... 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.

References:
http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Zh...
(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:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

Next blog in the series:
TBD

First blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

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:

https://www.universetoday.com/127800/cou...

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.

http://newsblaze.com/issues/astronomy/a-...

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholz%27s...

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"

https://link.springer.com/article/10.129...

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:

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/2017/0...

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].

https://www.sott.net/article/230480-Is-t...

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:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/i...

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:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

Next blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

First blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

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:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

Next blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

First blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

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".

http://www.pbs.org/program/last-days-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:

https://www.billoreilly.com/the-last-day...

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna,_wi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manahen

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!

http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

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.

The Amarna Do-Overs

The following is an excerpt (#16 of 20) from:

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

The Amarna Period All Over Again

Caligula as the Roman Akhenaten

The dynasty of Alexander the Great was not a traditional, linear dynasty, but one of fits and starts. Yet, it had somehow managed to become one of the most stable and globally successful royal franchises of all time. It could boast multiple sub-dynasties of four generations and endured for well over a century before morphing into the equally dominant Roman Empire. Ironically, Ptolemaic success abroad was accompanied by a catastrophic meltdown at home. Ptolemy IV surprisingly took as his direct inspiration the 18th Dynasty pharaoh Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), who was blamed for the ignominious collapse of the glorious New Kingdom. After a 17-year reign, Ptolemy IV vanished from Egypt and left his son Sekhem-ankhamun (Ptolemy V) to deal with the fall-out of a growing civil and religious rebellion in Upper Egypt (even as Akhenaten had left a devastated Upper Egypt for Tutankhamun to “restore”).

Reference: http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

Note: There were so few princes during the time of Ptolemy IV that this pharaoh had to play the parts of both Akhenaten and the short-reigned Smenkhkare. Prior to the birth of Ptolemy V, late in his reign, Ptolemy IV was evidently also prepared to play the role of Tutankhamun.

In Heroes of the Hellenistic Age, it was shown that the ill-fated Ptolemy IV (latest incarnation of “Moses son of Joseph”) was not the true son of Ptolemy III, but that of Antiochus III (“The Great”). However, rather than being ignored or suppressed by the Julio-Claudians, the role of Ptolemy IV was one that received complete respect and attention. After claiming the role of Antiochus III, the former Caesarion/Drusus immediately began grooming his oldest true son, Germanicus, as the new Ptolemy IV.

With the exception of having spindly legs (also a trait of Akhenaten), the wildly popular Germanicus possessed all of the physical and intellectual traits desired in a kingly successor. However, every indication is that Germanicus could not sire a true royal son of his own. Although Germanicus was (and still is) credited with three sons (Nero, Drusus III and Caligula), the Gospels suggest that all of the sons of his Roman spouse Agrippina (“Mary”) were considered to be those of Caesarion/Drusus (“Joseph”), including her firstborn/holy-child Torquatus (“Jesus”). For this reason, Germanicus was unable to complete the role of Ptolemy IV, at least as his father wished and willed it. Caesarion/Drusus demanded a Moses-figure like Ptolemy IV (who eventually sired two actual sons) rather than one like Akhenaten (that had none).

After a “Farewell Tour” that parodied the campaign of Alexander the Great, Germanicus was effectively “put to pasture” in 19 AD (and about the same age as Alexander the Great when he “departed” Babylon for the last time). Like Alexander, Germanicus would not have literally died at that time (i.e., from “fever induced from poison” administer by Governor Piso), but would have continued his kingly career elsewhere under a different name, such as Sampsigeramus of Emesa. Germanicus had already been exiled from a related kingship (modeled after Ptolemy IV) in Jerusalem under the regional alias of Archelaus (immediate successor of Herod the Great). If Germanicus were to acquire an heir in the years to come (from a new generation of princesses), he could always return from “exile” (like “Moses”) to complete the role of Ptolemy IV, as well as claim the status of the next Alexander the Great in a succession of Alexander the Greats. Integral to any return of Germanicus and fulfillment of the Akhenaten/Ptolemy IV/Moses role would, however, be a devastating blow to Rome and/or Jerusalem and “exodus” of its people.

In that same year (19 AD), the wife of Drusus II, heir of Tiberius, gave birth to twin boys, but they were widely rumored to have been sired by Sejanus. Sejanus permitted Drusus II (like Germanicus) ample time opportunity to produce an heir. He was eventually “poisoned” (as was Germanicus), but not until the younger Drusus dared to strike him during a dispute. Drusus II quietly continued his career in Jerusalem as Herod Antipas, but he was done in Rome. With the disappointing Drusus II out of the way, Sejanus proposed marriage to the “widowed” Livilla for himself. Tiberius objected and postponed it, but ultimately he could not stop the wedding. This is another clear statement of the true pecking order within the larger Empire. There was nothing for Tiberius to do other than defer to Sejanus and blunt his growing frustration on the Isle of Capri. These events are of course completely inexplicable without knowledge of the position and continuing activities of Caesarion/Drusus as the royal family “Godfather.”

If Germanicus ever did became father to a royal prince, it was too little too late. A prince born in 12 AD was eventually to take the place of Germanicus in the role neo-Ptolemy IV (who had in turn been patterned after Akhenaten). Caligula was such a promising young prince that his elevation merited the temporary suppression of his older brothers Nero (a.k.a. Titus Flavius Sabinus) and Drusus III (a.k.a. future Emperor Vespasian), not to mention Torquatus and Galba/Lepidus the Younger. Due to the sterility of Germanicus and Drusus II, as well as Gaius and Lucius Caesar, Tiberius had succeeded Augustus in Rome as something of a stop-gap solution, and was consequently given the typecasting of the tragic 18th Dynasty pharaoh Roman Thutmose IV (“Judah”) from the Egyptian 18th Dynasty. This further allowed his putative son Drusus II (Herodian Antipas) to remain in the role of Pharaoh Aye son of Thutmose IV, at least in Jerusalem/Israel.

Note: Tiberius eventually even conceded that Drusus II was not his own offspring by shockingly allowing the paternity boast of Asinius Gallus Soloninus (a.k.a. Caesarion/Drusus I) to stand.

The disturbing reign of Caligula can best be understood as a deliberate Roman analog of the reign of Ptolemy IV (and Pharaoh Akhenaten before him), which would not have been necessary if Germanicus had managed to fulfill the role to the satisfaction of his elders. When compared schematically with Akhenaten, the role of Caligula becomes self-evident:

-Caligula commissioned a number of engineering marvels.

-Caligula transported an obelisk from Egypt.

-Caligula was hailed as a child prodigy, but also prophesied to become a ruination on the order of mythical Phaethon (related to the Aton/Aten).

-Caligula was extravagant in bestowing gifts upon the populace as well as his friends, and to the point of bankrupting the state.

-The early rule of Caligula was promising and praiseworthy, but it quickly disintegrated into capricious and murderous madness. (The god Re had become dangerously senile at the end of his reign.)

-Caligula insisted on being worshipped as a living god, and particularly as the sun god (“Neos Helios”), as well as Hercules and Jupiter (deities also associated with Akhenaten/“Moses son of Joseph”)

-A serious famine was associated with Caligula’s reign, and one that was likely made more severe by his ill-advised actions.

-As the sun god, Caligula “executed” two Osiris (Smenkhkare/Elijah) figures, namely Gemellus and Ptolemy of Mauretania.

-Caligula was particularly opposed to Judaism, which was the cult successor to the Egyptian Amen/Amun previously and virulently attacked by Akhenaten. Caligula created a religious crisis among the Jews of both Alexandria and Jerusalem by imposing his divinity upon them.

-Caligula could not produce an heir, although like Akhenaten it was not for the lack of trying.

-Caligula emulated Xerxes (as an earlier self-styled Moses-figure).
-The reign and histories of Caligula, like that of Akhenaten, were largely denigrated and suppressed.

With the “failure” of Germanicus, Drusus and then Caligula to produce any royal sons, the role of Ptolemy IV, as Caesarion chose to define it, was essentially still up for grabs. Caesarion himself claimed a share of it by producing multiple sons for both Germanicus and Drusus II. Eventually, Torquatus/Aristobulus V (“Jesus”) and Claudius/Agrippa I (“John”) also produced two sons, each, and could therefore claim a share of that prestigious role as well.

Note: After Ptolemy V (Hasmonean “Hyrcanus I”) was initially unable to produce an heir, Ptolemy IV became father of a second son, Ptolemy VII (Hasmonean “John Hyrcanus II”). This prince was also claimed as the son and heir of Ptolemy VI. However, when Ptolemy VII also failed to produce a male heir, the succession then reverted to the former Ptolemy V through a son, Ptolemy D (Hasmonean “Aristobulus I”) of his own old age.

Previous blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

Next blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

First blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

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

Ptolemies in Togas, Seleucids in the Senate

The following is an excerpt (#15 of 20) from:

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

Ptolemies in Togas, Seleucids in the Senate

The Roman Mating Game

After Caesarion was unsuccessful (under the guise of Marcus Claudius Marcellus) in siring a male heir by Julia the Elder, it should have been the turn of Tiberius to marry Julia. However, Tiberius had no doubt already tried and failed to produce a son by Julia, either during her marriage to Marcellus or within the full year after that marriage had ended. Julia’s subsequent marriage to Marcus Agrippa (the former Ptolemy XIV) was a mutually agreeable compromise on the part of the “big three,” namely Caesarion, Tiberius and Octavius/Augustus. Marcus Agrippa, as the fourth-ranking prince, was unlikely to gain the election in any event. His marriage to Julia provided a convenient and politically correct covering that allowed the leading royal males to continue trying to produce heirs by Julia. However, it can be deduced that Julia’s firstborn son, dubbed Gaius Caesar, was in fact sired by Julia’s actual husband Marcus Agrippa. Even so, this prince still did not pose much of a threat. When sons were later born to Caesarion and Tiberius, Gaius Caesar was ignominiously set aside.

As the eldest prince of the new royal generation (and eldest grandson of Julius Caesar), Gaius Caesar would have been placed in the role of Ptolemy III, the eldest prince of his generation and eldest grandson of Alexander the Great. The second son of Julia the Elder, dubbed Lucius Caesar, would have then been slated for the even more significant role of Antiochus III (“Antiochus the Great”), who became the true father of Ptolemy IV when Ptolemy III was unable to sire a prince of his own. Unlike Gaius, the birth of Lucius Caesar was cause for genuine alarm for Caesarion, as all indications point to Tiberius as being the true father.

Reference: Antiochus the Great as true father of Ptolemy IV.
http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

Note: Marcella (a.k.a. Julia the Elder) divorced Marcus Agrippa so that he can marry Julia the Elder directly. Marcella in turn married Iullus Antonius (Tiberius).

Note: Prior to the birth of Lucius Caesar, a marriage between Julia and Tiberius would have been objectionable to Caesarion, as he was at that early date in no way ready to concede the succession. A direct marriage between Julia and Tiberius might have also been perceived as a dynastic power play in Rome. However, these two royals did eventually marry in 11 BC, and is an indication that their child Lucius Caesar was a candidate for succession, at least in Rome.

During this time, Caesarion (as Drusus I, stepson of Augustus) sired a healthy royal son named Germanicus, not by Julia but by Antonia Minor. A fourth prince, Drusus II, was then born to Tiberius by his wife Vipsania, however he was probably sired by Caesarion/Drusus I. (There will be more discussion about this in the next segment.) What Caesarion wanted most (in order to fully secure his dynasty) was a son by a senior princess rather than the lower-ranking Vipsania/Antonia Minor. He had failed with the highest-ranking princess Julia the Elder. However, when Julia became the mother of two healthy daughters, Julia the Younger and Agrippina, this presented Caesarion with two more golden opportunities. In pursuit of that objective, Caesarion did not even wait until Julia the Younger was of marriageable age in Rome before coupling with her! As the nominal “High God,” he exercised the prerogative to sire a child with a royal “nymph” out-of-wedlock, which in courtly parlance was also considered a “holy birth.” And when Julia did give birth to a son, the much older Caesarion promptly married her under the alias of Lucius Aemilius Paulus.

Table of Second Generation Associations:

Gaius Caesar = neo-Ptolemy III
Lucius Caesar = neo-Antiochus III (“Joseph”)
Germanicus = neo-Philip V of Macedon
Drusus II = neo-Prince Alexander (son of Ptolemy II in his old age)

Note: Lucius Aemilius Paulus is thought to have been born before 36 BC, which limits his possible royal associations considerably (and almost exclusively to Caesarion, a.k.a., Philadelphius/Drusus I).

Note: Caligula claimed that his mother Agrippina was actually the daughter of Caesar Augustus rather than Marcus Agrippa.

There had been a serious royal fertility crisis during the Ptolemaic/Seleucid Period, which occurred when the sole heiress, Cleopatra (the first Egyptian queen by that name), was unable to bear children with her “brothers.” In response, the fourth-ranking prince of that time, Prince Alexander of Egypt (born to Ptolemy II in his old age), was ushered back in the royal breeding pool. In order to provide a covering for this, Antiochus III married his daughter Cleopatra and gave her the curious alias, “Euboea of Chalcis.” Shortly after their marriage was born Alexander Balas (to Prince Alexander) and two additional royal princes, the future pharaohs Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VIII. Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VIII are assumed to have been the sons of Ptolemy V, simply because there are no other obvious candidates. However, it can be deduced that they had both been sired by Cleopatra’s own father, Antiochus III (“Joseph”). Cleopatra was subsequently able to bear at least one additional healthy royal child, a daughter Cleopatra II, and a dynastic disaster was averted. In retrospect, the “secret marriage” of Antiochus III and Cleopatra was later seen as the “charm” that allowed the House of Alexander to survive.

Reference: Antiochus III as the Ptolemaic Joseph:
http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

During the early Julio-Claudian Dynasty, the lack of royal children had not yet reached a crisis state. Notwithstanding, the fourth-ranking prince, Marcus Agrippa, was in fact offered a most eminent marriage to the highest-ranking princess, Julia the Elder, and he did sire a son by her. This prompted Caesarion to immediately and preemptively usurp the role of Antiochus III from the second son of Julia, namely Lucius Caesar. The young prince Lucius Caesar was not as yet even a teenager and therefore had not had any chance to sire children of his own (in fulfillment of the role). Nor had the only slightly older Gaius Caesar proven that he could or could not. However, if either Gaius or Lucius Caesar had been Caesarion’s own son, this likely would not have happened, at least not quite so quickly. The role of Antiochus the Great, and the associated epithet of “Joseph,” was so central to the Ptolemaic Era (and the Julio-Claudian repetition) that the possessive and controlling Caesarion coveted it all for himself.

Antiochus III provided a precedent for an older Great King (not a young prince) to marry the young heiress, and Caesarion seized upon this. All indications are that Caesarion claimed the role of Antiochus the Great as soon as Julia the Younger’s first son was born, because the two were married shortly thereafter. However, rather than disguise Julia's identity, Caesarion used an alternative identity of his own (again). Luckily for Caesarion, both Gaius and Lucius remained without a male heir in the decades to come, and his presumptive maneuver could then be fully justified and even hailed as divine prescience! Caesarion had essentially fulfilled the Ptolemaic precedent in reverse (or in advance).

Scholarly opinion is divided as to whether Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (the future husband of Princess Julia Drusilla) was the son Lucius Aemilius Paulus (and Julia the Younger), or that of his brother (and namesake) Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (likely an alias of Tiberius, brother of Caesarion). The former scenario emerges as the correct one. Nonetheless, unequivocal princely identity was not crucial in Julio-Claudian Rome and could even be a hindrance on the road to becoming Emperor. Any number of aristocratic/optimate, equestrian/knightly and even commoner/populare identities could be (and generally were) established in addition to explicit membership in the Julio-Claudian club. Consistent with this practice, the most prestigious office in Rome was actually that of Censor. The “business of names” was closely guarded by the royal family.

Paul was prominently featured in his youth (and throughout his life) under the name of Servius Sulpicius Galba (born circa 3 BC). Galba was considered a child prodigy and highly favored by Caesar Augustus and Tiberius, both of which predicted future greatness for him. He was also the darling of Empress Livia, who declared that Galba possessed the prerequisites to rule (i.e., royal standing), if not having the ideal disposition for it. She later left him a considerable fortune in her will. Galba was an effective leader and military commander in Europe. He was also credited with two children by a non-royal wife Aemilia Lepida. However, it may be that he had instead adopted the two sons of the royal lady by same name, Aemilia Lepida (wife of Torquatus), as his own. Galba committed an atrocity in Spain, if for no other reason than that the Ptolemaic Period Galba, a contemporary and alter ego of Ptolemy VIII, had also done so! Galba was known for his rhetorical combativeness, bullying, treachery and ruthless vindictiveness. He was openly homosexual (notably preferring adult males to boys). Galba also famously curried and enjoyed the patronage of wealthy women. In other words, Galba smacks of Pauline flavor!

The Chalice of Chalcis

When Julia’s younger sister Agrippina reached puberty, Caesarion pulled rank and imposed his will as the family Godfather once again. The Gospels indicate that the son of Caesarion (as the neo-Antiochus III) and Agrippina (as a neo-Cleopatra, Part II) was born out-of-wedlock. The Gospels also suggest that Caesarion (as the new “Joseph”) afterwards married her (“Mary”). This marriage was attested if only to more completely fulfill the precedent of Antiochus III and Cleopatra I, and even if it only existed in the realm of biblical story telling. In Rome proper Agrippina was not married to Caesarion (in any of his diverse manifestations), but to his son Germanicus instead.

Julia the Younger and Agrippina effectively divided the role of Cleopatra I between themselves. Julia was mother of the next heiress, Aemilia Lepida (a.k.a. Salome/Mary Magdalene), as well as the dynastic fixer Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (a.k.a. Paul). However, Agrippina quickly surpassed her older sister with respect to bearing viable royal sons. And she was ultimately the one that became associated with the place name of Chalcis (in emulation of Cleopatra/Euboea). In his history and royal genealogy of the period, Josephus used this small detail to encode the tortured path of kingly succession.

Note: Antiochus III took a young wife from Chalcis named Euboea (“Good Ox”), which was presumably the Chalcis in Greece, not Coele-Syria. Chalcis was a prominent city on the important island of Euboea directly across from Athens. It later became the name of a small kingdom in Coele-Syria (Ituraea), which incorporated the renowned temple complex of Baalbek restored during the Julio-Claudian Dynasty.

Note: One of the epithets of the island of Euboea (“good ox”) was Ağriboz. Similarity of Ağriboz with Agrippa/Agrippina probably would not have been lost upon the Julio-Claudian family.

Although a central theme of the Gospels, there is even less surviving Roman record of the birth of Agrippina’s firstborn son than that of Julia the Younger. (Precedent required that Caesarion not be directly acknowledged as the father of the two princes placed in the roles of Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VIII.) However, the marriage of Julia the Younger’s own heiress daughter Aemilia Lepida to an aristocrat named Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus is a complete give-away. Torquatus was the noblest name a Roman could bear as it was associated with the salvation of Rome from certain destruction. Significantly, this name/epithet first appeared in Roman lore at the time of Alexander the Great and may have even been associated with Alexander himself. The first Torquatus distinguished himself by the courageous/reckless “slaying a (Gaulic/Goliath-esque) giant” and also for ruling Rome as a popular dictator (ala King David). The renewed prominence of the name Torquatus during the Julio-Claudian Dynasty reflects a conscious decision to revere all-things-Alexander and essentially become an entire dynasty of Alexanders.

Reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Manlius_Torquatus_(consul_347_BC)

Note: Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus would have also been considered a “repetition of births” of Darius III and Alexander III (“The Great”), who were conceived in much the same way by the “Zeus-figure” Artaxerxes II Memnon. Paul and Jesus may have been deliberately excluded from official genealogies for that reason alone.

Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus (“Jesus”) and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus the Younger (“Paul”) would not have been expected to gain the succession based upon their Ptolemaic typecasting alone. Neither of their respective role models, Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VIII, were able to sire a royal son and remained “dynastic accessories.” Ptolemy IV and Ptolemy V eventually both sired a son by a younger princess (i.e., Cleopatra II, the sole daughter of Cleopatra I). However, in the Julio-Claudian repetition, Julia the Younger was not the literal daughter of Caesarion (as Cleopatra had been the daughter of Antiochus III). That meant the odds of these princes siring heirs of their own would have been somewhat greater than their Ptolemaic analogs.

Caesarion continued to sire additional princes (under various aliases, such as Asinius and Sejanus), but Paul and Jesus remained separate from their brothers due to the special typecasting that they fulfilled. To wit, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus was not explicitly named as a brother to the heiress Aemilia Lepida. Likewise, Torquatus was not named as the older brother of Nero, Drusus III and Caligula. The closest we come to connecting Torquatus with the other sons of Agrippina (from Roman sources) is the mention that Titus Flavius Sabinus (Nero) and Vespasian (Drusus III) had an (unnamed) older brother.

Note: According to Tacitus (Annals), after the "death" of Agrippina in 33 AD, Tiberius smeared her as “having had Asinius Gallus as a paramour and being driven by his death to loathe existence.” Asinius Gallus Saloninus was something of a joke name that connoted “sterile smart-ass.” Caesarion overcame (rather spectacularly) his early stigma of infertility. However, his reputation as a jerk probably remained. The name Asinius also connoted “East” (and particularly China/Sino-) and associates well with an earlier alias, Antyllus (“of/from the East”), the epithet of Caesarion as the eldest son of Marc Antony.

Note: The story (as told by Josephus) of lewd Saturninus and the young, naïve Paulina is a contemporary Roman parody of the royal and ancient “holy birth” scene (depicted in Egyptian temples).

Note: Paul actually had a superior rank within the royal family than Jesus. If Paul had produced a viable heir and royal lineage, then we would now be discussing his “immaculate conception” rather than that of Jesus! Tellingly, the sordid account of Paulina and her roguish lover is placed immediately after the sole mention by Josephus of the Christ.

Reference:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...

The Julio-Claudian Dynasty was a dynasty of “Johns.” Julius Caesar was a “fifth prince” (Osiris) or “John.” Caesarion also cultivated the role of a “fifth” prince, and certain aliases of Caesarion included a play on the name John, such as Hasmonean High Priest Jonathan (II), the Roman strongman Sejanus and Scythian/Kushan King Jihonika. The two sons of his that ultimately perpetuated the royal line also shared a John typecasting, namely Emperor Claudius (ancestor of Trajan and Hadrian) and Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus (Kushan Great King Kujula Kadphises forebear of the Eastern Emperors, son of Mariamne/Mary, husband of Salome and stepson of Herod of Chalcis). These two magnates are better known colloquially as the stammering John the Baptist and enamoring Jesus of the Gospels.

Reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kujula_Kad...

Previous blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

Next blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

First blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

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

Graham Hancock's Magicians of the Gods (Updated)

{three paragraphs at the end of the review have been added}

I've been doing some more reading in the book. See Greg's post:

http://www.dailygrail.com/Hidden-History...

On page 183 (of the new paperback edition) Hancock mentions one of the surviving fragments of the Temple of Edfu (Egypt) texts that declares that "the Sound Eye fell" as a result of the appearance of "the Great Leaping One" (i.e., the cometary dragon).

Hancock admits to being at a loss to interpret the significance of the "Sound Eye" and suggests that it might be some kind of "artificial illumination". However, in other Egyptian mythology, the Sound Eye was the good/strong eye of Atum, which formed after his first eye became weak/defective. In my own book, I demonstrate that these two eyes were the two suns of our early solar system, one of which became a brown dwarf and the other the main-sequence star we know today.

http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

If the original failed star of our solar system is still part of the solar system, then it very well may be the cause of Precession and still playing the role of the "Devil" by spawning comets from the inner Oort Cloud.

According to they Myth of Apophis, the first eye of Atum had already fallen long ago. However, the Edfu statement that the second ("sound") eye of Atum also failed, at least for a time, is extremely significant. Robert Schoch concludes that the sun's output was reduced during the Younger Dryas. That is of course possible, yet it may have only seemed that way, because of a "nuclear winter" and ultimate return to Ice Age conditions brought on by the comet impacts.

The Earth was coming out of an Ice Age. The Younger Dryas event only postponed the inevitable. Still, it is strange that civilization took much longer to recover from whatever happened at the end of the Younger Dryas Period than it did from what caused the Younger Dryas Period to begin with! Hancock thinks that the same comet was responsible for both events, and speculates that it primarily struck the ice sheets of the Northern Hemisphere at the beginning of the Younger Dryas, but primarily impacted the oceans around 1,200 years later. Regardless, we do know that the ice sheets broke up/retreated quite rapidly, which led to something called "glacial rebound." This is the obvious phenomenon that would have caused islands (such as along the mid-Atlantic Ridge, the world's biggest mountain range) to "sink" into the Sea (rather than be inundated by a literal Flood).

At issue is whether the "Great Flood" event of the Bible reflects the beginning of the Younger Dryas, the end of the Younger Dryas, or actually is a composite of both. Hancock himself doesn't seem to even try to differentiate between myths/traditions that relate to one as opposed to the other. Perhaps it is no longer possible to do so, but I think it would have been worth an attempt by Hancock. (This is one area in which Hancock does exhibit complete restraint. He doesn't offer any opinion at all as to the whereabouts of Atlantis or the earlier "pay-lands.") For example, might the original "pay-lands" of the primordial gods have been one and the same as Mu and/or Lemuria (of SE Asia/the Pacific) and/or Sundaland/Sunda Shelf (which Hancock does mention). During the Younger Dryas, were the successors/survivors of the gods then forced to abandon that cultural center and regroup in Atlantis? Was the Zep Tepi ("First Time" of the Gods) really associated with the Younger Dryas, as Hancock concludes, or more properly belonging to the period before the first cataclysm? Is the Biblical destruction of the "Tower of Babel" to be associated with the first attempt to build the Great Pyramid of Giza during the Younger Dryas? Was this epic piece of engineering nearing completion when it was "cast down" by another catastrophe? In other words, was the Great Pyramid construction initiated between two distinct but different flooding events?

http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....
(The above is the most visited page on my entire web site!)
http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

A similar question involves Gobekli Tepe. Was it founded only after the Younger Dryas had ended, or is there evidence of construction during the Younger Dryas. Obviously excavation is still on-going, but it will be interesting to see what can be determined. In later times, the royal family was continually building great monuments only to destroy them. The Temple of Jerusalem is perhaps the most famous example. The deliberate burial of Gobekli Tepe appears to have been done in that same spirit. It's almost an admission that nothing is permanent on this Earth (or perhaps in the Heavens). One must always be prepared to start anew.

Precession was obviously of great importance to the ancient astronomers. A "precessional clock" would by definition need a zero hour (12 o'clock) position. Perhaps, we are now living at the end of a precessional cycle as the ancients would have defined it. (I don't think that the case has been entirely proven based upon the discussion in Hancock's book, which relies heavily on the work of a single researcher and interpretation of animal figures on a pillar. It's an interesting theory, nonetheless.) However, to also conclude (as Hancock does) that an end/start time of a precessional cycle (chosen for reasons of accuracy) must also accompany a catastrophe is illogical. Any such occurrence would be purely coincidental.

Another issue I have with the book is Hancock's attack on Zecharia Sitchin, which is executed along the lines of how Academics do such things. It seems quite out-of-character for Hancock given that he has generally been highly supportive of his fellow alternative researchers. Hancock engages in what seems to be a totally irrelevant argument on why the name Nephilim/Nefilim cannot denote (or even connote) "fallen," although the sources are quite clear that they were the by-product of a fallen race, if not a fallen race themselves. Hancock does not stop to consider the possibility that the Bible is both condemning and praising our forebears in the same history! (Hancock also does not stop to consider that it may have been the Neanderthals that "sinned" with those who were at that time coming "out of Africa." In any event, Neanderthals as we know payed the ultimate price of extinction. Only their "evil/renowned" mixed offspring survived.) The motivation for attacking Sitchin is not made clear and therefore comes across as disingenuous. I can only guess that Hancock now prefers the theory that knowledge of astronomy (and other sciences/"pure religion") originally came from the spirit/dream world rather than imparted to mankind by "ancient astronauts." I don't see why it has to be either one or the other.

In conclusion, Magicians of the Gods is an excellent survey of contemporary alternative archaeology, geology, astronomy/cosmology and anthropology. It is unfortunately marred by a number of illogical and unnecessary inferences made by the author from the broad survey he has performed.

2017: Year of the Grail (Recap)

The following is an excerpt (#14 of 20) from:

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

In the previous 12 blogs it was shown that the early Julio-Claudian Dynasty patterned itself quite closely after the early Hellenistic Period, and as follows:

Julius Caesar = neo-Alexander III (“The Great”)

Pompey = neo-Darius III

Crassus = neo-Seleucus/Lysimachus

Octavius/Augustus = neo-Antiochus

Caesarion = neo-Alexander IV

Tiberius = neo-Ptolemy Epigone

Marc Antony = neo-Ptolemy Soter

Herod = neo-Heracles/Ptolemy Ceraunus

Even more surprising, we shall find that the emulation of Alexander and his dynasty did not end there. The entire Julio-Claudian dynasty was conceived as a repetition of the Ptolemaic/Seleucid Period. And of particular interest to Grail study, this included a Roman rendition of leading Hellenistic savior figures.

For those who wish to “read ahead” in anticipation of the next blogs in this series, please go to these pages:

The Ptolemaic Joseph
http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

The Ptolemaic Amarna Period
http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

The Destruction of Ptolemaic Jerusalem by Titus (Flamininus)
http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

Judas Maccabee, Savior of Saviors
http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

Previous blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

Next blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

First blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

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