| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Roman Empire is "alive and well"
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Roman Empire is "alive and well"

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Roman Empire is "alive and well"
    Posted: 04 Nov 2015 at 07:29
A couple/few weeks ago we were objectively investigating the papal claims about Peter's primacy and the keys and we just happened to unexpectedly accidentally discover that the early popes list is (semi-)fake in that the first 46+ popes all certainly/positiviely seem to match the contemporary Roman emperors [from at least Nero to Glycerius] in names/meanings, details, dates/order. A few may possibly be wrong still, but it can not be coincidence that so many match.

We posted this first on christianityboard.com but there have been strange things happen to me there since then and lately the new admin there is secretly persecuting me. We posted this on allempires forum but just now the forum seems to have a database error and not online/loading. (The christianityboard forum also recently had a database error too....) I must get this out before they totally supress all my avenues/communications and/or make my life here (even worse) hell. Maybe i am just paranoid but it seems like they control everything (isps, electricity, work, etc).

Here is the table of popes & emperors correspondences:

Popes / Bishops of Rome (all in chronological order)

(West/East/Holy) Roman Emperors (except a few) & pontifex maximus candidate matches (more or less in chronological order)

00 "John the Baptist" son of Zacharias (Baphomet)

Gnaeus Pompeius? [Janus? Oannes? Pope Joan/Zacharias?]

0 "Our Lord Jesus Christ"/Saviour/Son of God (JC, ihs, great high priest, trinity, crucified, cross, baptised, Galilean, bc/ad calendar, 30 yrs, condemned by 70/72 sanhedrim, virgin-born, star, successor/rep Cephas)

Julius Caesar (JC, deified, triumvir, crucified pirates, cross rubicon, , calendar, assasinated by 60+2 in senate, Gallia/Gaul, aimed at kingship, reform, Venus, successor Caesar Augustus, laurel wreath)? &/or Caesar Augustus (Divi Filius / seed of serpent, temple of Comet-Star)? or Tiberias? or Sun/Sol Invictus?? or Dominus Noster?

1/0 Apostle "(St/Simon) Peter/Petrus/Cephas/Kep(h)a" / cotyphaeus "choir-director" (32/33-67, upsidedown cross, 66 y.o., Hermes' house, short bushy white beard & good head of white hair, Caesarea Philippi, keys/door, 2nd yr Claudius, chair, 25yrs, 14th yr Nero, Perpetua, geode, domitian persecution, clementine chapel)

Nero(n) Caesar (54-68, antichrist 616/666, *hair-&-beard*)? &/or Caesar Augustus (1st), heir of (Julius) Caesar "thick head of hair"/"hairy"/"cut"? &/or Praetorian? &/or Patrician? &/or Paul (Paul's rented house)? [Simon Magus? janus? tribe of Simeon? Shimon Perez? Capernaum? Liber Pater? paderborn? Patriarch? Patrick? patera?  autocephalous?] (or Galba??) [Caiaphas/Beothus? Summus Pontiff?  Seaman (Antioch)?] Tiberius Claudius 41-54?

2/1/na "Linus" ("flax-coloured hair" / "net", 67-76, father Herculanus & mother Claudia, 15, martyr)

T Flavius Vespasian (Flavian "yellow-coloured hair", legions, 69-79)? &/or usurper(s Galba & Otho &) Vitellius? &/or Tiberius (2nd)? (or Julius??) or ...linvs?

3/4/na Anacletus &/or Cletus ("one who has been called (back)", anencletus "unimpeechible", 25, Athens/Greece, 76-88)

Titus Flavius Vespasian(us) (69-79 / 79-81)? (&/or Titus Flavius Domitian?) &/or Claudius? or Caligula?

4/5/2 Clement/Clemens I Romanus (88-97/99, trajan, philipians, issued '1 Clement' apostolic authority clergy, east, "knew Timothy")

Titus Flavius Clemens cousin of Titus Flavius Domitian(us) (81-96, reincarnation of Nero, persecution policy/declaration, Timothy)? &/or Nero (5th)? Clementine 2? la Clemenza di Tito? clemency Pius? clementine chapel (Peter)?

5 Ev-aristus/Aristus (Bethlehem, 12th yr Trajan, 7, 97/99-105)

Nerva (appointed by the senate, 96-98)? (&/or Nerva Trajan(us) (optimus princeps "the best ruler", sound admin, improved social conditions, modest, 98-117)?) [&/or good birth? &/or Eucharist/eucharia "gracious"? &/or Augustus?] &/or Vitellius? or Eventius? or Vespasian "well pleasing"?

6 Alexander I (105/107-115, Rom gov Hermes & 1500, St Quirinus of Neuss, St Balbina , & Eventius & Theodulus)

Trajan (98-117, fine soldier, extended empire, "thinking aloud of Alexander the Great" in Charax, Ignatius)? [&/or St Andrew (2nd/4th)?]

7/6 Sixtus/Xystus I ("polished"/"sixth", 115-125)

12 Caesars? or legio Sextae? (or Lucius Artorius Castus?) five good emperors?

legatus Syriae? Eventius? H’s Wall?

8 Telesphorus (tele "far", "accomplisher, bringer of completion", 12th year H, great martyr, 125-136)

Hadrian's Wall? or Theodulus?

9 Hyginus/Yginos (Athens, 136-140)

Hadrian(us)/Adriatic (117-138, Ignatius)? (&/or T Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Pius?)

10 Pius I (140-155, sword)

Antoninus Pius (138-161)?

11 Anicetus/Anicitus (Emesa/Syria, 155-166)

Titus A(ur)elius Antoninus Pius (138/139)? or Lucius/Marcus Aurelius Verus (161-169)? or M Aurelius Antoninus (161-180)? or M Aurelius Antoninus Commodius?

12 Soter((i)us) (166-174/175)

M Aurelius Verus (Stoic/study, 161-180)? or Sothis/Sirius (Antoninus Pius 138/139)?

13 Eleutherius/Eleuterus (Nicopoli, Epirus, 174/175-189, Christian king Lucius)

L(ucius) Aurelius Verus 161-169? (or Helvius Pertinax? or M Aurelius Commod(i)us (pleasure, Hercules, 177-192)?) [&/or Lucius Artorius Castus? or Marcus Aurelius?]

14 Victor I (Africa, 189-198/199)

civil wars 193-197? &/or military commanders (African emperors)? or Severus (commander of legions, military despotism, army)? or Marcus Aurelius (campaign against Germans)? or Commodius (Hercules)? Didius Julianus (won auction, 193)? or Pertinax?

15 Zephyrinus (199-217)

24 Septim(i)us Severus (193/198-211)? (& Severus Macrinus 217-218? or Severus (Caracalla, 198-217)? or P Septimius Geta??)

16 Callistus/Cal(l)ixtus I (217-222)

25 Caracalla (198/211-217)?

16-19 antipope Hippolytus (217-236)

28 Heliogabalus/Elagabalus (El/Baal, 218-222))? [hypocrite?] [Hypatia (Alexandria)?] [& Opellius (Macrinus/Diadumenian)?]

17 Urban(us) I (222-230)

Publius Septimus Geta 209-211? &/or M Opellius Macrinus 217-218? (or M Aurelius Severus Alexander??)

18 Pontian(us) (230-235)

Pupienus 238? or Gordianus 1/2? [Gordian knot & Pontus?] (or Bassianus??)

19 Anterus (235-236)

Alexander Severus 222-235? &/or C Julius Verus Maxim(in)us Thrax 235-238? (or M Antonius Gordianus?)

20 Fabian(us) (7, 236-250)

(Pupienus 238? &/or) Balbinus Pius 238?

21 antipope Novatian(us) 251

Volusianus / Hostilianus (251)? (or Latinius Postumus?) or Trebonianus Gallus (in opposition to Hostilian, 251-253)? or Valerian 253-260?

21 Cornelius (251-253, hardship)

Gordianus 3/2/1 (238-244)? or Herennius 251?

22 Lucius I (253-254)

Lucius Domitius Aurelianus 270-275? (or Lucius Aelianus? or P Licinius Valerianus or P Linicius Egnatius Gallienus 253-260/268? (or Volusianus??)) [Lykos? Luke? Lucifer? Lucina?]

23 Stephanus/Stephen I (254-257)

Ulpia Severina? (or Hostilianus??) or  Valerian (martyrs)? or Trebonianus Gallus 251-253? [or Egnatius Gallienus (253-268, murdered)??]

24 Xystus/Sixtus II (Athens, 257-258)

Tacitus/Tegid 275-276? or Trajan Decius 249-251 [compare Sixtus 1 & Trajan]?

25 Dionysius 259/260-268

Probus (farming, 276-282)?

26 Felix I 269-274

Florianus 276? (or Valerianus? (or Philippus??))

27 Eutychian(us) (Luni, 275-283)

Numerianus 283-284? (or Tacitus 275-276?) Tyche? or M Aurelius Probus (farming)?

28 Caius/Gaius (martyred, Dalmatia, 283-296)

Caius Aurelius Diocletian(us) (persecution, 284-305)? (&/or Carus 282-283 &/or Carinus 283-285?) [Caius in 3 John? Caligula?]

29 Marcellinus (296-304)

Marcus Aurelius Maximianus 286-305? &/or Maximinus? (&/or Licinius?)

30 Marcellus I (308-309)

Maximinus? &/or Marcus Aurelius Maxentius 306-312? &/or Galerius 305-311? (or Marcus Aurelius Maximianus?)

31 Eusebius (Sard, 309/310)

Severus 306-307?

32 Miltiades/Melchiades (Africa, 311-314)

Maximinus Daia (311-313)? &/or Maxentius (306-312)? or Martinian 324?

33 Silvester/Sylvester I (Nicea, St Croce, 314-335) [compare pope Sylvester 3?]

Constantine I the Great (cross, Milvian, 306-337, Istanbul)? [compare emp Constantine 9?]

34 Marcus/Mark (336)

Maxentius 306-312? &/or Magnus Magnentius? Martinian 324? [Mars? Mercury?]

35 Julius/Iulius I Rusticus (337-352)

Julian the Apostate 360-363? (&/or Julius Constans 337-350 &/or Julius Constantius 2 (337-361)?)

36 Liberius ("sign heretical creed", 352-366)

Jovian 363-364? or Julian the Apostate? or Licinius (pagan, 308-324)?

36b antipope Felix II (355-365)

Valerius Licinius? or Valens (317 / 364-378, east)?

37 Ursicinus/Ursinus (366-367)

Vetranio 350? or Theodosius (brown bear)? &/or Aurelius Ursicinus (Hoxne hoard)? &/or general Ursicinus? or Arcadius?

37 Damasus I (Portugal, 366-384)

Theodosius (christianity, 379-395)? [St James/Iago?] or Magnus Maximus?

38 Siricius/Sicirius 384-399

Gratian(us) 367-383?

39 Anastasius I 399-401

Arcadius 383-408?

40 Innocent(ius)/Innocens I (Visigoths, 401-417)

Valentinian ½ Invictus (364-375 / 375-392)?

41 Zosimus/Zosimas (417-418)

Theodosius ½ (379-395 / 402-450)? Or Magnus Maximus?

42 Eulalius (antipope, 418-419)

Eugenius? or Flavius Claudis Constantine 3? &/or Flavius Constantius 3 (421)? &/or Flavius Honorius? or Alaric/Arian? or Flavius Victor (west, 383/384-388)? or Flavius Theodosius 2 (east)?

42 Boniface/Bonifacius I (418-422)

Honorius 393-423? (or Eugenius?)

43 Celestine/Caelestinus I (422-432)

Constantine/Custanos  3 (407/409-411)? (&/or Constantius 3 (421)? &/or Valentinian 3? or Honorius (Coloseum)?) Coelus? Caelestis?

44 Sixtus/Xystus Tertius/III (432-440)

Avitus 455-456?

45 Leo I Magnus (Huns 451, 440-461)

(Petronius Maximus? &/or) Julius Majorianus (457-461, fine soldier, peace treaty Vandals 461)? &/or Livius Severus? &/or Leo 1 the Great (Byzantine, 457-474)?

46 Hilarius (Sard, 461-468)

Olybrius 472? &/or Glycerius 473-474? (&/or Honorius (Telemachus)??) or Libius Severus 461-465? or Flavius Valerius Leo (Byzantine)?


"Pope(s) can't be emperor(s) [&/or vice-versa]"? :

The/A picture of John Paul 2 looks pretty much like an emperor/caesar to me.
The imperial eagle in the picture of Gregory 1.
The eagle on stand in churches.
The talk of "authority", and of protestant/nonconformist "rebelion/disobeying" (which smacks of Roman/Imperial/Caesarean claim to rule the whole Empire/Europe).
Pictures of the popes sitting on Throne. [Satan's throne in 'Revelation/Apocalypse'.]
The popes wearing crown.
The caesar/kepha similarity.
The "Roman"/Rome.
Wearing a signet ring.
(?Purple) robe.
Sceptre.
Shown with/in palatium in at least one picture.
At least one pope thought he could "override sovereigns". Pope grant authority to a generously contributing ruler? Francis meeting the British queen?
Popes carried on sedan chair like Pharaohs & gods.
Foot/feet on royal/imperial cousion.
At least the first 46 early popes/bishops really match Roman emperors (in names/meanings, details, dates/order) as we have shown. (Emps were pms from Augustus to Gratian.) "With the adoption of Christianity, the Roman emperors took it on themselves to issue decrees on matters regarding the Christian Church."
"Revival of the Roman Empire" Maastricht 1992 (&/or Treaty of Rome 1957)?
[Varange's/Yockey's 'Imperium'?]
Caesaropapism. Regalia. Basilica. Dominus "lord".


Origins of the name/title Pope:

(white/red/black/anti/coptic) pope/papa /papal/papist/popish/papacy /papam/pp /pap(p)as/papais/papi "father/dad" (Homer, Heraclas Pat of Alex, Joan, Bp of Alex, Marcellinus, Vitalian, Gregory 7, Stephen 2, Palmarian, hierophant)
~ pater (mithraism)? prince of peace? poppo (Damasus II, 1048)? call no man father/abba? Poppaea 2nd wife Nero? Popinarii tavern-keepers? **Gaius Papirius (pontiffex Max, 509 bc)?** Numa Pompilius? Papa Bar Aggai Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon 280? Papias bishop of Hierapolis / disciple of John?


616 / 6(6(6)) / 999 [2666/1666/1656] & Rome :

- Saturn is Stur in Aramaic with numeral value 666.
- Latinus has numerals value 666.
- Peter died 66 y.o. [Nero 67ad?]
- Nero(n) (Caesar) 666/616.
- 666 in Revelation numerals like letters of sex.
- Roman numerals (i, v, x, l, c, d) add upto 666.
- synod Whitby 665 ad.
- legion 6000/6200/6666 men?
- Romiith has numerals value 666.
- he Latine basleia has value 666.
- italika ekklesia has value 666.
- vicarius filii dei has value 666.
- dux cleri has value 666.
- Ludovicus (Romance for Louis &/or "chief vicar of the court of Rome") value 666.
- Paul V vice deo has value 666.
- Mussolini has numerals value 666.
[- 1996 'Clementine 2' recalls '1 Clement' [Domitian persecution]?]
- 266th Pope Francis 1, 266th day (2015).

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Nov 2015 at 10:14
I think you know you are paranoid or you wouldn't keep bringing it up.  The thing is though that seeing things that are not there is part of the way we are designed.  It's a survival skill we have evolved.  Take a dog for example if the wind blows something over they may bark and growl at the general direction because they are designed to see agency in noise.  It's better to be wrong a hundred times than eaten once and it's a characteristic of most hunters both in seeing prey and avoiding predators.

The same principle applies to the idea that the roman empire lives on.  It a question of finding the agency in all the noise.  The U.S. capital has romanesque architecture and a senate.  The roman agency or heritage is unmistakable you could say the romans cause had an effect on us today.

There is another element to the equation however and that is intent.  Did the romans intend to have a lasting effect on other cultures?  The answer is the usual one which is yes and no.  Once you have found agency you have to determine what it's intent is.  This is where many people stumble because they want to see agents as having purpose but most of history is more of an accident than one of design.  So while you may be slightly paranoid or delusional there is no doubt that roman heritage lives on and that webmasters want to control the behavior of other people.  The question again is what is the intent, is it evil, amoral, constructive or benevolent or most likely a combination of all of these things. 

As to your theory concerning the popes it is not a new idea. 

"The Papacy is not other than the Ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof."  Thomas Hobbes

The following is an understatement  "Many popes in the first three centuries of the Christian era are obscure figures"  in that kind of historical void conspiracy theories thrive.  Many protestant people of otherwise sound mind seem to maintain an almost fanatical dislike for Catholicism.  Many protestants especially the evangelist have official beliefs concerning Catholicism that are paranoid delusions.  You are in fairly good company here but keep in mind that these paranoid delusions have historical relevancy.  During the religious wars the protestants maintained a propaganda war that has distorted history to a degree that is hard to understand.  For example recent research has proven that protestant persecution of dissent was in general more brutal and wide spread that that of the infamous inquisition yet most people are total unaware of the true history.   
  
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Nov 2015 at 10:28
Then we may say too that British and American history surely must be the product of some conspiracy. "Proof": There was King George the 3. - he must be identical with the other George (Washington) since we cannot imagine two Georges at the same time. Then there is the Bushes. Of course that poves a lot, then we have George and the dragon(or to be honest it proves nothing at all except how to manipulate coincidaldata).
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Nov 2015 at 15:36
There is a greek orthodox reserve in Greece that still technically answers to the Roman Empire. As it happens, I have said for a long time that the Christian churches have preserved elements of Roman culture. Many of their rituals and traditions are essentially Roman, most dating from pagan times.However, political survival is not really the case. The Ottoman Turks swept away the last surviving Roman administration in the 15th century. Everywhere else, native tribes of some sort or other had replaced the crumbling Roman government Latin titles continued to exist in Britain into the early medieval period, but by this stage, without the benefit of a supporting administration, military, and infrastructure, the presence of native tribalism had clearly superceded that of Rome, and indeed, we have historical references of the British benefitting handsomely for a while when taxes were no longer being demanded. Of course it is true that the Roman world has inspired people to attempt recreations, and the building of monumental structures has often been done in Roman-esque style, partly due to similar psychological drives, partly because the aura of the Roman Empire is something that subsequent powers have found very attractive. What is not Roman influence however is the human talent for spotting patterns and similarities, creating links that do not actually exist merely because two things look remarkably similar.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Nov 2015 at 22:59

Sorry my main point should be that the first 46+ popes match the emperors. The other stuff is only theory and should not detract. (I should have used a different topic/thread title sorry.) Sorry i shouldn't have spoiled the definite historical discovery with any conspiracy. It is just that i have had strange bad things happen to me so far since posting it elsewhere.

Whether of not i am paranoid is only of relevance to the worries about seeming persecution and control. But there is no doubt that the popes and emperors lists match for the first 46+ popes regardless, and that that is not paranoia, and that no one has disproven it other than mere words about me and about other stuff.

It is not just "seeing things that after not there" or how i am designed. How can you deny that pope Zephyrinus matches emp Severus? or that pope Alexander matches Trajan who "was thinking allowed of Alexander at Charax"? Etc. No one is considering the evidence objectively: and this has happened to me on all forums and on all topics for years. (The other tactic often used to is only focus on the weaker and ignore the strongest/starkest.)

My discovery is not "not a new idea". I have not seen anyone that has suggested/discovered that the first 46+ popes really match the emperors?
But yoiu are right that the general Roman/Empire & Papacy idea is not new.

Also you the claim that "paranoid" has to be proven not just claimed on "authority" or clever guilt/propaganda tactics. And even if a person is paranoid there can still be evil/wrong in the others.

People say nazis, communists, moslems, beneficiaries, etc can conspire, yet this system can't? They unfairly/untruely use "conspiracy theory" propaganda/psychology tactics to "discredit" people & their papers.

I am not a protestant nor an anti-catholic. I just/do hate making discoveries and no one ever agrees but always attacks. This is no different to all my other discoveries like "(King) Arthur's" 12 battles sites, Wonders of Britain, Atlantis/Tiahuanaco, Joseph in Egypt. I also hate suffering hell even if it is impersonal not personal.

Only the actual popes & emperors matches details & evidences matters not anything else.
I am surprised and annoyed at how people on all forums are so unobjective.

Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Nov 2015 at 23:10
Sorry please forget any conspiracy and just take my main point as the popes-emperors matches.
But just one last word on conspiracy:
If there is no conspiracy then how come i have never had any positive feedback for any of my discoveries ever? but instead always only either nothing or else negative.
(And it can't be because they are all wrong, because there is no doubt that they can't all be wrong. And it can't just be because i have not been able to write them or present them very well / well enough. And it can't be because not enough proof(s)/evidence because some we have given plenty of stark/quality and quanity evidences/proof.)

 -----

Why can't people ever see the discoveries/connections/corresondences/matches i have found? Even when i put it right in front of their faces no one ever seems to see them. Either:

they can't see what i can see
they can see something i can't see

i am seeing somehting no really there

there is something in the way of them seeing

ther is something missing in between so that they can't see

i am not objective

they are not objective

i am exagerating ("superficial" (&)) similarities and minimising differences.

they are exagerating differences and minimising similarities.

my criteria of proof/evidence is lower than theirs / their (arch-sceptics/acadmics) criteria of proof is higher/cautious than ours

there is a conspiracy?

they are to afraid to admit it.

they just don't think to say so to me (thinking i am a mind reader and know)

bad presentation/writing? too small text? poor "grammar"?

because i have not wrtten my paper the way academics stipulate (including giving a review of all others hitherto theories in the topic)?

i have not given enough details/explanation

people have their own pet theories

we have to also destroy/disporve all the current reigining theories/ideas before they can accept new one

"wrong linguistics/toponomy"?

because i don't cut out the weak/wrong things, and any weak/wrong things detract from the right/strong things

not any/enough references/citations, peer review, textual criticism, pictures?

"unreliable"/"outdated" references?

not done by their "method"?

because i am not a qualified expert/professional or postgraduate/academic.

because it "takes time to penetrate peoples outer defenses"?

because i am impatient?

because the people i have shown/sent it to are not experts in the field so they don't know and can't comment?

I know that myself can't see the bent/curved edge of the roof that my friend Toija said he can see. Yet i don't doubt it is real. He says thay our brain automatically corrects it to see what we expect to see.

Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Nov 2015 at 00:11
The paranoid part is in taking it personally.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2015 at 07:44

I have given extraoridnary evidence of the popes/emperors match, whether or not also of any personal persecution. The popes list and emperors list match beyond doubt for at least the first 46+ popes. And don't forget that there is no historical verification of the existence of the early popes, and ours is/has stronger.

(No one has proven that it is not personal. If i have to provide extraordinary evidence then should does everyone else.)

I have learnt/found in my "life" that all humans are uncaring selfish mean cruel dogs, and that most all net form posters & orthodox academics are stuck-up people who seem to think that they are all-right and therefore that others like us are just all-wrong/dumb, and have learnt that net forums are a waste of time. Also i have learnt that everyone on net/web and in academia just keeps using dirty rotten tactics just like evading evidence and instead posting mere words on anything and everything else otherthan/except the actual evidence/details/matches (as has been done here), like only pikcing on/out the few most weak ones and ignoring the strong definite ones, etc.

Stuff everyone in the world all my "life". I'm not wasting anymore time. People always refuse to consider the stark evidence(s). I have given plenty enough starter/provisional evidence that the popes & emperors match. If everyone refuses to see it then too bad. I may as well die since there is no hope and the world is full of evil (some like me have been suffering hell).

Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2015 at 07:50
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it
and eventually they will believe it.”- Adolf Hitler
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” -Lenin.

"Countries that destroy their past deserve no future" - [Sir WS Churchill?]

"What is history but a fable agreed upon?" - Napoleon Bonaparte

["When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C Clarke.]

"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." - Mohandas Gandhi
"They must find it hard to take Truth for Authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth."
"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.  I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei.

"[O]ne of the quickest ways to create a major impact in academe is to prove the truth of something that has hitherto been derided or dismissed." - Ronald Hutton.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" ~ George Orwell.
'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' - Pilger's law.

"Imagination rules the world" - Napoleon.

"The greatest homage to truth is to use it" ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson.

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie" - 'Romans'.

"When the world is pregnant with lies, a secret long hidden will be revealed". - an Odinist prophecy.

"we have not believed cunningly devised fables" (2 Pet 1:16).
"for god shall send them strong deluison that they should believe a/the lie" (2 Thess 2:11).

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" ~ Philip K. Dick.

"The truth will set you free" - Bible.

"All truth passes through 3 stages. 1st, it is ridiculed. 2nd it is violently opposed. 3rd, it is accepted as being self-evident" ~ Schopenhauer.
"New opinions often appear 1st as jokes & fancies, then as blasphemies & treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths." - George Bernard Shaw.
"4 stages: denial, anger, panic, acceptance" - 'the Simpsons'.
"takes time to penetrate outer defenses" - Walter Alter.

"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." - ?
"The message of the future is the message of the past". - LA Waddell.

-----

"All roads lead to Rome".
"Rome wasn't built in a day".
"When in Rome do as the Romans do".
"rob Peter to pay Paul."
"wolf in sheeps clothing" (Fabian)
"give to Caesar what is Caesar's and/or/but to God what is God's"
"divide & conquer"
"they create a desert and call it peace [pax]"



Edited by truthsetsfree - 07 Nov 2015 at 07:52
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2015 at 09:24
Sorry what i should have just said is:
To my view, the evidence i already provided (for the 46+ popes & emperors matches) is pretty stark/strong/quality enough. But i can see/admit that maybe it is not enough to some others views. But if it is not enough evidence/proof, then too bad (for them &/or for me), because I am simply not able to waste any more weeks/months/years, as i have other things i need & want to do (+ because hell situation & condition), and there is no guarantee that all the even more extra hard work will be worth it or make any difference, since i have quite a few times wasted more months providing more/better evidence for some other theses/papers (on Arthur, on Atlantis) only to still have zero positive (presumably because still not enough in their opinion, as i find with all my works that they are never good enough for them no matter how much quality/quantity i provide unless it is 99%). The 46+ popes biographies are all far too long (and the emperors biographies are also pretty long) to go through to provide even more matches evidences. I will leave it to someone else who has the interest and time etc. I quit. They have won (tho they can't get away with evil forever).

(The other reason i have to leave it is because God has said i not allowed to speak my own self or seek others, but only speak/seek His (John 5 & 7). Though at present i can't believe in him anymore due to all i'm suffering and all i've lost.)

In parting, i will just leave links to all 5 forum posts on this popes/emperors discovery (some of which have some other/further info, and just in case anything happens to this one or any of the others) :
http://www.worldhistoria.com/topic129257_post98218.html#98218
http://www.freewebs.com/lifetradition/theempire.htm
http://www.allempires.com/Forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35815
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21946-popes-office-in-the-bible/page-3
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1930



Edited by truthsetsfree - 07 Nov 2015 at 09:40
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2015 at 10:25
Sorry, but the comparison doesn't work for me. Julius Caesar was not Jesus, nor was Jesus ever a Pope.I don't doubt there's some christian propaganda and exaggeration in the lives of the early church leaders, but bear in mind that the christian churches were not united in any way before the Council of Nicaea in 325, thus could not, by definition, have actually had a Pope overseeing them.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Nov 2015 at 00:39
Everyone is missing the/my point/evidence/correspondences/matches that i tried to show in the table. My first/main point is the fact that most of the first 46 "popes/bishops" (names/meanings, dates/order, details) match the Roman Emperors, eg Zephyrinus ~ Severus, Callixtus ~ Caracalla, etc. (Some of them are far more certain no-doubt than others. Some might be wrong match, but there is no doubt that our discovery is right for the first 46+ "popes".)

I am saying the first 46 + "popes/bishops" were not really popes but are really just emperors names transformed into fake popes names list (there is indeed no verified historical evidence for the existence of any of the popes/bishops before Constantine/Nicea).

I agree that Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ were 2 different real historical people.
The catholic "Jesus" and "Peter" are conflated with the Roman persons.
Yes Jesus was not a pope, but the evidence is that the first 46+ popes (from "Peter" to Hilarius/after) match the emperors, and that and other evidences suggests that the catholic (?"John" and)"Jesus" also match persons before Peter/Nero. Peter was disciple of Jesus, and before that of John the Baptist.

The first 2 John and Jesus matches are uncertain what the exact correct match is.

Catholic "Jesus" could match Julius Caesar (see the list of similarities in the table), and/or he could match Augustus ("son of a god", etc).

"Peter/Cephas" certainly at least matches Nero (eg upsidedown cross, 66 y.o., beard, date) & name Caesar in name and details (bushy beard/hair)

Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Nov 2015 at 01:45
It seems to me you are making the simple unnecessarily complex.  It is widely accepted that the Catholic church has always been masterful at incorporating elements of other cultures.  It is also widely accept that the pope took on the mantle of "emperor of rome" in some metaphorical way. 

The full title of the pope actually describe his secular authority although I'm not sure the Italians allow him to appoint sovereigns as primate of Italy.  This history is complex and how the popes are named is surely associated with elements of Roman culture.



Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2343
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Nov 2015 at 04:50
I just don't have the background to intelligently comment on such a list, I mean, it is kind of like Emperor=Pope, but in order to agree I would have to know the Emperors and what they represent,
and the Popes and what they represent.  No?

This is like understanding that, the morning star = the evening star, in other words the planet known as Venus. hmmm?
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Nov 2015 at 15:01
The Pope is the ultimate religious authority in Rome. The 'Emperor' was never an official political post and not one ever actually required by the state, but since Augustus had achieved sole domination successfully, everyone else decided it was possible and the Senate were willing to play second fiddle and let some numpty take the consequences when it all went wrong. In effect, in modern terms the Caesars were like Elvis Presley clicking his fingers at the US government, with the difference that the US miliatary held the final say of whether a celebrity ruler was acceptable, either directly by threat or by support for the current icon.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2015 at 01:42

Either:
- the early (first 46+) "popes/bishops" list is fake; Or,
- the early popes/bishops list is genuine.

(The emperors list is not disputed whether genuine or not genuine.)

From the evidence we have shown in the table and text it is clear that the early "popes" list is fake because they (the "popes/bishops" names/meanings & dates/order & details) clearly/certainly match the contemporary/corresponding Roman Emperors.
(Moreover, there is no verified historical proof of any of the early "popes/bishops".)

I am not saying the "emperor = pope", but that the first 46+ "popes/bishops" really = emperors.
"Wolf in sheep's clothes", means the "sheep" is really a wolf, though you could also say the "wolf = sheep".

If/since the first 46+ "popes/bishops" are really emperors, then that means the "popes" since then to now are also most likely really secret(ly) emperors.

I can't get anymore simple than:

1. the first 46+ "popes/bishops" names etc certainly match the Emperors names etc as shown in the table.

2. the list we gave showing that the pope seems to have things that are like the/an emperor (throne, crown, robe, similar cephas/ceasar names, etc).
(Plus, the emperors were Pontiffex Maximus from Julius/Augustus down to Theodosius.)
We showed in the list of possible origins of the name "papa/pope" that one major candidate is the name of the first known Pontiffex Maximus.

3. What someone claims to be or not to be in words/appearance isn't necessarily what they really are otherwise. Though there is plenty of symbolism that can be decoded.

4. of course there are going to be some seeming differences because/if it is a lie (otherwise it would have been too obvious to get away with).

Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2015 at 01:56
The only other possibility is that the "popes" were/are not really secret(ly) emperors but are only secret pontiffex maximuses. (Because the first 46+ popes names etc certainly match the emperors names etc.)
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2343
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2015 at 04:25
For ordinary logic, truth and falsity are characteristics of propositions, which means sentences, and so when you put down two lists of names, with there supposedly being a correspondence between the two lists of popes and emperors.  But if you say Peter is Augustus (or ____? or ____? I notice there are a lot of question marks in these lists.) then that can only be true if the qualities of Peter equal the qualities of Augustus.  Furthermore, that has to be shown through propositions (sentences) which is more than what you have in that list.

I don't know if you have ever come to a mountain stream, which you probably could wade across, but it is snowmelt runoff, so very cold.  However, you can hop across from rock to rock teetering sometimes, that _might_ be where you are right now, hopping from rock to rock, _but_ if you expect people to follow you, you should realize that they might not be able to, or don't want to imitate you, else they might fall in or fall onto the rocks and hurt themselves.  
You might see something that nobody else sees, but if you can't make the argument, _in_sentences_, statements that can be analyzed as true or false, then no matter how good your initial insight is, you are not going to be able to communicate it.  That is not completely true, some will follow you over the rocks, or wade through the icy water.  But most will require you to build a bridge of logical statements that they can follow. 
If you can't do that, well then maybe you shouldn't be so certain about what you have.  Or at least I would suggest that you not be so antagonistic.  Don't assume people are against you, until you do all your homework making it easier for people to be for you.  You will get more flies with honey, than with vinegar, assuming you want to get flies, that is.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2015 at 08:19
Well, there is also the possibillity that You have proven nothing at all, sorry. On the other hand it woulkd not surprise me if the list of first popes were incorrect. Were "Jesus Christ" come into the Picture? because of two letters. Despite no sources call him a "pope", he should according to them never have been in Rome, but far away, "Christ" were not in any way a name, and so far as we are informed he was born a long time (perhaps not 44 years though) since Julius Caecar was murdered in Rome. Any claim that those two were the same is frankly just nonsense to me (sorry, I have no more polite to say).
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2015 at 08:45
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Well, there is also the possibillity that You have proven nothing at all, sorry. On the other hand it woulkd not surprise me if the list of first popes were incorrect. Were "Jesus Christ" come into the Picture? because of two letters. Despite no sources call him a "pope", he should according to them never have been in Rome, but far away, "Christ" were not in any way a name, and so far as we are informed he was born a long time (perhaps not 44 years though) since Julius Caecar was murdered in Rome. Any claim that those two were the same is frankly just nonsense to me (sorry, I have no more polite to say).

I'm not even sure that Jesus Christ is a historical figure.  I can't find any hard evidence but normally I wouldn't require any it's just another intriguing question.  Perhaps it is fitting that there is no historical evidence of Jesus Christ because Christianity is mystical by it's nature and at best it only effects theological concerns.  From a historical perspective there is no need for an actual living person.  Everything relevant about Christianity as a player in world history remains the same.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Nov 2015 at 15:14
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:


Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Well, there is also the possibillity that You have proven nothing at all, sorry. On the other hand it woulkd not surprise me if the list of first popes were incorrect. Were "Jesus Christ" come into the Picture? because of two letters. Despite no sources call him a "pope", he should according to them never have been in Rome, but far away, "Christ" were not in any way a name, and so far as we are informed he was born a long time (perhaps not 44 years though) since Julius Caecar was murdered in Rome. Any claim that those two were the same is frankly just nonsense to me (sorry, I have no more polite to say).


I'm not even sure that Jesus Christ is a historical figure.  I can't find any hard evidence but normally I wouldn't require any it's just another intriguing question.  Perhaps it is fitting that there is no historical evidence of Jesus Christ because Christianity is mystical by it's nature and at best it only effects theological concerns.  From a historical perspective there is no need for an actual living person.  Everything relevant about Christianity as a player in world history remains the same.

Even for those who may doubt there ever lived a person, Jesus, the idea that what the Gospels are about is actually Julius Caesar should be hard to swallow. Except both are male figures and has the two letters J and C there seems they had nothing in common.
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Nov 2015 at 04:18

Forget it. I quit. I am not wasting anymore time repeating myself. Either people are purposely twisting (or dirty rotten tactics conspiracy), or else people are plain stupid, or else i am a complete failiure at communicating.

How can you say ("any idea that those two are the same" and) "the idea that Gospels are about Julius Caesar" when i have clearly said at least one or more times that the catholic "Jesus" is not really the Jesus of the bible but is really either Julius or Augustus, and that the "sheep" is really a wolf in sheeps clothing.

I had to give all possible matches (and question marks) in the table because some of them we aren't totally sure which is the correct match. I have to give question marks or else any few wrong ones people will use dirty tactics to try make falsely look all wrong.

I already gave a list of some similarities between Jesus and Julius in the table. Perhaps it is my fault because it is not very clear. There was even a darn book published claiming Jesus was really Julius some years ago (see the book cover on the website "primary proofs of christianity" (i think it was called)).

>> Jesus C & Julius C:
JC | JC
baptised | crosses Rubicon??
crucified | crucified pirates?
cross | crossed Rubicon??
star of Bethelehem | comet-star?
trinity | triumvirate?
Galliean | Gallic/Gallia/Gaul?
(son of) God | deified?
succeded by Cephas | suceeded by Caesar Augustus?
Jesus C & John B | Julius C & Gnaeus Pompey??
king of Jews | believed he aimed at kingship
bc/ad calendar | Julian calendar reform
condemned by 70+2 sandhedrim | assassinated by 60+2 senators.
"revolutionary" | reform.
aura/halo | laurel wreath??
great high priest | pontiffex maximus?

>> Jesus | Augustus:
son of God | son of a god (divi filius/Iulius)
seed of woman | offspring of serpent (refs include Hislop)
c 7/3 bc to c 30s ad | c 30/27 bc - 14 ad (i.e. both were 2bc - 14 ad)
successor Peter/Cephas | (4th) successor Nero (who both match)


>> Peter/Cephas | Caesar:
name Cephas/Kepha - name Caesar (very similar)
bushy beard/hair - means "thick head of hair, hairy"

>> Peter/Cephas | Nero Caesar:
bushy beard/hair | beard & hair prominent in pictures (eg see pics in wikpedia list of emps)
upsidedown cross | 666/616/antichrist
died age 66 y.o. | 666 in numerals
died 67 ad | died 68 ad
name Cepha(s) | name Caesar.
successor Linus | successor Vespasian (excld 3 usurpers) (who both match)
Domitian persecution | Domitian reincarnated Nero
[pontiffex maximus] | pontiffex maximus
[papa/pope] | wife Poppaea?
wife Perpetua | wife Poppaea??
14th year Nero | reigned 14 years 54-68?
after Jesus | after Augustus/Julius (who match)
choir director | "fiddled while Rome burned"??


Many of the "popes/bishops" in the list have very similar names & dates & details as the corresponding emperors. That more than one or more than a few match all **in order** can not be coincidence.


Don't effing attack me. I am G*d d**n sick of this same sh*t i have had on all forums that last 8 years. Sure i am not the best at writing up and explaining everything, but most all forums people of the last 8 years are clearly just being vicously dirty & nasty. Not matter how much darn time and hard work/effort i have spent on all my discoveries theses (trying to satisfy forum peoples & academics ridiculously excessive highest maximum demands) it is always still never good enough. I never get any positive, just always only negative or nothing, and then i get banned when i react negative back to people.

Fine the "Papacy"/Empire wins.  I hope you are all happy with your secret empire/emperor that you are all defending.

I do not want "people to follow me". All i want is for some people to acknowledge any of my true/right discoveries/theses and hard work.

It is not true or fair if/that i can't communicate it in perfect stipulated-way-written sentences then i have to accept i am only to be a dumb dog slave. Because, surely not all my sentences/tables have been impossible to understand, and surely it is not right to discriminate against a worker for not being able to do everything themselves (because everyone has different gifts/ablilities, and it is not fair that only some people/abilities are credited, while others are trashed).

I am certain about what i have, because the evidence is too quality & quantity to be wrong. I am only antagonistic when i have all negatives and no positives (which i have always had on forums and from academics the last 8 years).

So fine, eff it. I am just an all-wrong dumb dog and everyone else are all-right gods. Happy?

No one seems objectively interested to know possible truth/discoveries, but are just interested in criticising and trying to pull-down.

People refuse to accept anything unless i explain every single darn jot and tiddle in a thousand pages book/paper (& yet also has to be not "too long" or "complicated") written in perfect stipulated way English. Perhaps they should not have stuffed up my education etc inmy young years.

So you all deny that "pope/bishop" #15 Zephyrinus matches emperor Severus?

"pope/bishop" Zephyrinus 199-217 = emperor Severus 193/198-211 (and/or the other alternate candidates).

Very similar names. Roughly matching dates. Matching pope & emperor successors (& predecessors). Both pontiffex maximus. Both Rome/Roman. [Zephyrus = western, Severus Wall in Britain in West??]

And deny that "pope/bishop" # 16 Callixtus mataches emperor Caligula?

"Pope/bishop" Callistus/Cal(l)ixtus I (217-222) = emperor Caracalla (198/211-217)?

Very similar names. Dates closely connected (in this case though slight difference). Matching successor(s) & predecessor(s). Both pontiffex maximus. The catacombs of Callixtus connect with Caracalla's murders. Both Rome/Roman.

And deny that #16-19 antipope Hippolytus matches emperor Heliogabalus?

"antipope/bishop" Hippolytus (217-236) = emperor Heliogabalus (218-222)

Names very similar. Dates roughly match. "Antipope" seems to match Baal/El. Matching predecessors. Both pontiffex maximus. Both Rome/Roman.

I do not have to time and situation and condition/health to go through all the Very Long popes & emperors biographies (for each & all 46+ popes & 46+ emperors) collating even more evidences (as if what is in the table is not already stark enough).

Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2343
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Nov 2015 at 02:15
I am sorry your health is poor.  We are not trying to be difficult, we just don't see it.  If you want to insult us, I don't think it will make you feel any better.  I don't know about others, but I will take it as an example of the pain talking.  
Onomastics is the study of names, for many things from antiquity, all we have is a name, but there is still something you can tell from them.  Greek names have three parts: personal name, father's name, polis name, Socrates, son of Sophronicus, of Athens.  Not all these elements may be present.  Roman names have three parts, I forget what they are called.  so it is Gaius Julius Caesar, not just Julius Caesar.  Plato, (not on your list), is a nickname, as is Caligula.  In looking at names, do we look at their birthnames, or their nickname?  Furthermore, names may be originally Greek, but Latinized.  So it is probably actually, Kallistos, in Greek, not Callistus.  You say, names are very similar, but Hippo in Hippolytus means horse, whereas Helio in Heliogabalus means sun.  In English and Latin they start with the letter 'H,' but in Greek (which is their origin), not even that, an aspirated iota, and an aspirated eta. 

They say that God (or the Devil) is in the details.  I think if you pushed on your theory hard, it would break.  That is not a bad thing, in the process you discover something new, and if it doesn't break then you have something special.  But, again, I think it would break, but it is a non-starter if you won't do your homework.  Look at onomastics, a little, see how the names and dates fit if you use the three part roman names, and de-Latinize the Greek names, and yes, get past any nicknames, or say why they should be included?  And, it may be a pain in the backside to do biographies, but you might see what happens if you do.  You have a theory based on what I consider superficial details of the names of the popes and emperor's crosslisted.  What happen if you tested that by getting into finer details.  Is the character and history of a Zephyrinus similar to that of Severus?  Of course, if you have something better to do, then do that, but don't expect people to say that they see something, when really they don't.  That's something that we do with five year olds when they introduce us to their invisible friends or their teddy bears at their tea party.  Yes, mister Emperor, I see you've got yourself a fine new suit!  No, I think you want us to be honest, and say that we don't see it.  I am not saying it is not there, because frankly I think that that too is unwarranted by the evidence.  I would have to understand the matter, if I was going to say that your theory is wrong, and personally I don't understand it, nor do I wish to do the research myself.  I have other fish to fry, but I do think that there is no substitute to doing your homework, _if_ you want to better demonstrate a connection between the pope list and the Emperor list.  
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Nov 2015 at 10:23
Quote >> Jesus C & Julius C:
JC | JC
baptised | crosses Rubicon??
crucified | crucified pirates?
cross | crossed Rubicon??


So a saint baptises Jesus. You think that's the same as a warlord realising he is about to be politically emasculated and deciding he has no choice but to lead an army into Rome against tradition and take over the city (as he always wanted to?) Where is the similarity? I can't see any. They are completely different situations from completely different people in two completely different parts of the world.

Jesus was crucified as a criminal (though this was obviously a difficult concept for those who wanted Jesus to be the son of God and therefore made the rather contrived statement that Jesus died for our sins, which is nonsensical and clearly attempts to avoid real world character stains with mystical symbolism). How is being crucified as a criminal at the orders of the Roman governor of Judaea to please the native religious authorities the same as ordering the deaths of pirates who had previously taking him prisoner? There is no similarity at all, for exactly the same reasons as previously stated.

How is the symbol of Roman capital punishment the same as an action to overcome a geographical and political obstacle? That's just linking words for the sake of it.

I'm sorry, but this premis that Julius Caesar and Jesus are the same carries no water whatsoever. The reasoning is limited to symbolism and word games, whilst history is basically ignored to achieve the intended result. 0 out of 10 in my class.



Edited by caldrail - 23 Nov 2015 at 10:23
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3526
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Nov 2015 at 05:03
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I am sorry your health is poor.  We are not trying to be difficult, we just don't see it.  If you want to insult us, I don't think it will make you feel any better.  I don't know about others, but I will take it as an example of the pain talking.  
Onomastics is the study of names, for many things from antiquity, all we have is a name, but there is still something you can tell from them.  Greek names have three parts: personal name, father's name, polis name, Socrates, son of Sophronicus, of Athens.  Not all these elements may be present.  Roman names have three parts, I forget what they are called.  so it is Gaius Julius Caesar, not just Julius Caesar.  Plato, (not on your list), is a nickname, as is Caligula.  In looking at names, do we look at their birthnames, or their nickname?  Furthermore, names may be originally Greek, but Latinized.  So it is probably actually, Kallistos, in Greek, not Callistus.  You say, names are very similar, but Hippo in Hippolytus means horse, whereas Helio in Heliogabalus means sun.  In English and Latin they start with the letter 'H,' but in Greek (which is their origin), not even that, an aspirated iota, and an aspirated eta. 

They say that God (or the Devil) is in the details.  I think if you pushed on your theory hard, it would break.  That is not a bad thing, in the process you discover something new, and if it doesn't break then you have something special.  But, again, I think it would break, but it is a non-starter if you won't do your homework.  Look at onomastics, a little, see how the names and dates fit if you use the three part roman names, and de-Latinize the Greek names, and yes, get past any nicknames, or say why they should be included?  And, it may be a pain in the backside to do biographies, but you might see what happens if you do.  You have a theory based on what I consider superficial details of the names of the popes and emperor's crosslisted.  What happen if you tested that by getting into finer details.  Is the character and history of a Zephyrinus similar to that of Severus?  Of course, if you have something better to do, then do that, but don't expect people to say that they see something, when really they don't.  That's something that we do with five year olds when they introduce us to their invisible friends or their teddy bears at their tea party.  Yes, mister Emperor, I see you've got yourself a fine new suit!  No, I think you want us to be honest, and say that we don't see it.  I am not saying it is not there, because frankly I think that that too is unwarranted by the evidence.  I would have to understand the matter, if I was going to say that your theory is wrong, and personally I don't understand it, nor do I wish to do the research myself.  I have other fish to fry, but I do think that there is no substitute to doing your homework, _if_ you want to better demonstrate a connection between the pope list and the Emperor list.  


From time to time we get unorthodox theories, such as the one proposed here by truthsetsfree, on this forum. The response you have given here, franciscoan, is perhaps the most charitable, and, indeed, helpful one I have seen to one of these theories yet. Bravo.

The inclination to dogmatically restate rather than defend theories has had disastrous consequences on American academia -- we need look no further than the childishly ignorant and ideologically bigoted student protests of the past several months to see their results. We are not challenging you on this theory, truth, in order to belittle you. We are doing it with every hope that you will grow as a scholar. True scholarship, especially in the discipline of history, requires honest and open dialogue among colleagues and constant analysis and revision. If we cannot engage history in this manner, then we have no business in the field.

-Akolouthos
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Nov 2015 at 15:11

This is my last reply here, and my last post on this negative forum, and my last net/web post on any discoveries (much to all my enemies satisfaction/suiting). Any supposed disproof/proof against our discoveries after this that i am not able to (properly) answer can not be considered fair unless i am able to defend myself.

I did not "want to insult [yous]". I feel/think that you[s] were/are all unfairly/untruly attacking me or being too unfairly/untruly negative (just like i have had on all other forums). Always all negative and never any positive. The "catch flies with honey" works both ways you know, but people are always all just negative to me.

If you[s] can not see that all 46+ names/meanings & dates are too very-similar then fine that is your opinion, but personally i can not believe that anyone can not see that the first 46+ popes names or meanings and dates etc are too similar to the corresponding emperors (as we showed in the table).

Saying that hippo means horse and helio means sun doesn't prove anything. The 46+ names are still too very similar to be anything other than design.  And as i have already said, of course there are going to be some slight differences, because it is a clever Lie and they couldn't just make it totally obvious. Moreover we have shown that the meanings of some "popes" (&/or some emperors) names do match the emperors (or "popes"), like Linus means "flax colour hair" and Flavius (Vespasian) means "yellow coloured hair" (the dictionaries confirm both both are same colour). Some names you can't deny are the same totally like "pope" Alexander matches Trajan who is said to have been "thinking aloud of Alexander at Charax". "Pope" Pius matches Antoninus Pius, the exact same name.

#2 Linus "flax colour hair" = Flavius "yellow colour hair" (Vespasian)
...
#6 Alexander = Trajan thinking aloud of Alexander
...
#10 Pius = Antoninus Pius
...
#15 Zephyrinus = Severus
#16 Callistus = Caligula
#16b-19 Hippolytus = Heliogabalus

All 3+ names very similar, all in immediate succesive order, all more or less the same dates. And that is just 3+ samples, we showed that all the first 46+ popes seem to match.

I just seem to be being messed around. You keep saying i said Jesus & Julius Caesar are the same, but i clearly said that the real persons are not the same, only that the papal "Jesus" is pretty certainly seemingly not the real Jesus of the bible but really either Julius Caesar or Augustus or Claudius or other.
The fact that the first 46+ "popes/bishops" are fake and really match the emperors implies that the papal "Jesus" is also fake.

There is no "unorthodox". That is totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the evidence and the truth and objective investigation, not name calling.  I have always strived to be "open & honest", while people on forums have always been far to arch-critical and negative. I am a scholar and no one has disproven any of our most certain discoveries/theses (except possibly just/only a few minor bits sometimes). I do not believe that forum people have all been open and honest. Who are you/they to dictate what "manner" and "business" we have to "have to be in the field"?

No honest/open scholar should only select just a few & just the weakest bits and pieces as you and others always keep doing. You have to consider all the evidence.

The popes and emperors were Latin not Greek as far as i know?

It is not true that "if pushed my theory hard it would break". Forum posters and academics always just assume we are wrong because they think they are superior. Most times, the more we have checked our discoveries the more they have (unintentionally/objectively) come out far stronger and not broken. We usually (surprisingly/objectively) find even far more stark proofs.

To us, what we have already provided is stark enough, but arch-critics/sceptics/enemies dictate that we have to provide excessive highest maximum quantity & quality, and they use any imperfections of ours as an excuse to reject. Its like "all or nothing". You keep saying & making-out that i am just lazy and not doing work/"homework", but i have done so much work on some of my discoveries theses to satisfy harsh forum posters and academics that i almost had a heart attack (ominous heart pains). I simply do not have the time and health and situation (not just health) to collate even more proofs, esp as i have other things i need and want to do.  I am not risking a heart attack again/more. The popes biographies are far too Long (& the emperors ones are also long) to wade through all 46+ x 2 (x however many different different sources since each say somethings that others dont) to (objectively) collate even more proofs. I have already given a few details matches that we have found.

It is not fair that I am never allowed to post discoveries unless i do years/decades work providing excessive highest maximum standards, and that i never have any positive for what work/discoveries/etc i have done. How can a person work even more harder and longer with no decent morale, positives, pay, conditions, etc? Sure, if it is not enough quantity/quality for people to think it is proven or looks possible (to them in their "standards") then fine, but it is not fair for people to imply/say that i & it are "wrong". It also is not fair that the reigining ideas/theories don't have to prove their own ideas/theories to the same excessive highest maximum standards that the force of "new". (Don't claim that they do, because they don't, eg water fluoridation.)

So fine the Establishment/System/Regime wins. I am not allowed to publish anything unless/until it is as near perfect as possible. Now i am going to try die.

Adieu.


Edited by truthsetsfree - 26 Nov 2015 at 15:23
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Nov 2015 at 18:07

Sorry i just had to come back to post a few final comments.

Sorry i think i mistakenly wrote Caligula instead of Caracalla in some place/s.

It always comes down to this: what would people darn accept as proof? It seems that no matter how much quality or quanitity i do do that it is still never good enough (for any/all of my discoveries theses papers).

Maybe my standards are a little bit too low, but i think/feel that others "standards" are too "high"/harsh. But the problem is, are they wrongly claiming their standards are right [and not too high], or am i wrongly claiming their "standards" are too high?

I would have been better to waste the time going through a few pope & emperor biographies than replying to peoples mere words arguments.

Also i forgot to say that the early popes only have one name not three, and also that the emperors usually only 1 or 2 or so main names in common Emperors lists.

see look how long the popes & emperors bios are:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15756c.htm
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Zephyrinus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus

Here is just a quick but quite-some effort brief collation of some further details similarities between "pope" Zephyrus biography and emperor Severus biography.

* Zephyrinus:
name Zephyrinus / Zepheniah.
name related to Greek west(ern) wind god.
* Severus:
name Septimius Severus. [gens Septimia. built the Septizodium? "Severan Wall".] [Annexed Zabi?]
"After consolidating his rule over the western provinces...." Visited Britain (in West). Was fluent in Greek. "With his rearguard safe, he moved to the East...."?

* Zephyrinus:
"198/199-217". Reigned "17 yrs"/18 yrs".
* (Septimius) Severus:
193-198-209-211. (Caracalla ruled til 217.) Reigned "17 yrs".

* Zephyrinus:
"The pope is described ... as a simple man without education. This is evidently to be understood as meaning that Zephyrinus had not taken the higher studies...."
* Septimius Severus:
"Little else is known of the young Severus' education, but according to Cassius Dio the boy had been eager for more education than he had actually got."

* Zephyrinus:
"They formed an independent heretical community at Rome which was ruled by another Theodotus, the Money Changer, and Asclepodotus."
* Severus:
[Annexed Thabudeos? "Thyatira" in 'Revelation' = Constantinople (Byzantium which Severus campaigned against)? Argentocoxos?]
"Arcus Argentariorum dedicated by the money changers of Rome to the Severan family."
"Pertinax's successor in Rome was Didius Julianus, who had bought the emperorship in an auction."


* Zephyrinus:
"A refutation of Proclus in the form of a dialogue was written by a learned and rigidly orthodox Roman Christian named Caius...."
* Severus:
"Severus's maternal cousin was Praetorian prefect and consul Gaius Fulvius Plautianus. .... In 173, Severus' kinsman Gaius Septimius Severus was appointed proconsul of the Africa Province. The elder Severus chose his cousin as one of his two legati pro praetore." "... after 197 Severus fell heavily under the influence of his Praetorian Prefect, Gaius Fulvius Plautianus...." Succeeded as consul by Gaius Cassius?

* Zephyrinus:
"Although not physically martyred, he is called a martyr for the suffering he endured." / "Although he was not physically martyred for the faith, his suffering – both mental and spiritual – during his pontificate have earned him the title of martyr."
* Severus:
"...for he actually was conveyed in a covered litter most of the way, on account of his infirmity.... .... Severus' campaign was cut short when he fell fatally ill." heavy Roman casualties in Caledonia?
[And/or by inversion: executed Pertinax's murderers. exterminating Caledonians. executions of large number of Senators. Eusebius' description of Severus as persecutor of Christians. Persecutions occured during his reign including martyrs. "...the edict of persecution appeared which forbade conversion to Christianity under the severest penalties."] [&/or Antonine plague??]

* Zephyrinus:
Callistus coemeritium & successor.
* Severus:
Caracalla co-emperor & successor.

* Zephyrinus:
Hippolytus was his contemporary and "antipope" after him.
* Severus:
"... and served as a high priest to the local cult of the sun god Elagabal. Domna's older sister was Julia Maesa, later grandmother to the future emperors Elagabalus...."
["...he ordered the covering of the tomb of his fellow Carthaginian Hannibal with fine marble."?]
Heliogabalus/Elagabalus was Baal/El-worshipping emperor not long after him.

* Zephyrinus:
"Combated against the adoptionist heresies of the followers of Theodotus the Byzantium...."
* Severus:
"While campaigning against Byzantium he...."


* Zephyrinus:
"pope/papa / bishop / [pontiffex]".
+ Wearing a Crown in a picture.
"this holy pastor was the support and comfort of the distressed flock"
* Severus:
"... Severus was well disposed towards Christians, employed a Christian as his personal physician and had personally intervened to save several high-born Christians known to him...." [Aemilius Papinianus?]  Deified by the senate. [Pontiffex Maximus.]
+ Was emperor.

* Zephyrinus:
Natalis "... was persuaded by Asclepiodotus to become a bishop in their sect in exchange for a monthly stipend of 150 denarii."
* Severus:
"Additionally the annual wage for a soldier was raised from 300 to 500 denarii."
"Upon his accession he decreased the silver purity of the denarius from 81.5% to 78.5%. .... Nevertheless, the following year he debased the denarius substantially because of rising military expenditures. The silver purity decreased from 78.5% to 64.5% — the silver weight dropping from 2.46 grams to 1.98 grams. In 196 he reduced the purity and silver weight of the denarius again, to 54% and 1.82 grams respectively."



Edited by truthsetsfree - 26 Nov 2015 at 18:39
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Nov 2015 at 20:33
No further comments about the subject.
That Work seems to have done nothing good for You so far.
It may well be you better did something else for a while. If possible nothing on the internet, nothing about popes and emperors. Considered if it is necessary at all.
Back to Top
truthsetsfree View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 30 May 2014
Location: hell
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote truthsetsfree Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Nov 2015 at 08:25

Quote Fantastus "It may well be you better did something else for a while. If possible nothing on the internet, nothing about popes and emperors."

Whatever bad/wrong/dumb/sick things i may have in my nature/character/etc it doesn't mean that i or my theses are all wrong.
If i do what you dictate then that really means they have won because it is always that way all my life not just now.

If all the evidence is still seen as "not strong",
It still doesn't mean that we are "all wrong".
People say they "have other fish to fry",
Well, the thing is, so do i (before i die).

-- Callistus:
Name Callistus/Cal(l)ixtus.
-- Caracalla
Name Caracalla from "*Gallic* hooded tunic".
[Overthrown by Carausius?]
[Assasinated near Carrhae?]

-- Callistus/Cal(l)ixtus:
Reigned 217/218-222/223. "5"/"7" yrs.
-- Caracalla:
Reigned 197/198-209-211-217. ("19" yrs total co & sole.)

-- Callistus:
"Further there is extant an inscription of a Carpophorus, a freedman of M. Aurelius...."
-- Caracalla:
Created a connection with Marcus Aurelius.

-- Callistus:
"16th" "pope" from "Peter".
-- Caracalla:
"22nd" emperor from Augustus.
[Peter matches 5th emperor Nero, so minus the 4 1st emperors. And/or minus 3 usurpers (Otha, Galba, Vitellius). Or, Domitian "reincarnation of Nero", so minus 3 usurpers & 2 Flavian (Vespasian, Titus)?]

-- Callistus:
"Martyr".
Cemetary/catacombs of Callistus.
'Callistus Domitiorum' "son of Domitius".
-- Caracalla:
[Murdered/assasinated by a soldier.]
Notorius & unpleasant for massacres & Persecutions he authorized & instigated.
[Connection with female person Domna?]

-- Callistus
Zephyrinus made him coemeritium.
-- Caracalla:
Co-emperor with Severus.

-- Callistus:
Connected with Elagabalus/Heliogabalus (Baal/El worship); & "antipope" Hippolytus ("& his defective theology" & "imperfect Christology" & "ditheism") was contemporary with him & after him.
-- Caracalla:
Heliogabalus/Elagabalus was emperor not long after him.
His father/mother connected with Elagabalus.

-- Callistus:
preceeded by Zepheniah / Zephyrinus.
-- Caracalla:
preceeded by (Septimius) Severus.

-- Callistus
Built an oratory (claimed by popinarii tavern-keepers).
Built a church/basilica.
/ Patron of the titulus of Basilica of St Maria.
-- Caracalla:
Commissioned building of public bath(-house)s (which included libararies etc).
Forced senate to construct "palaces, theaters, and places of entertainment".

-- Callistus:
"pope/papa" / "bishop of bishops" / "pontiffex maximus".
Successor of Peter who had a bushy beard [and of Linus which means "flax coloured hair" which matches yellow hair in dictionaries ].
["The declaration of Carpophorus that Callistus was no Christian...."
"The orthodoxy of Callistus is challenged by both Hippolytus and Tertullian...."
"Hippolytus, however, regards Callistus as a heretic."]
-- Caracalla:
Emperors from Augustus to Theodosius were Pontiffex Maximus.
[The first 46+ "popes" certainly really match the  emperors and are not real popes/bishops. Callistus is certainly really Caracalla and not really a genuine pope/bishop.]
Caracalla had a "short full beard" [and wore blond whig] (and Geta had "long beard with hair strains").


-- Callistus:
"...was put in charge of collected funds by his master Carpophorus...."
"His master entrusted large sums of money to Callistus, with which he started a bank in which brethren and widows lodged money, all of which Callistus lost."
["He obtained great influence over the ignorant, illiterate, and grasping Zephyrinus by bribes."]
"...he tried to borrow money or collect debts from some Jews."
"...it is clear that he asked the Jewish money-lenders to repay what they owed him...."
"If Pope Victor granted Callistus a monthly pension...."
-- Caracalla:
"New and heavy taxes were levied against the bulk of the population, with additional fees and confiscations targeted at the wealthiest families."
"to increase state revenue" / "raising tax revenue" / "expanding the Roman tax base"
"About the time of his accession he ordered the Roman currency devalued, the silver purity of the denarius was decreased from 56.5% to 51.5%...." / "debasement of the currency"

-- Callistus:
Was a "runaway slave (now free by Roman law from his master...." &,
"The edict of Callistus on penance...."
"... in a famous edict he granted Communion after due penance to those who had committed adultery and fornication. .... ... The edict was an order to the whole Church.... .... ... and the pope in decreeing a relaxation was regarded as enacting a new law. .... ...Again Callistus allowed the lower clergy to marry, and permitted noble ladies to marry low persons and slaves, which by the Roman law was forbidden...."
"...he started to admit into the church converts from sects or schisms who had not done penance. ...and established the practice of absolution of all sins.... Hippolytus found Callixtus's policy of extending forgiveness of sins to cover sexual transgressions shockingly lax and denounced him for allowing believers to regularize liaisons with their own slaves by recognizing them as valid marriages. "
"Further there is extant an inscription of a Carpophorus, a freedman of M. Aurelius...."
"... thinks that Callistus also issued a decree about fasting...."
-- Caracalla:
"the Constitutio Antoniniana (also called the Edict of Caracalla or the Antonine Constitution), granting Roman citizenship to all freemen throughout the Roman Empire...."
"The Constitutio Antoniniana (Latin: "Constitution [or Edict] of Antoninus") (also called Edict of Caracalla or Antonine Constitution) was an edict issued in 212 by Caracalla which declared that all free men in the Roman Empire were to be given full Roman citizenship and all free women in the Empire were given the same rights as Roman women. Before 212, for the most part only inhabitants of Italia held full Roman citizenship. .... The effect of this was to remove the distinction that citizenship had held since the foundation of Rome and as such the act had a profound effect upon the fabric of Roman society."
&, "He forgot even the proper dignity of his rank...."

-- Callistus:
Connected with "pope" "Victor".
-- Caracalla:
Connected with military? [Alexander mimic/mania?]

-- Callistus:
Consigned to the pistrinum handmill.
-- Caracalla:
"... and even grinding his own flour with them."

-- Callistus:
No reliable historical verificiation. Acts are "spurious". Certain details only  "likely to be historical". "Possible" he was martyred.
-- Caracalla:
Historically verified.

-- Callistus:
prefect Aleaxnder (just after his death).
-- Caracalla:
Alexander the Great mimic/mania.

Still not even slightly convinced? I suspect not because i have been through this same BS from proud self-righteous forums and academics many times before. See, no matter what stark evidences or what massive time and effort hard work i do it is still never good enough.

Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Nov 2015 at 08:32
What point is there in developing a theory that no one will look at?  If nothing else you need to stop being confrontational and listen to helpful advise.  Members here have taken the time to explain ways to present your theory in ways that people may find interesting.  I would consider their advise.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.