graffiti: the last nail
pt...@my-deja.com
We could go around and around on this, but the fact of the matter
is that you just refuse to educate yourself to the Piso Theory;
and thus, lacking the information that is necessary to be able to
comprehend and understand, of course, you are going to jump to
crazy conclusions.
There is so much to this for you to learn in order to understand
it and you simply refuse to do so. This is a whole new and opposing
theory to what you have considered thus far. This is what you need
to understand. What the Piso Theory says is that the 'history' did
NOT happen in the way in which you have been led to believe.
And since this is so, you cannot draw conclusions until you realize
the REAL way in which it DID happen. Ancient Roman history was a
very controlled thing. It was ALL written by Royals and those royals
were ALL of ONE family who ruled through its various branches.
Knowing this, makes ALL of the difference. There was no freedom of
speech. And because all of this was so, they were obliged to create
'facades', facades which YOU take as 'real' - and thus, you are
fooled by them. That, is what we are saying. We understand this far
beyond what you have been ABLE to consider.
They HAD to make it "appear" that many different persons were
writing public works (books, etc.), when in fact, it was just a
few select members of one family. They needed to make the masses
feel as though they could aspire to be emperor; when, in fact,
they could not. They needed to make the masses feel and think
many things that were NOT true. This, is how they were able to
retain power and control over those whom they ruled. Is this
really that difficult for you to understand?
pt31
In article <8gj9bq$bvr$1...@hiram.io.com>,
"Gordon" <moi...@io.com> wrote:
>
> <pisot...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8giibl$m5m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > > It is well known that the vast majority of common persons in
> > > Roman cities were illiterate. The average person was considered
> > > 'chattle' to be used by the aristocracy. It is most likely that
> > > those who scribbled graffiti on walls were actually the royals
> > > themselves merely disguising themselves as 'slaves' and other
> > > common persons to as to further their agenda of giving the false
> > > impression that there was freedom of speech in the Roman empire
> > > when in fact, there was none.
>
> Nope, false in nearly every particular.
> Of course, you have to invent this ludicrous story, since graffiti are
the
> refutation of your basic theory, being concrete proof of widespread &
> uncontrolled literacy.
>
> > > We have shown that that have done this purposefully before in
> > > the literature that they wrote. What would prevent them from doing
> > > it in the form of graffiti? Not only did they try to give out the
> > > idea that there was freedom of speech when there was none, but
they
> > > also tried to give the impression that ANYONE could become
emperor,
> > > when in fact, this too, was a lie.
>
> If there was no freedom of speech, and the aristos consider the plebs
> chattle, then TO WHOM are they giving the impression of free speech,
> and why? This makes no more sense than your previous ravings.
>
> > > > Sorry troll, you'll have to wait for the next billygoat gruff.
He's
> > > ever
> > > > so much meatier...
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pt...@my-deja.com
The key to understanding this is in knowing that history did not
happen in the way in which you and most people at this point in
time think it did. And the key to understanding the jokes in the
NT is in knowning how they were deduced and that means understanding
the Piso Theory. It was a deductive processs, and the reason that
such a process indeed is able to work in examining ancient Roman
history and biblical texts is because history did NOT happen in
the way in which you think. And that is called the Royal Supremacy
Theory.
You are so uneducated to these things that you are very far behind
in being able to understand them and comprehend what is right in
front of you. Instead of sitting back and making fun of a new theory,
why don't you get up off your butt and do some work? Are you afraid
of what you might find? I can tell you this, you WILL find out that
you are wrong whether or not you do; you'll only find out faster if
you get with it and start researching.
pt31
http://www.delphi.com/romanpiso
PS: By the way, because history did not happen in the way in which
you think and all that was written was extremely well controlled,
the type of evidence that is found will be consistant with that as
well.
In article <8gl137$g69$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Gideon Nisbet
>
>the REAL way in which it DID happen. Ancient Roman history was a
>very controlled thing. It was ALL written by Royals and those royals
>were ALL of ONE family who ruled through its various branches.
For whom are the members of this family writing their false histories?
>Knowing this, makes ALL of the difference. There was no freedom of
>speech. And because all of this was so, they were obliged to create
>'facades', facades which YOU take as 'real' - and thus, you are
>fooled by them. That, is what we are saying. We understand this far
>beyond what you have been ABLE to consider.
If there is no freedom of speech and dissidence is impossible, why are these
'Royals' *obliged* to pretend anything?
>They HAD to make it "appear" that many different persons were
>writing public works (books, etc.), when in fact, it was just a
>few select members of one family. They needed to make the masses
>feel as though they could aspire to be emperor; when, in fact,
>they could not. They needed to make the masses feel and think
>many things that were NOT true. This, is how they were able to
>retain power and control over those whom they ruled. Is this
>really that difficult for you to understand?
Why are these 'Royals' creating an elaborate smokescreen -- an entire faked-
up literary tradition -- for a populace whom you insist are illiterate? If not
for them, for whom?
--
Gideon Nisbet, D.Phil (Oxon)
Researcher in Papyrology, Faculty of Classics, Oxford
Yamaha XJ600N Diversion
http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/
Gordon
<pt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8gl137$g69$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> And since this is so, you cannot draw conclusions until you realize
> the REAL way in which it DID happen. Ancient Roman history was a
> very controlled thing. It was ALL written by Royals and those royals
> were ALL of ONE family who ruled through its various branches.
...and they all ran throough the towns, like Wee Willie Winkie, scribbling
obscene graffiti in public bathrooms in order to give EXACTLY WHOM
the impression of a free society? Your "idea" make utterly no sense,
and is utterly without merit.
> Knowing this, makes ALL of the difference. There was no freedom of
> speech. And because all of this was so, they were obliged to create
> 'facades', facades which YOU take as 'real' - and thus, you are
> fooled by them. That, is what we are saying. We understand this far
> beyond what you have been ABLE to consider.
>
> They HAD to make it "appear" that many different persons were
> writing public works (books, etc.), when in fact, it was just a
> few select members of one family. They needed to make the masses
> feel as though they could aspire to be emperor; when, in fact,
> they could not. They needed to make the masses feel and think
> many things that were NOT true. This, is how they were able to
> retain power and control over those whom they ruled. Is this
> really that difficult for you to understand?
Your "idea" is dopey, unfounded, stinky, and utterly insane.
Go troll another bridge, or hold your breath waiting for the third
billy-goat.
Gordon
"Gideon Nisbet" <nis...@ermine.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8gllgl$6mn$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> >very controlled thing. It was ALL written by Royals and those royals
> >were ALL of ONE family who ruled through its various branches.
>
>
> >speech. And because all of this was so, they were obliged to create
> >'facades', facades which YOU take as 'real' - and thus, you are
> >fooled by them. That, is what we are saying. We understand this far
> >beyond what you have been ABLE to consider.
>
these
> 'Royals' *obliged* to pretend anything?
>
> >writing public works (books, etc.), when in fact, it was just a
> >few select members of one family. They needed to make the masses
> >feel as though they could aspire to be emperor; when, in fact,
> >they could not. They needed to make the masses feel and think
> >many things that were NOT true. This, is how they were able to
> >retain power and control over those whom they ruled. Is this
> >really that difficult for you to understand?
>
faked-
> up literary tradition -- for a populace whom you insist are illiterate? If
not
> for them, for whom?
ClearlY it wAs for the AliEns, and thEir YetI M@sterz.
rUn while U kaN.
Scott Bellows
is written by the winners"? Wow, no one ever thought of that before!
This changes everything....
pt...@my-deja.com
No, not really. Because the underlying condition had already
pre-existed that particular war. The royals had already been in
control of all mass media of that time, as well as nearly
everything else. That, is the larger theory called the "Royal
Supremacy Theory". The Piso Theory only involves the Roman Piso
family and their authorship of the New Testament and other books
of that time.
In case you missed the post below, I am re-posting it here. It is
a challenge to you and anyone else who wants to take me up on it.
On the subject of the Piso Theory, it seems to thouroughly perplex
some. What I think those
persons should do is to do the very basics that are involved in the
Piso Theory so that they
can understand how it is that all of this really works.
One of the first things that one needs to do is to understand how to
follow the 'trail'.
Doing so means that you first need to find out how to find out that the
Roman Piso family
were involved in this and that means one has to deduce several of the
alias names of that
one certain person in that family - Arrius Calpurnius Piso.
The trail, when followed properly will lead a person to find;
Caesennius Paetus (as Arrius Piso) and lead from there to...
Arrius Calpurnius Piso, to
Montanus, to
Arrius Antoninus, to
Arrius Varus, to
Annius Gallus, to
Cestius Gallus, to
Gessius Florus, to
Antonius Primus.
Getting through all of these aliases, one will then be able to find
Arrius Piso as Flavius Josephus
and the creator of Jesus and the New Testament.
Don't be afraid to ask questions.
Regards, pt31
The Roman Piso Forum
http://www.delphi.com/romanpiso
The Roman Piso Homepage
http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso
pt...@my-deja.com
Our concern is primarily with the 1st & 2nd century of our era.
However, one may reasonably conclude that with the event of the
printing press and of freedom of speech, that 'control' over the
masses began to crumble to some degree. So, in the late middle
ages the decline had started. And as time went on, and royalty
was not exhalted as they had been in the past, the power and
control passed to the religious leaders and the wealthy families.
Are you up to my challenge? Here it is...
Arrius Calpurnius Piso, to
Montanus, to
Arrius Antoninus, to
Arrius Varus, to
Annius Gallus, to
Cestius Gallus, to
Gessius Florus, to
Antonius Primus.
The Roman Piso Forum
http://www.delphi.com/romanpiso
The Roman Piso Homepage
http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso
====
In article <8glt5n$pl8$1...@supernews.com>,
"frank" <poj...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> <pt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8gljj0$t01$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > The key to understanding this is in knowing that history did not
> > happen in the way in which you and most people at this point in
> > time think it did.
>
> Out of interest, could you tell us when you think this re-writing of
history
> stopped happening ? Is it only `Ancient History` ? If so, between what
dates
> ?
>
> Or is it still going on ? If so, who does it ?
>
> It sounds an awfully complicated business: I would have thought it a
bit
> beyond most of our Royals in the UK..........
>
> cheers
>
> frank
pt...@my-deja.com
Good Questions! Are you up to taking my challenge?
Below you will find the answers to those questions that you
had asked.
====
In article <8gllgl$6mn$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>,
nis...@ermine.ox.ac.uk (Gideon Nisbet) wrote:
> In article <8gl137$g69$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <pt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >the REAL way in which it DID happen. Ancient Roman history was a
> >very controlled thing. It was ALL written by Royals and those royals
> >were ALL of ONE family who ruled through its various branches.
>
> For whom are the members of this family writing their false histories?
=====
They were writers who KNEW their audience! Their immediate audience,
and those of the future. They did not think in terms of merely the
immediate, they knew that we would find them out eventually and that
was a huge part of their motivation! The immediate audience were the
other royals of the time. They considered royals and common persons to
be two separate 'races'. But the knew, and anticipated that one day
the common person would have freedom of speech and would be educated
enough to find out all that they had left us to find. They actually
say several things in very sly ways indicating that the KNEW that one
day it would all be revealed. And what would happen then is that they
would gain the FAME of having pulled this off! Not only that, but they
knew that we would HAVE to rely upon them to find all of this and to
teach this to future generations as well. In other words, they would
live on FOREVER because of this. It was like a Roman literary equivalent
of the Egyptian Pyramid. It was/is huge!
====
> >Knowing this, makes ALL of the difference. There was no freedom of
> >speech. And because all of this was so, they were obliged to create
> >'facades', facades which YOU take as 'real' - and thus, you are
> >fooled by them. That, is what we are saying. We understand this far
> >beyond what you have been ABLE to consider.
>
> If there is no freedom of speech and dissidence is impossible, why are
these
> 'Royals' *obliged* to pretend anything?
====
They HAD to do what they did in order to retain the power and control
that they had enjoyed. They HAD to keep things in that situation in
order to perpetuate their own family rule. They could NOT speak
openingly or brag as a foolish idiot would. They were ingenious. Can
you not grasp this? The ONLY reason why they were able to remain in
power was precisely BECAUSE there was no freedom of speech.
====
> >They HAD to make it "appear" that many different persons were
> >writing public works (books, etc.), when in fact, it was just a
> >few select members of one family. They needed to make the masses
> >feel as though they could aspire to be emperor; when, in fact,
> >they could not. They needed to make the masses feel and think
> >many things that were NOT true. This, is how they were able to
> >retain power and control over those whom they ruled. Is this
> >really that difficult for you to understand?
>
> Why are these 'Royals' creating an elaborate smokescreen -- an entire
faked-
> up literary tradition -- for a populace whom you insist are
illiterate? If not
> for them, for whom?
====
I already answered that above. Ready to take the challenge?
Here it is;
Arrius Calpurnius Piso, to
Montanus, to
Arrius Antoninus, to
Arrius Varus, to
Annius Gallus, to
Cestius Gallus, to
Gessius Florus, to
Antonius Primus.
====
> Gideon Nisbet, D.Phil (Oxon)
> Researcher in Papyrology, Faculty of Classics, Oxford
> Yamaha XJ600N Diversion
> http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/
====
pt31
The Roman Piso Forum
http://www.delphi.com/romanpiso
frank
<pt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8gvobj$mms$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hello Frank,
>
> Our concern is primarily with the 1st & 2nd century of our era.
So it`s not History, or even Ancient History, which have been nobbled, but
just this little patch ? Why just this lot ? Because it just happened to be
the beginning of the Christian Era ?
> So, in the late middle
> ages the decline had started
You mean, presumably, that the spoof was spotted (why else would they have
lost control, if the spoof *gave* them control ?) - a mere millennium and a
bit later ? Why ? Surely printing would have been a splendid way for the
Royal Few to disseminate the spoof ? A free copy through every door......
And fewer to bump off at the end of each day than all those scribes; just
the odd printer. Piece of cake :-)
cheers
frank
(alias Friar Tuck)
pt...@my-deja.com
<snip>
> > Hello Frank,
> >
> > Our concern is primarily with the 1st & 2nd century of our era.
>
> So it`s not History, or even Ancient History, which have been nobbled,
but
> just this little patch ? Why just this lot ? Because it just happened
to be
> the beginning of the Christian Era ?
<snip>
You are obviously trying to insinuate that the true motivations of
this research is to discredit Christianity rather than to find the
truth as we have stated.
The reason for the concentration upon this point in time is because
this is where the 'door' is to discovering all of this. It is ONLY
in knowing that Arrius Piso was writing as Flavius Josephus that one
can know that a great fraud had been perpetrated and that also leads
to finding out all of the other things that REALLY had transpired in
history. That Christianity is involved in this at all is NOT our
fault. It is incidental to the facts concerning the historical part
of this, but it is also a critical portion. The two cannot be
separated because they were done in conjunction with each other.
I have offered a challenge. Are you up to it? If so, then go ahead
and research the alias names of Arrius Piso and see if you are not
lead from one alias to another by him and in so doing, you will find
that he is also Flavius Josephus and created Jesus.
The list of alias names were posted here and you can find them on
the Roman Piso Forum.
The Roman Piso Forum
http://www.delphi.com/romanpiso
pt31
frank
<pt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8h27og$ind$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Frank,not only is 'graffiti' NOT the last nail,it is NO nail.
I don`t recall mentioning graffiti myself, though if not a nail it must
surely constitute a screw...........in more senses than one.
> The reason for the concentration upon this point in time is because
> this is where the 'door' is to discovering all of this. It is ONLY
> in knowing that Arrius Piso was writing as Flavius Josephus that one
> can know that a great fraud had been perpetrated and that also leads
> to finding out all of the other things that REALLY had transpired in
> history.
Alas, `hIstOry` has returned again.
That Christianity is involved in this at all is NOT our
> fault.
Sorry, matey, I don`t believe you. What is more, I suggest that it is the
prime reason behind this whole exercise. I would remind you of the title of
the thread, which was I think your choice.
> I have offered a challenge. Are you up to it?
I regret that, having looked at your original site, I am not personally able
to take the theory seriously enough to want to look any further into it -
any more than I would be keen to have a rational discussion with someone who
assured me that the moon is actually made of Wensleydale cheese: and those
distinguished New Scholars Wallace and Grommit probably provide rather
better evidence for that theory than you can for yours.
Forgive my lack of enthusiasm; if you can convince the rest of the world of
the Old Scholarship, fine, but expect some resistance from reactionary
diehards like me.
So in short, no, I`m not up to it. Sorry -
cheers
frank
pt...@my-deja.com
It's your call. But here is the proof that this indeed starts
with the study of ancient Roman history and leads to the true
authorship of the New Testament. When a person studies the
family of the Flavians, he is then led to find a connection to
the family of Thrasea Paetus. From there, he is led to the
discovery that this is really a link to the Pisos. And then
one finds that this leads to "Flavius Josephus" as a penname
for Arrius Piso. And as a person goes from there, they find
out the truth about the authorship of the New Testament.
FOLLOWING THE TRAIL (from the family of Vespasian to the Pisos)
The tie-in is that Arria the Elder was married to the emperor
Vespasian’s
brother (before Vespasian became emperor). He was T. Flavius Sabinus.
From this relationship we find the connection to the alias names of the
Pisos
as "Paetus". Quoting from "The True Authorship of the New Testament," by
Abelard Reuchlin; "Vespasian relied upon Piso because he was grandson of
his own brother - Vespasian’s brother, T. Flavius Sabinus, had married
Arria
Sr. (i.e., Arria the Elder), who was Piso’s maternal grandmother. Piso’s
identity as thus also a Flavian is decipherable from the appearance in
the
Flavian family line of L. Caesennius Paetus (Townend, Gavin, Some
Flavian
Connections, Journal of Roman Studies, LI. 54, 62, 1961). That was an
alias
(like Thrasea Paetus) of Piso’s father, L. Calpurnius Piso [ Note: we
now
know Arrius Piso’s father to have been Gaius Calpurnius Piso who was
executed by Nero]. See page 20 supra, wherein Piso himself also is
mentioned
as a Caesennius Paetus. That is the true reason Piso used the literary
pseudonym of Flavius; it was not because of his alleged - but untrue and
hardly necessary - adoption by Emperor Flavius Vespasian. He was in fact
(already) a Flavian."
This information leads us to:
(1) The son of Thrasea Paetus/Gaius Calpurnius Piso (who is unnamed in
history). And then to…
(2) Flavius Josephus, and to…
(3) Montanus, as another alias name of Arrius Piso.
There are elements of this that are given in "The True Authorship of the
New
Testament" that may not be necessary to repeat here in detail such as
how it is
that Thrasea Paetus and Arria are seen as really being Gaius Piso and
his wife.
You can find that with the use of that booklet and your own research.
Instead, I will try to stick to the main issue here rather than
side-track or let this
get too confusing for you the reader/researcher. I will concentrate upon
what
you need to know in order to ‘follow the trail’ from one alias name to
the next.
To fill in the gaps and further deduce from this information, we examine
more
closely the family of Thrasea Paetus and both of the Arrias (Arria the
Elder and
Arria the Younger). From this, we find the daughter of Arria the Younger
as one
"Fannia". "Fannia" too, is an alias name.
Her real name was used to make her alias name. She was Flavia Arria. The
feminine form of "Flavius", and the name of her mother and grandmother -
Arria. They used the "F" in "Flavia" as an initial and left it in front
of her Arria
name and changed the "r"’s in her name to "n"’s (which is explained by
the use
of Royal Language). This rendered the alias name of "Fannia" (F.Annia).
Her brother, likewise also already carried/used the Flavius name and he
would
have the masculine form of his mother’s name and therefore would be
"Arrius".
And now we have the "Arrius" portion of his name. But we will also find
much
more confirmation of this as we research and deduce further.
Quoting from "The True Authorship of the New Testament,"; "Likewise
"Montanus" (the mountain?) "is spared out of consideration for his
father [having
died because of Nero]" when Thrasea Paetus is killed." (pg. 20). Ref.
Tacitus,
Annals, XVI. 33., Loeb Classical Library edition.
See the Bibliographical Index in the Letters of Pliny the Younger
(Letters and
Panegyricus), Loeb Classical Library edition, for data on;
Thrasea Paetus, Arria the Elder, Arria the Younger, Fannia, Montanus and
Arrius Antoninus.
====
pt31
In article <8h3nvp$3qd$1...@supernews.com>,