejected by them. In other words, the "conspiracy" was not a failure in any respect, but accomplished exactly what it was supposed to do. The Jews were being punked by the royal family and that required cooperation by the entire royal family, including the High Priest Caiaphas himself!


P.S. In Grail tradition, even after Herod Antipas (a.k.a. "Joseph of Arimathea") was deposed and exiled to southern France, he remained a committed "follower of Jesus" and evangelized France and Britain on his behalf.