April 02, 2020, 06:53:21 PM *
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: Chapter 16: Jesus Among the Julio-Claudians (The Jewish Revolt)  (Read 1753 times)
Sr. Member
Posts: 318

« on: August 11, 2017, 04:18:58 PM »

The following is an excerpt from:

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

The Jewish Revolt (and The Three Jesus Figures)

Despite siring a large number of sons (up to eight) Caesarion only had two royal grandsons by the mid-30’s AD, at which time his advanced age made it imperative to declare a successor. His eldest grandson would have actually been Herodion (the future Agrippa II, born around 27 AD). Herodian was the son of future Emperor Claudius. His second grandson would have been Aristobulus (Jesus Justus/Otto/Otho, born 32 AD), who was the son of Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus (Aristobulus of Chalcis, husband of Salome). A third grandson, Agrippa III (Josephus/Josephes, second son of Jesus) was not born until around 37 AD. A likely fourth grandson, the future Emperor Titus (son of Vespasian, the former Drusus III) was born in 39 AD, and a fifth, Britannicus, in 41 AD. Brittanicus would have been the second royal son (after Herodian) of Claudius.

The two true sons of Torquatus/Jesus (the “Jewish Alexander the Great”) were born after his “Passion Play” in Jerusalem, even as the two sons of Alexander the Great were born after his own “Passion Play” in Babylon. Although, Claudius was older than Torquatus and produced Caesarion’s first grandson, Torquatus won the race to produce two grandsons (ala Ptolemy IV). Claudius (a.k.a. Agrippa Posthumus) was the youngest son of Julia the Elder. Torquatus was the firstborn son of Julia the Younger. Claudius was the older of the two by about ten years, but his genetic defects were an obvious factor. Even so, there could have been genuine debate as to whether Claudius or Torquatus was the proper choice as successor. It is possible that the succession of Caesarion remained in limbo until the birth of the second true son of Torquatus (“Jesus”) in 37 AD. A second son was born to Claudius by 41 BC, but this likely came too late to impact the succession, i.e., after the actual death of Caesarion. Regardless, due to the severe infertility of the royal family, collateral branches remained essential. Any viable male lines stemming from Claudius (or even other royal males) could conceivably gain the succession in following generations if the dynastic “House of Jesus” were to fail.

If the succession had not been decided before the reign of Caligula began (in 37 AD), it certainly was by the time it ended (41 AD). Caligula was unable to sire a royal son, whereas Torquatus and Claudius now had two apiece. And, this may have been the reason Caligula’s reign was made mercifully short (i.e., less than four full years). With Caligula typecast as the Roman Akhenaten, it fell to Claudius to follow him as a tragic Roman Smenkhkare (the first successor of Akhenaten). Claudius was in fact a John/Osiris figure in his personal birth position and role playing. Nero then logically followed Claudius in the role of an ill-fated Roman Tutankhamun. However, intriguingly, the reigns of Caligula and Nero summed up to 17 years (the same length as that of both Akhenaten and Ptolemy IV).

At the end of his 13 year reign, Nero (or more likely his unfortunate surrogate) was subjected to a brutal assassination, even as King Tut had been savagely attacked and killed. The martyrdom of his Ptolemaic role model, Ptolemy V, had occurred when he was officiating under the guise of High Priest Jonathan and was treacherously induced to enter the city of Ptolemais with a relatively light guard during a declared truce. Jonathan was said to have been ambushed, taken captive and just as treacherously executed a short time later.

It was late in the reign of Nero that the Jewish Revolt began, which was also violently put down by order of Nero (as a Roman Akhenaten-figure). However, it was of course not the decision of Nero, but that of the current Great King, Torquatus/Aristobulus of Chalcis (“Jesus”), to go through with the planned Roman repetition of the Ptolemaic sacking of Jerusalem. This event may have had to wait until the literal passing of Claudius/Agrippa I. In any event, the son of Claudius/Agrippa I, namely Herodion/Agrippa II (the current King of Jerusalem), did not resist the invasion (and to some extent actually supported it). He was rewarded with a comfortable retirement in Rome thereafter. The apparent delay in the fulfillment of tradition with regard to the expected pillaging of the Jewish temple may also have served to better fulfill that tradition. The Egyptian Amarna Period lasted only about 30-40 years, depending upon how one defines it. However, the Great Revolt of the Ptolemaic Period last around 60 years.
In the lead-up to Jewish Revolt of Jesus’ generation, there was bitter contention over control of the High Priesthood, even as in Ptolemaic times. The High Priest Ananias son of Ananias was sacked for having over-stepped his authority in the “killing” of the Apostle James. He was replaced by one Jesus son of Dam-naius/Dam-neus (62-65 A.D.), a name or epithet with a number of very interesting connotations. Dam-naius/Dam-neus could refer to the same James (he of the “new spirit” of Christ) that was unjustly condemned to die by the previous High Priest Ananias son of Ananias. In other words, the son of this James was given the priesthood as compensation for “wrongful death.” Alternately, Dam-n-aius might also allude to the (condemned/rejected) daemon/spirit of an Alexander-figure. In that case, the priesthood was instead being bestowed upon a son of the rejected and “crucified Christ.”

When this first Jesus (whoever he might have been) was deposed as High Priest, he was replaced by a second Jesus, “Joshua ben Gamla,” who we are told had essentially bought the High Priesthood, even as a certain Jason (Greek form of Jesus) had done in Ptolemaic times just prior to the attack and “abomination of desolation” of Antiochus (IV) Epiphanes. Finally, this second Jesus was also removed and replaced by a Mattathias ben Theophilus, in whose tenure the Jewish Revolt broke out. During Maccabean times, it was the elderly Jesus-figure Mattathias son of Johanan/John that initiated the Jewish counter-revolution. And it was Jesus Christ (“son of John/Jonathan/Sejanus/Caesarion”), at the end of his earthly tenure, that was being typecast as the Mattathias (Ptolemy VI) of his own royal generation. The handwriting was on the Western Wall. The revolution, its suppression and the subsequent counter-revolution of Ptolemaic times were being combined into a single apocalyptic conflict in the Roman Era, which was both started and finishd by a single priest-king. Another Jewish temple was about to be ruined, but this time only a non-Jewish “New Jerusalem” was envisioned to replace it.

The precedent for three Jesus figures can also be found the Ptolemaic Period, during which time a triad of messiahs were manifest in the persons of Ptolemy V (“Jonathan/Johanan”), Ptolemy VI (“Mattathias”) and Alexander Balas (“Judas Maccabee”). All three were associated with the High Priesthood. However, the first two of these three were tender, even effeminate saviors (after Tut and Harsiese of the Amarna template). Only Alexander Balas (patterned after Seti) was overtly manly and militant.

Like the Ptolemaic Amarna Period, the Herodian one also lasted for around least 60 years (i.e., nearly the entire lifetime/generation of Jesus/Torquatus). However, in the Herodian repetition/fulfillment, the revolution, suppression and counter-revolution of the Ptolemaic Era was simplified to only revolution and suppression. Active revolt began late in the reign of Herod and continued during the early years of his successor Archelaus. However, the final uprising and destruction of Jerusalem did not occur until 66 AD (with continued resistance until the fall of Masada in 70 AD). The symbolic “death” of Jesus took place around the middle of the period in the late 20’s or early 30’s AD. The actual death of Jesus occurred around 75 AD.

Therefore, the Herodian Amarna Period also lasted around 60 years (i.e., ~60 years between the Herodian Akhenaten, Archelaus successor of Herod the Great, and the devastation wrought by the “Coming of Titus.” Although it would have been the decision of Jesus, as Great King, to go forward with the siege of Jerusalem, he chose not to personally lead it. The informed aristocrat would have known that the Roman name of Antiochus IV Epiphanes had also been Titus, and more specifically, the Roman magnate Titus Flamininus.

Previous blog in the series:

Next blog in the series:

Table of Contents:

The prequel "Heroes of the Hellenistic Age" is posted at the page below:
« Last Edit: October 01, 2017, 11:47:16 PM 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 0.177 seconds with 16 queries.