You might be wondering why all these Roman royals were using all these aliases. The reason given by the authors of these books is that the aristocrats had to wear several hats. This enabled them to stay in power but would have enraged people if they knew all these different people were really the same people. For example, the Pisos were the tax collecting arm of the Flavians and yet these same people were also officials high up in the Church. They couldn't let people know that.

Earlier, I was watching a documentary called The Wrecking Crew. It covers the 1960s pop music business and the session musicians who played on thousands of recordings. These people were known as the Wrecking Crew. Glenn Campbell was in the Wrecking Crew as was Leon Russell. Carol Kaye was the famous bassist in the crew. Earl Palmer and Hal Blaine were the best known drummers. Tommy Tedesco and Bill Pitman were also Wrecking Crew musicians. The record labels were involved in a big deception: these people played on the records of bands replacing the actual musicians but the labels wouldn't allow the Wrecking Crew musicians to be credited on the albums.

All these different bands used the same musicians--the Beach Boys, the Monkees, the Association, Paul Revere & the Raiders, all the soul acts, all of Phil Spector's productions,
Dean Martin, Andy Williams, etc. Mickey Dolenz stated the labels wouldn't allow these musicians to be credited and it was a blatant deception. Dick Clark states: "Maybe one of the reasons they left the names off was the same musicians played on so many people's records it would have been an embarrassment if anybody had ever listed them."

So there is a real life example of what the Roman royals/PIso scholars are saying. If you're listed as landlord, banker, car company, electronics manufacturer, government regulators, Supreme Court, half the Senate, powerful government bureaucrats, pope, cardinals, bishops, intellects, teachers, college administrators, treasury, IRS, etc., people will start to become concerned as how you can be all these people without any conflicts of interest. It invites people to get angry and stage revolts realizing that everything is a sham. Unlike the Wrecking Crew, the royals couldn't go uncredited without arousing suspicion so they hid behind aliases so that you'd never know that the guy collecting your tax money is the same guy taking your tithes in church and collecting your rent, etc.

Began reading The Origins of Early Christian Literature by Robyn Faith Walsh. She has some vids on Youtube if you're interested. This woman is a scholar in every sense of the word. This is an excellent book thus far and I expect it to maintain that excellence throughout.

Walsh writes:

This monograph argues that the Synoptic gospels were written by elite cultural producers working within a dynamic cadre of literate specialists – including persons who may or may not have had an understanding of being “in Christ.” Through comparison with a range of ancient bioi (lives), histories, and novels, this study demonstrates that the gospels are creative literature produced by educated elites interested in Judean teachings, practices, and paradoxographical subjects in the aftermath of the Jewish War. It provides a more concrete account of the processes by which the gospels likely were written and establishes that they are in dialogue with writings and writers of their age rather than assuming that they were produced by or for “Christian communities.”

While not a proponent of the Roman royals hypothesis, Walsh comes close to stating as much when she makes reference to the early Christian writings as being created by "elite cultural producers working within a dynamic cadre of literate specialists" and "educated elites." Certainly, the traditional disciples could not possibly be such men. Many of them would have been wholly illiterate. The actual writers as Walsh discovers were wealthy and well-connected people working with a common purpose. We have to get rid of this idea of small Christian communities each holding their particular letters and gospels dear and reading them to congregations who preserved and protected them. This is a myth of Christian history.

As Richard Miller points out, the introduction of Christianity had no real effect on Judaism internally. Judaism retained and preserved its laws and traditions without incorporating anything of Christianity. After the Jewish wars, the Jews were as non-Christian as they were before. In Palestine, Christianity had no effect at all. The people that were profoundly and forever changed were the Europeans. That's who this literature was aimed at, taking advantage of the Judaistic bent that became popular in Rome after the Jewish war.

These things are mentioned in Walsh's book and in Miller's excellent book, Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity (Routledge Studies in Religion Book 44). Miller's posits that the early Christians would not have interpreted the Resurrection to have been historical. They were well aware that it was a total fiction. The symbology presented in the stories of Christ were of the same type as earlier gods they would have recognized going back to Romulus or Heracles in the form of what Miller calls translation fables that contain recognizable patterns that are not limited by culture or language and so propagate widely. This elevated Christ to a god equal to any in the Greco-Roman world. This is an extremely intellectual work, trust me on that. Your brain will get a real workout trying to grasp everything Miller is saying. It is not light reading.

I am also intrigued by how a lot of information dovetails with the Roman royals hypothesis even though neither author here says anything about that at least as far as I have read. I am seeing just how meticulously that these stories were created and that the people who wrote them were far too educated and wealthy to be disciples of Christ. That the history of early Christianity is fraudulent. Pretty much everything we have been taught to believe about its origins is false.

A woman I knew frequently asked me how this one little religion from the Middle East would have turned all of Europe into a Christian monolith within 3 or 4 centuries. Yes, I admitted, it does seem unlikely that this could have happened. But if we realize that this religion was manufactured by an educated Roman elite to maximize their power, the story loses its luster. How did it leave Palestine to take over Europe? It didn't. The story was manufactured in Rome by those in power. It was always in Europe but with a storyline that it originated in Palestine, which it did not.

The translation fables that Professor Miller refers to are a purely Hellenic phenomenon. These fables introduced recognizable elements that Hellenic citizens would pick up on. A fable introduces the element of a cup, for example. Jesus says he will not drink from this cup again until he drinks it anew in paradise and had earlier asked god to take the cup of suffering away. Where have we heard that before? What Greek would not immediately recognize the story of Socrates and the hemlock? The Jews in Palestine certainly had no use for writing this way. Strange then that the gospel stories line up one translation fable after another. From the Greeks? Yes. The Jews--definitely not. This is Hellenic literature stringing translation fables together.

By the time of Constantine, all we see is a Roman royal pushing this Roman royal religion onto Rome. More or less a continuation of a process already well underway. So, really, what was so phenomenal about the spread of Christianity through Europe? Nothing. It was going to happen because the royals wanted it to happen. Rather obvious. Sorry, there is nothing amazing in that.

To understand how the numerology of the NT works, requires more background explaining than I am prepared to include. Suffice it to say that the numerologists depended upon using the alphabets of various languages and assigning a numerical value to each letter. When a word is spelled, the value of its letters is added up. Words with that same value are considered to be equivalent concepts. If they were words with opposite meanings, then it was believed that these words were united at some deeper level. This system was called gematria when the Hebrew alphabet was used and was called isopsephia when the Greek alphabet was used.

This type of numerology is used throughout the bible—OT and NT. A full sentence can be converted to numbers to reveal new, occult meanings. In Revelation 13:18, for example, we find the verse:

“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.”

The Greek text for “and his number is Six hundred threescore and six” is “kai ho apithmos autou 666”. Now, if we convert each word in that phrase using the rules of isopsephia, we get 31 + 70 + 430 + 1,171 + 666 = 2368. What is the significance of 2368? It is well-known as the value of IESOUS ChRISTOS (888 + 1480) or Jesus Christ. That is certainly not coincidence.

The author of Revelation, traditionally identified as one John who was exiled to the island of Patmos where he supposedly penned his document, was actually, according to some of the Roman royals theorists, Julius Piso who supposedly had misgivings about this new religion that his family was creating and the corruption and violence it was spawning. He tried to warn people as esoterically as the rest of his family had employed it to deceive. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the author as John. John appears to have had an interest in Gnosticism which would make sense if he was Julius Piso opposing the Christianity his family was creating. Revelation 13:1 states:

“And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.”

This beast is an archetype of the Redeemer who is surfacing from the subconscious mind because the time has come for a new god, a new paradigm, a new age or aeon. As stated earlier, we know this beast is Jesus Christ. The sea represents the subconscious mind and “sea” in Latin is “mare” and from where we derive the name Mary. So, John witnessing the birth of a beast from the ocean is another way of expressing the birth of Jesus Christ from Mary. What is John’s source for this beast? John states that the beast had seven heads “and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.” That would indicate an image drawn or painted with each head having a label. We’ll get back to this.
Continuing on with John’s account:

3 “And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.”

Here, we have a reference to Christ’s death—he was mortally wounded and yet the wound was healed. In other words, he was resurrected. But it is only one of seven heads. In other words, Jesus Christ was just a sock puppet of the beast. He has other identities as well because it takes on different aspects in different cultures.

4 “And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?”

Despite these descriptions of the beasts as combinations of various creatures, they were horses because the only real beast that people of that region saw and often feared was the horse. Especially when there were thousands of them with armored men riding on their backs. The horse was a beast of conquest. So, when they ask who is like the beast and can make war with him, they are talking about a war horse. Horse in Greek is “ippos.” Ippos is an anagram of Piso. The first beast in John’s account is a new god, a solar god arising from the subconscious at the dawn of a new aeon, but its power has to be restrained, directed, harnessed. Tamed from a raging beast to a focused messiah—a warlord who will liberate them and not simply make war. Arrius Piso steps up to take the challenge on. He creates a meek messiah who died some decades before but was resurrected and soon to return. Arrius did this by creating writings we now call the synoptic gospels.

How is this coded into the text? Taking a look at the Greek text of Rev 13:3, we notice where it states: “…and all the world wondered after the beast.” Notice the word for “after” in Hellenic Greek is also translated as “behind.” That word in Greek is opiso. Remember that A and O are often interchanged in this esoteric writing system of the Pisos. So, we can read opiso as apiso or A(rrius) Piso. Arrius is the warrior/beast who will make war on (i.e. tame) the first beast. John describes the effects of Arrius’s meddling in creating his Jesus and giving him his voice:

5 “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

6 “And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

7 “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”

Here, John’s use of the word “saints” should be understood to be Gnostic saints—those Gnostics put to death by Christians for their beliefs.

John continues:

11 “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.”

This second beast/horse emerges from the earth so it is of a material origin unlike the first beast. It has two horns like a lamb. Verse 11 in Greek contains the word for “lamb” which is “arnio” which is the dative case of the noun “arnios.” Since r and n are interchangeable in the royals’ esoteric system, as well as with o and u, arnios can be understood as Arrius. The beast is a horse that speaks like a dragon and we see in the last square in the above figure the Greek word for dragon—drakon, which means snake. The horse or Arrius bellowed like a dragon, a loud war cry heard throughout the Empire.

But the horse can also be said to have talked like a snake. Serpents were seen as wise (Be ye wise as serpents) but it can also mean he spoke with a forked tongue, i.e. he said one thing but deliberately meant another (as esotericism was designed to do), a deceiver. Since Jesus was called the Holy Lamb of God, he too is Arrius who puts words in their mouths through the writings that became the Christian synoptic gospels but, in reality, this Christ/beast has never spoken a word for it is not human and does not exist in the material world.

12 “And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.”

Through his trickery, Arrius has fooled the Empire into worshiping the first beast, the new god he created with scripture written about a man who was mortally wounded but resurrected. Remember that this was only one of the seven heads of the beast but Arrius tricked the Empire into accepting this one head as being all there is.

13 “And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

14 “And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.”

So, the church that arose from Arrius’s new religion used staged miracles and other means of deception done in the name of the first beast to trick the people into worshiping his image. The basic Gnostic idea was to regard Jesus Christ as a non-corporeal, non-historical entity. Matter was biologically evil and so they detested idols and did not worship them. Idolatry was silly superstition that kept the mind in prison. They were not about to worship a statue of a dying, tortured man.

15 “And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.”

But Arrius had brought these statues to life for the people. They didn’t see the idols as idols but as something alive and holy—as Jesus Christ himself. The statues spoke because the Church was a type of ventriloquist. First, Arrius and then the churches began putting words in Christ’s mouth. Then, to consolidate their power, they killed any non-believers who talked too loud. These were the Gnostic saints referred to earlier.

Using isopsephia, we can find more references to the Piso family’s involvement in creating the New Testament canon. Mark 3:34 reads: “And looking about at those who were sitting in a circle around Him, He said, ‘Here are My mother and My brothers!’”

The Greek word for “circle” in this verse is “kuklo," the dative case of the noun "kuklos." PISO in isopsephia totals out to 360 and a circle, of course, has 360 degrees. So, the family of Arrius Piso is coded in the gospels as a circle of people. Now, Jesus’s words take on a new meaning. Those sitting in a circle around him means that Jesus is surrounded by the Piso family because he is Arrius Piso—their leader. Arrius, through his Jesus sock puppet, tells us: “Here are my mother and my brothers.” Indeed, the immediate family of Arrius were the culprits who assisted him.

This helps us to understand perhaps the most problematic passage in the bible a bit more clearly. Mark 4:10-12 reads:

“And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.”

The phrase “they that were about him” is code for a circle. They were circled around him and so, again, they represent the Arrius Piso family. They ask Piso the meaning of the parable he had written down as something coming from the mouth of this Jesus and he tells them that it means nothing. They are his family so they know the truth but everyone outside the family will only read the parables and not comprehend them because if they did they would be Pisos who know the deception but since they are not then they shall not be made privy to the secret. Only the royals know the truth.

What else can we learn from John/Julius?