Roman Piso family created Christianity!
RRoman Piso
You may be asking yourself several questions at this point. Such asů
"who were the Piso family members?" and, "why would they want to
create Christianity?" In addition to these questions, you may also be
asking yourself, "since this all happened so long ago, how can anyone
be sure of just what happened and how can anyone know just WHO did
what?" All of these are very good questions. And this report will help
you to understand all of this and answer other questions which you may
not have even thought to ask about. Remember, we are discussing this
on a scholarly level. This is necessary.
The first thing that I think that you should know about is just HOW it
is that we researchers have gotten to the point where we are now able
to identify just WHO the authors of the New Testament texts really
were - so let's start there. It was actually a very long process which
involved the work of several researchers over the course of quite a
few years. The first person to compile the evidence which points to
the Roman authorship of the New Testament texts was Prof. Bruno Bauer.
He was far ahead of his time. He did not stop where other researchers
of his time did, he examined the texts in ways that others were not
able to.
He knew that to get at the truth that he would have to be objective
and he also knew that what this meant was that he would have to
examine the texts as LITERATURE. And he also knew that he had to
become as a detective and look for motives, clues and evidence within
the texts themselves. What did it mean to examine the early New
Testament texts as literature? It meant not believing the story itself
until there was reason to prove it to be valid and true; and instead,
examining HOW the story was put together. It meant looking for
literary components and devices. And it also meant not believing
(assuming) that the authors were who they had claimed to be, at least
until or that too was also proven to be true - or not.
What this is basically saying is that he was working through a process
of elimination so that he could obtain a set of FACTS that were true
and then from those reach conclusions which would either support the
validity of the texts or expose them as fraudulent. Now why so many of
the other scholars of that time or since have not thought to do this
very same thing, has remained a mystery. Perhaps part of what may
explain this is that scholars have been taught by other scholars who
were used to simply reading and believing what they read instead of
teaching students how to be extra-critical when it comes to dealing
with ancient texts (literature). Our level of scholarship requires
objectivity and much more discipline.
Bruno Bauer's great work, 'Christ And The Caesars' was published in
Berlin in 1877. In all of these years, as far as any scholar that I
know of is aware of, there has never been an English translation of
this book until very recent years. I will give you a list of sources
for the books that I cite in this report at the end. There were
indeed, students which followed Bauer's example. But these were few
and far between. Most of those scholars never gained the attention,
recognition or exposure that their works deserved.
The next person that we should mention is James Ballantyne Hannay. He
too, had reached the conclusion that the Romans were the creators of
the Christian religion. He was an English scholar of some renowned in
his time and had associated with many of the important British
scholars of his time. He had participated in the production of 'The
Oxford Encyclopedia Biblica.' But his own work on the subject of the
Roman creation of Christianity was published posthumously some months
after his death in 1925. The title of that book is 'The Rise, Decline
and Fall of the Roman Religion'.
So, though the majority of scholars never even heard of either of
these authors or their works, their works DID exist and established a
foundation of knowledge in this area to work from. And even though
these authors apparently were not able to identify the actual authors
of the New Testament texts, they were able to give us quite a bit of
evidence for the case that the Romans were the actual authors. And
knowing what we do now, it is quite understandable just WHY these
earlier scholars were not able to make that identification - as this
is quite complicated, and one must know a number of things which were
not known to them in their time.
As this is only a short report, I must be as brief as possible and
still touch upon what I think is important for you to know about. So,
as I was saying, there were a number of things which one needs to know
about in order to understand the subject well enough to form correct
conclusions. One of those is that the researcher much know just WHO
the Romans were (or rather the leaders of the Romans) at certain
times. For instance, not all of the Roman emperors were the same nor
did they have the same agenda. Another thing which is of great
importance in understanding this subject is that the leaders of the
Jews too, were not all the same - and this is also important to know.
I detail these things in my book 'The Synthesis of Christianity'.
Next, we come to Abelard Reuchlin. I often refer to him as a 'great
man'. And this is because he is the very first person to identify the
true authors of the New Testament and present that information in
written form, making that available to the public for the very first
time! He did so in a booklet which he had finished in 1979. There was
a second printing of his booklet ('The True Authorship of the New
Testament') in 1986. He wrote about how the Roman Piso family had
created the idea for a new religion to replace Judaism, and how when
they went to Nero for permission to proceed and promote it; Nero did
not grant them permission and so, they plotted against his life in
order to obtain control of the seat of power over Rome so that they
could proceed with their plans.
Reuchlin also states some of the reasons for the need of some Roman
royals to create this new religion and leave behind (destroy) the old
Jewish religion. For one thing, the leaders of the Jews were relatives
of Arrius Calpurnius Piso, the main creator of the Christian religion.
And they were losing control over the Jews. Neither the existing Roman
religion, nor the existing Judaean religion contained all of the
elements which were necessary for the 'New Rome' which the Pisos and
their close relatives had in mind to create. And so, those had to be
replaced with one which DID contain all of that. Also, few scholars
will talk about the long all-out war which was going on at that time
and which actually lasted over 100 years! So, this was not just about
something which these certain Romans wantedů it was about what they
NEEDED in order to win the war and create that 'New Rome'.
So, Reuchlin's booklet tells how the various Piso family members wrote
the texts of the New Testament. He gives the dates in which these
texts were written, and information about each of these family
members. And since his work has been available to others, several
others have written about this. At a point when there are approx. 450
million people in the U.S. alone, there are about 2 million people who
have heard about the Roman Piso family and their authorship of the New
Testament. Before long though, many more people will know about this -
and write about it!
Abelard Reuchlin tells us about Arrius Calpurnius Piso, and how he
used many alias identities to create the illusion that several people
were writing independently of each other about several things, when in
fact he and his close relatives were doing all of the writing for
public consumption! In other words, the Roman authors were writing in
concert with each other for a specific cause; because they had the
same motives in common. Some of the authors that he examines and
discusses in his booklet are: Flavius Josephus, Pliny the Younger,
Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius and Flavius Arrian. Contrary to what most
people even today think about ancient texts and authors, there were
many of them and a vast amount of their works DO survive today and ARE
available to most people - IF they know where to find them. Which
brings me to the questions which I had brought up at the beginning of
this report. And those are:
(1) "Who were the Piso family members?" This can be better answered by
getting the research material which I have already mentioned. But
briefly, the Roman Piso family were Roman royals who had been in
positions of authority along side other Roman aristocrats. And who, at
various times were moneyers, consuls, governors. Their ancestry, just
as the Julian Caesars, went back to ancient kings of Troy and even
further. In fact, understanding their ancestry is key to understanding
so much of this - as you will find out later as you do your own
research of this subject (see 'inherited name/titles').
By the time that Nero became emperor, the Roman aristocrats had
endured a long war which was causing them a great many problems. This
war, which really was gaining momentum from the time of the Maccabees
or Hasmonean Kings, was being put forth in the name of REAL freedom
and human rights for all people in the Roman Empire. It was the
Pharisees, primarily, who were responsible for this unrest in their
unrelenting desire for the abolition of slavery from within the Roman
Empire. They were joined by the Essenes as their philosophy regarding
slavery was the same. In fact, the leadership of all of the sects of
the Jews were closely related. In the year 6 C.E. (A.D.), the Essenes
ceased to be called Essenes and instead were referred to as 'Scribes'.
They played a more passive role in helping the Pharisees in this war.
Arrius C. Piso was descended from the Herodian rulers of Judaea
through his mother's side of the family. The Herodians were the
overseers of the Jewish sects, but particularly, they were the
authority over the Sadducees, and the Sadducees were the enemies of
the Pharisees in regards to their goals. The Sadducees represented the
vested interests of the rich royals, while the Pharisees represented
the interests of the average person. The Herodians were Roman
installed rulers of Judaea, replacing the Maccabees. However, there
was great support for the Pharisees as so many more people were NOT
rich royals and had been living under harsh conditions for so long.
The common people desired basic human rights and an end to the
practice of slavery. And so, this was what was driving them so
passionately in their war against certain royals. What you are
learning about here, is actually the OTHER side of the 'Jesus story'.
The slaves themselves were uprising and they were even starting to
kill their own masters - sacrificing themselves in the process of this
cause to end slavery. And this is what was so frightening to the
royals of the Roman Empire. They were in danger of losing their own
lives to their own slaves! And slaves were not being 'obedient' as
they once were. Can you imagine what a problem this represented to
royals who were used to living a very comfortable life and of being in
complete control over the lives of all of their slaves? This is one of
the main reasons for the creation of the Christian religion, because
one of the main
components of it was to pacify the slaves and keep them obedient. This
was accomplished by giving them advice such as to be 'content' in
their life situation and by telling them that they will receive their
'reward' in 'Heaven'. But these very same people who were now creating
this new religion were the descendants of those who had been creating
other religions for thousands of years! They knew the truth about
religion because this had been their own family business since the
very first creation of the idea of the first religion. They knew that
'god' was only an idea, a concept which their ancestors had created
and used in creating religion. They also knew that the other concepts
involved were also created and not actually real.
So, in the time of Nero, the Piso family and their royal relatives
were trying to overthrow him. And in response to this, he had several
of them put to death. He did this with Seneca, who was a relative of
the Pisos. And he did this with Lucan, Seneca's nephew. Nero had to
put a number of the Piso family relatives to death as they were doing
everything that they could to get rid of him. He had to put to death
his general Corbulo. He was informed of a plot by the Piso family from
Milichus, and he had to put Gaius Calpurnius Piso to death for this by
ordering him to commit suicide. But because Gaius Piso did this, Nero
spared the lives of Gaius Piso's family. He exiled Arrius Calpurnius
Piso, Gaius Piso's son, to military duty outside of Rome - to the
East!
To better inform you of many of the fine details which you should know
about, I am currently writing other books and booklets about this in
which I give more details about the Piso family members and what each
of them were doing with regards to creating and helping to create the
Christian religion. So be looking out for these! I realize that so
much of this information is difficult for many people to keep straight
and so a part of what I want to do is to make lists which people can
refer to for various details and statistical information. I have done
this already to some extent in my 'The Synthesis of Christianity'.
Once people know all of these things and have a firm understanding and
background in this area, it becomes very exciting as it is really an
unfolding drama - a REAL one, which serves to explain so many things
which have remained unknown to so many for such a long time!
We have determined that Arrius Calpurnius Piso was married at least 3
times, and that he had 4 sons and 1 daughter. The names of these
children are: Alexander (who died), Julius, Justus, Proculus and
Claudia Phoebe (aka Pompeia Plotina). Much of this information, about
his wives and children can be found in his writings as Flavius
Josephus. Reuchlin's booklet about this is very scholarly and
condensed. Thus, is it difficult for some to read completely. But do
try to do so, including the footnotes section.
(2) "Why would they want to create Christianity?" Well, I think that
we have already answered that at least in part. However, to better
understand this we must see it from their perspective. They were
highly educated royal Romans and they understood this very important
fact; and that is that even IF they were able to take control of the
Roman Empire, they would need a means in which to maintain and KEEP
that power and authority. And this is where the creation of a new
religion came in. I have made a list of some of the most important
things that these royal Romans would need in order to achieve those
goals and these things are evident in the New Testament texts. You can
find that information in 'The Synthesis of Christianity'.
While Arrius Piso was in exile, serving in the military under Nero, he
was a Roman general. Reuchlin says, "Nero sent young (Arrius) Piso to
Syria as governor." Yes, he was governor of Syria, just as many of his
ancestors were! And this put him in the position of being not only
governor, but also commander over several other generals who were
leading the Roman legions in Syria; including Judaea. Reuchlin
continues by saying, "That post gave him command of the legions
controlling Judaea. His own "history" (writing as Flavius Josephus)
records his service in Judaea in the year 65 (C.E./A.D.) under the
name of Gessius Florus and in 66 with the pseudonym Cestius Gallus"
(Ref. 'The True Authorship of the New Testament', Abelard Reuchlin).
Arrius Piso, in order to get away with all that he did, had to make
use of many alias names or 'pennames'. But his use of those names can
be deduced and determined from a number of factors, particularly
because he, himself, wanted people to one day find out just what he
did and to know just how he did it. So thus, we have seen examples of
WHY they would want or need to create Christianity. There was a war
going on. A solution was needed for the problems which confronted the
royals of the time. The revolts of both the slaves and the common
people, led by the Pharisees, had to be stopped. And they had to have
a way in which to maintain their control of the masses once they were
able to gain control over Rome.
(3) "Since this all happened so long ago, how can anyone be sure of
just what happened and how can anyone know just WHO did what?"
Remember that I said that Arrius Piso WANTED people to one day find
out not only WHAT he did, but HOW he did it? I will now tell you more
about this aspect of this.
What these people were doing while creating Christianity, was also to
create a lasting monument to THEMSELVES! They were improving upon the
idea of being buried in pyramids and instead, built themselves
monuments in the literary works that they were creating! And they were
doing this because they understood that stone monuments would stand
for only so long; but their literature would LAST much longer. And
particularly so, IF those who were in power after their death were
their own descendants who KNEW just what they had done and who would
also follow in that same tradition!
What does this mean? It means that not only was all that was written
in THEIR time for public consumption was controlled by royals; but
that this was true for most of history SINCE that time! In other
words, "history" as we have been taught, did not happen in the way in
which we were told! And that is because there was no freedom of speech
in history until fairly recent times. It appears that this only really
began with the establishment of the United States of America. Before
that time, the world was virtually ruled by kings, other royals, and
religious leaders - all of whom controlled the production of ALL
books. So, the history back to the earliest times were kept in near
'pristine' condition with regards to their contents. And the authors
were actually royals, despite what the authors of those books may have
claimed.
Now, we get into a whole other area of this. And that is how this was
concealed from the public for so long. No one could write books (or
literature in general) for public consumption except for royals, under
penalty of death. This is how the royals were able to maintain their
control and put down most revolts. But over the course of time, little
by little, change occurred. A part of that change took place with the
invention of moveable type and the printing press.
The Church tried very hard to suppress the news of these inventions
and to keep them out of the hands of people - because they knew what
this would mean. And that was that the average person would soon have
the ability to start producing their own books and other material at a
rate which could not be controlled or destroyed by royals and church
authorities. In essence, they saw that this would mean that after
thousands of years of controlling all that was written for public
consumption, that was going to finally come to an end. Since scholars
in general did not know this, they made incorrect assumptions about
history. I have noted at least 6 major assumptions which scholars have
made regarding history and have detailed those in my books.
We have already explained quite a bit about our knowing WHO did WHAT.
But there is so much more to know and also to learn about still.
Again, we can be sure or certain of just what happened, because it was
done under what we might term 'pristine' conditions. Those who were
writing for most of the history after Arrius Piso and his immediate
family had died, were their own descendants! And so, they maintained
what their great ancestors had written and preserved them for
posterity. They even kept their own private family archives. Next, how
can anyone know just WHO did what? Because they were egotists. They
all wanted to receive credit for what they did!
For instance, we know that 'Jesus' was never a real person. But was
instead a created 'composite' character that was played in the gospels
by the person who had created him! And that was Arrius Piso. What is
one way that we can tell that Arrius Piso was his creator? Well, for
one thing, it is Arrius Piso, writing as Flavius Josephus who is the
very first person to make mention of 'Christ' in his works. This was
done for the purpose of historicizing 'Jesus'. He makes certain that
people will know that when he mentions 'Christ' without calling him
'Jesus' that people would be able to know that he IS referring to
'Jesus' as the Christ by making mention of his brother 'James'. Also,
as a scholar, we find that the New Testament texts make anti-Semitic
remarks in several places. Which seems strange when one considers the
fact that 'Jesus' is supposed to have been Jewish. But we learn more
about all of these so-called contradictions as we discover the truth
about the creation of the Christian religion.
And WHY did Arrius Piso chose to call his messiah 'Jesus'? He did so
because this was a way to ridicule the Jews (Pharisees, whom he was at
war with), because a son of Gamaliel was named 'Jesus'
(Yeshia/Joshua). Arrius could do this because his ancestry would allow
him to do so. He was descended from High Priests who had this same
name. And so, he was entitled to use that name just as he was able to
use other name/titles that he had inherited from his other ancestors.
As 'Jesus' he used his 'Prince of Peace' title, which he had inherited
from his ancestor who was known to the public as 'Hercules'. He used
the 'Christ' name, which came from his ancestor 'Mitheridates
Chrestas'. He used the 'Saviour' title for 'Jesus', which he inherited
from his ancestor who was the great ruler over the Syrians, Antiochus
Soter ('Soter' is 'Saviour'). And so on with the other name/titles
associated with 'Jesus'.
So, in various ways in which we have now discovered, the authors of
the New Testament left us the ability to find out just who they were.
They were not stupid people. These were people of great intellect and
they knew that what they were doing would last for a very long time
and the reason that they knew this was because they had obtained the
means in which it would. Their very own close relatives were in
control of the Roman Empire and all that was written for public
consumption. And as they had learned from their very own ancestors,
once such power has been gained, it would most likely last for as long
as those who were ruling were careful enough to MAKE it last.
I am aware of the fact that this report does not come close to
answering all of your questions, but in reality, you should not expect
it to. This is a subject which is very complicated and which requires
a great deal of knowledge and information to understand properly. It
is even above the understanding of most of the current scholars -
which is why they have not been able to write about it as I and a few
others have. In fact, we have terms for scholars and their level of
understanding ancient history. There are those who think that history
happened just as they read about it on a superficial level without
examining it as critically as we do, and they are called 'The Old
Classical Scholarship'. There are those who are scholars whose
findings to some degree agree with ours, but who do not yet know or
understand what we do. And we call those scholars 'Transitory', as
they are (at least to some extent) on they way to understanding it.
And what we call ourselves is 'The New Classical Scholarship'. Our
findings will one day replace that of the Old Classical Scholarship
and make the old ways and methods of teachings of history obsolete.
As stated above, those who have been studying history as scholars
before now have been doing so under the incorrect assumption that
history had happened differently than it actually did happen. And, in
doing so, they have based their conclusions upon at least 6 major
false assumptions (which as I also said, I have listed and detailed in
my book 'The Synthesis of Christianity'). But I have endeavored to
give you a brief outline of many of the important points regarding
this subject. And as promised, I will give you a list (below) of the
books that I have cited (and others), as well as sources for those
books. I would also like to inform you that you may not need to
purchase all of the books listed as you may be able to find them
either posted online or else at your local college or university
library. I would not expect to find such scholarly books at the public
library though. I know that someday people will be able to find them
in EVERY library.
LIST OF BOOKS & SOURCES:
'Christ and the Caesars', Bruno Bauer, Berlin, 1877. A translation
into English, published by and available from Alexander Davidonis,
James Island, P.O. Box 12814, 732 Gin House Court, Charleston, SC
29412. Price: $54.00
'The Oxford Encyclopedia Biblica', circa 1920. Out of print. A copy
may be found in the British Museum, in the rare books archives
section.
'The Rise, Decline and Fall of the Roman Religion', James Ballantyne
Hannay, pub. 1925. Health Research Books, P.O. Box 850, Pomeroy, WA
99347. 1-888-844-2386. FAX 1-509-843-2387
'The True Authorship of the New Testament', Abelard Reuchlin, 1986.
Order from: The Abelard Reuchlin Foundation, P.O. Box 5652, Kent, WA
99064. Price: $5.00
The works of 'Flavius Josephus'. See both Whiston translation (a copy
may be found online) and Loeb Classical Library edition. William
Whiston edition may be ordered from Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids,
Michigan 49501. Write to Harvard University Press for a copy of their
catalog of Loeb Classical Library edition titles: Harvard University
Press, 79 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138.
'Greek-English Interlinear New Testament', George Ricker Berry. Order
from: Zondervan Publishing House, 1415 Lake Drive, SE, Grand Rapids,
MI 49506 (Request their catalog for current price).
'The Synthesis of Christianity' (Second Edition), Roman Piso, 2002.
Price: $19.95. Order from: FRC, P.O. Box 103, Altoona, WI 54720-0103,
by check or money order payable to FRC.
'Piso Christ!', Roman Piso, 2002. Price: $19.95. Order from: FRC, P.O.
Box 103, Altoona, WI 54720.
And URL's:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
http://www.angelfire.com/wi2/eduarticles
http://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso
http://members.tripod.com/~ReuchlinA
http://forums.delphiforums.com/pisotheory
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/famtree
Cheers!
Roman
Matt Giwer
--
Are your rights as a human being worth Israel?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1613
RRoman Piso
> At least we now know who to shoot.
Wow Matt, what a thing to say! Especially these days. You know that
the Feds are always looking for people who say such things. Whether
you are serious or not, that sort of thing is not what people say
these days. These are things which are said by people who are
deliberately threatening others and who the government is keeping tabs
on. I hope that you do not say things like this all the time! Even if
the Feds don't find you on their own, someone is bound to turn you in.
You really don't want to say the kind of things that terrorists do -
do you? Not a popular thing right now.
Cheers!
Roman
Katherine Tredwell
<snip>
Has anybody written up a debunk of this wack's ranting?
Katherine Tredwell
Neville Lindsay
"Katherine Tredwell" <ktre...@ou.edu> wrote in message
news:a3e43bd8.02090...@posting.google.com...
Worth the effort?
NL
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3D72CDBD...@tampabay.rr.com>...
>>At least we now know who to shoot.
> Wow Matt, what a thing to say! Especially these days. You know that
> the Feds are always looking for people who say such things.
OK, Substitute
WHACKO ALERT!
> Whether
> you are serious or not, that sort of thing is not what people say
> these days. These are things which are said by people who are
> deliberately threatening others and who the government is keeping tabs
> on. I hope that you do not say things like this all the time! Even if
> the Feds don't find you on their own, someone is bound to turn you in.
> You really don't want to say the kind of things that terrorists do -
> do you? Not a popular thing right now.
There is no war on, dummy. A police state takes who it wants regardless
of evidence. They are only interested in people who attack the state.
--
The proverbial cocked hat is also proverbial.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1683
Matt Giwer
> pisoc...@yahoo.com (RRoman Piso) wrote in message news:<ce86c725.02090...@posting.google.com>...
> <snip>
> Has anybody written up a debunk of this wack's ranting?
He hasn't posted anything to look up. The real name of Josephus was XXXX
Piso. It isn't in the records so it is secret knowledge. He uses secret
sources as he has disclosed to source.
They are his assertions. He bears the burden of producing the evidence.
He provided zero evidence.
Whacko alert!
--
It is not sane to feel or express grief over people
one never knew.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1688
RRoman Piso
As I have said before, what we have discovered means that history did
not happen in the way in which people have been told it had. This is
important to note. And it means that the conclusions that were reached
by those who did not know this are incorrect.
I do not see persons such as yourself making any CASE against these
claims. Instead, what I see is name-calling and anything ELSE other
than that. You may want to ask yourself a few questions before you go
doing what you have been doing. Also as I have pointed out, the Old
Classical Scholarship makes 6 major assumptions which it bases its
conclusions upon. The New Classical Scholarship is extra-critical of
these things and do not make those assumptions.
Cheers!
Roman
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
ktre...@ou.edu (Katherine Tredwell) wrote in message news:<a3e43bd8.02090...@posting.google.com>...
RRoman Piso
Well, you still appear to be laboring under the assumption that the
Old Classical Scholarship is correct and that the New Classical
Scholarship is not.
However, you have not made any effort to learn about the things which
have been asserted by the New Classical Scholarship. That really makes
quite a bit of sense, doesn't it? This issue will NEVER go away. So,
you might as well make yourself familiar with it. What I would think
about if I were in your position is that you really NEED to learn
about this for one of two main reasons: either to find out if it
actually is true, or to know enough about it to be able to expose it
as a fraud. Just 'saying' that something is not correct when it comes
to a scholarly issue, simply will not do. You should know that.
Cheers!
Roman
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
"Neville Lindsay" <nev...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:<YQRc9.9193$Dr5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
Matt Giwer
> Hello Neville,
>
> Well, you still appear to be laboring under the assumption that the
> Old Classical Scholarship is correct and that the New Classical
> Scholarship is not.
You apparently believe mere assertion constitutes scholarship.
Care to post better than you have?
--
In the modern world, no one is truly educated unless they
have at least a college level minor in a science. Liberal
arts is passe.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1710
Matt Giwer
> Hello Katherine,
> As I have said before, what we have discovered means that history did
> not happen in the way in which people have been told it had. This is
> important to note. And it means that the conclusions that were reached
> by those who did not know this are incorrect.
> I do not see persons such as yourself making any CASE against these
> claims.
You made the claims. You bear the burden of evidence to support them.
Produce the evidence or give it up.
--
Governments have powers delegated to them by the people.
Governments do not have rights, not even to existance.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1713
Katherine Tredwell
No, but neither is most of Usenet, which does not seem to stop
people. It is not worth *my* effort, certainly, but I hoped
somebody else might have taken the trouble.
Katherine Tredwell
Katherine Tredwell
> Katherine Tredwell wrote:
> > pisoc...@yahoo.com (RRoman Piso) wrote in message news:<ce86c725.02090...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Has anybody written up a debunk of this wack's ranting?
>
> He hasn't posted anything to look up. The real name of Josephus was XXXX
> Piso. It isn't in the records so it is secret knowledge. He uses secret
> sources as he has disclosed to source.
>
> They are his assertions. He bears the burden of producing the evidence.
> He provided zero evidence.
>
> Whacko alert!
Somehow, pointing out simple things like "this argument is based on
a lack of evidence" does not convince many people who are
historically naive, including those who would be utterly convinced
by the same argument in a scientific debate. Roman Piso has put up
a lot of words, and it looks superficially impressive. A good
debunking would take a more involved strategy, like tracing how an
essay depends entirely on a lack of evidence or giving a convincing
alternative reading. But I'm not wasting my time on it, so I cannot
fault anyone else for the same neglect.
Katherine Tredwell
RRoman Piso
> RRoman Piso wrote:
> > Hello Katherine,
>
> > As I have said before, what we have discovered means that history did
> > not happen in the way in which people have been told it had. This is
> > important to note. And it means that the conclusions that were reached
> > by those who did not know this are incorrect.
>
> > I do not see persons such as yourself making any CASE against these
> > claims.
>
> You made the claims. You bear the burden of evidence to support them.
> Produce the evidence or give it up.
Hello Matt, yes, I hear you. But what you are not doing is following
up on what I have said. You are NOT doing the WORK that is involved in
learning just why what I been saying is true. I have done a lot to
demonstrate that this is the case; but it cannot be done simply by
posting messages. It requires some real effort on YOUR part. I have
written articles which you can find posted online, I have written
several books (not all of which are currently available), and I have
given you lists of research resources. I have provided a forum in
which you may ask any questions that you may have. Is there ANYTHING
ELSE that I can do for you so that you may understand this? If so,
please speak up!
Cheers!
Roman
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
I notice that neither you or anyone else who says that I have not
shown any evidence to back up my claims does not address specific
items or issues. Why is that? Why can't you say just what it is that
you want demonstrated? I have given all kinds of evidence, but perhaps
YOU just are not able to understand just WHY it IS evidence? Could
that be the case?
RRoman Piso
> RRoman Piso wrote:
> > Hello Neville,
> >
> > Well, you still appear to be laboring under the assumption that the
> > Old Classical Scholarship is correct and that the New Classical
> > Scholarship is not.
>
> You apparently believe mere assertion constitutes scholarship.
>
> Care to post better than you have?
Since the true nature of history and the creation of the Christian
religion is far more complicated than scholars have believed it to be
thus far, there is no way that it can all be laid out in a few posts
online. It is going to take a lot of research on the part of the
individual - I mean, real WORK. And it is going to take them some
TIME. The true nature of this is 100 times more complicated than what
scholars have been used to. This also means that it will require
several new books on the subject to detail it all.
So, that you somehow EXPECT that this can be explained in a few posted
messages is absolutely ridiculous. I just want you to know this and to
be aware of this fact.
However, that is not to say that I have not already made a lot of this
information available online. You can find a lot of it at the URLs
that I have been posting and in my online forum. I even teach an
online class on the subject.
Cheers!
RRoman Piso
> Katherine Tredwell wrote:
> > pisoc...@yahoo.com (RRoman Piso) wrote in message news:<ce86c725.02090...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Has anybody written up a debunk of this wack's ranting?
>
> He hasn't posted anything to look up. The real name of Josephus was XXXX
> Piso. It isn't in the records so it is secret knowledge. He uses secret
> sources as he has disclosed to source.
>
> They are his assertions. He bears the burden of producing the evidence.
> He provided zero evidence.
>
> Whacko alert!
If you took the time to understand this you would know that the first
important thing to understand is that history did not happen in the
way in which you have been taught that it had. This is important to
know because this means that the KIND of evidence that we may find is
that which the authors of that history itself WANTED to leave us.
This, in turn means that we are totally dependent upon THEM for
whatever written or literary evidence there is. We cannot expect
anything other than what THEY WANTED to leave us. Is this hard to
understand somehow?
And we can only have the evidence in the FORM in which THEY chose to
leave it. We have no say in that. No control whatsoever. That, is a
part of what makes it evidence though. Because there is a PATTERN.
When you really start to think about this and use your brain, you
begin to realize that in order NOT to get caught at what they were
doing, they HAD to do this exactly as they had. They could NOT make it
obvious. And this is why this makes sense.
But it takes a lot of compiled information and observation of a number
of facts to understand that this is the WAY in which this all actually
happened. And that really can only be done at this point in the form
of books. That is why I am writing as many as I can to detail each
aspect of this. Read what I have written VERY carefully. I AM
explaining this to you, but you need to be listening.
Trotter960
>Since the true nature of history and the >creation of the Christian
>religion is far more complicated than >scholars have believed it to be
>thus far....
Huh? Did you say that the advent of Xianity was more complicated than scholars
could discover? If scholars haven't yet discovered
it, why do you think you know more than they?
Trotter960
>
>If you took the time to understand this you would know that the first
>important thing to understand is that history did not happen in the
>way in which you have been taught that it had. This is important to
>know because this means that the KIND of evidence that we may find is
>that which the authors of that history itself WANTED to leave us.
So history is coded and you alone know how to read it aright?
Nah.
Matt Giwer
That isn't even a creative cop out.
--
If promoting democracy in the Mideast is the reason
for supporting Israel, why has the US always supported
dictators in the Mideast?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1716
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3D744384...@tampabay.rr.com>...
>
>>RRoman Piso wrote:
>>
>>>Hello Neville,
>>>
>>>Well, you still appear to be laboring under the assumption that the
>>>Old Classical Scholarship is correct and that the New Classical
>>>Scholarship is not.
>>
>> You apparently believe mere assertion constitutes scholarship.
>>
>> Care to post better than you have?
>
>
> Since the true nature of history and the creation of the Christian
> religion is far more complicated than scholars have believed it to be
> thus far, there is no way that it can all be laid out in a few posts
> online.
At least you are not claiming to be in the scholar category.
--
Hundreds of hours of press coverage on the separation of the twins
who were joined at the head and not one use of the word Siamese.
I missed another staff meeting. BTW, did the Siamese really
complain about the word?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1718
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3D7418D6...@tampabay.rr.com>...
>
>>Katherine Tredwell wrote:
>>
>>>pisoc...@yahoo.com (RRoman Piso) wrote in message news:<ce86c725.02090...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>
>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Has anybody written up a debunk of this wack's ranting?
>>
>> He hasn't posted anything to look up. The real name of Josephus was XXXX
>>Piso. It isn't in the records so it is secret knowledge. He uses secret
>>sources as he has disclosed to source.
>>
>> They are his assertions. He bears the burden of producing the evidence.
>>He provided zero evidence.
>>
>> Whacko alert!
>
>
> If you took the time to understand this you would know that the first
> important thing to understand is that history did not happen in the
> way in which you have been taught that it had. This is important to
> know because this means that the KIND of evidence that we may find is
> that which the authors of that history itself WANTED to leave us.
You posted nothing which constitutes evidence. Care to post some?
--
Memory hole: Barak paused negotiations to run for
Prime Minister. Sharon won and declared Arafat had
canceled negotiations.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1722
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3D7443F5...@tampabay.rr.com>...
>
>>RRoman Piso wrote:
>>
>>>Hello Katherine,
>>
>>
>>
>>>As I have said before, what we have discovered means that history did
>>>not happen in the way in which people have been told it had. This is
>>>important to note. And it means that the conclusions that were reached
>>>by those who did not know this are incorrect.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I do not see persons such as yourself making any CASE against these
>>>claims.
>>
>> You made the claims. You bear the burden of evidence to support them.
>>Produce the evidence or give it up.
>
>
> Hello Matt, yes, I hear you. But what you are not doing is following
> up on what I have said. You are NOT doing the WORK that is involved in
> learning just why what I been saying is true.
You bear the burden of presentation of the evidence. I am under no
obligation to do a damn thing. You have to get my interest before I
would consider any effort. To do that you must provide evidence in
support or your assertions.
Assertions are meaningless.
--
Memory hole: Saddam Hussein was hired by the CIA
to assassinate designated enemies of the US. He
was good at his job.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1725
RRoman Piso
> RRoman Piso wrote:
> > Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3D7443F5...@tampabay.rr.com>...
> >
> >>RRoman Piso wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hello Katherine,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>As I have said before, what we have discovered means that history did
> >>>not happen in the way in which people have been told it had. This is
> >>>important to note. And it means that the conclusions that were reached
> >>>by those who did not know this are incorrect.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I do not see persons such as yourself making any CASE against these
> >>>claims.
> >>
> >> You made the claims. You bear the burden of evidence to support them.
> >>Produce the evidence or give it up.
> >
> >
> > Hello Matt, yes, I hear you. But what you are not doing is following
> > up on what I have said. You are NOT doing the WORK that is involved in
> > learning just why what I been saying is true.
>
> You bear the burden of presentation of the evidence. I am under no
> obligation to do a damn thing. You have to get my interest before I
> would consider any effort. To do that you must provide evidence in
> support or your assertions.
>
> Assertions are meaningless.
So are ASSUMPTIONS. Especially when they are used to base conclusions
upon. And that is, as I have explained, exactly what has happened in
the traditional study of history so far. And this is why the burden of
proof is not on me. As I had said, that which was first promoted as
the way that history had happened has never been proven. It has only
been 'accepted' and that is NOT the same as having been proven. The
tradition view of how history had happened makes at least 6 major
assumptions and bases all conclusions upon those. That is NOT real
scholarship. That is fake scholarship.
And even though in reality the burden is still upon those who have
made the first assertions (traditional view of history), I AM giving
proof that it really happened in the way in which I have stated. I
have no problem at all in providing proof of that. But I do not see
anyone giving proof that it really happened in the way which has been
traditionally accepted. No one has proven that those 6 major
assumptions are actually true and/or valid. All they have done was to
ASSUME that they are.
Roman (The Roman Piso Forum)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
RRoman Piso
> RRoman Piso wrote:
> > Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3D7443F5...@tampabay.rr.com>...
SOME COMMENTARY ON PLINY THE YOUNGER'S PANEGYRICUS - PART XXXXXIII
[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book II of II] (Wed.
09/11/02, Roman Piso)
Now, if we can just remember back a bit in our study, we had discussed
the fact that Pliny says, "It will go down through the ages…" (Book
II, pg. 441), which, over time appears to have turned into the more
familiar, "It will go down in history." Where Pliny says this, he is
actually referring to the religion which he had a part in creating -
and promoting!
Pliny remarks upon how they (the Roman authors and creators of the
Christian religion) were building their own everlasting (literary)
memorial to themselves - one that would last and stand even when stone
monuments would crumble to dust. He says, "Arches and statues, even
altars and temples must all decay, to be lost to oblivion, for
posterity to neglect or revile…" (Book II, pg. 449-451). He is being
very honest and revealing. Especially when he says, "… even altars and
temples (churches were then still called temples) must all decay…"
What he is really admitting is that even Christianity must some day
end. And he was one of those who had worked very hard to create it!
But it is HOW it will end that is hinted at elsewhere; and that is by
people discovering that it was created deliberately to deceive the
populace so that a few royals could enjoy a life of luxury and so that
they could keep the practice of slavery intact within the Roman Empire
- and later, the rest of the world for nearly 2,000 years.
He also says, "Many deeds may be admirable though bad men do them, but
a man can only win praise for himself if he possesses true virtue"
(Book II, pg. 451). Here we see Pliny pushing the 'virtues' which he
has defined in his own works. 'Virtues' which are those that would be
required if Christianity were to succeed. And he is saying that he,
along with the other creators of Christianity were in their time (and
after) admired - but that in reality, they were really BAD men. And as
was said, he goes on in the rest of the line to further push the idea
of "true virtue," which, of course, consists of all of the 'virtuous'
ideological concepts that Pliny had constructed in his texts - as well
as those also being promoted by other authors of his time; which
happen to be consistent with those found in the New Testament!
And Pliny makes mention of "cloaks" more than once and the way in
which he does so makes one wonder if this is because he is alluding
not only to the several cloaks which are mentioned in the New
Testament, but also of the fact that the truth itself, both in history
and in the New Testament was 'cloaked' or hidden from view for most
people (Ref. Matt. 5:40; Luke 6:29; John 15:22; 2 Timothy 4:13; 1
Thes. 2:5; 1 Peter 2:16). His phrase here is, "… a soldier's cloak…"
This can have several meanings, but it appears that is an allusion to
the fact that Arrius Piso was a military man (as a Roman general) and
who, may have been considered 'a soldier'. Perhaps the allusion was to
him (Arrius Piso) as one of those who left his cloak behind, etc. in
the New Testament (Book II, pg. 453).
Another thing which has been noted is the fact that there area several
examples of ancient authors making comments, references or alluding to
far off lands; sometimes saying that they were across the sea. Pliny
is no exception. He says here, "… carried victory to lands unknown"
(Book II, pg. 453). The 'Victory' that he is speaking of is the
'winged Victory' of the Roman Empire, which stood at the top of the
Roman standards in the form of an eagle. In other words, the Roman
legions were sent on missions to investigate far off lands across the
sea. Pliny says more elsewhere, as we may note and examine further in
later studies. And other Roman authors also make mention of such
expeditions made by the Roman Emperors who sent out legions to
investigate, find and perhaps conquer people in far-off and unknown
lands - across the sea.
Here, once again, Pliny alludes to "A&O" of the New Testament (Alpha
and Omega), by saying "…whether beginning or ending (their reigns)…"
(Book II, pg. 455). "A" and "O," that is, Alpha and Omega at the
beginning and end is an allusion to Arrius Piso as his name begins
with A (Alpha) and ends with O (Omega).
And also once again, Pliny tells us in the only way that he could
under the circumstances, that Trajan actually DID co-rule with Nerva.
He does so by saying, "You (Trajan) were in fact emperor when you
entered your second one (consulship), but were still (also) serving
under another emperor…" (Book II, pg. 455). The Loeb footnote here
says: "Cf. 8.3-4. Pliny speaks in exaggerated terms: Trajan had
released the titles of 'Caesar', 'Imperator' and 'Germanicus' on his
adoption, but was never joint emperor with Nerva." Well, those who
have not observed and examined this area of history as we have would
never be able to see or understand all of the things which we do and
which they have missed - unless we point them out, explain them and
educate those people to the true nature of those histories. And thus,
this is why we do this work. So that others may know what we have
already known for some time now.
RP (The Roman Piso Forum)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
Matt Giwer
If you knew what you were talking about you would not be talking about
proof. You would be providing evidence.
You are not providing either.
I suggest you learn the elementary tools of reason.
--
Greg Stilson is George Bush.
__ The Iron Webmaster, 1898
Roger Pearse
Hello Richard,
I've seen a number of your posts on this subject, most of them
presuming some piece of work you've already done, as this one does.
What I would like to see is a full statement of your position,
presuming nothing, from the start. As you say yourself, one can't
really start with these isolated pieces of text in usenet, and I would
like to evaluate what you have to say from the beginning.
Is there a 'fundamental' and authoritative text for this Piso thesis
somewhere on the 'net that I can look at? You know that the idea
seems on the face of it ridiculous to many people - but then I don't
know that I've seen you state the core idea in full, and why it should
be believed.
Can you help?
BTW please cc the answer to my email - I'm fading in and out of usenet
at the moment, but it doesn't mean I'm not interested.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
RRoman Piso
Hello Roger, thank you for your sincere message on the subject matter.
I think that it will be a few years before enough information about
this CAN be posted online. No one will take all of the time and
trouble to write what amounts to several books on this (years of
sacrifice and dedication) and then just give it all away. I know that
I cannot afford to do that as in order to do that work that I have, I
have had to life a very meager life and I have sacrificed a lot to get
to the point that I am at now in terms of knowledge about this. Also,
the reason that this is being shared with the public at all is because
it is a necessary precaution: so that it cannot be destroyed or taken
away from the general public and because the public has the right to
know the truth IF they truly desire it as it has not been available to
them until I and Abelard Reuchlin made it available.
Let me put this into realistic perspective for you. I and others have
written books about this. However, we cannot afford to have done all
of that work and not get paid for it. We have had expenses in doing
this which need to be paid. So, for some time the books will be the
main source of information about this as we must protect the
copyrights to the information in our books. Though we realize that the
public has the right to know, that does not mean that we can afford to
give it all away for free. And, this is NOT the way in which we have
planned to educate the public to this. The way that this will happen
is via a change in academia itself. Once that has happened, many other
books will be written and then the information will become available
widely so that it WILL then be found on the Internet for free. But
that will be some years from now.
So, we offer what we do for free for those who WANT to learn about
this. What you see on the Internet in terms of our research has taken
many years to amass as has the knowledge that we have about this which
allows us to write books about it. What people do not understand is
that we are people too, we have bills to pay. And we have thought this
to be so important to the world that we had willingly given up so much
more than you can even begin to imagine, even several years out of our
own lives. Time that we can never get back. But we gladly did this for
the sake of humanity. To understand what we have learned takes a lot
of time and dedication. It is not the same as many other things which
people learn about, because this is 'new ground' - it is something
that we had to learn about by trial and error as we went along. It is
what the general public has NOT been taught before and involves
learning about new concepts which are not familiar to most people.
Considering all of this, I suggest that if you or anyone else wishes
to learn about this that you gather up what information you can from
the Internet and then get whatever books you can about this and then
dive into it. Do not expect to understand it overnight. It usually
takes people a year or so of intense study before they have a working
knowledge of it.
Roman (The Roman Piso Forum)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
Matt Giwer
Any answer over three words is no.
--
The angel of the Lord said, "Behold I come to bring you
good news." Unfortunately what he really said was, "I am
from heaven and am here to help you."
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1751
Roger Pearse
> roger_...@yahoo.co.uk (Roger Pearse) wrote in message news:<3a88eeea.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > Is there a 'fundamental' and authoritative text for this Piso thesis
> > somewhere on the 'net that I can look at? You know that the idea
> > seems on the face of it ridiculous to many people - but then I don't
> > know that I've seen you state the core idea in full, and why it should
> > be believed.
> >
> > Can you help?
[snip both of us for brevity]
> Considering all of this, I suggest that if you or anyone else wishes
> to learn about this that you gather up what information you can from
> the Internet and then get whatever books you can about this and then
> dive into it. Do not expect to understand it overnight. It usually
> takes people a year or so of intense study before they have a working
> knowledge of it.
>
> Roman (The Roman Piso Forum)
> http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
Thank you for this note, which was very gracious, albeit not very
helpful. I've had a look at your forum, and a brief internet search.
If I understand things correctly, the foundational text for the 'Piso'
idea is
Abelard REUCHLIN, The True Authorship of the New Testament: Arius
Calpurnius Piso; Pen Name Flavius Josephus..., Reuchlin Foundation
Pamphlet (1979). 27 pages, 2nd printing 1986.
Is this correct? Is there any earlier statement of the idea? I'd be
grateful for a bibliography of later stuff - I saw at least one
pamphlet existed from 2000. What is the best way to get hold of this
material?
Interestingly there are *no* entries for anyone of this name in the
Library of Congress catalogue (I was hoping for more precise
bibliographic details).
There is an interesting article of which excerpts are online by Revilo
P. Oliver which tells me that Reuchlin is a pen-name adopted by an
unnamed Jewish writer. Do you know anything about this?
John Kelley
Doug Weller
wrote:
>Try this article,
>http://www.tektonics.org/pisocake.html
Thanks John, nice to find something responding to this flake.
I can add one thing to the pot -- this fictional Piso account claims
"The number 666 can also be expressed as VI VI VI. If you take the three
V's and form a triangle, and then take the three I's and form another
triangle, and then overlap the two "against" each other you will form a
Star of David. This is yet another way that the number 666 points to the
Jews."
This is anachronistic, as the Star of David wasn't Jewish symbol then in
the way it is today.
Doug
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Roger Pearse
Thank you for this link, which contains more information than I had
seen so far. I hadn't got around to looking to see if J.P. Holding
had reviewed the idea. An entertaining read, as always, which
certainly highlights some of the issues, even if it does take the
piso. Still, no-one would call J.P. a piso-artist... <groan>
One interesting aspect the whole Piso theory is the curious
secretiveness of its proponents. It seems to trade on what they
*won't* tell you. Also, while the theory isn't laid out online,
apparently RRomanPiso (pseudonym) has books to sell, although I'm not
sure what. Likewise the theory's author, "Abelard Reuchlin"
(apparently also a pseudonym) only makes his self-published pamphlet
available for a fee. Ummm...
I did look up Abelard Reuchlin in the Library of Congress catalogue,
but there were no entries at all. Not a professional scholar, one is
led to conclude (unless professional scholars can retain their status
in the US without writing any books).
But really we need a calm and unemotional FAQ on the subject. Does
anyone actually have a copy of the original Reuchlin pamphlet? I
really don't want to try to buy one, as doing so from the UK is going
to be difficult.
Trotter960
>Try this article,
>http://www.tektonics.org/pisocake.html
Save that website. Piso will no doubt be back.
Trotter960
>This is anachronistic, as the Star of David wasn't Jewish symbol then in
>the way it is today.
Yup. The Star of David was adopted by Jews just a couple-few centuries ago.
Katherine Tredwell
> http://www.tektonics.org/pisocake.html
Exactly what I was looking for! Many thanks for this.
Whattaya know, someone really did take the trouble. . . .
Katherine Tredwell
RRoman Piso
Katherine,
That article is so stupid and uninformed! What a laugh!
The author even is so ignorant as to not be aware of two major revolts
of the Jews AFTER the year 73 C.E.! What you and people such as the
author of this article are ignoring is that that the claim that we are
making is that history did not happen as people have been taught. And
THAT is why it is necessary to also VIEW it much differently. Here is
what is involved...
IF history happened in a much different way, that means that there
should be at least SOME evidence to support that contention. It also
may mean that the TYPE of evidence will be different. Now, IF it
happened as we claim it did, that means that the people who were in
power in Rome and the Empire were in complete control of all that was
being written for public consumption within the Roman Empire - no one
could write books except for royals. And IF this is so, then that
means that those who WERE in power could not say what was actually
going on; at least not in an outright, forthright way. They could NOT
be obvious about what they were doing. And, in fact, being in control
as they were, it was THEIR CHOICE as to not only WHAT kind of literary
"evidence" they would leave, but also WHETHER they would leave any
evidence AT ALL!
They chose to leave evidence, but ONLY the kind that would not be
obvious and betray what they were doing within their own time. This is
the ONLY WAY that they could succeed without being found out about in
their own time, as IF they were discovered for what they were doing
they would have been killed and overthrown. Because they were in
complete control of the KIND of evidence that they would leave, they
chose the kind that would be the most difficult to find and which
would remain hidden for the longest amount of time. They deliberately
made it appear as it DOES because they knew that when this came out
that it would have to be explained in the greatest detail and that
until that was done, people would be divided with regards to being
convinced that it was true.
They knew this THEN. That is why they made the evidence look as it
does and give it in the WAYS that they did. It is not MY choice nor
that of any other scholar or researcher as to the WAY in which things
from ancient times were left to us.
In effect, you are attacking me and other researchers simply for being
the messanger... because you do not happen to like the message. I did
not make the evidence, it is NOT the kind that "I" would prefer
either. But it is the KIND that IS consistent with what actually
happened. And that, is what I am trying to get people to understand.
The people who wrote the history of the time in which Christianity was
being created were ingenious. Much more so than most of the scholars
working in this area are today. And the fact of the matter is that it
takes a genius to recognize and fully understand the work of another
genius.
This is the real reason why you have such difficulty understanding
this.
Cheers!
RRoman Piso
Hello again Roger,
Unfortunately, one cannot just do a websearch and get all of this
information as anyone can make a website and there are now many sites
out there that make mention of the Roman Piso family and/or such
research; but they are NOT official sites of the New Classial
Scholarship. I have seen an article which someone had written which is
critical of the New Classical Scholarship, but he never calls us that
and he uses information which was obtained from sites which are NOT
offical New Classical Scholarship sites. I will be writing a reply to
that article in order to detail many of the mistakes that he made so
that people may have that for future reference.
Also, you will find that there are many rumors which are circulating
about all of this. So, I would advise you to proceed with caution.
Now, as to who Abelard Reuchlin is, as a scholar that should make no
difference what-so-ever. The reason? Scholars look at the information,
not the PERSON. It is the information which is important. A name
and/or any other information about a person should be general and used
in the context of that person being an author or for a reference to
certain material. Some authors of information regarding this subject
did have to use pennames in order to escape the attacks of religious
zealots - that is true. So, I would not press that point much.
I might suggest that you write to Reuchlin and send him a little extra
for shipping costs - he may send you some extra material besides the
booklet. Just make it clear that you are keen to learn about this and
he will do what he can.
Cheers!
RRoman Piso
> http://www.tektonics.org/pisocake.html
Now, you are the fellow who posted that ridiculous link. The person
who wrote that article is so off the mark that it is ludicrous!
As I told Roger... I will be writing a reply to that article and I
think that the point that I want to stress most is that he appears to
have gotten a great deal of his information simply by doing a
websearch - which is a stupid thing to do in the first place; as IF
there is enough of this information out on the Net to begin with! No,
there will FIRST have to be many books out on the subject so that it
can all be detailed as it should be; and THEN, after a few years, when
people DO have those books they can quote from them and you will see
info on the Net that will actually answer all of those questions.
At the present time, you have many sites which are NOT official New
Classical Scholarship sites; and so, there IS a lot of 'junk'
information which people are mistaking for the real thing. It is no
wonder that people have gotten the impression that this is not serious
scholarship when there are sites out there like that of David Icke
that USES our research to make it appear that this somehow the work of
alien reptile-like creatures! No, you cannot simply do a websearch and
think that every site that you find is a qualified official site of
the N.C.S. If you did that, you WOULD get the impression that I see
that many of you have.
Cheers!
Katherine Tredwell
> ktre...@ou.edu (Katherine Tredwell) wrote in message news:<a3e43bd8.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > jke...@zoomnet.net (John Kelley) wrote in message news:<ce9e95d1.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Try this article,
> > > http://www.tektonics.org/pisocake.html
> >
> > Exactly what I was looking for! Many thanks for this.
> >
> > Whattaya know, someone really did take the trouble. . . .
> >
> > Katherine Tredwell
>
> Katherine,
>
> That article is so stupid and uninformed! What a laugh!
[...]
Never mind what you think of the arguments. What I would like to
hear from you is: does the page mischaracterize what you say or
put words in your mouth?
Katherine Tredwell
Matt Giwer
You have made the assertion. Provide the physical evidence to support
your position.
> Cheers!
Cheers is a bar.
--
Bush's one redeeming virtue is he make
Dan Quayle look good.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1880
Matt Giwer
> jke...@zoomnet.net (John Kelley) wrote in message news:<ce9e95d1.02091...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Try this article,
>>http://www.tektonics.org/pisocake.html
>
>
> Now, you are the fellow who posted that ridiculous link. The person
> who wrote that article is so off the mark that it is ludicrous!
You have made the assertion. You have failed to produce the physical
evidence. You made it up. It is as simple as that.
> As I told Roger... I will be writing a reply to that article and I
> think that the point that I want to stress most is that he appears to
> have gotten a great deal of his information simply by doing a
> websearch - which is a stupid thing to do in the first place; as IF
> there is enough of this information out on the Net to begin with! No,
> there will FIRST have to be many books out on the subject so that it
> can all be detailed as it should be; and THEN, after a few years, when
> people DO have those books they can quote from them and you will see
> info on the Net that will actually answer all of those questions.
Post the physical evidence.
> At the present time, you have many sites which are NOT official New
> Classical Scholarship sites; and so, there IS a lot of 'junk'
> information which people are mistaking for the real thing. It is no
> wonder that people have gotten the impression that this is not serious
> scholarship when there are sites out there like that of David Icke
> that USES our research to make it appear that this somehow the work of
> alien reptile-like creatures! No, you cannot simply do a websearch and
> think that every site that you find is a qualified official site of
> the N.C.S. If you did that, you WOULD get the impression that I see
> that many of you have.
Post the physical evidence.
--
Little known fact. W. Bush had a major role in a
Hollywood movie, The Dead Zone.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1882
Matt Giwer
Post the physical evidence of your assertions.
Post even physical evidence that there are OFFICIAL sites of New
Classical Scholarship.
Post even even physical evidenc there is something credible called New
Classical Scholarship.
Why not peddle your snake oil where there are people ignorant of ancient
history?
Physical evidence is not everything, it is the only thing.
--
If you do not believe Uri Geller can bend spoons
you must be antisemitic.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1886
RRoman Piso
> http://www.tektonics.org/pisocake.html
Hello John, I have written a reply to that article. But it is too long
to fit fully here in one posted message so I will have to do it in
sections. Here is the first part:
In answer to James Patrick Holding's article (by Roman Piso,
09/22/02):
"On the Authorship of the NT by the (gag) Roman
Piso Family"*
by James Patrick Holding**
*Herein referred to as "the article."
**Referred to in this response as "the author."
Mr. James Patrick Holding took the time to write an article about what
he thought of the New Classical Scholarship, which is what I am
replying to here. He did not even know that what he was referring to
is called the New Classical Scholarship, and did not even bother to
learn anything about it before writing his article. Being ignorant of
so much about the subject, you will see as you read on just how many
things he has gotten incorrect. His comments from the article in which
he had authored is seen here in quotes, whereas my reply to his
comments are not. He begins by sayingů
"Many years back when I used to pick up copies of The Humanist for
cheap laughs, I recall seeing a small advertisement among the
back-matter ads (for things like atheist joke books that offered such
howlers as, "What would you name a Christian dairy in the Holy Land?";
"Cheeses of Nazareth!") that claimed to provide undeniable,
irrefutable proof that Josephus had authored the NT. The offerer was
the "Abelard Reuchlin Foundation." Well, these guys are still around,
and the nuts have not fallen far from the tree."
The first thing that one will note is that like many others who
criticize the New Classical Scholarship, he does not call us that.
Why? Because he is ignorant, and does not realize the difference
between whatever he may find on the Internet regarding the Roman Piso
family and who the actual authorities on the subject are. And his
attitude is NOT serious, it is glib. He is pandering using humor
instead of actually knowledge. Secondly, right from the start, he has
resorted to name-calling. This is NOT scholarly. People who cannot
make an intelligent case for something often resort to the only
tactics that they can in such situations; they make fun of either the
postulation or the person/s presenting them - or both.
"It would be an overstatement to say that no one takes this group --
whose overall thesis is that the NT was authored by members of an
aristocratic Roman family to keep slaves under control and submissive
-- seriously. In fact I can find only one writer who has even bothered
to address their claims in any detail, and that ironically enough was
someone on the other side of the lunatic fringe, Nazi Christ-myther
Revilo P. Oliver. All Oliver did was address a couple of technical
claims they made (apparently their thesis ignores that the Romans used
very few of what we would call "first names"); as for the rest, he
didn't
consider it worth his time."
Here is another place where the author shows his ignorance. He uses
what he thinks he knows about ancient Roman times as he has been
taught by the OLD Classical Scholarship and applies that to the whole
NEW view of that history. This is a mistake that many people have made
when trying to criticize things that apply to the New Classical
Scholarship. They do not bother to even learn the OTHER way in which
history actually happened; but instead ASSUME that it happened in the
way in which they have been used to hearing about. What we are saying
is that history happened in an entirely different way from what people
are used to thinking it had - and such people as the author of this
article do not bother to learn what that other way IS. How can anyone
make valid judgments about anything if they do not FIRST learn about
it? This is something that is basic. Yet, he and others who criticize
the N.C.S. all make this same mistake.
Also, here, the author has said that "the Romans used very few of what
we would call "first names." This is patently ignorant of the truth.
We (the N.C.S.) have discovered so many things that the O.C.S. still
is unaware of that it is not funny. The royal Romans were experts at
creating facades; they had to in order to retain power and keep the
common people from revolting to the point of overthrowing them. This
is how ignorant those of the O.C.S. are: they still do not make the
distinction between the Roman royals and the Roman common people. They
think that the same 'rules' applied to both just the same! How
ridiculous.
The illusion of the usage of only three names for each person was a
part of what was used to achieve a number of things for the Roman
royals. For one thing, with this practice in place on a superficial
level, the royal Romans could easily tell who was actually Royal and
who was NOT. This is because the rule did NOT apply to royals as
royals could inherit name/titles from their ancestors and could amass
a number of names. For what purpose? To use as alias names for the
works which they may write as authors. This is because ONLY royals
were able to write literary works for public consumption. Common
people were not allowed to. This kept the only real means of mass
communication in the hands of those who were in power. Also, when the
royal Romans (and other royals) would meet at important gatherings,
they needed to have ways in which they could tell that a person was
actually royal - so that no common person could learn of the things
that the royals were doing. One of the things that was used to tell if
a person was actually royal was to require a genealogy or family tree
of each person who may be admitted to these royal assemblies. And
there were other precautions used as well. In addition to the
genealogy, each royal was to give their FULL legal royal name. Since
the royals had more than the three names and since those names were
derived from their ancestors, this could be checked against the
genealogy that each royal had provided. IF a person tried to get into
one of these royal assemblies and had only the three names, they would
know immediately that the person was NOT royal.
"What few other challenges to these ideas I have found have been to
merely describe the theory in one word or less; i.e., "bunkum". I also
found a message board, with a message from a member of a Classics
Department at Calvin College, which said that he had not looked at the
Piso site on angelfire.com, but did say: "...I often use
"angelfire.com" sites to illustrate to my students the danger and
indeed the absurdity of using websites indiscriminately when they
write their term papers. Some of the pages there are real doozies."
Here again, the author is appealing to the Old Classical Scholarship
instead of actually learning about the New Classical Scholarship. Now
this is interesting. Because WHAT is this really saying? It is being
adverse to those who are not spending money just to have a website. It
is saying that because a person or group has not paid out money for a
website that immediately we must ASSUME that their information is
invalid or untrue. That is ignorant and biased towards good, dedicated
people who either cannot afford to pay for a website or who cannot see
paying for the same thing that they can get for free. Granted, this
does mean that several of those websites using the free webpages may
be younger people who do not have money to spend on their own
websites; but that should not negate the fact that there are in fact
very good websites with valuable information also using those free
webpages.
Besides this there are at least two major reasons for people making
use on free or web-based webpages: (1) Anonymity. Making a webpage
using a local ISP service could put people in danger of being found by
religious zealots or anyone else who may try to track them down in
order to harm or kill them. When there are still so few people who
understand this important subject fully - that is just a chance which
we cannot afford to take. (2) Cost. I have heard arguments that claim
that a) this is just about making money, and b) using a "free" site
(somehow) makes the content illegitimate or invalid. A website that
costs money to keep and maintain means that money to pay for it has to
come from SOMEWHERE. In order to find out all of the information that
I have about this I had to live for many years much like a monk; which
means that I had to forego making anything other than a meager living.
It has cost me many more things than I care to think about. Because of
this, I cannot justify the expense of paying for a website currently,
especially when I can do the very same thing for free. Posting
information using a free website does NOT invalidate it; that is
merely a bias of some people. And the truth of the matter is that they
are in many instances using that as a method of expediency. A way to
skip over a lot of material, as there IS a vast amount of information
on the Internet. The way that I look at it is that there are valuable
nuggets of information out there on the Internet and sometimes in
order to FIND those, one must make the effort to do so and that means
not limiting ones' self to only the sites in which people have paid to
put up.
Many sites that are paid sites do not have valid or genuine
information and in fact were paid for just to promote certain ideas
and/or to make some things appear to be true which are not; they are
made slick and glossy with all kinds of bells and whistlesů but which
are really only a lot of hot air. I would be suspicious of sites that
are "all dressed up" and expensive looking as that could indicate that
there could be some special interest backing and/or promoting that
site.
"And another classics scholar from Penn said: "There's been a lively
run of this on the sci.classics newsgroup. The short form of this is
that the Piso family is responsible for all secular and sacred
Greco-Roman-Christian history, all part of a vast goof performed by
them on unsuspecting modern scholars. It reads like a huge
collaborative parody of Leo Strauss composed by Borges, Nabokov, and
Eco, all under the influence of something they got from Hunter
Thompson."
That is simply one ignorant person quoting another. Neither of them
know anything at all about the New Classical Scholarship or any area
of it. They actually do not want it to exist or to be true, and that
is why they do not want to admit that it IS real, genuine and will
replace the idea of history as they have learned about it. They do not
want it to even be possible. But the fact of the matter is that it is
not only possible, it is more probable than the way in which they
think and have been taught to believe.
"That's about as seriously as the scholars seem to take it. Skeptics
of a more rational bent may also find this analysis by a member of
Farrell Till's errancy forum interesting. Their summary: "This is one
of the most obviously laughable 'theories' I have seen on the web.""
Well, of course, if you do not consider a theory or another way in
which something may have happened, you are doing the same thing as
putting your head in the sand. You are simply ignoring it. That does
NOT mean that it is not actually true; it only means that some people
do not want to admit that it is true. This will NOT go away and those
people will come to discover that they are among those kind of people
who in past generations did not consider any number of things which
were new and different. Think of any great new discovery which has
been made in the past few centuries. You will find that there were
always those who were adverse to those as well - until they realized
that THEY were wrong.
"Well, that's enough generality. Shall we back that up with
particulars? Here are thematic statements from one favoring site: "We
Jews and Church Leaders have known since the beginning of Christianity
that it was synthesized by the Roman Piso family for the purpose of
maintaining control over the masses and to placate slaves. And, this
is why we Jews are the "Chosen People" and why we have endured so much
for so many years; we are witnesses to the lie. The New Testament, the
Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso
(pronounced Peso w/ long "E") family (a), who were Roman aristocrats.
The New Testament and all the characters in it--Jesus, all the
Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and John
the Baptist--are all fictional. Judaism's ethics and morality were
incompatible with the hallowed Roman institution of slavery on which
the aristocracy fed, lived and ruled. They feared that Judaism would
become the chief religion of the empire...Repeatedly, religious-minded
Judaean zealots were staging insurrections against the Herodian rulers
of Judaea who were Piso's wife's relations. Piso wished to strengthen
his wife's family's control of the Judaeans. The Pisos searched for a
solution to the two problems. They found it in the Jewish holy books,
which were the foundation both for the rapid spread of the religion
and for the zealot's refusal to be governed by Rome's puppets. The
Pisos mocked, but marveled at, the Jewish belief in their holy books.
Therefore, they felt a new "Jewish" book would be the ideal method to
pacify the Judaeans and strengthen their in-laws' control of the
country."
Yes, from what I read above, this is from a portion of Abelard
Reuchlin's booklet 'The True Authorship of the New Testament'. What is
the author of this anti-N.C.S. article saying? If he is saying that
what is said does not make sense to him as a student of the O.C.S.,
then YES. I agree. But as an O.C.S. he is lacking all of the knowledge
of the N.C.S. and therefore, this is WHY he does not understand this.
"That's actually enough for me to just turn the fan on and let the
remnants fly off at will, but a few readers have asked about these
folks over the last few years, so for satisfaction we'd like to put
together a miscellany of claims from this camp and give them a good
ribbing. You are advised to wear some sort of restraining device to
keep your innards from losing cohesion while you laugh. The following
claims are derived from various websites supporting this theory, which
is so wacky that I assume even the Trilemma critic will not complain
over a lack of links."
Real scholars do not laugh at new ideas. They investigate them and try
to understand them. Even IF a new idea sounds implausible, IF it may
have as much impact upon ALL of the scholarship in this area, it
demands that it be investigated fully by those who seek to criticize
it; for what is the value of criticizing something that you really do
not understand? That is of no value to anyone. And again, this is NOT
what true scholars do. This is an entirely different view of ancient
history, one in which the author of that article has not bothered to
learn about before passing judgment. What I see more of than anything
else from people who (without bothering to learn anything about the
subject) criticize the New Classical Scholarship is that they are
LAZY. They do not want to do what is necessary to understand it and
even thought I have told these people time and time again that IF they
really want to criticize it, they NEED to do their homework and learn
about it so that they CAN make a valid argument about it. At least do
so either to prove it or disprove it - but don't be irresponsible and
just assume to know anything about it without doing the work that is
necessary in order to understand it properly. This is a whole other
view, a NEW theory. Even if at first glance you do not agree with it,
it MUST be considered at the very least. This is the very same way
that most of the greatest changes have occurred. A new idea is
introduced and some are receptive to it, while others are not. But
nonetheless, once those new ideas have been explored fully, they are
shown to be either valid or invalid. This is what the scientific
method is all about.
"Let's start with a foundational claim from these folks: "The member
of the Piso family who started it all was Arrius Calpurnius Piso. He
was the Roman general who captured the city of Jerusalem for Rome in
66 CE (Common Era), and who, collaborating with Titus (a relative)
destroyed the temple there in 70 CE. In fact, both Zela (religious
center of Pontus) and Jerusalem were the sites of temples that were
destroyed: Julius Caesar destroyed the one in Zela in 47 BCE."
The author here is quoting from a site which is NOT an official New
Classical Scholarship site. Yet, he uses what is stated there against
the N.C.S. A ridiculous act for any serious scholar to do. The New
Classical Scholarship cannot be held responsible for what people
outside of it may say or do. Some of what is said by others may or may
not be correct. But ONLY an expert from the New Classical Scholarship
should be consulted for information about the Piso Project and subject
matter which is related to it.
"From here it is noted that this "Arrius" is none other than Flavius
Josephus himself, and the rollercoaster coasts on. But let's pause for
a moment, shall we? It seems rather curious that a Net search of the
name "Arrius Calpurnius Piso" turns up nothing but websites that
promote or support this theory."
This really shows how ignorant the author of this article really is.
He gets his information to criticize the N.C.S. from websearches! I
have explained to several people just this week that it is not
reasonable to expect to find enough information at this point in time
on the Internet about this subject as in order for that to happen
there first have to be several books out on the subject so that people
can quote from them and post that information! The books will be out
in the coming years and so that information will not find its way to
the Internet for a few years from now. But just because all of the
information is not on the Net currently does not mean that it is not
known, real and valid. It only means that at this point in time, one
must make use of the information that IS available in whatever form it
IS in now. If you cannot find the information on the Web, and there
are books or booklets available and you do not care to read them; then
you should refrain from making judgments about the subject until such
time as you DO have that information and are able to make a genuinely
reasonable criticism of the issue.
"The name (Arrius Piso) turns up nowhere on any site dedicated to
Roman history, Latin studies, or anywhere having to do with serious
scholarship. This is fairly telling, because the existence of this
chap seems to be a root for many facets of this theory: "Revelation
1:8 says "I am the Alpha and the Omega; the beginning and the ending,
saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the
Almighty." The name Arrius Calpurnius Piso begins with Alpha and ends
with Omega. Could this be another way of Jesus (the Lord) saying "I am
Arrius Piso."? A general rule is that you can substitute "Arrius Piso"
wherever the "Lord" is referred to in the NT."
There is just too much 'junk' information posted in this article by
the author for me to spend my time on as well as information that I
cannot affirm because it or parts of it are NOT the research of the
N.C.S. As I had said the author of this article just did a websearch
and did not care whether the site that he was referring to was an
official N.C.S. site or not. So, I will be snipping out some of that
excess so that I can address more important things here instead. It is
a waste of time for anyone to wade through such sloppy 'work'.
The author says that he cannot find the name "Arrius Piso" anywhere on
any site dedicated to Roman history, Latin studies or anywhere having
to do with serious (Old Classical) scholarship. Yes, that is true. So
what? The author was simply looking in the wrong place. He was
ignoring where the information IS about this and going to those who do
not have a clue! I have answered several posts, again, just this week,
on issues related to this particular statement. Here is what the
students of the Old Classical Scholarship have not been taught; there
was a difference between the Roman royals and the common people. Duh!
And this difference extended into many areas. The royals, for
instance, had their own language which existed WITHIN the language
which they used to produce works for public consumption. So, within
any given work from that time, one will find a superficial version
(which is what the O.C.S. works with) and another one which only the
royals could understand. And this, is one of the main reasons that the
Old Classical Scholarship can only get so far and why it reaches the
incorrect conclusions which is does. The Old Classical Scholarship
ONLY addresses the "common language" side of Roman history! They are
looking at it from the OUTSIDE looking in, instead of the other way
around! This is actually about ROYALS; what they did (as opposed to
what has been thought previously) and how they were able to accomplish
those things.
So, what if Arrius Piso's name is not mentioned in any outright
fashion in Roman history. He could not do that if what they were
working on was to succeed. That does not mean that his name is not
given somewhere in those histories; it could have been given in the
ONLY way in which he could give it - in a way in which it could be
hidden and not obvious. His name IS given (along with his alias names)
in many of the work of the time, but just not all together as one
name. As I have just said, they could not afford to do that. Even so,
the Jews of the time were witnesses to what was going on and they made
sure that his name could be verified as genuine and true. They put his
three main real names in the Talmud. So, with all of the evidence of
his name and actual existence (which has not been made public yet),
and given the fact of the verification which was given by the Jews,
there should be no doubt that he actually did exist. (see the
information posted in The Roman Piso Forum)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
"Another promoting site says, "...Vitellius took control over the
empire as emperor. He was killed soon afterwards, by Arrius Calpurnius
Piso." Hmm. Not according to Suetonius, who in The Twelve Caesars
records that Vitellius was killed by a group of soldiers who performed
various atrocities on him before throwing his body in the Tiber. No
"Arrius" makes as much as a bow."
Yes, he does! Suetonius DOES say that Arrius Piso killed Vitellius.
But he was using one of Arrius Piso's alias names to do so. And this,
is what the author does not understand. Suetonius says, "The officer
(official) who dispatched (killed) him was one Antonius Primus, a
native of Toulouse, and his boyhood nickname had been Becco
('rooster's beak')." Ref. Suetonius, 'The Twelve Caesars', Vitellius,
the last paragraph. Of course, the average person would not know this
or how to tell that Arrius Piso used that alias name let alone the
many other alias names he used. He used so many alias names in fact,
that we have yet to discover them all. Where did he get these alias
names? He was a royal and as such he had a 'birthright' to inherit the
use of the names and titles of his ancestors; subject to the approval
of a royal counsel, it appears.
"This "Arrius" is also said to have to have headed Roman forces, and
along with Titus, "laid siege upon the Temple in Jerusalem in the year
70 C.E." Perhaps Kermit the Frog and Fozzie Bear were there as well,
because Josephus makes no mention of such an Arrius (though we'd guess
that's because he was Arrius and was trying to hide it?). We'd like
the reader to note that there is no cite or source given for this
information, which is apparently typical for this consortium. People
are invented from this Piso family based on no more than a whim and
perhaps a presumption of an embedded code in the NT and other
documents. To put it simply, there is no evidence outside the theory
that "Arrius Piso" actually existed."
Again, it takes being able to recognize his alias names in order to
deduce the factual information about him, his family, relatives and
his involvement in all of these areas. This takes discipline. It takes
patience and a LOT of research and ability. As I have said many times
before, this is NOT easy. What it means is that the real study of
ancient history is actually more like 100 times more complicated and
difficult than people have believed previously. But once a few basic
rules are learned, it become much less complicated.
We, of the N.C.S. have already done a vast amount of the necessary
research so as to form a foundation from which others may work from
and have make many important discoveries; some of which, I have made
or will make mention of here.
Here is another important thing that the author had inadvertently
brought up, and that is the "fear" that some people have in citing
areas of the Bible. Some people feel/think that it was written by
ignorant and superstitious people. But they couldn't be further from
the truth! This is why they feel like it is a waste of time to refer
to biblical passages and they see those who do so as "ignorant." But
here is the truth of the matter - one of the main things which cause
those of the Old Classical Scholarship, and particularly those who are
atheists or non-believers to make hasty judgments about this is the
fact that WE will quote from the Bible to make many of our points. And
people have even gotten the impression that WE are "religious." This
simply is not so.
Many non-believers of the O.C.S. are, or fancy themselves as
"scholars" and have convinced themselves that all that they need in
order to understand Roman history are the so-called "secular" literary
material of that time. This is totally incorrect! The truth is that
those authors were working BOTH sides of the street. IF the truth is
that ALL literary works that were written and produced for public
consumption was written only by royals, that includes BOTH the
"biblical" and non-biblical works. What one should think about
regarding this issue is that what this is really all about is
basically the royals verses the common people. And this, in and of
itself, is an extremely important issue. And as I have been saying,
changes the whole reality of history.
I have said many times before that these ancient (royal) authors were
extremely well educated and intelligent. Many of them were in fact
much more intelligent than the average person of today and even more
so than many of the most authoritative "scholars" of this time with
respect to the material that we are dealing with. And these ancient
authors knew, that is, they had anticipated many things before they
would happen. For instance, they knew that atheists and non-Christians
would resist reading the New Testament and/or taking it seriously; and
therefore, would reject it as a valid source of information. This made
it the perfect place in which to insert the information which would
allow researchers to find the evidence that would eventually prove
that Christianity was in fact a deliberate hoax.
And what I mean when I say that the royals were "against" the common
person or the masses in general is that they were doing any and all
things that they possibly could to both maintain and increase their
position of power and authority/control over the masses at large -
including dumbing them down and causing them to become superstitious
and irrational (unthinking and unable to reason correctly). And, by
the way, this is NOT about a "conspiracy" as some people have said.
There were various individual instances of conspiracies such as those
put forth in an attempt to kill Nero (Ref. Tacitus), or Domitian
(Suetonius, 'The Twelve Caesars', Domitian). But an ongoing
cooperation between a majority of royals in order to achieve mutual
goals is referred to as an oligarchy and NOT a conspiracy. The reason
that some people like to use that term when applied to this subject is
that they would like to paint this research as a "conspiracy theory."
Which, it is not.
As I have been saying, this author has been making hasty claims a)
because he has not taken the time to do any real scholarly research in
this area, and b) because there is only a very limited amount of
information about this on the Internet at this time and that seems to
be his main source for what he thinks he knows about this. He quotes
from the site of someone who is doing their own "outside" research
about this and who is NOT an expert on this subject such as myself,
saying;
"Here's another one of those types of claims: ""Around the end of the
reign of Hadrian (after 135 CE) Julius Calpurnius Piso, the son of
Arrius Piso, made a big mistake. He had just conquered the Jews at
Masada, after which the Jews scattered to all corners of the earth.
This was the infamous Diaspora. It was a stunning (if brutal) victory,
and Julius wanted to make the most of it. He asked Hadrian to make his
son successor to the Emperor, knowing full well that if Hadrian
refused, Julius would be obliged to commit suicide. Hadrian refused.""
(End of section one of my response to that article)
Cheers!
RRoman Piso
Matt, you keep asking for "physical evidence." There will most
certainly BE physical evidence. But at this point in time, that is not
yet available because technology has not evolved to the point that
will make most of that possible.
Let me explain. I think that what you are asking for is a book or
something in physical form that supports what I have been saying. The
evidence that those authors had left is in LITERARY form and they did
this deliberately because they wanted that evidence to LAST longer
than any physical evidence could.
However, what I had said above about technology not being ready to
give us the physical evidence of this is that one of the things which
will prove this correct is genealogical evidence confirmed by DNA
testing. At this point in time, the technology is not able to do that.
We have genealogies of the key figures and this will one day show that
these people were in fact related to each other in exactly the way
that we have been saying; and it will also prove their use of alias
names.
Matt Giwer
As there is no physical evidence you are obviously stupid to believe
without physical evidence. Pardon me if I am not as stupid as you.
> Let me explain. I think that what you are asking for is a book or
> something in physical form that supports what I have been saying. The
> evidence that those authors had left is in LITERARY form and they did
> this deliberately because they wanted that evidence to LAST longer
> than any physical evidence could.
>
> However, what I had said above about technology not being ready to
> give us the physical evidence of this is that one of the things which
> will prove this correct is genealogical evidence confirmed by DNA
> testing. At this point in time, the technology is not able to do that.
> We have genealogies of the key figures and this will one day show that
> these people were in fact related to each other in exactly the way
> that we have been saying; and it will also prove their use of alias
> names.
Which means only that you do not realize just how stupid you really are.
--
If Hussein is removed from power in Iraq
it will prove what the US giveth the US
can taketh away.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1790
Cicero
maian assertions of Roman Piso. However, let these few facts suffice.
As far as I am able to interpret his incoherent babble, he seems to be
claiming that a family of 'royal' Romans, terrified by popular revolts
led by the Pharisees in the name of freedom and human rights, created
a religion designed to act as a stabilizing influence, thus shoring
the Empire up for millenia. However...
(1) The Jewish revolts were never led by the Pharisees. The
Pharisees, by and large, were comfortable under Roman rule. The
Pharisees were politically and religiously allied with the Saduccees,
and together they controlled Judea under Rome. It was the Pharisees
and the Saduccees who aided in quellign Jewish revolts. The Jewish
revolts were led by groups of religious extremists who attempted to
throw off Roman rule.
(2) The Jewish revolts never posed any appreciable threat to Rome.
ROme had enough military power to dominate Europe. They were not
concerned about a small number of non-citizens rebelling in one
province. Titus crushed the Jews, Domitian crushed the Jews, Trajan
crushed the Jews. No Romans would have been afraid of Jewish revolts.
They considered them somewhat comical.
(3) The Jewish revolts were not raised in the name of human rights
and freedom. Without attempting to be biased, the Old Testament
accepts slavery as a societal norm. Jewish revolutionaries did not
try to free slaves. On the whole , they were not even concerned with
the rest of the Empire. They cared only for the freedom and security
of their people and their lands.
(4) While the slave revolts present a somewhat more plausible basis
for his argument, it remains untenable. All Roman religions included
provisions that would have controlled slaves. A servant rebelling
against his master was a terrible crime that aroused the wrath of the
gods. Just read the Crito or the Phaedo by Plato to see that. A new
religion would not have been needed.
When Roman Piso began claiming that the Piso family were the
descendants of the people who had created all religions since the dawn
of time, I groaned. Then he mentioned how their lineage went back to
ancient Troy, and that just baffled me. Is there any proof anywhere
in history that any Trojans ever came to Italy, outside of the Aeneid?
I think not.
Anyway, this should suffice for some small debunk.
RRoman Piso
You have only said a lot of ridiculous things. Wild things such as
"you made this up." That is crazy! Well, I have put you and your
buddies in your place. That is right. I have answered the article at
the link that John Kelley had posted here and put that author in his
place. And at the same time, I have exposed you and those who think
like you do for what you really are.
http://www.webspawner.com/users/ncsreply1
Enjoy!
RRoman Piso
> http://www.tektonics.org/pisocake.html
Mr. John Kelley... well, here is what I have to say about the article
that you have posted a link to:
http://www.webspawner.com/users/ncsreply1
Cheers!
RRoman Piso
Oh Katherine... hello...
Let's see what you think once your 'hero' has been exposed!
http://www.webspawner.com/users/ncsreply1
Have a great day!
Matt Giwer
I have posted no such words. I have only requested the physical evidence.
> Well, I have put you and your
> buddies in your place. That is right. I have answered the article at
> the link that John Kelley had posted here and put that author in his
> place. And at the same time, I have exposed you and those who think
> like you do for what you really are.
And you responded that you have no physical evidence. Therefore you
belief without physical evidence. Therefore you are an idiot.
--
There is going to be a regime change in Iraq.
To what?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1879
Katherine Tredwell
[...]
> > Never mind what you think of the arguments. What I would like to
> > hear from you is: does the page mischaracterize what you say or
> > put words in your mouth?
> >
> > Katherine Tredwell
>
> Oh Katherine... hello...
>
> Let's see what you think once your 'hero' has been exposed!
>
> http://www.webspawner.com/users/ncsreply1
He is not my "hero" and you have not answered my question.
Now, does the page mischaracterize what you say or put words in
your mouth?
Katherine Tredwell
RRoman Piso
> pisoc...@yahoo.com (RRoman Piso) wrote in message news:<ce86c725.02092...@posting.google.com>...
> > ktre...@ou.edu (Katherine Tredwell) wrote in message news:<a3e43bd8.02092...@posting.google.com>...
>
> [...]
>
> > > Never mind what you think of the arguments. What I would like to
> > > hear from you is: does the page mischaracterize what you say or
> > > put words in your mouth?
> > >
> > > Katherine Tredwell
> >
> > Oh Katherine... hello...
> >
> > Let's see what you think once your 'hero' has been exposed!
> >
> > http://www.webspawner.com/users/ncsreply1
>
> He is not my "hero" and you have not answered my question.
>
> Now, does the page mischaracterize what you say or put words in
> your mouth?
>
> Katherine Tredwell
Oh, so my reply was not good enough for you? And you are now just
going to take me to take over minor details... well, I don't play such
games. I have already explained in what I wrote how it was a
mischaracterization and how the author has assumed so many things, and
is not scholar at all. He simply had an agenda and set out to 'prove'
something wrong by pretending to know more than he actually does and
by using other unprofessional tactics.
I would say that HOW he had put words in MY mouth is by using the
words that he has found in UNOFFICIAL NCS websites and making it
appear that it is all the same. Maybe in HIS uneducated mind it is;
but not in reality. The reality is that anyone can write anything
about any subject. That does not mean that all of it is true or valid.
For instance, someone could pretend to be an authority on the NSC and
make a webpage which is deliberately composed of misinformation or
very sloppy material. But that does not make it in any way connection
to the REAL and genuine work done by the NCS.
People can make up rumors or try to make the NCS seem like a joke,
they can make harsh and hasty statements; but in the end, they are
only doing themselves harm within the eyes of serious scholars. I have
address a LOT of things in the reply which I had written. If you did
not see that then you must not have paid much attention to what was
stated there.
Cheers!
Roman (The Roman Piso Forum)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
PS: I suggest that you print it out and read it over. Perhaps you
might take notes and then raise specific points here.
RRoman Piso
First of all Cicero, you have not bothered to learn about the New
Classical Scholarship - which is a totally different view of ancient
history itself.
What you are doing is ignorantly trying to prove your point from the
incorrect point of view. You are using your knowledge of history as it
has traditionally been taught. And you will NOT be able to understand
this doing it that way. You are using the Old Classical Scholarship to
make determinations regarding history from the New Classcial
Scholarship's point of view. Of course you do not know HOW any of this
is so; you have not studied so that you COULD know.
You are ignoring the fact that you FIRST have to learn OUR
methodology. That you must learn to 'see' ancient history from a
different point of view in order to understand how it is that we have
been able to find out what we have. You refuse to do this, yet, that
does NOT stop you from commenting as if you have.
Would it be fair to say that a layperson who knows nothing at all
about ancient history is able to criticize what experts in the field
have to say about it? Well then, to me, that is very similar to what
YOU are doing. Because you are drawing conclusions without doing the
work that is necessary in order to understand what is being said about
this. You would have to learn about the New Classical Scholarship to
make a qualified criticism of it. And you have not done that.
Cheers!
Roman (The Roman Piso Forum)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
RRoman Piso
My reply to your statements will be answered in upcoming books. But I
will continue to share information about this in the form of posts as
well.
Here is an example of deduction about Arrius Piso and his family...
To find out about Arrius Piso and his immediate family (his wives and
children), one must look to "The Vita" of Flavius Josephus. He also
‘salts' information about his children throughout the New Testament.
In the ‘Vita' (as Josephus), we learn the following;
Arrius Piso was first married to a virgin of Jotapata, and that he
divorced her. No children are mentioned from this marriage. His second
wife* is a bit of an enigma, but I do think that her identity may
someday be revealed to us by deduction. She is a wife (at Alexandria,
Egypt), who was with Titus at the siege of Jerusalem. Arrius Piso had
divorced her as well, but he had three children with her before doing
so. He says that two of those children are ‘dead' (at the time of his
writing the Vita). We think presently that one of those ‘dead' sons
was really a daughter (Claudia Phoebe),** and the other was the son
named ‘Alexander'. The remaining son from that marriage who was still
alive was Julius Calpurnius Piso.
His third wife had lived at Crete, but she was a Jewess by birth.
Because of what he says about his third wife, she appears to be
Boionia Procilla/Procla. He never says that he divorced his last wife,
and he says that she bore him two children. Those children are known
to us as (Fabius) Justus Calpurnius Piso, and Proculus Calpurnius
Piso.
Now, in the Vita, he also gives the year of birth for his three living
sons. He does so by saying that they were born during certain years of
the reign of emperor Vespasian. So, we find out by deduction that
Julius Piso was born in 74 C.E. And that Justus Piso was born in 77
C.E. Proculus was born in 79 C.E. This is information that tells us
much more than just the birth dates of these sons, it also tells us
Arrius Piso was still with his second wife up until at least 74 C.E.
and that he married his third and final wife sometime before 77 C.E.
This, is what logic, reason and deduction are all about.
To summarize…
The birth dates of these sons are given by Arrius Piso as Josephus in
the beginning of his ‘Vita'. He says; "I have three (living) sons…"
And Justus and Proculus Piso's mother was a Jewess who had lived at
Crete. Arrius Piso had divorced his first and second wives. His sons
Alexander*** and Julius were of the same mother - his second wife.
Now, Arrius Piso counts his invented character Jesus as a ‘son' as
well. But he does so in the sense or context of that ‘son' being an
invention. So, that is why in Matt. 13:55, he says that Jesus has four
brothers. But of real sons, he has only three which were living. Since
the ‘core' or prototype of Matthew was written around the year 75, we
can deduce that either these sons of Arrius Piso were added to it
after they were born or it was not truly finished until all his sons
were born. Meaning that Matthew was not really finished until sometime
AFTER 79 C.E (the year of birth of his last son, Proculus Piso).
* His second wife was of/at Alexandria, Egypt and was apparently of
the line of the ‘Alexanders'. We might be right to speculate that her
name may have been ‘Alexandria' as the feminine form of one of her
sons name - Alexander. I do think that we may be able to deduce just
who she was at some point.
** Recently, Abelard Reuchlin has become convinced that Claudia Phoebe
was NOT the daughter of Arrius Piso. But I think that she still could
have been his real daughter and that researchers were just thrown a
‘curve' by those ancient authors. Claudia Phoebe could still have been
Arrius Piso's daughter - IF she was the daughter of/by his second wife
who he had divorced, and if she then remarried someone who adopted her
- then passing her BACK into the house of her real father (Arrius) who
then likewise
"adopted" her as well (even though she was really his own daughter
anyway!).
*** Alexander, like his mother, is an enigmatic figure. Abelard
Reuchlin says that he was placed in the New Testament as ‘Andrew'. And
Andrew is found in Matt. 4:18, 10:2. Mark 1:16, 1:29, 3:18, 13:3. Luke
6:14. John 1:40, 1:44, 6:8, 12:22. Acts 1:13. He may also have been
the person mentioned as a kinsman of Paul who is called ‘Andronicus'
in Romans 16:7. As Reuchlin says, Alexander appears as a disciple
named Andrew - who is the/(a) brother of Simon Peter. Reuchlin says
that he died about the year 95 C.E.
Ref. "The True Authorship of the New Testament," page 12. People have
tended to think that the ‘Junias' mentioned in Romans 16:7 was a
female. But when you know that Alexander and Julius Piso had the same
mother, and you know that letters such as ‘l' and ‘n' were
interchangeable and that information was given by the use of
phonetics, then you can see that passage read; "Salute Andronicus and
JULIUS, my kinsmen…" Putting Andrew/Alexander (as Andronicus) together
with Julius, confirms what we had found in the Vita - that these two
brothers belonged together as they both shared the same mother.
Again, you really need to learn about this by reading the material
that is out there about this IF you are going to stand any chance of
legitimately criticizing it.
Trotter960
>People have tended to think that the >‘Junias' mentioned in Romans 16:7 was
a
>female. But when you know that >Alexander and Julius Piso had the same
>mother, and you know that letters such as >‘l' and ‘n' were
interchangeable....
Nice try. Too bad you didn't do a little research before you wrote this stuff.
RRoman Piso
I have been saying for all of these years. Here is a sample of what I
am talking about.
The Royal Language: Circles & Strings
What are "circles and strings" in the Royal Language? They are
'circles' and 'strings' of key words. Circles of key words are key
words which come back to the original key word after going in a
'circle'. What is the reason for this? It was a way of verifying or of
proving that the words were indeed 'key words' and purposely used
because of their meaning and relationship to other key words. It is
like connecting them to insure that there could be no mistake as to
their actual meaning.
And what are 'strings'? They are key words which are strung together
to 'say' something that would be invisible to anyone who cannot read
the Royal Language. This too, was another way of proving that the
words used were indeed used deliberately and thus, were 'key words'.
Strings were used to construct lines or phrases as well as complete
sentences. Knowing about these 'circles' and 'strings' of key words in
the Royal Language is what will finally prove to people that what we
have been saying for so long is actually true - the Roman Piso family
wrote the New Testament and created Christianity!
THE CIRCLE OF LIFE
(Flavius) Josephus' Vita (life) = bios (life) = vios (is 'new' [the
new 'law', i.e., the 'new' testament] as neos, phonetically as the
letters 'V' and 'N' are the same in the Royal Language, but 'V' is
also 'U', and so…) = uios (Which is 'son'. That is, 'Jesus' as the
'son' of God). And his 'Vita' ('bios') can be "Piso" in this way; 'V'
changes with 'F' (as 'PH') and 'PH' is the same as 'P', thus, 'Pios'
(Pius/Piso). Also, 'Pio' is 'Piso' as either 'Pia' or 'Pisa' can be
the feminine form of 'Piso', the male form can be either 'Piso' or
'Pio' (as seen used by a female descendant of Arrius Piso). Piso as
'Jesus' is "the Life," i.e., 'The Vita'. And the circle is complete.
But we have this right from the horse's mouth! Like Pliny saying "the
Law laid down" ("laid down the Law," the 'new' Law - Christianity and
the New Testament!), 'Jesus' says (in John 10:17); "I lay down my Life
('Vita')." When Pliny said 'laid down', he meant "written down." So,
here we have 'Jesus' (Arrius Piso) saying that he has "written down
his Vita." What 'Vita'? The only one that makes sense, the 'Vita' of
Flavius Josephus - because 'Jesus' is the same person who "wrote down"
the 'Vita' of Flavius Josephus (Arrius Piso!). Pliny's statement is in
his Epistles, Book II (of II), the Loeb Classical Library edition,
page 267. 'Jesus' says that he is 'the Life' in John 14:6, as he says,
"I am the way, the truth, and the Life ('Vita')…" Remember, when they
say something more than once, it is done for emphasis. Just so that
there is no mistaking this, 'Jesus' is "the Light" (of the world), and
so, in John 1:4, is said; "the Life was the Light…" (and thus, visa
versa; "the Light" (of the world), i.e. 'Jesus' was the "Life"
('Vita'). And there you have an example of a 'circle'.
THE PIUS TITAN STRING
We find this example in Acts 28:15, "… us as far as (the) market-place
of Appius and three…" Which, in Greek is as follows; "hmin achri
Appion Phorou kai Trion." Decoded, it reads, "The Min A(rrius)
Ch(rist) Pi(so) [is] Appian, Phar(a)o(h) and Pious T(itan)…" The name
'Titus' was synonymous with 'Titon' (phonetically 'titan'), so one
could also mean the other - just like letters that were
interchangeable in the Royal Language (and also "Pi(so) Ch(rist)…"
Some things, granted, were spelled phonetically in the Royal Language.
But again, one must understand just what the purpose was and
therefore, understand the reason for them doing so. By the way, Arrius
Piso was writing to himself as 'Appian' when writing as Flavius
Josephus. Also, as you will remember, we had already discussed the
fact that 'the Min' is what the Jews called the Pisos. 'The Min' were
the itho-phallic gods of the Egyptians. Which is appropriate for Piso,
because as 'Jesus' he is secretly a phallus. This too, is something
which I had also discussed before. The truth is that the Christian God
is really secretly a phallus. So, remember that the next time you see
Christians praying and worshipping their God.
So, just remember those little 'circles' and 'strings'!
RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/pisotheory
trott...@aol.com (Trotter960) wrote in message news:<20021030221354...@mb-cc.aol.com>...
Trotter960
>What are "circles and strings" in the >Royal Language?
I've read a few books... but I've never heard of a Royal Language. No matter.
Since you are using it, no doubt you can cite a number of sources that I can
check out for myself so that I can verify your methodology.
>And what are 'strings'? They are key words which are strung together
>to 'say' something that would be invisible to anyone who cannot read
>the Royal Language.
In this case I happen to be versed in more than one classical languages. If you
read some of my old posts you'll see that I don't mind translating a little
Greek, Hebrew, or Syriac (read Aramaic if you need to).
>Strings were used to construct lines or >phrases as well as complete
>sentences.
Sounds terrific. Just amazes me that this Royal Language does not appear in
some common books that I might find on Amazon.com
>(Flavius) Josephus' Vita (life) = bios (life) = vios (is 'new' [the
>new 'law', i.e., the 'new' testament] as neos, phonetically as the
>letters 'V' and 'N' are the same in the Royal Language....
Nope. U got a couple of bloopers right here.
DIATHEKE never means "law." And B and V and N are never the same.
Course, then again, I admit I don't know anything about Royal Language. Where
did you say you found it?
>but 'V' is
>also 'U', and so…) = uios (Which is 'son'. That is, 'Jesus' as the
>'son' of God). And his 'Vita' ('bios') can be "Piso" in this way; 'V'
>changes with 'F' (as 'PH') and 'PH' is the same as 'P', thus, 'Pios'
>(Pius/Piso).
None of this works either.
A Mexican friend of mine was once at a
restaurant trying to get herself something to eat. A fellow trying to find a
line asked her
"Tienes hombre?" to which she replied,
"No tengo hombre pero tengo hambre."
Now I know you would like to show me that
at some time U became V and B, and P became PH and F. But UR confusing scripts
and languages. No true Roman
would have confused UIOS with BIOS.
Matt Giwer
> Hello Trotter... the discovery of the 'Royal Language' will prove what
> I have been saying for all of these years. Here is a sample of what I
> am talking about.
>
> The Royal Language: Circles & Strings
>
> What are "circles and strings" in the Royal Language?
The last time you were willing to answer my question you stated there was no
way of knowing anything about what you are saying as science had not progressed
far enough. The last question I asked which you refused to answer was, "If that
is true, how do you know?"
So far you have posted nothing but unsupported statements which cannot be
differentiated from fantasy. Can you do better than that? Can you produce a
foundation for your assertions?
For example, there was no royalty in Rome so I find the choice of name for this
secret language only you know of rather odd.
--
Factoid of the week. The term Final Solution refering to the Jewish
Question was invented by Zionist writers while Hitler was selling
postcards in Vienna before WWI.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2211
RRoman Piso
do some WORK and take some time. I did, and that is why I was able to
figure these things out while so many others have not. And just
because one or a few people know something does not mean that
eventually everyone else won't!
So, here is a little more for you if it has not yet gotten through to
you that there IS something to this - that this IS it. The answer and
the only way in which to discover the truth about the creation of
Christianity and what really happened in ancient history, because it
all was written in two different ways at that same time; one with the
superficial 'common' language, and two, with the 'royal' language
which only royals could read and write. Up to this point in time all
of traditional scholars have ONLY been reading ancient texts using the
'common' language and that is why they have not learned all that we
(of the New Classical Scholarship) have:
THE ROYAL LANGUAGE: KEY WORDS AND PHRASES
John 16:33, "I have overcome the world (!)" Means, "I have conquered
the world!"
John 18:28, "… for I am king." In Greek, "Oti Basileus eimi ego." In
the Royal Language, "I am the Ti(tan) King!"
What I have observed is the use of acrostic initials (which, as any
scholar knows, were used in the Bible), and also abbreviations. So, we
have a combination of these being used to disguise what was really
being said by the authors. Here are a few examples:
The word "persuading" ('peithon') is used in Acts 19:8. It is actually
being used to convey the meaning of two words because it is made up
(in essence) of the parts of two words. One of those is the name
'Piso' in Greek as 'Pei(son)' and the other is 'Th(e)o', which is
'God'. So, what this renders is 'Piso God'. The part that is 'Pei' is
an abbreviation for 'Peison'. But you would never know it unless you
already knew what to look for! And the reason that 'Thon' is 'Theo'
('Theon') is because of a rule in the Royal Language whereby double
letters can be used. In this case, the 'h' in the 'Th' is doubled and
the 'h' becomes an 'e'. So, it looks like this, 'Thhon' ('Theon').
Another word that is used to say the same thing is "disobeyed"
('hpeithoun') in Acts 19:9. Here we have, "The Pei(son) ['Piso']
Th(e)o ['God'] U(mmidius) N(icomachus," or "The God Piso Ummidius
Nicomachus." Which is using letters as acrostic initials for Arrius
Piso's alias names of Ummidius (Quadratus) and of Nicomachus ('The
Victor of the Battle').
Sometimes, a letter like 'z' is used to give the 's' sound. An example
of this would be the word 'Thriz', which is the word for "a hair" (as
found in Acts 27:34). This results in "Th(eo) Piz(o) ['Piso']" or
"Piso God." We see the 'Th' as an abbreviation for 'Theo', which is
the word for 'God'. And we see the letter 'r' as a 'p' because the
Greek letter for 'r' ('rho') is written to look/be identical with the
Latin 'p'. And so, the 'r' is interchangeable with or may be seen as a
'p'. And this is how the Royal Language worked. That is why in other
places we will find a 'v' being identical or the same as an 'n', as
the Greek 'n' is written the same as the Latin 'v'.
And here is a neat little phrase by the author of the gospel of John
(that was Justus Piso, Arrius Piso's son). He says in John 15:15, "…
of my Father…" The word 'of' is 'ap' in Greek, which is the acrostic
initials for 'A(rrius) P(iso)'. So, read "A(rrius) P(iso), (is) my
father." Clever, isn't it? This is one way that we collect clues as to
who the author is of any particular text.
In John 3:2, he have, "… that from God…" Which is "oti apo Theou" in
Greek. In the Royal Language it reads, "The Ti(tan) A(rrius) P(iso)
O(ptimus) [is] God." We also consider the fact that there is some
syntax involved and so the words do switch around to make better sense
of what is being said or to clarify the meaning. So, this could also
read as, "The Titan Arrius Piso is God Optimus." Saying this would
identify him with the Trajan that Pliny was speaking of in his
Panegyricus when he said that 'Trajan' received the name 'Optimus'.
However, that does not necessarily mean that Arrius Piso WAS the
Emperor Trajan. After some considerable thought, I have come to the
conclusion that Arrius Piso was a silent co-ruler with Trajan and used
the name 'Trajan' (the same name as the emperor) just as he did when
he co-ruled for a short time with the Emperor Titus. I will explain
this in detail elsewhere.
Oh, and while I am thinking of it… in Pliny's Epistles (Book II, of
II, pg. 289, where he is talking about Christians), he says this
phrase twice; "the name of Christ." So, saying it twice, he is
emphasizing it. What is he alluding to? Here is the result, "Christ"
in Greek is 'Xpistos'. Which, in the Royal Language is 'X' ('Ch'),
'ris' ('Pis'), 't', 'o', 's'. That is, "Ch(rist) Pis(o) T(itus) [or
'Titan'] O(ptimus) S(abinus)." Or it could read, "Piso (is) Christ
(the) Optimus Titus Sabinus." In John 4:36, the word 'reaps' ('o
Therizon') is used to say; "The God Piso Nicomachus" (as 'The The(o)
[God] Piso N(icomachus)," which is "The God Piso, Victor of the battle
("of Garaza," or the battle with the Jews)." In any case, this should
be enough to be a bit of a lesson in the Royal Language.
RP (The Roman Piso Forum)
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
PS: By the way, I have just finished my latest book on this subject
which is called 'PISO CHRIST!'
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<pYEF9.322487$r7.56...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
Matt Giwer
> Hello Matt, to know something new or which others do not you have to
> do some WORK and take some time. I did, and that is why I was able to
> figure these things out while so many others have not. And just
> because one or a few people know something does not mean that
> eventually everyone else won't!
You mean like buying your book? Hubbard suggested that.
> So, here is a little more for you if it has not yet gotten through to
> you that there IS something to this - that this IS it. The answer and
> the only way in which to discover the truth about the creation of
> Christianity and what really happened in ancient history, because it
> all was written in two different ways at that same time; one with the
> superficial 'common' language, and two, with the 'royal' language
> which only royals could read and write. Up to this point in time all
> of traditional scholars have ONLY been reading ancient texts using the
> 'common' language and that is why they have not learned all that we
> (of the New Classical Scholarship) have:
There is no such thing as New Classical Scholarship other than in what you
post. It is only your fiction.
> THE ROYAL LANGUAGE: KEY WORDS AND PHRASES
There was no royalty in Rome. The bible is in Greek and no royalty there either.
--
Israel is doing its best to promote antisemitism around
the world. Very strange behavior, almost like that is
the intention, to encourage Jews to immigrate to Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2213
Trotter960
>Hello Matt, to know something new or >which others do not you have to
>do some WORK and take some time. I >did, and that is why I was able to
>figure these things...
Sometimes folks confuse finding something new with an unbridled imagination.
The likes of Velikovsky is an example of an unbridled imagination. That fellow
who wrote _The Bible Code_ is an example of an unbridled imagination.
These word games are unbridled imagination. With the rules that you have
allowed yourself, anyone who wanted to spend the time can make anything.
But this is a history newsgroup. So the question that comes to mind is where is
the _historical_ evidence? Where is the confession by Josephus that he is
Arius?
In fact, where is the historical evidence for
anyone named Arius Piso who is known as a great writer? Where is there any
evidence
in Antiquity of the massive conspiracy which you have conjured up?
Got word games?
Matt Giwer
> Hello Matt, to know something new or which others do not you have to
> do some WORK and take some time. I did, and that is why I was able to
> figure these things out while so many others have not. And just
> because one or a few people know something does not mean that
> eventually everyone else won't!
Second point. You appear to be confusing the ability to form grammatically
correct sentence with a valid statement.
--
If the terminology of Science were as fluid and maleable
as that of politics angels would still be pushing planets
through the night sky.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2241
RRoman Piso
As I have tried to tell you, you simply lack the information that
would allow you to understand what I have been saying. Here is an
example of that... you are not familiar with that which had
facilitated what the Roman Piso family did, and that is explained by
the Royal Supremacy Theory. Perhaps this will help. It is about the
royal law regarding royals marrying. They were only allowed to marry
other royals.
RE: The killing of common wives and their children.
There was a rule in place for ALL royals (and the leaders of religion,
such as High Priests, were actually royals, or that is, of the 'royal
race'). This is because it is royals who were the creators of
religion. So, royals could either go into leadership roles in
government or they could be religious leaders; and still, there were
other areas in which they could excel (namely, commerce, including
vice).
Royals were not allowed to marry or have children with 'common' wives.
This was because royals had a law among themselves that prohibited
this. The reason was to insure the integrity of their genealogies and
so no common person would ever become privy to what was known only to
royals. But several of them having done so, the royal law demanded
that these royals "put away" their common wives (that is, "DO AWAY
with," i.e. kill them) and the children which were bore of them. And
this, in order to keep the royal "system" in place.
An example of this is found in Ezra 10:1-44. There, you will see what
I am talking about. You will notice that the names of the common
people are not listed; only the names of the men who had married
common women. That is because the royals did not include common people
in their literary works; this was another of their rules. This was
done to preserve the integrity of their literary works (so that the
ONLY people who were discussed or listed by name in their works would
be royals). The purpose of that being so that there would be a means
in which to uncover all of the things which they were keeping secret -
including their relationship to each other (again, in order to
preserve their royal genealogies).
Royals considered themselves to be a different 'race' than the common
people. That is why Arrius Piso writing as Philo (Philo of Alexandria)
says that there are two races of men. And knowing this to be the case,
we then will understand just why it is that no common person ever
became emperor or any other founder of dynasties. Only royals could do
so. And so, this reveals a facade. The facade of 'dynasties' and the
illusion that anyone could rise to be emperor.
Though royals were not allowed to have wives who were not royal, they
were allowed to have common women as sex slaves and if any of them
should have children, those children were not to become royals. The
royals were free to do with common people whatever they wished (short
of marrying them). They could kill them and/or their children, they
could make them their slaves, abuse them in any way in which they
wished (including torture).
The 'common' race of people were seen by royals as equal to animals,
and not truly human. They were used and treated as chattel. They, the
royals, learned about anatomy and medicine by cutting into common
people to see what their organs looked like and what they do. Royals
would either buy or 'make' their own slaves (by getting their slave
women pregnant) and use them to entertain themselves in any way that
they saw fit. They would raise slaves who were trained in certain
duties and that was the entire purpose of the life of that slave.
This is what understanding the Royal Supremacy Theory is all about. It
is the realization that what we have been taught about royals in
ancient times has been completely inaccurate. And along with this, our
understanding of the truth about religion. The Royal Supremacy Theory
is the understanding that royals were in charge of everything in
ancient times. And in exploring just how they were able to do this. In
other words, an examination of the 'system' that was in place that
allowed them to do this.
This was the system that was in place prior to the Piso family
creating Christianity and gaining control over the Roman Empire. It is
what facilitated it, and allowed them to achieve their goals. They
knew how to 'work' the system to their advantage, and thus, to gain
control over all of the rest of the royals within the Roman Empire.
Roman
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<_MbG9.396775$S8.80...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
Matt Giwer
> Hello Matt,
>
> would allow you to understand what I have been saying. Here is an
> example of that... you are not familiar with that which had
> facilitated what the Roman Piso family did, and that is explained by
> the Royal Supremacy Theory. Perhaps this will help. It is about the
> royal law regarding royals marrying. They were only allowed to marry
> other royals.
>
> RE: The killing of common wives and their children.
>
> There was a rule in place for ALL royals (and the leaders of religion,
> such as High Priests, were actually royals, or that is, of the 'royal
> race'). This is because it is royals who were the creators of
> religion. So, royals could either go into leadership roles in
> government or they could be religious leaders; and still, there were
> other areas in which they could excel (namely, commerce, including
> vice).
As an example of what I posted. There were no Roman kings nor high priests in
the first century AD.
There were none, period. That you can write a grammatically correct statement
saying there were does not mean that they existed. In fact they did not exist.
Therefore your statement is nonsense. Anything following from nonsense is also
nonsense.
Everything you have posted on this subject is nonsense.
In fact it is more than nonsense. It is stupid.
RRoman Piso
Rome, the city instead of the Roman Empire; which is different than
just IN Rome.
There were indeed Kings and High Priests within the Roman Empire in
the first century A.D. (C.E.). The kings ruled various kingdoms and
regions within the Roman Empire and were subject to the Roman Emperor.
These kings represented a major source of income for the Roman Empire
by the tribute money and wealth that they sent to Rome. The Roman
Empire could not have existed without these kings.
And there were various High Priests in the first century Roman Empire
as well. This too, was a major source of wealth for Rome and for the
leaders of the religious sects. In the first century A.D. (C.E.),
there were still many pagan altars throughout the Roman Empire as well
as all three of the major Jewish sects; each of which had their
leaders and High Priests. So, what you said is uninformed and
ridiculous to say the least.
Roman
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
Matt Giwer
> Matt, from what you said, I gather that what you are referring to is
> Rome, the city instead of the Roman Empire; which is different than
> just IN Rome.
And you have said you are talking about a Roman Family therefore only Rome
applies.
> There were indeed Kings and High Priests within the Roman Empire in
> the first century A.D. (C.E.). The kings ruled various kingdoms and
> regions within the Roman Empire and were subject to the Roman Emperor.
> These kings represented a major source of income for the Roman Empire
> by the tribute money and wealth that they sent to Rome. The Roman
> Empire could not have existed without these kings.
And there were scaborous genital mutilating primitive tribes worshiping
bloodthirsty deities such as in Judea but that has nothing to do with your
claims regarding that great but otherwise unknown Roman family.
> And there were various High Priests in the first century Roman Empire
> as well. This too, was a major source of wealth for Rome and for the
> leaders of the religious sects. In the first century A.D. (C.E.),
> there were still many pagan altars throughout the Roman Empire as well
> as all three of the major Jewish sects; each of which had their
> leaders and High Priests. So, what you said is uninformed and
> ridiculous to say the least.
You are still talking gibberish on the Piso crap.
> Roman
> http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
--
Even the devil can quote the bible to his own ends which
says more about the bible than the devil.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2264
RRoman Piso
making, but they lack so much knowledge and information that they do
not realize that what they say actually makes MY case! This is what I
see YOU doing.
You say that this does not make any sense to you, you cannot
understand it. Therefore you call it 'gibberish', etc. But this is
exactly what I have been telling you - you are ILL-INFORMED. This is
WHY it does not make sense to you.
You would need to be EDUCATED in order to understand things which you
currently do not. That is what I have been telling you. You
unrealistically expect to be ABLE to comprehend sophisticated things
without having done the work, the research in order to do that! It is
like an ordinary person who has not gone to college to study to be a
doctor trying to apply for a job as a doctor in a hospital! It is
ridiculous, and that is how you appear to me and everyone else who
reads your messages. We see you as you really are, while you persist
and insist in the thought that you are on a par with people such as
myself in terms of knowledge, information and wisdom. You need to EARN
that by doing the work which is necessary. Otherwise your opinion
isn't worth dust with spit on it.
Cheers!
Roman
http://forums.delphiforums.com/romanpiso
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:<gcbI9.1268$Db4....@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
Matt Giwer
You are deliberately avoiding the issues.
You are the one making these claims out of whole cloth.
You bear the obligation of supporting them if you wish to distinguish yourself
from Daniel Minh.
What you have said so far changes nothing. It has no impact upon anything in
history or in the present as it is "so well hidden" it has no connection with
anything beyond your assertion. Therefore, even if your infused knowledge is
correct, it is worthless.
Is that clear enough?
--
Liberals and communists and revenoorers are why
they invented plinking rifles.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 374