SOME CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THEWORKS OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

A SMALL SAMPLING OF SOME CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THEWORKS OF FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS AND THE NEW TESTAMENT
(By Roman Piso, compiled from earlier notes - 08/03/00)

Hello, I’d like to give you a brief preface for this work. This is what scholarsconsider solid evidence, but what one must also realize is that this means thatthis evidence is not arbitrary, but instead - deliberate. That is right. That thiswas there to be found means that it was done intentionally. And the purposeis obvious, and that is so that this COULD be discovered. There now is solidproof that there is indeed a connection between Flavius Josephus and theauthorship of the New Testament.

Remember, this is only a very small sampling of the correlations between theworks of Flavius Josephus and the New Testament - there are many, manymore. It is, in fact, truly overwhelming the amount of content that may be foundin common between the works of Flavius Josephus and the New Testament. And, something else that this proves is that the mention of "Jesus" in the works ofFlavius Josephus is NOT a latter addition, it could NOT have been when thereis so much of the same content found in both of these works. This should putan end to that old rumor. Flavius Josephus, as has been stated by several scholarswas the creator of "Jesus who was called Christ." There are too many things inthe works of Josephus that correlate to the New Testament for that to be in anyway coincidence, including James the brother of Jesus, and John the Baptist.

It would be a virtual impossibility for Christians to "add" all of these correlationsto the works of Josephus at a later date as the removal of all of these would leavethe works of Josephus like a deflated tire… so much content would be gone thatit would no longer make any sense! What would be left would be an unrelatedmish-mash of things that don’t even make any sense and cannot give an accountin an understandable way. And that, most certainly, was NOT how Josephus wrote.

And so, I sincerely hope that this has put an end to that old notion that the mentionof "Jesus" in the works of Josephus was a later addition by Christians. That rumorwas started, I believe, as a kind of ‘strategy’ on the part of those who knew the truthof the matter - but whom, wanted to lead persons away from discovering all of thecorrelations between the works of Flavius Josephus and the New Testament, andknowing full well that atheists would grab hold of this rumor and spread it aroundlike wildfire for the simple reason that most atheists at that time were entirelyignorant of how all of this really happened, yet wanted something, anything, tohold up to Christians as ‘evidence’ on behalf of their own beliefs.

You should be able to use and read "Roman numerals" to make use of this list, andyou can find the works of Flavius Josephus as translated by Whiston into Englishonline at…
Works of Flavius Josephus

(Keyed to Whiston's English Translation of Josephus)
(1) "Jesus, who was called Christ" [Matt. 27:17] (Ant. of the Jews, bookXX, chap. IX, verse I)
(2) "The Egyptian" [Acts 21:38] (Ant. of the Jews, book XX, chap. VIII, v. VI)
(3) "Punishment of the Jews" [Matt. 24:21, Mark 13:19, Luke 21:23,24] (Wars of the Jews, Preface; Calamities of the Jews, book VI, ch. V, v. IV)
(4) "Binding and Loosing" [Matt 16:19] (W. of the Jews, ch. V, v. II)
(5) "The Weaker Sex" [1 Peter 3:7] (Wars of the Jews, b. I, ch. XVIII, v. II)
(6) "Render unto Caesar..." [Matt. 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25] (W. ofthe Jews, b. I, ch. XIII, v. V)
(7) "My Father's house has many Mansions" [John 14:2] (W. of the Jews, b. Ich. XIII, v. V. Note: same as above)
(8) "The 'New' Testament" [Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, 1 Cor. 11:25, Heb. 9:15] (Wars of the Jews, b. II, ch. II, v. VI and b. II, ch. II, v. III)
(9) "Pilate" [Matt. 27:2, etc.] (W. of the Jews, b. II, ch. IX, v. II, misc. other places)
(10)"Felix, Procurator of Galilee" [Acts 24:25] (W. of the Jews, b. II, ch. XII, v. VIII) (11)"Roman Jews" [Acts 22:25-29] (W. of the Jews, b. II, ch. XV, v. IX)
(12)"King Agrippa's wisdom on the Jews" [Acts 26:28] (W. of the Jews, b. II, ch. XVI, v. IV) (13)"Public Mourners" [Matt. 12:17] (W. of the Jews, b. III, ch. IX, v. V)
(14)"Zacharias, son of Baruch" [Matt. 23:35] (W. of the Jews, b. IV, ch. V, v. IV)
(15)"Houses of Prayers" [Acts 16:13, 16, Luke 6:12] (W. of the Jews, b. IV, ch. VII, v. II) (16)"Blood of Josephus/Jesus" ("Take my own blood as a reward if it may butprocure your preservation, i.e., 'save you'" - Wars of the Jews, b. V, ch. IX, v. IV) [John 6:56, "eat of my flesh, and drink my blood (to save you.")]
(17)"Seven Lamps" [Rev. 1:13, etc.] (W. of the Jews, b. VII, ch. V. v. V. and otherplaces) (18)"Seven Heads" [Rev. 13:1, 17:3, 7] (Jewish Antiquities, b. III, ch. VII, v. VII)
(19)"Twelve Stones" [Rev. 21:16 & 19-20] (W. of the Jews, and Ant. of the Jews)
(20)"John the Baptist" [Matt. 3:4, Mark 1:6] ('Banus' in Vita and Ant. of the Jews, b. XVIII, ch. V, v. II, etc.)
(21)"Hairs of your head" [Matt. 10:30, "…even the very hairs of your head arenumbered."](Ant. of the Jews, b. XI, ch. V, v. III, etc.)
(22)"Eating 'Common' things" [Acts 10:14-15, 28; 11:8-9, Rom. 14:14] (Ant. ofthe Jews, b. XI, ch. II, v. VII)
(23)"Grace at Meal" [Mark 8:6, John 6:11, 23, Acts 27:35] (Ant. of theJews, b. XII, ch. II, v. XII)
(24)"Ointment in alabaster box" [Luke 7:37. Also see Mark 14:3 & Matt. 26:7] (Ant. of the Jews, b. XVII, ch. IV, v. II)
(25)"Judas/Theudas" [Acts 5:36-37] (Ant. of the Jews, b. XVII, ch. X, v. V andb. XX, ch. V, v. I) (26)"Glad Tidings", "The Gospels" or "Good News" [Luke 2:10 & 1 Th. 3:6] (Ant. of the Jews, b. XIX, ch. VIII, v. II)
(27)"Only Begotten Son" Used to say the wrong thing in Ant. of the Jews, whichwas their way of ‘annotating’ certain things. And the reason is that the phrase"Only Begotten Son" does NOT mean that literally, it was a figure of speech thatwas used as a term of endearment. It was a phrase that was said to a ‘favorite’son out of more than one by the father or mother of that son. So, there is really ajoke here by the use of that phrase, a joke that was put there by the author of theGospel of John himself. [John 3:16, "For god so love the world that he gave his"only begotten son". Be sure to read our full true translation of this elsewhere.] (Ant. of the Jews, b. XX, ch. II, v. I)
(28)"Famine" [Acts 11:28] (Ant. of the Jews, b. XX, ch. II, v. V)
(29)"Simon the Magician" [Acts 8:9] (Ant. of the Jews, b. XX, ch. VII, v. II)
(30)"Our Father (Abba) who art in Heaven" [Mark 14:36, Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:6] Josephus says 'Aaron' died in the month called 'Abba' by the Hebrews. (Ant. of the Jews, b. IV, ch. IV, v. VII) And, "O Father (Abba), why hast theeforsaken me?" Josephus: "One man will be obliged to hear the voice of his sonimploring help of his father, when his hands are still bound." (Wars of the Jews, b. VII, ch. X, v. VII)
(31)"Tomorrow ye shall be with me in heaven" [Luke 23:43] and "Tomorrowthou shalt be with me in hades" (Ant. of the Jews, b. VI, ch. XIV, v. II)
(32)"Beaten with 40 stripes, save one" [2 Cor. 2:24] (Ant. of the Jews, b. IV, ch. VIII, v. XXI) (33)" Gold, Incense, and Myrrh" [Matt. 2:11] (Ant. of the Jews, b. III, ch. VIII, v. III)
(34)"For we do not follow cunningly devised fables" [2 Peter 1:16], "And hath notpreserved his writings from those indecent fables..." and, "he might have securelyforged such lies" (Ant. of the Jews, Preface, v. IV), "They followed fables..." (Ant. of the Jews, Preface, v. IV)
(35)"Babylon the Great" [Rev. 17:5, etc.] (Ant. of the Jews, b. VIII, ch. VI, v. I)
(36)"666" [Rev. 13:18] (Ant. of the Jews, b. VIII, ch. VII, v. II)
(37)"False Prophets" [Mark 13:22] (Ant. of the Jews, b. XIII, ch. XI, v. II, andAnt. of the Jews, b. VIII, ch. IX, v. I)
(38)"Filthy Lucre" [1 Tim. 3:3, Tit. 1:7, 1 Pet. 5:2] (Ant. of the Jews, b. VI, ch. III, v. II, and, Ant. of the Jews, b. XV, ch. VII, v. IX)
(39)"Age 30" In Josephus' Vita (verse 15, page 5, Whiston's), and in Luke 3:23, isArrius hinting at himself being "a person in great authority" at age 30 (which, he wouldstill be, into the year 68 C.E.)? Was he Fasti Consular P. Galerius Trachalus and/orC. Bellicus Natalis in 68? He WAS Fasti Consular in 69 C.E. as Arrius Antoninus. Ref. 'Inscriptiones Italiae', vol. XIII, fasc. I, A. Degrassi, Rome, 1947. Perhaps thesingle most important thing that happened for Arrius Piso when he was age 30 is thatin 68 CE he got Nero off of the royal throne of Rome and caused his death. Whichwas the revenge that he sought for Nero forcing his father to commit suicide. (40)"James, the brother of Jesus" [Mark 6:3, Matt. 13:55, Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18, 1 Co. 15:7, Gal. 1:19, 2:9, 2:12, Jas. 1:1] (Ant. of the Jews, b. XX, ch. IX, v. 1)

Gods Far and Wide

THE WIDE-SPREAD "GOD" PHENOMENON [07/27/00]
(or "The Facade of Disconnected Races & Gods")

[ For those of you who have already read "The Great Secret of Royals" ]

By now, you should be familiar with how gods and religions were made by ancient royals. What people then tend to wonder about is how there came to be so many different cultures, or races all over the world who have gods and religions. It would seem that no single royal family could have caused all of this to happen. So, this needs to be explained as well.

These ancient royals did not just scam us by making gods and religions, they also were in control of all that we know about ancient history and lied to us in that as well. They gave the impression to readers that certain forms of knowledge just did not exist. However, we now know from archaeological evidence that many more things were known and used in those times than they had led us to believe in the histories that they were writing.

What I have been asking people to do is to imagine what the world would have been like if the Nazis had won in WWII. That the masses would be thoroughly manipulated by the leaders at the top and only told what information and propaganda that they would deem necessary for their own purposes or to further their agendas. This, is very much what it was like in ancient times when royalty ruled over everything.

We are given the impression that kings warred with other kings and that there was general chaos and that everyone, including most kings and other rulers were barbaric and ignorant just as the masses were. That is not correct. We have discovered that there had to be a good measure of cooperation between royals (meaning kings particularly), and that they were in many instances inter-related genealogically. They had reasons for keeping the masses in the dark as to what they were in fact doing.

They, the ancient royals created different "races" by sending out the extreme examples of their family (like with like) to establish themselves in separate areas to rule and create new kingdoms. Now, knowing that ‘gods’ and religion was created by the very first royals, it will be easily known that this was something that was a MUST for any other royal who wished to establish themselves anywhere else at any time. See the article "The Great Secret of Royals" at Educational Articles [see link below if you have not yet read that article].

When children with slanted eyes were born, they were immediately betrothed to another family member with "like" features and sent off to rule elsewhere - thus establishing a new "race". The same went with those who had darker or lighter skin and/or hair, or other unique features. After some several thousands of years, the result of that is what is seen in the world today. This gives us the illusion that a god or gods MUST have created different ‘races’ and placed them in different parts of the world.

In reality, this was all done artificially by ancient royals. And again, the basic reason was because they HAD to do this anyway as a way of "thinning out" their own swelling family and relatives from using too much of a limited amount of land resources and to avoid conflicts from within that family over those limited resources.

That they had to do this anyway (that is, send out "branches" of their own family), they did this in a way or ways that were going to further perplex the masses as far into the future as possible. And so, they decided to artificially create "races" at the same time. The ancient kings and rulers were ingenious and had one single focus in what they did and that was to advance and further secure the rule of kings over the masses. And a major part of this was to "dumb-down" the masses and keep them as superstitious and ignorant as possible. In doing so, they could get the masses to ‘conform’ to whatever they wished. They could more easily manipulate them and use them as more or less ‘slave labor’ to build monuments to themselves and municipal buildings, palaces, etc.

They lied in the histories that they were writing and did so very easily by omitting things and by putting in things that we would now identify as "disclaimers". This way, they could always say that they were telling the "truth". The main branch of the royal family that was in control was the one that was creating what would become the Christian bible. They held annual meetings with other royals to decide what things would be done at that time for whatever reasons were current. And that must have included what family members would be sent off to where ever to establish a new ‘kingdom’. These family members who were to be granted their own places to establish themselves must not have had a say in where they wanted to go, but must have had to just take whatever the ‘council’ decided. And we can reach this conclusion because of just how far and wide these were spread and where some of them HAD to reside, such as those who were sent to the coldest or hottest regions of the world.

In some instances, even the creation of new languages were a part of this process. The sending off of some of these persons to the farthest regions of the earth was like ‘banishment’ because the extreme distance that they would have to go would mean that they would most likely never return. And so, they needed to be set apart in as many ways as possible. Again, this served the purpose that was the aim and goal of these ancient rulers - to perplex the masses far into the future and to give the impression that a god or gods has created all of these "different" cultures all over the world and that no human could have done that. No mere human could have, but a council of extremely ingenious royals could have - and did.

By the way, these particular royals who were the leaders of the council were known as the ancient patriarchs. They were descendants of the ancient Phoenicians, and as most persons who are researchers of ancient times or who are scholars of ancient history know, the ancient Phoenicians were the masters of the seas in ancient times. They traveled many thousands of miles out into the open sea. They had the ability to do this, and that knowledge was never lost, it was passed down through the generations to the ancient patriarchs and to their descendants.
So, it should be no mystery to us that there were tribes of small dark- skinned persons living in the Australian outback for many hundreds or even thousands of years. Or that such cultures as those that amaze us could have existed in the Americas for hundreds and hundreds of years, and that they had ‘gods’ and kings, and built pyramids. It just helps to demonstrate what had really happened. And that is that no god created all of these "different" cultures or peoples, but that it really happened because of an artificial means. It should, however, be noted that some of the natural distinctions between some of the various races appear to have been there before their royal counterparts were created. Meaning that those who darker skin pigmentation may have already have had developed that naturally via evolution. A king of this family could have had children by a dark skinned Nubian woman in Egypt and that could have sparked a new royal "culture" and/or been a source for others.

One example of the fact that the ability of ancients to travel long distances over the seas is seen in the discovery of what we refer to as the "antikytheren" device. In 1900, Greek sponge divers found an ancient shipwreck off of the island of Anikythera. The mechanical device was named after the island where it was found.

The machine was even inscribed with the year of its construction, which works out to be 82 BCE. It is on display in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Greece. Anyway, this device was a nautical navigational device which would allow ancient mariners to travel great distances over the seas with a large measure of accuracy!

Ancient ships have been found in various places all around the world. And so, what we have been saying here about ancient ship travel is now becoming "common knowledge" in the archaeological world. This is the reality of the matter, this is how this had really happened.
It is the most reasonable and most valid explanation for the "phenomenon" of various peoples all over the world having and worshipping ‘gods’ and of developing their own religions. We can even show genealogical evidence for some of world’s religions having been created by branches of this same family.

You may find other related information at the Educational Articles Site.

The Great Secret of Royals

THE GREAT SECRET OF ROYALS

============================

(07/23/00, The Roman Piso Homepage)

Simply put, there could have been no royalty without a god or gods to ordain them as such. And so, those who sought to control others and gain power over them created ‘gods’ tofacilitate that. Let me explain…


The ancient royals were what we would call "god makers" and religion creators. They were big on making sure that what they said in their works were ‘true’ in at least some sense and so they used what we today would described as ‘disclaimers’.

These were very much like what one would think of as ‘small print’. Yes, that is right, the same kind of ‘small print’ that is used by crooked merchants. Here is the "disclaimer" of the ‘god makers’ in Jeremiah 16:19-20; "Shall a man make gods unto himself and they (are) no gods?" This should be read; "Shall a man make gods FOR himself and there are no gods?" This says that the person who is making "gods" is no god (in reality). A question is then inferred from this and that is; then why make the gods? And we will find that out in this article.


This says that "they" are no gods, but means "there are" no gods. Not because this is a translation or even a mere "interpretation" of the statement - no, it "means" this because when one knows the full truth about all of this FIRST that one is then able to DEDUCE the "inferred" meaning.

Once you realize that one royal family via its various branches were the creators of virtually all known gods and religions - then you know the deeper truths about this which one discovers and that is that they (the royals) were in the "god"/religion business, but that it was still even much more than that - you also learn that for royals to even have existed they first had to create "gods" to ordain them. That is, to "authorize" them as select representatives of those "gods".

Yes, creating gods and religions was a means of establishing and creating "authority" for royals in order for them to rule in the first place. They were "ordained" by the very gods that they created! That was the real and original reason and purpose for the creation of gods (by royals), to BE that facilitation that creates royalty itself. Funny how this reminds one of the phrase "to BE, or NOT to BE". In this instance, that would mean either they DID this in order to BE royalty, or they would NOT be royalty. That, in their minds would BE the question!

"Gods" were the higher and mysterious power that gave orders to the masses instructing them to accept one person or other and/or their family members as the ones who would be "in charge" and be the leaders of the masses - they, the "chosen" (of the created god/s) were the representatives of "god" on Earth. And that is how all of this truly and logically worked. This is the real truth about gods and royalty. This should have been figured out long, long ago.

To restate this, there could have been no royalty without a god or gods to ordain them as such. And so, those who sought to control others and gain power over them created ‘gods’ to facilitate that. So, what came first the royals or the gods? The very first time it had to be that there were ordinary persons who sought to be "royal" in order to gain control over a group of persons and then a god or gods were created by them in order to achieve that.

However, after having had this work, this particular family then worked on refining this. And so, afterwards it was the royals who were creating gods for various branches of this family so that rulers could be "ordained" in other countries as well. This family learned a lot from what they were able to accomplish by this. They well knew that knowledge was the key to their being able to manipulate the masses, or as we are used to hearing it; "knowledge is power".

They, these "god creators" know what things to do in order to maintain/retain their power and control over the masses. They knew that for themselves to maintain a high level of knowledge and information was to keep what they already had and to even more, and so, "dumbing down" the masses was a large part of this. So, they invented superstitions and other misleading items so that the masses would preoccupy themselves with trivial matters and be distracted from ‘real’ things or things of real consequence to them in their lives.

The poor, mistreated and thoroughly manipulated masses were kept in perpetual ignorance by these rulers - and were ‘played’ like musical instruments by master musicians. The royals from the very beginning of the time when they first discovered how to BE royals, were busy figuring out how they could keep this good thing going for as long as possible. And a part of that included keeping records of their observances of the skies (called "heavens" by them).

They knew when solar and lunar eclipses would occur. And this knowledge was used as a very powerful tool to convince the masses that "god" was giving them a ‘sign’. Can you imagine who those poor and dumb subjects would have acted when seeing such a thing happening? The manipulators (the royals) could have asked for ANYTHING and got it from each and every one of those poor fools who were under their control. Today, we see this same thing being continued. Only instead of "royals", it is those who have the "knowledge" and who are using it to gain their "good life" off of the backs of "believers". They do things that most of us never think of and that most of us as good persons would NOT do to other human beings - yet, they are praised by the very persons whom they are scamming! They are televangelists and preachers in large churches, they are in positions of authority within those very familiar "organized" religions.

And what is it that they do? They get their "tithes" from the masses, which is really millions and millions of dollars annually for each of these churches and preachers. And, on top of that churches do NOT pay property tax. And eventually, each and every ‘believer’ will die.

And guess what? A great many of these ‘believers’ will leave their money and property to "the church". That is millions and millions of dollars worth of personal property and homes, jewels and jewelry, etc. People complain of "rip-offs", but get angry with you if you try to explain to them that they are being ripped off by the church! And if I were a child of a person who would have something to leave to me and instead found out that all that my parent had worked hard to obtain in their lifetime was left to the church instead of me, I’d be angry!

The truth of the matter is that all of this could go directly to the church with very few persons even being aware of it. You, as a child of someone who had their life’s work to leave to you, may NEVER even know WHERE all of that personal wealth had went! And, chances are that if YOU are a believer, that very same thing may happen to you and your child or children will have the same thing happen to them too in this ‘cycle’. We are not just talking about money or real estate property either. We are talking about ANYTHING that one can leave to others upon death. We are talking about art, patents, research secrets, little known information, rare books, family heirlooms, archaeological finds, gold, silver, rare coins, and on and on. All of this piled up on top of another pile of wealth times millions - all going to "the church" in a continual cycle year after year for all of these years! Can there BE any bigger scam???

When you get to a certain point where you have gained a large amount of knowledge about all of this - all you will need are "inferences" which may be found in ancient texts in order to understand what is really "meant" when things are stated in them. The reason being is that
you will pretty much have already figured out what is being inferred and all that the inference would do is to further substantiate your conclusions. Those inferences would be like so much
"supplemental" knowledge or information to what you already know anyway.

Please share this article with others and get this information out so that persons may have a clue as to what is really going on. Thank you.

ROME NEEDED CHRISTIANITY

ROME NEEDED CHRISTIANITY (08/28/99)


One of the main reasons that people have not realized that Rome actually needed Christianity is because;
(1) The Romans won their war with the Jews, and
(2) as such were the writers and recorders of public history, and
(3) they deliberately hid the fact that this war was actually one long ongoing all-out war that lasted for over one hundred years!
(4) They make much of saying that they (the Romans) do not 'like', want, or understand Christianity. While, nevertheless, and in fact, 'advertising' it and pronouncing its 'virtues'. (5) As well as these things, they also make it appear that Christians were persecuted, thrown to the lions and martyred.


But in fact, all of these can be explained away and shown to be total fabrications. The truth of the matter is that Christianity was indeed "manufactured" to fit Rome like a custom-made glove. The Romans needed Christianity for a number of reasons; but most of all, if it were to
be effective and seen as 'true' it could NOT be found to be linked to the Roman leadership itself.
So, officially, it HAD to appear that Christianity was NOT WANTED by the Roman leadership -
so that THEY would never be suspected as actually having had created it!


First and foremost we have to know about the war and what it was about. The war between the leadership of the Pharisees and the leadership of the Romans was over the issue of slavery. Bear in mind that when we speak of "The Pharisees" or "The Romans", we are not referring to the 'followers' or the 'group', but the real power and force of the group - the leadership. It was first
a war between the Herodian leadership (who were in actuality the leadership over the Sadducees) and the leadership of the Pharisees. The Pharisees had political and financial support from the Maccabean royal house (aka Hasmoneans) in their opposition to the Herodians, who began their leadership officially in the form of King Herod. It was Alexandria Regent of the Maccabean house who was allied to the Pharisees.


The goals were several, but primarily to (1) end slavery, and (2) institute a new democratic form of government, and (3) do away with the oligarchy, which took the form of rulers who were not looking out for the best interest of the people, but only their own self interests. Since Rome had a vested interest in preserving the institution of slavery it backed the Herodians and made Herod King of the Jews to establish his authority firmly over ALL Jews. Nevertheless, the Pharisees did not give up the fight. Now, if we can see Rome as supporting the Sadducees, a Jewish sect/faction, then why wouldn't Rome support a new religion that was even more beneficial to the interests of Rome? Rome found itself in a volatile situation... because not only could it lose the institution of slavery (which it needed in order to operate that type of government), but it could also lose their current Imperial government to a new form of government "of the people". For Rome, a solution was needed.

We are told of various insurgents and revolts by the Romans in their histories, but we are NEVER told outright that this was really one long all-out war. We are never told that there was a WAR, because then we would want to know what it was about. So, we are instead given the least amount of information possible without giving it all away, but still just enough to reconstruct and deduce what really happened. In addition to Roman history, we have information in the Talmud and other sources as well. In any case, two lines of reasoning were pursued by certain Roman aristocrats.

Nero himself was not particularly bothered (apparently), by the Pharisees and perhaps he was even resigned to give over the Roman government to them upon his death. However, Nero WAS adverse to the Piso family and their plans at gaining power and control. And the Pisos were likewise adverse to Nero and whatever his plans were. The Pisos wanted Nero dead and wanted to get their own close family and relatives in power over Rome. At first the Pisos had (1) the "quick fix" idea of giving new components to the existing Jewish religions in the form of a new sect that most probably would have been a combination of those existing religions, a "consolidation" of those sects if you will. But all of the sects would have had to have agreed upon this, and they did not. They (the Piso family) would also have to have had Nero's permission to do this as well, and he apparently rejected the idea. So, with these obstacles in the way, there was no way that this idea was going to succeed. The Sadducean hierarchy/leadership (i.e., the Herodians) were more than willing to cooperate with the Pisos, but the Pharisees and Essenes would not. Because both the Pharisees and Essenes were against slavery, the leadership of both joined forces. It appears that the passive Essenes disbanded as a sect in 70 C.E. (when the Temple was destroyed), and took the role as scribes for the Pharisees. Now you have been briefed on the war and the goals and motives for both sides. Knowing this, will allow one to understand why Christianity was indeed needed by Rome in order to preserve itself in the form that it was in at that time.


(2) The larger task of creating a whole new religion and eliminating the opposition. The Romans under Vespasian alerted the Herodians ahead of time to evacuate Judea, and so they did... leaving behind their followers along with the Pharisees and Essenes to be destroyed. The Herodians were the close relatives of the Pisos and the Flavians and had always had the same sympathies, goals, and motives.

They had always been loyal and supportive of the Pisos and the Flavians, and so they were spared.

Whereas, those who were opposed to slavery and the creation of a new religion were left in Judea to be attacked by the full military force of Rome if necessary. But they were used to war and prepared to resist and survive for some time afterwards. This war, from its start around 140 B.C.E., would last until the dispersion of the Jews (the Diaspora) in 135 C.E. But the Romans had destroyed the Temple in 70 C.E. and thought that they had won the war in 73 C.E. with the conquest of Masada, and so they started to work on the new religion. They used selective elements that read like a shopping list of only the best components for their specific purposes, drawn from earlier and pre-existing religions and philosophy while incorporating new ideologies and rhetoric.

Since the war was waged over the issue of slavery, the new religion had to (1) defuse any revolt that might be made by the slaves themselves, (2) and keep them from joining the existing revolt that was already organized outside of Rome, (3) placate the slaves. In short, the religion has to be something that had a great impact and appeal to the slaves and the poor citizens of the Roman empire, which, was most of the population of the Roman empire. It had to be something that they could 'relate' to and that gave these oppressed persons 'hope'.

Another thing that the Roman leadership had to do was to bolster the morale of the troops in the military and give comfort to their family members who would lose sons to the war. Persons who believed in an afterlife would have no fear of death and would fight more bravely in war. The new religion would also provide a sense of 'nationalism' by giving a majority of Romans (meaning those persons living not only in Rome, but also the rest of the Roman empire) a common enemy - the Jews. The "Jews" after the year 70 C.E. were the Pharisees primarily, and their close cousins who were formerly the Essenes, but who now served in the war as scribes. Though the Jews refrained for a very long time from revolt between the years 73 C.E. and 115 C.E., they still nonetheless, were preparing for that time and were doing what they could to gain any advantage.

Some persons are bound to say that the Romans were opposed to Christianity because they did not want to lose their OWN religion, the worship of the Roman gods. But by this time and under these circumstances, that was really of little concern to them... besides, the new religion would be a vast improvement over the old Roman gods. Religion, it must be realized, has specific purposes. It was (1) a business, a way to bring in goods, real property, and income. And (2), a means of controlling the population. These, were the major factors for consideration by the Roman leaders. But now, in addition to these, was the consideration of 'saving the empire' itself. The choice was not hard to make.

As far as Roman concerns of losing the old Roman gods to the new Christian one, they knew that the old gods would live on in history books and on their coins, and they retained a few token public altars for the worship of the old gods to make it appear that those were still supported officially by Rome. But many of them were being refurbished systematically into churches. Many of the old Roman gods were in fact even incorporated into the New Testament. So there was no conflict as far as this was concerned.

Again, Rome had little choice in what it might do to preserve itself under the conditions of the time, as well as trying to retain the institution of slavery - losing the old Roman gods would be a small price to pay from a realistic standpoint. In reality, it would actually be good for Rome to lose the old Roman gods as people would chose their own favorites to worship among many. This was not a particularly 'unifying' thing for the Roman people. Whereas the belief in ONE central god, would be.

Also, the worship of one god as opposed to many made the collection of sacrifices and tithes easier and more efficient. Previously, money, cold hard cash, was not offered to the old Roman gods very often. But with Christianity, that provision was built right in... in the form of tithes, as if it were a 'requirement'. Christianity augmented other ideas that the Roman leaders were trying to put forth to the people as well, such as; (1) the idea that anyone would aspire to achieve goals such as being a writer/historian, or leader in some capacity, or even an emperor. When in fact, the truth was that all of this was tightly controlled and only family members and close relatives to the existing leaders could be chosen for those positions. This was the facade that was created, a false hope, deliberately made to keep the masses 'content' and 'in their place'. (2) The Roman people were given the false idea that they were 'free' to some extent and even that slaves might someday earn their freedom or be given it by their masters under certain conditions so that they too might aspire to achieve greatness, power or wealth... and if not in this lifetime, they had a second chance in the next if they were 'good' believing Christians! Even the lowly slave would find his 'reward' in heaven if he was a good Christian and did as the New Testament had advised.

O.k., so how did Caesar fit into the Christianity? How would it be of any benefit to him? People will say that Christianity undermined Caesar's authority and that 'Jesus' overshadowed him as a god, and that that was a reason why Rome and the Caesars would be against it. However, again, Rome really had no choice and the New Testament actually treats Caesar as an equal to god. The inference and directive was to treat Caesar as an equal (to) god or as a slightly lesser god than the 'high god' and perhaps equal to god's son on earth (i.e., 'Jesus').

The New Testament says "the powers that be", in other words 'Caesar', are "ordained by God." And also, good Christians were expected to "Render unto Caesar," i.e., pay their taxes and whatever else that Caesar would ask of them. Which is really like saying 'behave' and do your duty as a Roman.

And at the same swipe, "Render unto God what is God's," in other words, pay your tithes and all else that is 'prescribed' by the New Testament (and eventually, the whole bible once the Septuagint was re-written to correlate and support the assertions within the New Testament). Those who were Caesars really didn't care people really thought of them as 'gods' as long as they were supported, respected and/or feared. Christianity actually bolstered loyalty, nationalism and authority for Caesar.

As far as we can tell there were no 'negatives' in Christianity as far as it relates to Caesar and the Imperial Roman system of government. The authors of Roman history that 'complain' of Christianity and/or who speak of the persecution of Christians, etc., knew that we would eventually figure this all out and that in knowing the truth about these things that this would expose those comments as deliberate lies.

On the subject of the acceptance of Christianity by the Roman people, they were given familiar
elements in Christianity that made it very palatable. As Dr. Wallace F. Dean states in "The Mania of Religion"; "The virgin mother story was easily acceptable to the Roman people, because they were already psychologically conditioned to the same established myth of the vestal virgin Rhea Silva and her godly son Romulus." And as we not elsewhere, 'Jesus' was given a number of the same characteristics as well-known, well-loved ancient gods and heroes. He had so many of the same characteristics and titles as those ancient gods that this could hardly be missed by anyone who was familiar with them.

Dr. Dean also says in his book that; "The writers of those two testaments (Matthew and Luke) used a pagan Egyptian myth, which was converted into a messiah for the Christians. The Christian (Church) fathers of Rome did not want an unseen Christ. They wanted a messiah having a human image, so they used a well-known precedent of the human Eucharist of flesh and blood. The myth worked so well for the Egyptians, why not use it on the Christians? And they did, with very good results."

Dr. Wallace F. Dean was a special guest member of "The Jesus Seminar" and an associate of the well-known scholar Marcus Borg. Dr. Dean further comments upon the Roman familiarity with and acceptance of Jesus by way of his attributes; "There was the established (myth of the) vestal virgin Rhea Silva, the virgin mother of the twins Romulus and Remus, who were fathered by the Roman god Mars (the god of War). This godly relationship was borrowed from the Greek's virgin mother Alcmena and her son Hercules, who had a twin brother called Iphicles, whom he killed. Hercules was known as the "Only Begotten Son," who went to the lower world (Hades/Hell), and ascended to Heaven (i.e., the 'heavens'), and he too was called the "Prince of Peace"." Yes, he, Hercules, was called the "Only Begotten Son," even though he had a twin brother (not to mention other male siblings). As we say, Jesus' title of the "Only Begotten Son" is in fact a joke; just one of many jokes that knowledge reveals to us that were written into the New Testament. The phrase "Only Begotten Son" did not always mean what it appears to when we think of it in the literal sense, it also had another meaning that was a figurative way of saying 'favorite son'. Like an affectionate term of affection where a father would say to his favorite son "You are my ONLY son!" As if this one son overshadows or outshines his brothers. The word in question is 'monogenes' in Greek. This puts a whole new meaning on the phrase as found and often quoted by Christians in John 3:16, as instead of meaning what they had thought it did, suddenly it means "For God ('the father', in this case Josephus) so loved the world (i.e., materialism), that he gave (to the world), his FAVORITE son (i.e., "Jesus")." The rest of the verse goes; "that everyone who believes on him MAY not perish, but MAY have eternal life." This was said with 'may' because that acts as a 'disclaimer', which really means that depending upon who you are, the reader or the writer, you MAY be remembered and 'live on' forever! The word 'believe' here would mean two different things to one or the other. To the Christian literature writer, 'believe' meant that the writer 'believes' that this Jesus story would 'work' according to the purposes for which it was invented. To the Christian reader it meant only to 'believe' and let the inference do the rest. The reader/believer was 'conned' into thinking that the true/real meaning was that if they 'believed' in this that they would have everlasting life after death. So, it is really a sick joke, rather than anything good or positive.

A Summary of what Christianity offered to Rome:



FOR SLAVES: (a) Reward in Heaven, (b) An afterlife, (c) Complacency, (d) Hope, (e) strength to
endure hardship and/or punishment, (f) A distraction from reality, (g) Consolation, (h) Defused
rebellion, (I) Comfort, (j) Cheap entertainment, (k) Loyalty, (l) Obedience to master (again, 'the
powers that be'), (m) A chance to be 'good' and virtuous against Jesus' enemies. In this instance,
the 'devil', (n) God would be "on your side" on a personal level.


FOR THE SOLDIERY AND THEIR FAMILIES: (a) Nationalism by common enemy (in this case,
the "Jews"), (b) A rallying point (central church) where none had existed for Rome previously.
This means that the religion provided or facilitated a meeting place. Which in turn facilitated the nationalism by common enemy. Remember, besides the anti-Semitism that was written into the
New Testament, the preachers could also add, emphasize and/or embellish whatever they wanted or needed to orally in their sermons. So they were free to orate and fully elicit anything that they would like and point to verses in the New Testament that would 'back them up' on whatever position or point they were making. This was real power, and, the New Testament is still being used in this way today! (c) The instillation of bravery within the soldiers by way of eliminating the fear of death, as the Roman soldiers would then believe in an afterlife. (d) Comfort to the families who lose their sons in battle, as they would think that they would live on in the afterlife, and (e) that they could possibly be reunited after death. (f) False hope for advancement in a military career, possibly even reaching the level of emperor. This was truly the carrot being dangled in front of the horse! (g) Cheap entertainment for the troops, (h) A distraction from the reality of war, (i) Loyalty to Rome and Caesar as they were advised that they should be because the emperor was ordained by god, (j) Obedience to immediate superiors, i.e. 'authority' in general, (k) A reward in Heaven, (l) strength to endure, and (m) "god" being on "your side" personally.

FOR THE COMMON PERSON: (a) Nationalism by common enemy (both "Jews" and
"Satan/Devil"), (b) Sense of community, (c) Newly created jobs and positions; building and
refurbishing churches, clerical and other positions within the church - females could even be
deaconesses, (d) Comfort to families who lose relatives and loved ones (i.e., the promise of
an afterlife), (e) the possibility of reuniting with dead loved ones upon death, (f) False hope for
advancement and a better life, if not here on earth during one's life, then in the enjoyment of
paradise in Heaven in the next, (g) Entertainment, (h) Distraction from reality, (i) Loyalty to
Rome and cheerful payment of taxes, (j) Obedience to authority, (k) Reward in Heaven (again,
not just an afterlife, but one that is like 'paradise'), (l) A chance to feel good about one's self by
doing what appears to be 'good' and 'right', and in being what one would perceive as 'virtuous'
while being an 'agent' of Jesus/god against Jesus' enemies - the "Jews" and the "Devil", (m) Belief that anything is possible (because of "miracles" having been worked), (n) and the belief that 'god' wants good things for Christians, which, no doubt was a point that was brought home by the preachers and/or 'deacons'. By being a 'good' Christian, you had a lot of "power on your side", or so they would think... and that's all that was really important. That they 'believe it'.

THE PISO WHO BECAME EMPEROR (LICINIANUS PISO)

THE PISO WHO BECAME EMPEROR (LICINIANUS PISO)
(Writen 12/23/99, updated 07/15/00)

Another interesting fact in the study of ancient history is that of persons who know aboutthe ‘conspiracy’ against Nero by the Piso family (as the historian Tacitus tells us), manystill do not realize that one member of the Piso family actually became emperor of Romeshortly after Nero’s death. And this person was NOT formally acknowledged as havingbeen emperor by the contemporary historians! Which indicates that those authors weredeliberately trying to keep that fact a secret from those would might get close to findingout the truth about what was really going on.

In any case, this Piso was Licinianus Piso, who had the addition of the name ‘Frugi’ tohis name. Some conjecture that there were two or more branches of the Piso family; theCalpurnii and the Frugii. But all Pisos were Calpurnii, as they all had the same commonancestor - Calpus. So, that the name ‘Frugi’ is added to the name (especially as the end!)is only another way of the authors of the time to confuse and mislead the reader. We haveseen many examples of very distinguishable persons in ancient history as having theirnames ‘chopped’ up and switched around in various ways. So, this was actually a commonway of hiding a person’s true identity.

Licinianus Piso was emperor of Rome for 5 days total; one day as co-emperor with Galbaand four days on his own. Some may think that being emperor for only a matter of a fewdays does not count, and they may use that as a justification in saying something like; "nowonder he was not listed as emperor." But the length of time that one was emperor was ofno excuse for not listing him and publicly announcing that fact, because we have otherexamples of emperors who were such for only a few days as well - including at least onewho was emperor for an even shorter time than Licinianus Piso. That other emperor waswas one for a shorter time was Marius. Marius was emperor in 268 CE for only 2 or 3days. Yet, he is fully and publicly acknowledged.

The historian Suetonius, writing about the year 140 CE, wrote his book called "TheTwelve Caesars." In it, he does not officially include Licinianus Piso as emperor. He listsGalba and even mentions Licinianus Piso, but did not acknowledge him fully by givinga chapter on him as he did the rest of the emperors, even though he could have easilydone that. But there again, is the deliberate action of a historian to downplay the "Piso"name in history and to hide facts about that family. Anyone who reads ancient historywill encounter the uniqueness of it in that it is written in such a way as to ALWAYSleave out critical information about those who are being written about. Though on thesurface ancient history in general appears to be written earnestly and in a form that showsit to the reader as if to purposefully convey information to the reader, at the same time, itdeliberately omits crucial information! One will find this time and time again.
One has to ask, "why is this?" Why is it that ancient history was not written in a mannerin which one may easily find the information that they would need in order to find familyconnections for example? Why is the reader taken to task and left with few options forobtaining important information? It is because this was done this way on purpose and forvery specific reasons. That was to keep the reader from finding out certain things. Andwhat this means is that history itself was not done in the way in which we had been madeto think that it was done. Which is the reason for the need for a new type of scholarshipin this area.

But, yet, while the ancient historians did not write history in a honest and forthrightmanner, they nonetheless did include the true facts of the matter - they just did so in away that most persons who were reading those histories would not be aware of that fact.

According to Tacitus; "Galba spoke further to the same effect, as if he were making anemperor, but everyone else conversed with Piso (Licinianus) as if he had been alreadymade one." And we will see shortly just why that is.

Tacitus says that Licinianus Piso "was Caesar for four days." Meaning four "full" dayson his own without Galba. He was in fact Caesar for five days. Tacitus reveals this to uswhen he says; "Piso, standing on the steps of the palace, called the soldiers together andspoke as follows: It is now five days, my comrades, since, in ignorance of the future, Iwas adopted as Caesar,…"

Licinianus Piso must have been given the titles of both Augustus and Caesar publiclyupon his adoption by Galba for the very brief time between his adoption and the deathof Galba. Though as we will see, he very probably already was in reality an Augustiiand a Caesar. He did, we know, have the same common ancestors as some of those inboth of these royal houses. What is meant here in what is being said is that in morethan one sense, Licinianus Piso was already a "Caesar" before having been made onepublicly by Galba. When we speak of inherited "name/titles" in our studies, as you willlearn, these things (such as ancestry) determine who was entitled to use what names andtitles in public works and they also determined what alias names may be used by theauthors themselves.

At this point in time, you will find very little information in any one place about thisparticular Caesar. However, this article will give you what you need to find out more.There probably has never been any article written about Licinianus Piso that gives asmuch information about him as does this one. So, keep a copy of if for your ownpersonal reference.

Suetonius, as well as Tacitus, gives the figure of five days for the length of time fromPiso’s adoption till his end; "(Galba) calling him (Piso) ‘my son’, he led Piso into theGuard’s Camp, and there formally and publicly adopted him - without, however,mentioning the word ‘bounty’, thus giving Otho an excellent opportunity for his coupd’ e’tat five days later." (Ref. Suetonius, "The Twelve Caesars," under "Galba")

So, by reconstruction of the facts given in the public works left to us by both Tacitusand Suetonius, we find that Galba and Piso must have co-ruled for that first day ofadoption (and perhaps a part of the next day), and Licinianus Piso then ruled out of thepublic eye for four days without Galba.

Now, just for the edification of the public, we will state here that though LicinianusPiso was indeed the ‘Piso’ who became emperor; that is not to say that other membersof the Piso family did not become emperors as well. They just did not do so using the‘Piso’ name. They did this in similar manner to the Julian Caesars who also had othernames before becoming known to the public as ‘Caesars’. As we will point out below,one of the other names that the Julian Caesars had before they started to use the name‘Caesar’ was that of ‘Libo’. So, what we are saying is that Licinianus Piso was theone member of the Piso family who became emperor using the ‘Piso’ name.

Licinianus Piso had at least one well-known and quite verifiable family link to theCaesars and others are certain to be discovered as more research is done on his family.Licinianus Piso’s great, great, grand Aunt, Scribonia 1, was married to Augustus Caesar.(Ref. "Nero, End of a Dynasty," by Griffen, in the form of a fairly detailed stemmachart)

Also worth mentioning is that Licinianus Piso’s great, great, great Grandfather Gnaeus(Cn.) Pompeius (Pompey), ‘the Great’ was married to Julia (Julius Caesar’s daughter),who died in 54 BCE. Pompey the Great then married his third wife Mucia - whichGriffen lists as the mother of Sextus Pompeius (Magnus).

Furthermore, it should be noted that Licinianus Piso could also claim (direct?) descentfrom the Pharaohs by way of Dynanis, the mother of Scribonia 1 (and her brother L.Scribonius Libo?). It also appears that the ancestry of both L. Scribonius Libo and hissister Scribonia 1 through their father C. Scribonius Curio (Libo) shared the samecommon ancestors as the Julian Caesars as one of the former names that the JulianCaesars had before they came to be called ‘Caesars’ was that of ‘Libo’. It may be infact that that common ancestor was Lucius Julius Libo.
Note too, that Cn. Pompeius Magnus Piso (a brother of Licinianus Piso), was marriedto Claudia Antonia - daughter of Claudius Caesar. (Ref. "Nero, End of a Dynasty,"by Griffen)

-----------
End Notes:
There were two other emperors in the year 69 who were emperors for a very short duration.Those were Otho and Vitellius. Just because Piso was emperor for a shorter length of timewas no valid reason to exclude him from the official (public) list of emperors. He wasexcluded for reason only: to hide the fact that a Piso indeed became emperor. So, we callfor the addition of Piso to be added to all future lists of emperors by those who list theRoman emperors from now on.

There are many other emperors who have very short reigns and others of uncertain duration,yet, they are still listed officially as emperors. We know the specific length of time thatLicinianus Piso was emperor. It is just because he was not given full recognition as emperorby Suetonius in his ‘The Twelve Caesars’ that we do not have him listed as an emperor byscholars until now - when we have been the first to do it.

Here is a list of some other emperors who had held office for a very short length of time;
Silbannacus, circa 248 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=========
Pacatian, circa 248 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=======
Jotapian, circa 248 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=======
Saloninus, 259 CE (short reign). Duration?
========
Regalianus, circa 260 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=========
Marius, 268 CE (for only 2 or 3 days).
=====
Domitianus, circa 268 CE, very short reign. Duration?
=========
Laelianus, 268 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=======
Quintillus, 270 CE, a short reign. Duration?
=======
Saturninus, circa 280 CE, unknown duration.
========
Neopotianus, 350 CE, for 28 days.
=========

One argument that some persons have regarding Licinianus Piso actually truly havingbeen emperor is that they think that he never received the "Austustus" name. That maybe something that may bother and perplex those of the "Old Classical Scholarship" butnot those who understand that ancient history did not happen in the way that we are usedto thinking it had (i.e., the New Classical Scholarship). There are other ways in whichLicinianus Frugi Piso could have attained the "Augustus" name without that having beenput into the public record and known to all. One of those ways is this. His wife is now seen as a key factor, because it has been revealedthat she was not just anyone, but the daughter of Galba himself. Her name in history isVerania. But in knowing how letters in names were switched around and changed in orderto hide identities (we call this ‘royal language’), we find that Verania was actually "Ferentia"and that name reveals here as daughter of Galba. So, not only was Licinianus Piso Galba’sadopted son and intended successor, but he was also his son-in-law. And this means a lot.Being the emperor’s daughter, she would have received the "Augusta" (feminine form) nameand therefore her husband would also share that name. If she had married him BEFORE hewas adopted by Galba and given the "Caesar" name by Galba, the "Augustus" name wouldnot be "activated" or recognized as ligitimate in terms of his being emperor. But as soon ashe received the "Caesar" name, his "Augustus" name would also become ligitimized and"activated". This means that he could in this instance have become emperor right in frontof the public (without their even knowing it!) just by receiving the "Caesar" name. And thisis what we contend is exactly what had happened or else they would not have had to havehid this as they had. This is the true way that Licinianus Frugi Piso became Roman emperor!There are many things such as this that need to be examined. And ‘history’ is in need of a greatdeal of clarification regarding all of the various details of it. And that, is how Licinianus Piso would have been able to attain the "Augustus" name andhave been a true Roman emperor.Recognized as such by those who knew this, but not by the general public after that timebecause of the efforts of Suetonius and the other ‘historians’ just after that time. Thoughthe public would not be privy to all of this, those who were in rule did know it. And, nowthe rest of us are beginning to see and understand all of this. See the genealogical charts regarding this on The Roman Piso Homepage. http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso/main-gen.htm
l------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes: "Verania" is seen as "Ferentia" because of the particulars of the ‘royal language’. Seeing Verania as Ferentia is possible because of the fact that the letter "V" is interchangeablewith "P, and "P" is used interchangeably with "PH", which is the same phonetically as "F".This renders Verania as "Ferania." Vowels are always interchangeable in the royal languageand certain letters may be dropped or added in some names, so now "Ferenia" becomes"Feren(t)ia". More information about ‘royal language’ will be available to the public inupcoming books on the subject.

JOSEPHUS' MENTION OF "JESUS"

ABOUT JOSEPHUS' MENTION OF "JESUS"
06-20-98(and other NT characters)

The purpose of demonstrating that Josephus did indeed write "Jesus" into hishistories (or his histories around the Jesus character), is to show the deceptionin the proper context. Josephus created "Jesus" and needed to insert him into'history' to make his 'story' more believable. The facts that will be shown herewill bear this out. In addition to the proofs shown here, there is also furtherproof in the form of correlation's in the works of Josephus that correspond tothe NT texts, themes/subjects, and characters.

The references that will be given are keyed to Whiston's English translation ofJosephus, for the reason that it is one of the most widely available and mosteasily accessible. It can even be found on-line. However, the research of theworks of Josephus was not limited at all to Whiston's work, but come fromdirect readings of the earliest available copies of text in the Greek language.Note that the Whiston references are given in two ways; (1) by the actual pagenumber, and (2) by the exact place in the text by giving 'book', 'chapter', and'verse' numbers.

Now, some say that "Jesus, the Christ" was a later interpolation or addition to thetexts of Josephus. I wholly disagree and doubt this seriously for the followingreasons.

(1) He makes this mention in his other works as well (examples will beshown later in this text).

(2) He DID have reason to write a mention or two of"Jesus" for the purpose of 'historicizing' him (as he, Josephus, created HIM).

(3) Granted there may have been a copy or two without the "Jesus" referencein it; it is much easier to 'remove' the mention, than it would have been to 'add'it. There could be any number of reasons why there might be a copy that existswithout the reference... perhaps a 'Jewish' one, a work copy (copy to 'work'from), etc. Or such a copy could have been deliberately made for the Kimchi*logists to see and draw 'logical' conclusions from (i.e. deliberately made by thechurch or ally of the church to lead suspicion away from Josephus because ofhis mention of "Jesus").

(4) It is not only "Jesus" that is historicized, but otherfictional characters as well, such as "John the Baptist" and "James, the brotherof Jesus" (or was that just to make another mention of "Jesus"?). That ALL ofthese characters and mentions were added, is extremely doubtful. As a matter of fact, after considering all that is going to be shown here, one would have toreach the conclusion that the entire work of Josephus would have had to havebeen re-written in order to pull off the addition of the mention of "Jesus".(See pg. 382, for "John the Baptist" and pg. 423 for "James, the bro. of Jesus.")

(1) That Josephus wrote such a massive work and that this work was in factcarefully written and so very detailed, indicates that Josephus DID have muchto say and that he really DID want to 'say' it... to the point that he must havethought it to be of great importance.

(2) That he deliberately writes things inways to mislead and wrote things (items) that would mislead and deceive,indicates that we cannot believe or take his work at face value; but rather thatwe must use it very carefully as a guide to the truth as it does contain truth, ina 'disguised' form.
So, knowing this, where does this leave us? It leaves us in the position of beingobligated to view his writings with a much more critical eye. It forces us to WORKto find meanings that might otherwise go unnoticed.

In the time in which the NT and the works of Josephus were written, it was muchlike the entire known world were being run by the mob; with very little or no hopeof direct truth in anything that was written... for all of it had ulterior motives behindthem, and the idea of all men being equal and free, as well as the concept of freespeech was still a very far-off goal for humanity. For an idea of this, see the actionsof King Herod upon his impending death... he acted like the 'Don' of the Mob.(See pg. 365, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVII, Chapter VI, 5.)

Here now we will show the several mentions that would have had to have beenadded throughout the texts.

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, as wise man..." "He was (the) Christ...""and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."(See pg. 379, Antiq. of the Jews, Book XVIII, Ch. III, 3)

The mention of "John the Baptist" on page 382 (Ant. B. XVIII, Ch. V, 2).And, this indirect mention of "Christ" by speaking of his 'brother'..."and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,"(pg. 423, Ant. B. XX, Ch. IX, 1)

There are also those places where he, Josephus, makes it so easy for thosewho are not scholars (which in his day, was the entire public excepting foraristocrats and royalty), and those who think themselves to be, to think thathe could possibly be referring to "Jesus" when he says things like "a certainGalilean." (pg. 481, Wars of the Jews, B. II, Ch. XII, 3) and also...

"...in order to avenge themselves upon one Galilean only." (pg. 482, Wars ofthe Jews, B. II, Ch. XII, 5). Note that in both instances, "the Galilean" beingspoken of is "Judas of Galilee."

He, Josephus, speaks of others named "Jesus," mostly those known to us asHigh Priest ancestors of Josephus himself. This being the case, makes a greatstatement to those who know what is being said here. (See other info on theancient royal practice of inheriting names and titles from ancestors) We callthis "inherited name/titles." By which, royals and aristocrats could legallyuse 'alias' names to write under and other names to use invent characters with.

An example of the legal use of inherited name/titles and how when decreed bythe Senate, such names and titles could be used even by the person's posterity,see the footnote on Claudius' (Drusus' son) use of the name "Germanicus", onpage 406, Whiston (at the bottom of the page). Also refer to Suetonius, which iswhat the footnote refers to.

Yes, even though speaking of others named "Jesus," he is well aware of theopportunities that this affords him (Josephus) as the writer. And he made themost of this by making this powerful statement; "Thus spake Jesus"... eventhough, this was another "Jesus" who was being spoken of! (pg. 532, W. of theJews, B. IV, Ch. IV, 4).

As we had said, he makes other references in other places that point to him asdeliberately writing "Jesus" into his works for a specific purpose. He makesjoking statements here and there, and he also makes 'disclaimers' subtlythroughout his works. In "Against Apion" he subtly refers to himself as an'actor'. Though some may say that OUR readings are taken out of context, I begto differ in consideration of the rest of the evidence. IF we were just relying uponthose things that would otherwise appear to have been taken by us as "out ofcontext," there might be a case. However, we have only sought to see more ofwhat Josephus himself was deliberately inserting HIMSELF in other contexts.Which, is an entirely different thing. As we were saying, about "Josephus, theActor," he writes, "I wrote it as having been an actor myself." And because hewas! (Against Apion, pg. 610)

In "Against Apion," Josephus uses a name nowhere else ever seen, and notrepeated except for its one-time usage; "Cresus." Which, is a combination of"Christ" and "Jesus." It could be a deliberate misspelling (as he is famous fordoing), of an ancient Greek King, which, I think he also deliberately hints at.(pg. 628, Against Apion, B. II, 12). Note that with this spelling only a "t" insertedrightly would produce "Crestus." Also see Suetonius' mention of "Chrestus,"and our info on their ancestor "Mitheridates Chrestas."**

He uses phrases associated with Jesus throughout his works. "...the light of theworld." (pg. 637, an Excerpt from Josephus' Discourse... concerning Hades).Herein, he also speaks of "Christ." Example: "... in order to fulfill the will of hisfather, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ." (pg. 638, Whiston).

As if this were not enough to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Josephusdid indeed originally make mention of "Jesus" and even that he had done sofor specific purpose, there is still the citations in the Appendix of Whiston'sJosephus (pg. 639). In this section, we have the writer Origen circa 230 CEspecifically stating that Josephus wrote what he did originally about "Jesus,who was called Christ." And again, also in "Contra Celsus, about 250 CE,Josephus is mentioned by name as having mentioned all of those who we haverelated (John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and "Jesus, who wascalled Christ"). Eusebius, circa 324 CE also confirms this. And on and on, upthrough history till about 1480 CE.

For more information on the background of Josephus, see the article titled"Josephus' Deliberate Deception" which is the other half of this article.For reference regarding the Greek texts, see the Loeb Classical Libraryvolumes. These are very expensive and may not be purchased by mostpersons in their entirety, and may only be available by finding such as localcollege libraries or other large scholarly institutions. Again, these are thebest references for Josephus as they also show the misspellings that wereoriginally in place and were reconstructed with the aid of many fragmentsof still extant ancient papyri texts and other archaeological finds.

*Kimchi logists: for more on these see Medieval Jewish Scholars and Rabbis.We will have more information on Kimchi available at a later date.

**Mitheridates Chrestas. We will show relationship to this person in laterstemma charts and genealogies. Mitheridates Chrestas as ancestor of Nerowas shown previously on our website and may be found by even amateurgenealogists with some effort and good resources.

JOSEPHUS' DELIBERATE DECEPTION

"JOSEPHUS' DELIBERATE DECEPTION" 06-20-98
(This article is keyed to Whiston's translation of Josephus)

It appears that it cannot be stated enough that Josephus was most deliberatein his works and that he makes statements all through his works that serve(at least in his own mind) to absolve or excuse himself for misleading andmaking misleading statements and outright lies.

In other words, he makes a practice of placing what amount to 'disclaimers'throughout his works under the guise of making them when the subject matteris apparently dealing with some other subject or "non-subject," sometimes,even as if just 'off the cuff." These things are just "tacked on" here and thereso that he IS saying what he is doing (i.e. making the admission), but he placesthese deliberately "out of context" to their true meaning so that he can justkeep right on going full in the knowledge that whether or not the readerrealizes it, he has in fact stated just what he is doing - and therefore, to HISmind, he is telling the "TRUTH."

One example is this statement; "and where it must be reproachful to writelies, when they must be known by the reader to be such." Notice that hesays "READER," not the writer!!! (pg. 428) (Wars of the J., Preface, 5)

Also, "Yet were there fictitious stories added to what was really done..."(pg. 517) (Wars of the J., B. III, Ch. IX, 5)

Josephus deliberately tries to confuse by

(1) Writing about personages outof their chronological order. Example: Speaking of King Solomon, thenVespasian (pg. 173) (Ant. of the Jews, B. VIII, Ch. II, 5).

(2) Misspelling names.Example: He even spells his own name in places "Josepos" and to see this,you will need to find the Loeb Classical Library editions of Josephus whichhave the Greek words spelled as they are in the earliest texts. He says;"Josepos said thus..." (pg. 569) (Wars, B. VII, Ch. II, 1). Also, see page 574(Wars of the Jews, B. V, Ch. XIII, 3).

(3) Deliberately misleads with 'half-truths'.Example: "He (King Herod) was by birth a Jew." This is a half-truth andJosephus knew it. (Ref. pg. 422) (Ant. B. XX, Ch. VIII, 7).

(4) He deliberately perpetuates and invents superstitious notions, ideas and beliefs;

(A) He speaks of the "skill" of expelling demons. (pg. 125, 173)(Ant. B. VI, Ch. II, 1; Ant. B. VIII, Ch. II, 5)

(B) He is the first to speak of a "laser root," which in later mythology becomesthe "mandrake root." (pg. 42, 595-596)(Ant. B. I, Ch. XIX, 8; Wars of Jews., Book. VII, Ch. VI, 3)

(C) He perpetuates the idea of "signs" and omens. See the omen of the 'owl'.(pg. 386) (Ant. B. XVIII, Ch. VI, 7) And also; (pg. 412) (Ant. B. XIX, Ch. VIII, 2)

(D) The idea of "Ghosts." (pg. 112, 266)(Ant. B. V, Ch. II, 8; Ant. B. XII, Ch. XI, 2)

(E) The idea of "Angels." (pg. 119) (Antiquities of the Jews, B. V, Ch. VIII, 3)

(F) "Evil Spirits and Demons." (pg. 136) (Ant. B. VI, Ch. XI, 2)

(G) Fortune Tellers and "Mediums" (pg. 143) (Ant. B. VI, Ch. XIV, 2)

(H) Prophets telling the future and showing "signs", wonders and miracles.(pg. 184, 429) (Ant. B. VIII, Ch. VIII, 5; Wars of the Jews, Preface, 11)

(I) The idea of "Witches." (pg. 202) (Ant. B. VIII, Ch. VI, 3)

(J) He invented the saying of "Grace." (pg. 250) (Ant. B. XII, Ch. II, 12)

(K) The idea of "Royal Birthright," which we no longer believe in today.(pg. 348) (Ant. B. XVI, Ch. VIII, 1)

(L) An eclipse of the moon as a "sign," a "sign" that could be predicted withaccuracy by the astronomers and High Priests of the day (pg. 365)(Ant. B. XVII, Ch. VI, 4)

(M) "Some Supernatural Providence" (pg. 432) Providence (Supernatural),ordained, divine (pg. 466) (W. of J, B. I, Ch. III, 6; W. B. II, Ch. XXXI, 3)

(N) Promoted the phrase "God Forbid." (pg. 528) (W. B. IV, Ch. III, 10)

(O) Other "signs," such as a star resembling a sword and a comet thatcontinued a whole year. Check on this! We should be able to tell by whatwe know about astronomy today if this is really a true statement. (pg. 582)Note that he speaks of these 'signs' as appearing before the destruction ofJerusalem. (Wars, B. VI, Ch. V, 3)

(P) He writes of religion as being (for those who can "see" it) as the mostprofitable "business," saying, "... to make the altar every day fat withsacrifices of great value." (pg. 205) (Ant. B. IX, Ch. VIII, 2)

And it was a very profitable business! (and still IS!) It was huge. The tithes and sacrifices were "divvied up" by percent to the High Priests who in turnsent the majority of it to the King of the locale (in Judea, King Herod, etc.),who in turn, sent tribute to the emperor of Rome. They knew by recordsjust about how much to expect to come in to them in the form of tithes.

They had this down to a 'science'. They asked for 10% in tithes, and alsoreceived revenue of like amount from all citizens from taxes. They weremilking the populace of great wealth on a constant and ongoing basis. Andwhen the "zealots" (Pharisees) had disrupted this system, they (the rulers andaristocrats) felt as if "they" were being 'robbed' of the loot that 'they' hadbeen robbing the citizens of!!! And so, they called the sicarii or zealots"robbers" to make them appear to be the "bad guys." The royals andaristocrats were mad with greed. Even to the point of really pushing the ideaof "Daily Sacrifices." (pg. 574) (Wars of the J., B. VI, Ch. II, 1)

The works of Josephus, step by step, shows us just how "they" accomplishedthe "grand facade" ("they" meaning Josephus and his fellow writers of theday, as well as the royals and aristocrats). There is usually only one or twoexamples of each little part of the items that they used to pull it all off with.

Another thing that we discovered was the use of words in both their "male"and "female" forms for the purpose of hiding true meanings. More andbetter examples of this are available elsewhere, but for our purpose here, weuse this one which is found only as an example in the works of Josephus.(pg. 449) (Wars, B. I, Ch. XVIII, 2)

This is shows an example of calling a male by a female name. But that issufficient to show that they had this as a general idea of interpolating orusing names and words in either male or female forms in order to givehidden meanings and/or to mislead.

Here we have some "Fantastic Statements" by Josephus;
"... a great deal of fictitious blood was shed," (pg. 400) (Ant. B. XIX, Ch. I, 13)
"Oh, Josephus, art thou still fond of life; and canst thou bear to see "the light"(i.e. "Jesus" as the representative in the story of "royalty", who saw themselvesas 'the light' - in other words, those being in possession of wisdom and greatknowledge as opposed to the common person), in a state of slavery?" (pg. 515,Wars, B. III, Ch. VIII, 4) What is being said in a disguised way is "Josephus(aka Arrius Piso), you are fond of life (the 'good life') and you cannot bear tosee this turned around so that the Royals are in a state of slavery - as that iswhat it would be like for the royals if slavery were abolished." It would be asif the royals were slaves to the common person, as they would lose theirpower over them and become subject to the masses. In effect, royalty, for allintents and purposes would cease to exist excepting for family lineage. And so,this is why it was of the utmost importance to Josephus (Arrius Piso) and theroyals that he accomplish his 'task' with Jesus and the New Testament, aswell as with his other works and that of the rest of his family and relatives.

"Yet were there fictitious stories added to what was really done." (pg. 517)(Wars of the Jews, B. III, Ch. IX, 5)

He deliberately misspells the word "stone" as "son" to infer "the Son (of God),"i.e. "Jesus" is coming!!! You will need to see this in Greek in the Loeb ClassicalLibrary edition. But the place in Whiston's is given here. (pg. 557)(Wars of the Jews, B. V, Ch. VI, 3)

It is Josephus who is saying to take his blood (like "Jesus") as your preservationor 'salvation'! (pg. 564) (Wars of the Jews, B. V, Ch. IX, 4)

"The Divine Spirit" ("Holy Ghost," as spoken of in the NT) (pg. 127)
"Some of them betook themselves to the writing of fabulous narrations." (pg. 608)(Against Apion, B. I, 5) For him to say this is absolutely amazing, especially whenyou read the things that HE had written. See HIS story of the "Laser Root"! Inother words the "mandrake root." (pg. 595-596)

And this should be quite enough for anyone to take pause at and to think upon.-----------

A CHECKLIST (OF WHAT WE HAVE FOUND TO BE THE CASE)

A CHECKLIST (OF WHAT WE HAVE FOUND TO BE THE CASE)
(Specific Items in History Related to the Synthesis of Christianity)
[The Roman Piso Forum, 02/22/2000]

(1) Emperors were NOT made of common persons. They were in fact all of royal families regardless of what "history" tries or attempts to make the reader believe. This is because of the 'controlled' environment that existed at the time, which is also listed and explained.

(2) As such, there were no "dynasties" as we have been led to think of them. All Roman rulers were inter-related. There were 'branches' of the same family that switched off or took turns ruling so that it appeared that anyone could become emperor, etc. In other words, a deliberate 'facade' was created and maintained for specific purposes.

(3) All religious leaders were closely related to royalty and of royal houses, such as Popes, 'saints' and church writers, as well as 'historians'. No one was allowed to write for the public except royals and their close relatives. This was because it was a dangerous thing for royalty to allow freedom of speech to the common people. If the common person was allowed to speak freely to the masses and they somehow found out or deduced the situation, that would threaten the whole system that was in place and that had been in place for thousands of years.

(4) They all (rulers, writers, etc.) made use of alias names in order to hide their true identities and to be able to give all of the information about themselves and their families, ancestors, etc. that they wanted to and still not let the cat out of the bag. They made it so that we would have to deduce the truth from what they left. They made us (they thought) dependent upon THEM and what they wrote in order to find out and 'confirm' the truth to the degree that THEY allowed us to. This, is what they refer to as the 'Grace' of god. (sic) However, they could not know that we would later have other means in which to make determinations regarding this - and we will discuss that later.

(5) They made use of a wide variety of methods and means in which to control and manipulate the masses. Persons usually refer to this subject as the 'Pisonian Conspiracy', which is NOT a title that we gave this - but rather what the ancient 'historian' Tacitus called it. The Pisos happened to be behind the composition of the New Testament, but the Pisos were not alone in this. In reality, this was simply an effort on the part of all royals who wanted to preserve and continue the practice of slavery. At the time, there were several royal houses at odds with each other over this issue and a long all-out war resulted. The New Testament was simply a 'solution' for the royals who wanted to retain the practice of slavery as well as to increase their power and control over the masses via ideologies given out in the New Testament in rhetorical form. They made full use of all that they had put into the New Testament.

(6) They kept their own private records or archives as to the truth behind all of the works that each particular family branch had written for public consumption. They refer to them in a number of ways, and it becomes evident that later writers made use of records from within their own family archives to create their later works from.

(7) They (the persons who wrote the New Testament, etc.) were able to do these things because of the pre-existing mechanism or system of control over the masses which we call "the closed environment", but which is also known as a "controlled" environment. Which simply stated means that ONLY royals could write works for public consumption - and even then only with permission and approval of a royal counsel. There were NO common persons with the ability to communicate with the masses at large. No freedom of speech. Everything that was written of for the masses were carefully conceived, created, approved of by royalty and had motives behind them for being written.

(8) The main reasons for the New Testament being written was a) as a means by which to preserve and continue the practice of slavery and b) to disseminate rhetorical ideologies to the masses that would make them more easy to control and manipulate. And, c) to be a 'universal' or 'catholic' religion so as to extend their power and control over the masses to other conquered countries and to more easily conquer other countries.

They aimed at conquering India for example, which they never really did despite their efforts to do so. They were ALWAYS aiming at extending Roman boundaries.

(9) There was a long all-out war going on between royal houses over the issue of slavery before and as the New Testament was being written. At several points the Romans could very well have LOST the war* and they (the Romans and their allies) were in desperate need for more and better means with which to a) put down revolt of the slaves themselves and make them complacent and as 'content' as possible in their situation - even going as far as to offer them (in the NT) life after death and a 'reward' in heaven. b) They needed to make their own military stronger, loyal, and braver, as well as filled with HATE for the enemy; "the Jews." c) They needed to offer the same 'life after death' to their own soldiers so that they would not be afraid to die in battle. And, d) they needed a means by which to console the widows and other relatives of soldiers who would fall or die in battle (as well as 'hope' for the crippled, etc.). All of this was done via the rhetoric and ideology that they placed into the New Testament. And, e) they could NEVER let the masses know that they, the ROMAN royalty manufactured this great lie - so they HAD to appear to be either indifferent and/or non-approving of it (the Christian religion and Christians). The only way that you would ever know that it was them was in knowing all of the facts that they had hidden - because those facts reveal their motives, and that is when the truth is finally discovered. An example that stands out is Pliny the Younger's epistles to the emperor Trajan regarding his 'questions' as to what to do about or with those claiming to be 'Christians'. This is magnificent rhetoric. He ends up, a) advertising the religion, b) making Christians appear to be 'martyrs', and c) effectively hiding the fact that they (the Romans) actually 'created' the religion!

(10) The 'historians'. These are the persons who wrote the works that we depend upon to tell us what happened. Yet, we have discovered that they a) were NOT who they led us to believe they were, and b) they deliberately mislead us and lied to us in order to hide the truth. Only the royals and their close relatives were allowed to write public works, and THEY are the ONLY ones that are referred to in 'history' when they spoke of peoples or sects. The common person was not worthy of mention in history except in general groups such as 'legions' or such and then nearly always, if not always, in order to 'glorify' or otherwise refer to the leaders of those legions, etc.

(11) One of the most important things to know in order for a person to work their way through the maze or 'puzzle' of ancient history in New Testament times is to know just who the 'Jews' were at any given time and place. This means knowing all about each of the sects in the most specific detail and to do this one must do a lot of reading and deducing. However, once this IS known, one is then able to discover so much more than before. The 'historians' played the 'shell game' when it came to the 'Jews'. They often refer to them in general terms and hardly ever make distinctions about just WHICH sect of the Jews they are speaking of at any given time. This means that one must use all available facts in order to deduce that and make the distinctions for themselves. We explain in our findings just who the 'Jews' were at any given time and place. And this will definitely help future researchers.

(12) *Yes, as mentioned, the Romans came close several times to losing the war. There were several very important factors that could have well meant that the outcome may have been different. One of those things was that Nero had executed Gaius Piso and others who were allied to their cause. Before Nero, Claudius had also executed a number of the Pisos and their allies. But Arrius Piso and others of the Piso family were left along with many of their allies. Then, as a Roman general Arrius Piso was very nearly captured and/or killed many times when he came to the Temple and various meetings with the Pharisees for the purpose of trying to persuade them to go along with him and his allies to change over to his new religion. He could have been easily killed then and that would have probably been the end of that part of the war and much of the later escalation of the war may not have ever happened.

In addition to this, Arrius Piso was nearly killed when his horse fell on him. It did not kill him, but it did crush his leg and made him 'lame' in that one leg. The extent of his injury and recovery is not known for certain at this time. Then, at the Pass of Beth Horon, he was ambushed by his Jewish enemies (the Pharisees) and was nearly caught and killed there. He was truly the cat with nine lives! In every battle that he was in, HE was the 'prize' that was sought by his enemies. It was known to his enemies that it was vital to stop him from ever doing what he had planned to do - and that was to enslave all of humanity other than royals into a perpetual ignorance and to 'dumb' down the common persons with rhetoric so as to enslave them with rhetorical ideologies.

(13) Genetic Testing. This is what we think will be the final indisputable proof regarding this. As we stated, the authors of 'history' claimed to be persons other than who they really were and the same was true of those who were emperors (as well as both earlier and later royalty). We also said that 'saints' were close relatives of these same persons. These things can be verified now with genetic testing. In fact, we are certain that in time, enough of this sort of evidence will be compiled to show just how accurate our reconstructed genealogy of these persons really are - and we are very anxious to see this! Because we have followed various 'rules' in order to reconstruct their family tress, 'rules' that were made and left by those very persons! For instance, they left hints and clues to follow in order to find the facts that would help a person to make those reconstructions. One instance comes to mind and that is of the emperor Constantine's claims of descent from 'Claudius'. He means, of course, the emperor Claudius II 'Gothicus'. We have examined this in very fine detail and have concluded that this was only possible in ONE way. And because that is the case, that IS his actual and true descent from Claudius II 'Gothicus'.

However, to find that line of descent a vast knowledge of many things that may otherwise seem unrelated must be known. And, you have to know the line of descent of Claudius II Gothicus as well. This is not at all 'easy' and it IS very easy to make mistakes when reconstructing these lines of descent. It was made difficult on purpose. Bear in mind that these persons did not have to work for a living, they did not have television and had little else to do but to make these 'amusements' for themselves and their other royal relatives. Being an ancient author was like being 'in' on a long, long standing perpetually running 'inside joke'. And it was treated seriously and as a 'duty', but one that the authors could not help but have 'fun' with as they created their works.

RP

ALIAS IDENTITIES IN ANCIENT HISTORY

ALIAS IDENTITIES IN ANCIENT HISTORY (12/09/99) by Roman Piso

==================================
(How and Why they were Used)
HOW THEY DID IT:

An example of how they did this was given in this style; each family member wouldhave a profile containing personal and otherwise identifying data. This kind of informationwould consist of things like info about their careers, who they were related to, when andwhere they were born, who their immediate family members were and/or their ancientancestors, etc. All of this was done for specific reasons and left not under one identity,but several. In this way, they could say whatever they wish and no one would be the wiserunless they were of the family.
At this point in time, it is uncertain as to whether or not the family formed a committee todecide the alias names for family members and/or just how much of what kind of datawould be delivered (given out in public works) via each alias; or if the individuals inquestion were able to make those decisions themselves. But, we will share our preliminaryopinions about this now in this article.

Some things that tend to make us lean towards the opinion that a committee was set up todecide these and other things are; a) This is something that they were very serious aboutdoing, b) doing this by committee would assure that each individual would receive thecredit (acclaim) due them as decided by the group rather than any individual, and c) doingit in this way would also help prevent arguments within the family (or the theory wouldsuggest that at least), and d) there is no doubt this area needs to be better researched, butwe can offer up the fact that some of the aliases and their accompanying data appears tohave been assigned or left to later generations to place into their writings. And lastly, e)it would seem that a committee would be needed just for the purpose of avoiding confusion.Remember they had to contend with recently past family members who they would haveto assure of their "fame", and the current (contemporary) generations, and those yet tohave their own careers.

One of the other things that would have to be decided is just how far a person’s identityshould be hidden. Meaning, just how many aliases they would need in which to divideout all of the data for each particular person. It is precisely because history was done(left to us) in this way, that Roman history NEVER gives all of the data out about anyindividual under their public identity. The information that will allow persons to find outthe true relationship of these persons to each other is given in ways that cannot bediscovered or realized without first determining what alias names are the alter names ofany given person who would otherwise only be known to us under their public names.

WHY THEY DID IT:

We realize that the way in which ancient history has been examined has been done in avery limited way that does not allow one to venture beyond certain concepts and think"outside the box" as the phrase goes these days. In fact, the very thought of Romanauthors having used pseudonyms or alias names flies in the face of that very limitedmindset. Perhaps that is why this has not been explored in the way in which it shouldhave been before now. They did this, so as to give information about themselves andyet not arouse public suspicion over the fact that all of the persons who were writinghistory and becoming emperors were all related to each other - this way, they couldhide this fact and make it appear that many diverse persons were writing as this wouldgive the false impression of an amount of ‘freedom’ existing in the Roman empire (andthereby give ‘hope’ to the masses). And, this way, they could also retain power for theirown family without the populace being any the wiser.

Time and time again, we encounter records of officiations of alias identities in differentplaces for different things, apparently within the lifetimes of those Roman aristocrats, authors and rulers. What this may mean is that not only were the writers fooling us, thereaders; but they and others using aliases in their own day were actively deceiving wholetowns, cities and provinces in their everyday lives!

There are many examples that can be cited, one that comes immediately to mind is thatof Arrius Piso. Abelard Reuchlin says of Piso in this booklet "The True Authorship ofthe New Testament," that; "Piso also shows his presence in these provinces (Pontusand Bithynia) - and also via Pliny’s (Pliny the Younger) letters. As Claudius Ariston(a form of Aristo/Arrius), he was the leading citizen of Ephesus (in Bithynia). That wasthe chief city of the province of Asia, located southwest of Bithynia. As (Flavius) Archippus, the philosopher, Piso had been honored by Emperor Domitian; the emperor"commended" him to Pliny (Lappius Maximus) in Bithynia; and he ordered Pliny(Terentius Maximus) to buy him a farm near Prusa. And the people of Prusa voted himas Archippus, as statue."

Now, if we had that statue of Flavius Archippus, we would be able to see just what ArriusPiso looked like at that time! Little did the people of that town know WHO they werereally honoring!
Overlapping or transposing characters (lives): the best example of the writers pointing usto what to do in order to discover what was being done and find out just who was whomregardless of the aliases that they were using is that which we are given by "Plutarch" byhis showing us how to "compare lives" with his work "Parallel Lives" (of the NobleGreeks and Romans), which consists of a listing and comparison of 46 famous ancientGreeks and Romans.

We have answered elsewhere WHY they had to use alias names, but why was it (as weare finding) that they had used so many different aliases? One reason that has alreadybeen stated was simply to make it appear to the public that there were many more peoplewriting in their time than there actually were. But the underlying reason was because theycould not give too much information out about themselves (to the public) as any one"person"… or in any one place (book/work), as it would be too apparent just who theyreally were and what it was that they were doing. They were doing something wrong, verywrong. They were deliberately deceiving the public and feeding them lies.

What we are saying is that in other words, it was not in their best interest to make it ‘easy’to find these things out as that would be defeating the purpose… the whole idea of whatthey were doing. This, the alias names, was the solution to their dilemma of ‘wanting’ to tellwho they were and what they had did, and at the same time being able to do that withoutjeopardizing the "institution" that they had in place.

The bottom line was that it worked and allowed them the ability to say things aboutthemselves , promote ideas, etc. under one identity that would be too much to reveal tothe public as their public identity. With aliases, they could say as much as they wantedand still preserve their family lineage and much more without anyone researching historyever being the wiser, at least until now.

NOTES:
See "The True Authorship of the New Testament," by Abelard Reuchlin, ©1986, Chapter titled "The Creation of the Church," pages 9-12.

Footnote: Apparently, many average Roman citizens met and knew Arrius Piso as he hadgained their confidence and made their acquaintance (using other identities). It may wellhave been that since he traveled extensively and often that he had different names that heused in different places.

He states in his own works that the Jews (meaning the Pharisees) had many opportunities tokill him before he could make the new religion - and he taunts them about this. It seems thathe was not content with fooling people with only his literary works, but also in his own reallife as well.
----------
For more information on specifics you will want to get a copy of the booklet titled 'TheTrue Authorship of the New Testament', by Abelard Reuchlin. You can send for this for$5.00 from: The Abelard Reuchlin Foundation, P.O. Box 5652, Kent, WA 98064 Theprice of this barely covers the cost of printing and postage. Because many libraries arerun by Christians and those who are adverse to anything that contradicts their own personalbeliefs, this booklet is in very few libraries at this point in time. This is strong informationand many persons wish to keep it out of the public eye. You can see a sample of a page from the booklet on this site:

TRUE AUTHORSHIP
Again, there will be more books out on this subject. If you really want to research this thensearch out these books and let others know about them. We would like to see this informationavailable to all, preferably in libraries where they can be accessed for free. But we have tolet as many persons know about this before the efforts of others to keep this from the publicwill fail. And we need your help to do this. Please post messages on Newsgroups and/or putlinks to related websites from your website to those. Thank you.