March 29, 2017, 04:17:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New Membership Currently Closed.
   Boards Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Alexander the Great: Beyond the Divide  (Read 18935 times)
Sr. Member
Posts: 266

« on: November 09, 2014, 06:16:22 PM »

Alexander the Great: Beyond the Divide

by Charles N. Pope
Copyright © 2014

Full-Length Book is Available Here:

Press Release and Abridged eBook:

For a preview of the abridged eBook, click below:

Executive Summary

Alexander as Archetypal Jesus

Virtually everything about Alexander the Great is repurposed in the New Testament accounts of Jesus and should sound eerily familiar to us. Alexander the Great’s birth had been “immaculately conceived” and then “celestially announced.” Alexander was a precocious youth that confounded his elders. He railed against conventional thinking (orthodoxy) and was revered everywhere, except by his own family and home town. His campaign began with a wedding. He traveled incessantly. He cast out demons and was accused of having a demon. He fed the multitudes and spoke in parables. He was particularly fond of the mustard seed. He prayed for those that spitefully used him. He showed concern for runaway slaves. He walked on water and calmed the tempest. He was warned against entering his capital, but approached his prophesized demise with flint-like resolve. He was lifted up into the “heavens” and also descended to the “underworld.” His higher calling was to attain a faraway kingdom, and one that could only be gained through a symbolic death and ascension. He comforted and later appeared to his followers. He was said to have moved mountains and walled off those who believed in him from the onslaught of the godless.

Jesus of the Gospels plainly alludes to Alexander when he says, “For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life.” (Mark 8:36) This statement sums up Alexander’s obsession with global conquest perfectly, and it also reflects the need to temper the perceived excesses of Alexander in the time and place of Jesus (1st Century Jewish Palestine under Roman rule). It was considered appropriate for a substitute of Jesus (as the redeemed Alexander) to be crucified between two robbers, because Alexander had himself crucified those who attempted to rob him of his claim to divinity, i.e., to be called the “Son of God,” the very phrase placed above the head of Jesus on the cross. Curtius, a Roman historian writing during the Julio-Claudian Dynasty said, “You [Alexander] who boasted of your coming to eradicate robbers are yourself the greatest robber upon earth.” Curtius also has Alexander say, “I am abandoned, forsaken, delivered up to the enemy. But even alone, I shall press on.” Similarly, Jesus is made to cry out on the cross in a symbolic protest. Signs of sun and moon were associated with the deaths of both Alexander and of Jesus. It was said that Alexander’s body did not decay in the days following his death. Likewise, the body of Jesus is miraculously preserved.

Image: A graffiti from the temple at Deir el-Haggar (Dakhla Oasis in Egypt) in which Alexander is depicted as a pre-Christian Messianic figure.  Click below.

Alexander did not want his death to be mourned, and especially not by the royal women. He even made light of it by requesting that one of his hands be allowed to dangle outside the coffin. Alexander did not actually die at this time, and this is clearly mirrored in the New Testament accounts of Jesus. In the Gospel of John, Chapter 20, Mary is asked not once but twice (verses 13 & 15), “Woman, why are you weeping?” She is told that the person believed to have died is very much alive. Alexander had also appeared “posthumously” to encourage and promise victory to his followers, whose “vacated” throne was even used on occasion as a prop during negotiations between fellow princes. This peculiar tradition related to Alexander is echoed in the Gospel pronouncement of Jesus, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matt 18:20) The implication is that Alexander remained a living, acting, dynastic force.

Jesus is endowed with all of the good qualities of Alexander and none of the bad. In other words, Jesus is depicted as a rehabilitated Alexander, and therefore in a sense, an even greater “god-king” than Alexander had been. Likewise, the leading figures of Alexander’s life are also “reincarnated” in the Gospels. Olympias (Mura), the “virgin mother goddess” of Alexander became a pattern for Mary mother of Jesus. Roxane, the bride that Alexander claimed by storming a high fortress, prefigured the much-maligned Mary Magdalene, “Lady of the Tower.” All of Christ’s disciples (later Apostles) were also typecast after the companions (later “Successors”) of Alexander and other leading figures of the time. Hephaestion became the archetype of John the Beloved; Perdiccas the “first leader” after Alexander’s “Passion” provided inspiration for James the Just (the first head of the Church); the role model for Peter was supplied by Seleucus, who denied Alexander in his hour of need, but later built his empire and his cult following; Diogenes of Sinope, who mocked the resurrection of Alexander, was unquestionably the inspiration for “Doubting Thomas;” and the role of Ptolemy the tireless evangelist of Alexander was played by the zealous Paul. And the list goes on.

The Gospel figures are supposed to have been uneducated provincials with little or no knowledge of events outside the narrow confines of Palestine. They should not have been capable of emulating much earlier Greek aristocrats, and especially drawing a slick parallel between Israel in the time of the Julio-Claudian emperors and Greece in the time of the Persian kings. However, they absolutely did, and it is past time that we got some answers!

{As was done for the earlier period of Persia's invasion of Greece:  }

The above associations between Alexander and Jesus can be better appreciated through study of a sizable corpus of information about Alexander’s life (and “afterlife”) that is excluded from modern (“rational/ proper”) histories. The Life of Alexander of Macedon is now considered an apocryphal work, and referred to condescendingly as the “Alexander Romance.” However, it was first composed as early as one generation after Alexander’s “Passion Play” in Babylon. This original history of Alexander steadily increased in popularity in the following centuries and did not reach its zenith until well into the Middle Ages. Even more shocking to a modern Christian, a condensed version of this work was for a time actually included in authorized “History Bibles” of both Germany and the Netherlands during the Middle Ages,[1] at which time Alexander was clearly identified by clerics as a type of Christ from the Intertestamental Period.[2] In these Bibles, The Life of Alexander of Macedon was followed immediately by the Book of I Maccabees (still included in Catholic Bibles), which itself begins with an unequivocal proclamation that Alexander had reached the furthest extent of the earth and became ruler over all the world.

[1] Richard Stoneman, Alexander the Great: A Life in Legend, p 213. (New Haven/ London: Yale University Press, 2008) (a) (b)
[2] Ibid, p 214.
Image: Alexander as Kosmokrator, "Ruler of the Universe" (note the star and crescent on the headdress).

In the Alexander Romance, Alexander accepts mortality only after achieving complete satisfaction in his conquests. This is definitely NOT the same Alexander we know from today’s text books and popular histories, who was planning ever greater campaigns and construction projects up until the time of his sudden illness and death. However, in the so-called apocryphal accounts Alexander sails up the mighty Ganges River and actually reaches a kind of Paradise after the conquest of all India is complete. He is not literally granted eternal life there, but nevertheless fulfills his goal of reaching this remote and privileged locale. In contrast, the Alexander we know today was completely frustrated in his attempt to conquer India and only reached the Indus River, well short of the Upper Ganges and nowhere near the mouth of the Ganges on the Eastern coast of India. In the Romance, Alexander also lives to play a part in the lives of the next generation of princes, who have grown to maturity and are even married when he visits them in the south of Egypt.

The conqueror of the Indian sub-continent is known by a different name, Chandra-Gupta, one of the most celebrated kings of all of Indian history. Curiously, almost nothing is known about his early life until after the death of Alexander the Great. No sooner did the attempted conquest of Alexander end than that of Chandragupta began. The name Chandra Gupta can be interpreted as “Alexander the Copt/ Upper Egyptian” as Gupta has been linguistically associated with Coptos (a Greek word for a critical locale in Upper Egypt), and Chandra is a transliteration of Sander (a hypocorism of Alexander/ Iksander). There is a claim by ancient rulers of Bukhara/ Bochara on the Silk Road (in Sogdiana) that they were descended from Alexander – a claim which becomes far more credible (and even inevitable) when one realizes that Alexander’s life did not end in Babylon and his dynastic line did not actually die out.

According to an important Indian source, the Mudrarakshasa, Chandragupta made extensive use of a Persian army, at least in the initial phase of the conquest. Chandragupta is also known for employing Macedonian military training and tactics. This is consistent with Alexander’s recruitment of Persian troops prior to his "death" in Babylon. He also attracted many mercenary troops, who are called “outlaws” by one biographer. The many provinces of the vast land of India, which were formerly fragmented as a means of external (“foreign”) domination, were quickly united under Chandragupta and his chief minister Chanakya. In 305 BC, Chandra-Gupta also defeated Seleucus (the leading “Successor” of Alexander the Great in the West) and imposed terms upon him. Alexander under the name Chandra-Gupta received some of the former satrapies of Persia and the daughter of Seleucus in marriage. Seleucus remained infertile and even received a sardonic gift of aphrodisiacs from Chandra-Gupta! A powerful new dynasty, the first of its kind in Indian history, had been founded by Chandra-Gupta. Further consolidation of the Indian subcontinent was made by his son Bindusara and grandson Ashoka.

Image: An elaborate Medieval mosaic of the Otranto Cathedral (Italy), restored in the 1990’s, depicting the Tree of Life (supported by two Indian elephants) and scenes from biblical and extra-biblical history, including Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel, The Life Alexander the Great, King Arthur and the Round Table, Knights of Charlemagne’s Dynasty, and even the Zodiac.

Princely Birth Order

Western scholarship has rejected the explicit memory of Alexander in the Persian Book of Kings as a bonafide prince of Persia, and by virtue of being the son of Artaxerxes II Memnon (“Kai Bahman”) and half-brother of Darius III (“Darab”). No one today is taught that such a relationship was even remotely possible in ancient times, much less taken as gospel in certain parts of the world. Nevertheless, the case can readily be made that the little kingdom of Macedon had been part of the Persian Empire from the time of Darius the Great. In fact, the very first Persian-appointed overseer of Macedon had the Persian name Bubares son of Megabyzus, and subsequent kings of Macedon are said to have descended from him. It is certainly no mystery that Egypt had become a Persian province. Alexander’s rapid and even enthusiastic acceptance in Babylon, Egypt and Persia demonstrates that his legitimacy was not questioned anywhere within the Empire and its so-called “tributary states.”

It is known that the Persian debutante Barsine (who has been correctly equated by some scholars with Princess Statiera of Persia) already had two children when she became the consort of Alexander. These would have been Ochus III and a daughter. After marrying Alexander she assumed the name of Roxane and had two more sons, Heracles and Alexander IV. Unexpectedly, all of the higher-ranking Greco-Persian princes - Darius III, Philip III (Arrhidaeus), Seleucus son of Antiochus of Orestis, Ptolemy (Neoptolemus II of Epirus), Ochus III and Heracles - proved infertile with eligible royal women, whereas the lower-ranking but equally inbred Alexander III and his son Alexander IV were able to produce heirs. This is the most significant element of the “miracle” that was Alexander’s ascendency. Seleucus was obliged to adopt Barsine's sons Heracles (Ptolemy Keraunos) and Ochus III (Antiochus) as his own sons. Ptolemy, the close ally of Alexander, adopted Barsine's youngest son (by Alexander) as his own heir and successor to the throne of Egypt under the name of Ptolemy II. As the consort of Ptolemy in Egypt, the former Barsine was called by the close variant, Berenice, “Bringer of Victory.”

The two oldest princes had priority, at least until such time as they proved infertile. The eldest had been born before the fall of Persia and was given the Persian name Ochus III after his biological father Artaxerxes III (Ochus II). He was eventually designated as the successor of Seleucus under the quasi-Greek name Antiochus ("After/Like Ochus). Barsine (cum Roxane) was pregnant with Heracles at the time of her marriage to Alexander (more on this below). And like the name Ochus (III), that of Heracles would also be superseded. Heracles was not literally murdered in Greece just prior to turning 18 years of age. He would later be called Ptolemy Ceraunos/Keraunus (“Thunderbolt”) and like Ochus III/Antiochus he was passed off as a son of Seleucus. Nor was Alexander's son Alexander IV literally murdered in Greece, but merely gave up his primary Greek identity. In the princely pecking order, both Alexander IV and Heracles were below Ochus III/Antiochus (and likely also to Philip III/Arrhidaeus) in their early careers and were required to forfeit their royal Macedonian identities as a precaution. However, upon the death of Ochus III/Antiochus, Ptolemy II ultimately succeeded him as Antiochus II Theos (“the God”). Ptolemy II, called "Thoas" in the Alexander Romance, became the next Great King. What’s more, he also succeeded Alexander the Great (Chandra-Gupta) directly in India under the Indian king-name of Bindusara.
Birth Order of the Last Persian Royal Generation:

1) Alcetas of Epirus (Oxyarthes/Arta-Sata/Darius III)
2) Amyntas IV of Macedon/Aecides of Epirus/Seleucus (Arses/Artaxerxes IV)
3) Neoptolemus of Epirus/Ptolemy (Arbupales)
4) Arrhidaeus/ Philip III of Macedon (an invalid)
5) Alexander III of Macedon (Bupares)

Birth Order in the First Greek Royal Generation:

1) Ochus III/Antiochus I, considered a son of Darius III (and later of Seleucus), but actually sired by Artaxerxes III Ochus.
2) Heracles/Ptolemy Karaunus, considered a son of Alexander (and later of Seleucus), but actually sired by Artaxerxes III Ochus.
3) Alexander IV/Thoas/Ptolemy II /Antiochus II Theos (true son and heir of Alexander the Great)

A Date in Babylon

The Greek writers claimed to know so much about the order of the battle of Alexander and Darius III at Issus, because the plans were supposedly left behind by the fleeing Darius. In reality, there was ever only one plan for both armies. The success of Alexander depended more upon simple faith rather than “military genius.” His royal enablers parted a sea of soldiers, and Alexander (ala Moses) needed only to blindly pass through. After Alexander’s first triumph at Issus, he did not pursue Darius toward the east. Military analysts have criticized him for this, however at this time Alexander was still following the script. And that script required him to lead his Greek conglomerate army southward toward Palestine and Egypt, even as the hodge-podge Sea Peoples overran Asia Minor and advanced southward in earlier times after the “Fall of Troy.”

As Helen of Troy was “stolen away” from mighty Menelaus and paired with Paris for a season, so had Barsine been “taken” by Darius III from Memnon of Rhodes, the first husband of Barsine. However, this second match proved infertile, and it was therefore necessary for Barsine (as a new “Briseis”) to become the reward of Alexander the Great (in the role Achilles). One by one, the great cities of the Empire were formally surrendered to Alexander. The Greek victory was predetermined. The only thing yet to be settled was which former Persian prince would be ruling the Empire when the Greek conquest concluded. And that was not to be decided on the battlefield, but in the royal boudoir.

The “ancient historians” that wrote about Alexander and his conquest had very specific knowledge about the Persians, the royal family, its administration and leadership and even their private council meetings - what we would call “insider information.” They also knew Alexander’s place within the Persian hierarchy, however they were not at liberty to disclose it directly. They however did quite clearly spell it out for all who “had eyes to see” and “ears to hear.” The Persian name that maps to Alexander is Bupares. Bupares/Bubares is an odd and uncommon name, but it just so happens to have been that of an earlier Persian magnate, the very first Persian appointee as overseer in Macedon (and also the governor/viceroy of Babylon of that earlier time), who dates back to the reign of the first Persian king named Darius (“The Great”). The latter Bupares (Alexander the Great) was likewise made king of Macedon by Persian decree, as well as being the contemporary Persian-appointed military commander and governor of Babylon at the beginning of Darius III’s reign. Both titles were worthy of a Persian prince.

Alexander was in no particular hurry to leave his beloved Babylon. Neither was there any urgent need for Alexander to rush into Persia in order to capitalize on his victories over Darius III. This was not a real invasion, but a scripted transition from a Persian to Hellenistic Empire. Although it was only October, there was no point in pushing it. Alexander stalled by ordering a prolonged siege of Tyre along the Phoenician coast that was supposedly holding out against him, and as the Phoenician island of Arwad was singled out in the previous “Coming of the Sea Peoples.” He also took time to drag the body of Batis of Gaza behind his chariot as Achilles had done to his enemy Hector in the Iliad. A third minor skirmish was required to deal with the turncoat "Amyntas son of Antiochus" in Egypt, but this did not even require the direct involvement of Alexander. Alexander (like Jesus of the Gospels) needed only to speak the word and the situation was resolved. Thus was completed the second phase of the “Conquest.”

Click on the following link for the complete work:
« Last Edit: January 25, 2016, 05:58:15 PM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Sr. Member
Posts: 266

« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2014, 07:19:09 PM »

Everyone Loves a Charade

The Persian magnate blamed for killing Darius III during his flight from Alexander was called Bessus. He was also identified as the Persian satrap (governor) of Bactria, which was traditionally the domain of the heir apparent to the Persian throne. At the Battle of Gaugamela, it was Bessus that intentionally stretched the Persian line to allow Alexander opportunity to make a direct attack on Darius. At Gaugamela and afterwards, Bessus was clearly calling the shots. The name Bessus (Bess/Bes) is itself highly curious. It associates well with familiar aristocratic Persian names ending in -bazus, and also with Baryaxes, a Persian “rebel” that like Bessus had declared himself a Persian king and was delivered to Alexander. Likely, Baryaxes (and/or x-Bazus) was the real Persian name of this magnate. The name Bes first appeared during the Ptolemaic Era when the histories of Alexander were being written, and was applied to one of the more comical gods of the Egyptian pantheon. Bes was squatty and unabashedly well-endowed. He had a broad face and the hair and mane of a lion. Bes typically held a weapon, especially a knife/ sword, or the hieroglyphic sign for “protection.” He might also firmly grasp a pair of serpents or other potentially harmful creatures. Bes was invoked by women as a charm during coitus and pregnancy, and as a defender of their newborn children.
Image: Bes, protector of women and the newborn.,_inizio_epoca_tolemaica,_calcare.JPG

Image: Coin depicting a Persian Period king.

The grotesque Bes made for a ready caricature of Persian Great Kings, especially as they were depicted on coins. A carving of Artaxerxes III Ochus in Egypt was thoroughly gnomish and unflattering. Prior to the Ptolemaic Period, Bes was referred to as Aha (or close variants of the name Aha), as in the early dynastic figure of Horus Aha (Acha). The Persian kingly name of Ochus (Ochus II/Artaxerxes III, the "Lion of Judah"/Horus prince of his generation) would certainly have fit the bill. During the Egyptian New Kingdom, this god had been a particular favorite of the prolific breeder Amenhotep III (“Memnon”) and his artisans, and therefore Aha/Bes was an ideal image with which to lampoon "Grand Persian Poobahs,” such as Artaxerxes II Memnon and the contemporary "Memnon of Rhodes." It is clear that none of the leading kings and princes of this era died from intrigue, murder, or untimely death of any sort. Artaxerxes III (Ochus II) had not literally died in a coup, but had voluntarily resigned the throne to Artaxerxes IV (Amyntas IV/Seleucus son of Antiochus). Artaxerxes IV in turn yielded it up to Darius III (Artasata/Alcetas of Epirus) as part a carefully scripted sequence patterned after the same scenario that brought down the Babylonian Empire and led to the rise of the Persian Empire! It was now used to bring the Persian Period to a close and the Greek Period to boil. After Darius III had fulfilled his designated role, he too relinquished the crown under the direction of "Bessus." Darius also lived on to play other roles in the unfolding drama of the conquest and the post-apocalypse Hellenistic world.

The Greek Conquest was a carefully choreographed crisis. What gave it real suspense from the royal perspective was that the succession had not been settled. Because there was not a clear succession, the script was not entirely canned, but by definition had to allow for “alternate endings.” None of the older princes (Alcetas-Arta-sata-Darius III; Amyntas IV-Seleucus-Artaxerxes IV; Ptolemy-Neoptolemus-Arbupales; Arrhidaeus-Philip III; or Bupares-Alexander III) had yet sired a qualified heir. The only young prince, Ochus III, was still a toddler when the Conquest began. His ability to produce an heir was obviously also uncertain. The longer his rivals went without a son the longer Alexander could stay in the game.

Two Faked Funerals and a Shot-Gun Wedding

Upon reaching the furthest extents of the Persian Empire, Alexander stormed the fortress of Cryopolis (founded and named for Cyrus the Great) upon the Jaxartes River, and was knocked senseless by a large stone about the head and neck. Although his vision and speech was seriously impaired, Alexander immediately ordered construction of a new city named after himself (“Alexandria-the-Furthest”). Upon his recovery, Alexander then crossed the Jaxartes River into wild Scythian territory and nearly died of dysentery. Cyrus the Great had himself died at the hands of Scythians after crossing the Jaxartes, and Alexander could now claim to have excelled him. Another role model, the over-zealous Biblical upstart Abimelech, “Father of the King,” (Thutmose I, founder of the Egyptian New Kingdom) had himself died after a stone was thrown down upon his head when trying to take a city. Yet, Alexander had one-upped this great royal ancestor and mighty empire establisher, as well.

In the Gospel of John, there are three separate attempts to kill Jesus. The first occurred somewhat spontaneously and was actually initiated by Jews that supported (“believed in”) him. They became incensed by his exclusive claims of divinity (special relationship with the true Father God) and equally audacious claims of immortality (past, present and future). The second attempt came from those Jews that were on the fence, so to speak, or should we say “on the wall.” They not only took issue with Jesus claiming to be God, but also for rejecting them as not even being worthy to be his “sheep.” All three incidents took place at major Jewish holidays when people were the most fervent. In the first two situations, Jesus had put himself in harms way and then had to quickly make an escape. The third attempt was initiated by the authorities and with Jesus as an active and willing participant.

After his near death experiences in Sogdiana, Alexander announced at a feast that he was being betrayed even as Darius had been sold out by Bessus. In other words, it was Alexander’s turn to “take the fall.” (In the Gospels, Jesus announces - in remembrance of Alexander and the god Osiris before him- that he must be delivered up, ill-treated, and put to death.) Alexander then signaled that his officer Cleitus should be struck down for his insolence. Cleitus had foolishly boasted the he had cut off the arm of Alexander’s attacker at Granicus and thereby saved Alexander’s life and campaign almost before it had even begun. However, it was never wise to boast that the king was indebted to anyone. Cleitus was ushered out of the room. A substitute immediately returned through another entrance, and after another taunt from Cleitus’ double Alexander ran him through with a lance. It was all an act.

Cleitus had not literally been put to death, but made an object lesson for those who would stir up dissent and challenge the traditional inviolability of kingship, particularly the type of kingship Alexander intended to pursue in India. The New Testament parallel is the scene (immediately following the statement by Jesus about his own betrayal) in which Peter lops off the ear of the High Priest’s servant, who had come to arrest Jesus and have him put to death. Jesus rebukes Peter for this act of protection, but not murderously so (as in the case of Alexander). However, Jesus does prophesy that Peter will deny him three times before transforming back into the “Rock (of Sogdia)” upon which his church/dynasty would be built. Peter’s career was only getting started, and so was that of Cleitus, who emerges as an alter ego of Seleucus. Seleucus would in fact “deny” Alexander three (or more) times in the coming months and years, at least once in India, again back in Ecbatana, and once more at Babylon.

The demise of Cleitus was accompanied by that of Spitamenes, the satrap of Sogdiana and last Persian magnate resisting Greek total victory. The royal women were understandably tiring of the unending action sports. It was high time for more staged weddings and less faked beheadings. Barsine was again pregnant “by the will of God” and was in need of an “earthly” husband as a covering. Conception of this ostensibly Messianic child, who was also to be called Heracles as a direct affront to Alexander, required a wedding, as Olympias had once-upon-a-time married Philip after conceiving Alexander by a different royal partner!

To gain his bride, Alexander contrived to now best Joshua (also of the “Heracles” type) too. He would capture a mighty fortress with just 300 men (there’s that number again). These storm troopers were commanded to scale the Sogdian Rock that was being held by a certain “Ariamazes” (an encore presentation of Mazaeus/Mazacus, who earlier had handed Egypt and Babylon over to Alexander) and where “Roxane” (the erstwhile Barsine now being called the “daughter of Oxyarthes”) was also being held! When his Macedonian troops murmured about his marriage to a “Persian” woman, Alexander famously said that even the doomed Achilles had demanded (and received) the consolation prize of Briseus, with Briseus of course being a word play on Barsine. This exploit not only served to identify Barsine/ Roxane with the “goddess” Rahab (the bride of Joshua), but also further asserted Alexander’s claim to the role of Joshua (Heracles).

Roxane was “rescued” and the two were married a short time later (ala the controversial “secret marriage” of Rehab and Joshua in the Old Testament). In turn, this event became an important pattern to be followed by the New Testament Jesus and Mary Magdalene (“The Lady of the Tower”). The precedent set by both Joshua and Alexander (as a neo-Joshua/ Horus) was that he needed to heroically claim his bride for dynastic purposes, and save her from the clutches of “less worthy” royal rivals. Alexander would have welcomed a marriage to the already pregnant Roxane. If the child was a male, then he would at least be recognized as the founder of an important dynastic line, even if he was not the biological father. It was a highly desirable consolation prize. The child was in fact a boy, who was named Heracles as well. This son became the first heir of Alexander, but was later not acknowledged as such when Alexander gained a son of his own.

Carrying Koinonia to Cush

By the following spring (326 BC), Alexander was again on the move and defeated a king named Assacenes en route to the Punjab region of India. The queen there, called Cleophis, surrendered a major city to Alexander and was said to have become pregnant by him (later bearing him a son). Several months prior to this (late 327 BC), Roxane had given birth to Heracles (her second son) and was available once again for well-qualified suitors. Like Cleophis, Roxane was old enough (barely) to be a grandmother, particularly through her daughter (the eldest of her children). After a month or two, Alexander would have become anxious to have his turn, especially considering that Roxane (Cleophis) was also now considered to be his lawful wife back in old Persia!

Image: Alexander offering (at the Temple of Luxor) to the god and receiving the gift of fertility from the god.

The Alexander biographies do not directly mention that Roxane conceived during this time, however there is evidence that she lost a child, either through miscarriage or shortly after birth, and specifically when Alexander reached the Hyphasis River about nine months later. Putting two and two together, Cleophis was just a local representation of Roxane and Assacenes yet another alias of Artaxerxes III (Bessus, the throttler of serpents and protector of infants), who had already sired two sons upon Roxane and was once again allowing other royal males an opportunity to do so as well. In the Gospels, Mary of Cleophis (a.k.a. “Mary of Cleopatra”) is considered a close relation of Mary Magdalene, but perhaps the two should actually be considered one and the same princess. The healthy, surviving son that Cleophis eventually gave Alexander corresponds to Alexander IV.

In the coming months, the Indian campaign met with success upon roaring success. However, it suddenly came to an elephant’s screeching halt. While camped at the Hyphasis River, Alexander was informed of the death of his son by Roxane. (See the Metz Epitome, verse 70). This devastating event more than anything brought the expedition to an abrupt end and cast a somber mood over the entire camp. It clearly demonstrates how much royal activities revolved around the outcomes of royal pregnancies.

Lost in Paradise

During his withdrawal from India, Alexander entered the territory of a cheiftain named Sopeithes, whose name connotes, “Serpent of Wisdom.” Sopeithes feigned submission to Alexander, but was surreptitiously laying a trap for him. While raiding a city of the region, Alexander was shot by an arrow - not from the front or the back, but in the side. It was “friendly fire” from his so-called partners in the royal business of world domination. Alexander miraculously survived the assassination attempt, but found himself effectively under house arrest. Chief among his wardens were a “brood of vipers,” to use another New Testament allusion. They were the two sons of the Persian Queen Atossa, and Atossa herself plays the role of the jealous goddess Hera (who wants to kill the son of Zeus) and attacks him (unsuccessfully) with two deadly snakes. Consistent with this imagery, Atossa’s "shape-shifting" serpentine sons are identified as Peithon son of Cratueas and Peithon son Agenor (Artaxerxes II Memnon). The name Peithon (a homonym of Python, “serpent”) has the direct meaning of “Persuader,” and derives from the Greek peitho, “to convince, to pacify.” Alexander had been made an offer he could not refuse. Persuasion (rather than coercion) is also a byword in later Christianity. (1 Tim 1:12; Romans 4:21; 8:38).

The Madness of King Alexander

In preparation for Alexander’s "extradition" back to the West, the Indus Delta was turned over to Peithon son of Agenor (the former Darius III)! Alexander would not receive it back until he fulfilled his end of the contract, that is, by returning to Mesopotamia and relinquishing his claim to the Great Throne. Peithon held this strategic territory of India in earnest, and in the meantime permitted (if not directly ordered) the harbors and other structures Alexander had built there to be destroyed by locals. The other Peithon, Peithon son of Crateuas (the former Artaxerxes IV), was appointed ruler over the Medes, which represented the heart of the Empire and therefore the strategic center. The very core of the greatest and largest empire of all time was conceded by Alexander to others, and seemingly to inconsequential, low-ranking soldiers (to whom he was now completely beholden).

The Greatest Companion

After the “extradition party” reached Ecbatana (Western Iran), Hephaestion suddenly took ill and died. The intimate relationship with Alexander had already gone on far longer than was proper, even in Greek society. It was also time for Hephaestion to look after his own dynastic future, especially considering that Barsine/Roxane had just become pregnant by Alexander again!  In order to do so, it was necessary for this intimate and trusted companion to (at least temporarily) “lift up his heel” against Alexander (Psalms 41:9; John 13:18). Hephaestion does however not do this as Hephaestion, but under other aliases, especially that of Harpalus.

Although Ptolemy did not come into prominence until late in the Greek conquest, he is oddly named first among the illustrius “Pella Five,” those constant companions of Alexander from his childhood in Macedon. Hephaestion, despite being considered Alexander’s closest friend, is not even included in that short list. However, when it is realized that Hephaestion is one and the same as Ptolemy, the apparent omission is resolved. The name Hephaestion itself connotes lameness. Bone problems were perhaps the most common of all royal defects. The god Hephaestus was the archetypal lame god, but his condition is often downplayed. He is typically shown sitting down, and occupied with his metallurgy work. If standing, he subtly leans against an implement. If walking, he carries a walking stick. Hephaestion was generally described as tall and attractive. His lameness is not made explicit, but can be guessed, not only by his very name and dependence upon Alexander, but his general avoidance of physical activity.

The name Ptolemy (a.k.a. Neo-Ptolemus II of Epirus) also derives from one of the epithets of the god Hephaestus, that being Polúmētis, meaning "shrewd, crafty" or "of many devices." It appears that Hephaestion, after being born lame, was dedicated by Olympias on the island of Samothrace, and specifically at the temple of the Cabeiri, "the Great Gods," who were said to have descended from Hephaestus and were further distinguished as lame gods. Likely during the same visit, Alexander would have been conceived in one of the traditional “orgiastic rites” of the Cabeiri on Samothrace. Immediately afterward Olympias was betrothed to Philip II although Philip was not the true father. (In the Gospels, Mary is betrothed to Joseph upon her pregnancy with Jesus.) Tellingly, Alexander and his Successors lavished donations upon this temple.
Image: A ceremonial fan asserting (in Arabic) that Alexander the Great was the literal ancestor of a dynastic line in Southest Asia.

Click on the following link for the complete work:
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 02:13:03 PM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Sr. Member
Posts: 266

« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2014, 07:23:05 PM »

Death and Resurrection in Babylon

Alexander returned to Babylon “bearing his cross.” As he approached the city, the priests (of Bel) came out to warn against entering (and as Jesus is warned against entering Jerusalem). Alexander disregarded them, because he knew that his life was not literally about to end. Rather, the situation was identical to that of Jesus in the Gospels, who is made to say: “I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:17-18) Nonetheless, Alexander’s keepers brought a provisional army of 20,000 to Babylon to ensure that Alexander did not try to back out of his contract! Debate began to break out over Alexander’s supposed divinity. Preparations intensified for an expected military campaign. And then it was all over. Alexander entered the ancient “Witness Protection Program” and began another kingly life back in India under the name of Chandragupta. Jesus of the Gospels would do the same under the Indian (Kushan) name of Kujula Kadphises.[3]


Image: Isis (left), Sarapis (rear), Harpocrates (front) and Dionysos (right). Provenance: 2nd Century, Tunisia (North Africa). Displayed: The Louvre (Paris, France). Photographer: I, Jastrow (placed in the public domain).  Interpretation: Harpocrates (heir to the throne of Egypt as Alexander IV) signifies his inheritance from Serapis (the deified Alexander) by holding the cornucopia.

Ptolemy’s devotion to Alexander was renewed in Babylon, and as demonstrated by the establishment of a Hellenized makeover of the Osiris Mystery Cult. In Egypt, this new religion was dubbed Serapis (or Sarapis), and in effect became the mortuary cult of Alexander. Serapis was associated with the star and crescent moon, as was Alexander and his successors. The prophesy that Alexander would be worshipped as a god during his own lifetime was literally fulfilled though the creation of this brand new faith. In emulation of Osiris, Alexander had submitted to a symbolic death and resurrection. Horus the son of Osiris was said to have been born after the death of Osiris and his resurrection accomplished through the action of Thoth and Isis. Alexander’s son and heir, Alexander IV, was likewise born after his own symbolic death and resurrection. The son of Serapis is called Harpocrates, and together with Isis, they formed a type of holy trinity. Harpocrates represented Alexander IV (the future pharaoh Ptolemy II), and Isis represented his mother, Queen Berenice (the former Barsine/Roxane).

Image: Sarapis and Isis as a Naga and Nagini (with Harpocrates, center).

Serapis, besides having a serpent/uraeus at his feet, was also linked to the Agathodaemon (or Agathos Daemon), which Alexander had declared to be the “guardian spirit” of the new city of Alexandria in Egypt. During the early Hellenistic period, the Greek word daemon was closely associated with India, the land of spirits. Daemon could apply to either a good or bad spirit, however in the later Jewish context of 1st Century Palestine, it takes on a largely evil connotation. The emphasis, however, on “demons” in the Gospels is nevertheless another obvious parallel to the Life of Alexander and his own adoption of the daemon as an icon of his shadowy rule. It is certainly also another major sign as to the whereabouts of Alexander in the years following his staged death in Babylon. The Agathodaemon of Alexandria was a direct equivalent to the Indian Naga (a.k.a. Sarppas) serpent, and the god Serapis could transform himself into a Naga form. Serapis also had a distinct association with the Underworld as did the Indian Naga.
Image: A coin of Ptolemy showing Alexander in an elephant drawn chariot. Alexander himself could also take the appearance of Agathodaemon.

The name Agathodaemon itself would have been parsed as, "The Rich/Noble/Fortunate Indian." If Alexander were truly dead, he would not have been referred to in such terms. Nor would Ptolemy have been issuing coins "in the name of Alexander," much less deliberately showing Alexander with an Indian (elephant) headdress and riding around in an elephant-drawn chariot. There was also a female Naga (Nagini) and the two were often coupled. The legend about Alexander's sister being turned into a mermaid after Alexander's "death" must be related to her identification with Alexander in India. In other words he was the Naga Raja and she was the serpent goddess Nagini in an Indian context.

Click on the following link for the complete work:
« Last Edit: November 10, 2014, 12:59:23 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Sr. Member
Posts: 266

« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2014, 11:44:15 PM »

1.   The Macedonian royal court was an exact mirror of the Persian royal court.  (All of the Persian royal family members had Macedonian identities.)

2.   Alexander was a legitimate Persian Prince by the name of Bupares.  At the time of the Greek invasion of Asia minor, Alexander was already the Persian appointed governor of Babylon.

3.   Alexander’s great victories in Asia Minor were all staged.  The capture and death of Darius in Persia was likewise staged.  No king or prince of this time period was killed or died an untimely death of any sort.

4.   Royal family support (consensus) for Alexander’s continued campaign and rule collapsed in India upon the death of his first son by Roxane (shortly after birth or stillborn/miscarriage).

5.   Alexander was required to abdicate in the West and forfeit his Western identity.  However a substitute died in his place.

6.   Upon the "posthumous" birth of his second son (Alexander IV), Alexander the Great was permitted to resume his “conquest” in India, no longer as Great King, but under the contemporary Indian name of Chandra-Gupta (“Alexander the Copt/Egyptian”).  As clearly preserved in the Life of Alexander of Macedon (a.k.a., “The Alexander Romance”), Alexander completed the consolidation of Northern India, including the headwaters of the Ganges, and traveled even further to the East.

7.   Alexander’s son was the youngest of only three princes born in that generation.  Prior to their coming of age, the two younger princes (Alexander IV and Heracles) forfeited their royal Macedonian identities in favor of the eldest prince (Antiochus, the former prince Ochus III of Persia).

8.    Antiochus and Heracles (renamed Ptolemy Karaunus) subsequently both failed to sire heirs of their own through qualified princesses.  However, the son of Alexander did sire an eligible male heir, which finally settled the Succession debate.

9.   Alexander the Great, as Chandra-Gupta, defeated Seleucus in battle and imposed terms upon him, including marriage to the daughter of Seleucus, and by which Alexander later sired a third son (second surviving son) called "Prince Seleucus" in Mesopotamia and "Prince Lysimachus" in Egypt.

10.   Upon the death of Antiochus “son of Seleucus,” Alexander IV succeeded to the throne of a reconsolidated Greek Empire.  As the new Seleucid king, Alexander IV assumed the name Antiochus II Theos (“God”).  As the successor to Ptolemy in Egypt, Alexander IV further assumed the name of Ptolemy II Philadelphius and became father of Ptolemy III.  And as the natural son of Alexander the Great in India, he assumed the Indian king name of Bindusara (father of Ashoka).
11.   The triumph of the natural line of Alexander explains the continued reverence for Alexander throughout the Classical Age and beyond.

12.   The triumph of the natural line of Alexander further explains his esteem by (and impact on) all three major religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2015, 12:09:53 AM by Chuck-Star » Logged
Pages: [1]
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC

Clear Mind Theme, by burNMind with modifications by: WebDude
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.21 seconds with 16 queries.