Sample 2: (Book) ‘Pliny The Younger: His Words & Phrases’ (Roman Piso, 2002)


(Added on Sat. 04/13/02)

If one wonders how it is that we may examine the works of Pliny the Younger with such a critical eye and associate his writings with the New Testament and Christianity – it must be remembered (and realized) that the precedent has already been set by all of the correlations found between the works of Flavius Josephus (presently numbering over 115). And this is in addition to all of the other evidence that had already been found associating Pliny with Flavius Josephus (Arrius Piso) and the other writers of his time – all of whom were a part of the oligarchy controlling all that was being written for the general public at the time.

Continuing on with our examination, we find Pliny using the phrase, “all with a show (pretense) of setting posterity an example…” (Book I, pg. 553). Pliny talks in places (as do the other authors of his day) about “making a show of things” or of pretense (pretext), or of “pretending.” This is actually very important to note as we compile our evidence and information to make the case that these authors were in fact writing and using their works deliberately for specific purposes – in order to mislead and deceive the reader who is not privy to what they were actually doing or how they were doing it.

The next line just after the one above, in reality, actually appears to be a pointed remark at the Jews. But of course, as crafty as Pliny and the other writers of his time were, he knew how to well conceal what he was doing and saying. He says, “But it isn’t worth my indignation; better to laugh (i.e. ridicule and make fun), or such people will think that have really achieved something when their lucky chance has brought them no more than ridicule.” Who are the “people” (not “person”) who, “by luck, had a chance” and ended up being ridiculed (in the New Testament)? The Jews. Who at that time consisted of the Pharisees and Scribes. And so I say to you, the researcher, “you must look closely, it is true; but notice with all good assurance what you will find when you finally do.” (by Roman Piso, Sunday 04/13/02)

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book I of II] (Wed. 04/17/02, Roman Piso)

Written Tuesday, 04/16/02, for Wed.’s online class…

There is something else that I would like to talk about before we go on and that is to mention that at the end of his “secular” (which really was not tolerated, but instead may be called “public,” superficially non-Christian) letters or epistles, Pliny uses the word “Vale.” Whether or not other writers of his time do likewise is not really the issue, as our interest in this has to do with the fact that this can be seen as a pattern, just as the use of the word “Amen” at the end of the epistles of the New Testament.

The pattern is that the one word “Vale” being used at the end of Pliny’s public letters and “Amen” being used at the end of Christian letters; both in the canon NT (New Testament) and the non-canon (apocryphal) NT letters/texts. Also, note that in the English translation in the Loeb edition, “Vale” is not given at the end of the letters, but IS found in the original Latin version.

As we have already found in previous examinations, “Amen” is actually a secret acknowledgement of or salute to the Egyptian sun god Ra (as “Amon Ra.” See the info on Ancestor Worship, inherited name/titles, etc. ”). And knowing these things, it appears that the use of “Vale” is also a secret way of saluting, alluding to and/or remembering the god “Bal,” and in turn the Roman Balbi family whose name and ancestry derive from “Bal.” We must remember, for instance, that these people (the ancient writers and their relatives) saw themselves as the incarnate of past gods (who were really only men playing gods, making use of alias names), whom they claimed descent from. We have much more research to do in order to understand such things as we need to about these things. And we must remember to bear in mind that we are discovering and learning more about these things all the time. “Vale,” it would appear then, accordingly, could be seen as “Bal(ae),” in other words, as “gods” (plural). (example, Book I, pg. 553).

An allusion to “ego feed” (indicating that Pliny knew all about how religion works upon the mind) is found in Pliny, Book I, pg. 559, when he quotes Xenophon when saying, “praise is the sweetest thing to hear” (in Greek). Pliny teased at belief, living on (in fame) after death, and HE is playing the role of prophet by saying, “I believe (!) that your histories will be immortal; a prophecy which will surely prove correct.” (Book I, pg. 559).

In a letter, speaking to Tacitus, Pliny says, “distinguished by the testimony of your genius.” He means the WAY in which they (the writers of the time) wrote what they did, hid their true identities, meanings and got away with it – for as long as it would take for mankind to discover it all (Book I, pg. 561).

Pliny speaks of Nerva congratulating him for what he had done for the good of the state (helping to kill Domitian?), as well as the Roman royals of his (Pliny’s) generation, for being so “blessed” (a word that we associate with Christianity) with an example so much in the best tradition. And therefore, in this very same letter (to Tacitus), he charges Tacitus with giving the facts of “the incident” saying, “whatever the merit of this incident, you can make it better known and increase its fame and importance, but I am not asking you to go beyond what is due to the facts. History should always confine itself to the truth, which in its turn is enough for honest deeds.” (Book I, pg. 563). He is saying that history SHOULD be told truthfully (also apparently meaning ‘forthrightly’) if it tells of honest deeds (by honest men)… but it also infers that deception and concealing facts is required if the deeds done and/or recorded by certain parties are NOT honest.

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book II of II] (Fri. 04/19/02, Roman Piso)

Omission is a device that is also often used by ancient writers, and Pliny the Younger is no exception; as omission can be used several ways to create a variety of effects. For instance, omitting words or information can be used to create the illusion that a person has nothing to do with a particular subject (such as Christianity), thus, creating a measure of deniability – while at the same time using that literary creation to “prod” people into thinking along certain lines that are a part of or an element of a particular religion or belief system.

A line from, let’s say, a New Testament epistle, can be taken as the basis for the construction of a line in an extra-Biblical text and disguised or made to appear differently (unrelated) – the same meaning or concept may be used, without using the same words as those which were in the original (in this instance, Biblical) text.

And things that are said by excluding a word or words can change or disguise what the actual (original) intended meaning of the author is. This could be something done by the author himself or by another individual or others who may have edited his text. I say this because given the evidence that I’ve seen regarding this, it appears that those ancient writers had to submit what they wrote to an official authority (whether that was a body of inspectors or an individual remains to be determined, but at this time I am leaning towards there having been a mandatory approval made by a counsel, perhaps afterwards being assigned to an individual editor) before it could be published as a work in which the public may have access to or sold to the reading public at large.

Omission is a prime device that is used to create sentences that INFER certain things. That is to say that they ‘say’ things without ever really having to ‘say’ them outright with actual words. Yes, and that means that would could be ‘said’ could be done with impunity as long as the reader never understood what was actually ‘there’ but only made virtually invisible. In many instances where things are only inferred the proper or correct understanding of the textual meaning depends upon the knowledge and/or ability of the intended or anticipated reader; in much the same way that an “inside joke” can only be understood by a person who is likewise “in” on the joke. Welcome to the exciting world of literary devices.

An example of this can be found in what Pliny says in a letter to Septicus Clarus, “But the gods promise happier things.” Pliny himself is not religious and does NOT believe in “the gods” in the same way that he pretends to. He says what he does on purpose so that it is seen and taken by non-royal readers/listeners on a superficial level, while other royals are able to “see” (understand) what he has omitted. The sentence to THEM reads, “But the (concept of) gods promise happier things (for US royals)” (Book II, pg. 3).

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book II of II] (Wed. 04/24/02, Roman Piso)

Pliny alludes to a passage in the New Testament when he says, “each individual according to his past merits” as this is basically an echoing of…… (Book II, pg. 7). Further on, he teases (in what he wrote) about the name of God as being “I am” when he says, “I am (is) not a person who holds in equal honor the wicked and the good.” In fact, this passage (like many others) can be split into two and read as; “I am (i.e. God) is not a person.” Meaning “God” is not a real person (being) and not any one certain individual only, such as a king but a concept and a name that is inherited and wore as a title. And, “who holds in equal honor the wicked and the good?” (as a question). Which, of course, alludes to the judgment of the conceptual God that the royals had invented. It is a line to prod people into thinking about themselves in relation to the judgment of the conceptual God that they had invented and were promoting.

This is the way that these accounts of history and literature during those times were written and why they should be examined in an extremely critical manner by highly educated intelligent people who have been trained so as to have the ability to do so on a sophisticated level. What this means to me in terms of achieving that goal is that an education in this area should really start at a fairly young age – at least in terms of building a foundation of background knowledge such as regular readings of classical material.

In various places and in various ways, Pliny’s works are seen purely as a facilitator of his propaganda campaign. Now that our work has exposed the primary intent and purpose of the writings of the authors of first and second century history as propaganda, it should from now on always be considered such and examined accordingly.

While giving the illusion of humility, Pliny alludes to ego-feed (a part of the process of auto-self-hypnosis which results from the ego-centric state of irrational belief) by saying, “… I like to flatter myself.” As he was writing what he did he said such things that point out that he fully understood about “ego-feed” and those things which builds egocentricity within people so as to inform us as to just how ingenious he really was (Book II, pg. 7). And, to the superficial reader, his line, “you will tell of a king driven from his capital and finally to death,” this is ONLY about king Decebalus of Dacia; but in reality, this was written to parallel what happened to Nero. They were always alluding to and deriding Nero because he was one of the main obstacles to the creation of the Christian religion as he refused to allow the Pisos to create and promote it as he was pro-Pharisee. It also appears that Nero’s intent was to leave control of the Roman Empire itself to the Pharisees once he died. Which, of course, was something that those who were fighting against the Pharisees could not allow to happen (Book II, pg. 9).

In a letter addressed to Caninius Rufus he says, “So call the gods to your aid.” On the surface he appears to be talking about the Roman gods, while at the same time alluding to the Christian “gods” (plural, i.e. the Trinity). As we have already seen in many examples before, Pliny and the other writers of his time were busy laying down a lot of information in their works by disguising it in any number of ways. But most particularly, by the practice of speaking of one thing while actually meaning or alluding to another (Book II, pg. 9). He continues on in that one line saying, “that divine hero whose exploits, achievements and wisdom you are going to celebrate…” and, of course, is actually alluding to “Jesus.” He can’t say that outright in his writings as Pliny, because then he would not be able to get away with the hoax that he was a part of (Book II, pg. 9).

It is only when one is privy to what the writers themselves were privy to that one is then able to understand the meaning of so many of the things that they were stating within their works. For example, Pliny the Younger played the part of Paul and the character Paul was placed in a generation just prior to Pliny’s own generation. And so, when one knows this, they are then able to understand such statements made by Pliny as this; “How glad I am that my lot did not fall in those days — for which I blush AS IF I had lived in them.” In this statement, he alludes to playing the part of someone from an earlier generation (as Paul), because the story that is told in the New Testament was set in that earlier generation (Book II, pg. 21).

Also, once one knows who to identify instances of thinly veiled, but altogether deliberate pieces of advertising. Yes, that is right. There are very few scholars who up to this point have ever even thought that some of what was being said in ancient literary works was in fact written as advertising! Nonetheless, it most certainly will be known now. Though Pliny’s mention of Christians in his epistles appear superficially one way, the actual purpose (intent) was to make Christians better known before the people of the Roman Empire – it was, in reality, a piece of advertisement. And other such instances have been found and identified as such. On page 25 (of Book II), he is giving ideas for spreading the word about the fictional “Jesus” and Christianity by giving an example of another successful idea regarding religion and that is to make it all appear so attractive and beautiful by mentioning a place this is so, where people could travel to for a great mutual experience in a wonderful scenic environment (Book II, pg. 25).

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book II of II] (Fri. 04/26/02, Roman Piso)

Pliny makes many statements promoting all of the necessary elements to perpetuate and promote ignorance and superstition within the minds of the masses of the Roman Empire in much the same way as Arrius Piso writing as Flavius Josephus did and as Titus Antonius (Antoninus) did while writing as Suetonius. He constantly makes remarks that give the impression that he is religious (as nearly all royals, writers and religious leaders did then, in order to make being religious appear to be “normal” so that people would not feel uneasy about it and accept it as a natural inclination), and these served to promote various elements of the Christian religion while also appearing (superficially) to refer to strictly Roman conventions of religion.

But when one realizes that ALL of these elements are a) there, and b) consistent throughout these works it becomes apparent that all of it is intentional; especially when weighed against all of the other evidence. Again, Pliny’s favorite “style” appears to be inserting already constructed lines and phrases into other pieces of text or to build text AROUND those already created phrases and statements. To this observer, it seems that a lot of thought has gone into the creation and use of many of the words and phrases that Pliny used and that these were probably written down long before ever using them in his works – when seen all together, they show up as a literary arsenal, something on the order of a propagandist’s workshop.

Perhaps Pliny wrote down some of these lines while he was busy doing other things such as sitting around a campfire while traveling around the Empire helping to create churches, renovating old worship sites into new Christian ones and building the little stalls used for confession and prostitution at those churches. He may have even been thinking of, writing down and collecting these phrases since he was a very young man. It is entirely possible that he was writing some of these ideas down while Mount Vesuvius was erupting in 79 C.E. and just used them later on, by inserting them within other text or by writing other text around them in order to hide them within other contexts as I had just explained above.

Here is another phrase that he had used, “… you should thank the gods…” This is an example of what the view of Christianity at the time was really like, as when Christianity was first beginning the Christian believers saw it as a religion with three central gods (plural) who were also ONE god in total (the Trinity).

What this does, having a trinity in a religion, is a psychological aspect of propaganda and it gives the mind more to work with in terms of certain aspects of reinforcing what is conceptualized by the believer. It means things on a subconscious level particularly. One of those things is that the believer will not get tired of praying to ONE god only and may place blame upon himself before assigning any to the god or before losing faith in that god, because he may then realize that he needs to appease ALL of the three gods or aspects of the one god in order to receive favor from him/them.

Another part of this psychologically is that it makes it seem that there is a majority or more than just the believer and the one god who is involved in seeing to it that the believer gets/receives what they desire, whether that is things that are asked for in prayer or if it is saving the “soul” of the believer himself. On a subconscious level, the believer may be able to trick his own mind into thinking that he is “hedging his bets” by paying homage to all three aspects of the god. So, there is really quite a lot going on by the use of the concept of the Trinity in the Christian religion. In saying, “you should thank the gods,” he means by praying, worshiping, sacrificing and the whole nine yards (Book II, pg. 27).

They also knew that simple-minded people were much like parrots, who did not really think, but who DID repeat many of the things that they had heard or were told. As Oscar Wilde put it, “Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’ opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.” And this is something else that they put to full use when they were creating their propaganda as a psychological device. This is something that we will also be discussing and illustrating in detail as we go on in our studies of this subject. There are so many things which are right there in front of so many people. It is like the saying about not being able to see the forest for the trees. Many of these things are at least within their grasp should they so choose to accept the opportunity to learn and understand them; but in the majority of cases it is not until these have been pointed out, isolated, illustrated and finely described that they may finally register within so many minds. And most certainly, these things are indeed no exception.

As that grand observer Bruno Bauer had pointed out in his “Christ And The Caesars,” the authors of Christianity used basic pre-existing ideas and concepts by refining, improving and re-wording them. Even though some do appear to be wholly original on the surface. But a truly thorough and critical study of a subject such as this must never be confined to a superficial examination. One must call in all available tools and technology as well as those items which are peripheral to that subject or otherwise involve it. Bruno Bauer’s work in “Christ And The Caesars,” dealt largely with a critical examination of the works of Seneca and Flavius Josephus, although he does also discuss items (instances) which are found in the works of other writers of that time – including Pliny’s. Now, back to OUR examination of the works of Pliny.

Pliny the Younger displays his talent for re-wording ideas and concepts in this works. And he is definitely a master of allusion by using this talent to disguise and hide phrases that were actually referring to New Testament passages regarding particular ideological concepts which were developed into pieces of propaganda. In one line from his Epistles, Pliny says, “we may hope from this evidence…” This phrase, to those who are able to recognize it from the elements of it alludes to the New Testament passage about what “faith” is defined as by the NT author of that passage, while at the same time mixing in “hope” (false hope) as a means of disguising what he is actually referring to. Also, by mentioning “hope” he is recalling a statement that he had made earlier on in his Epistles where he speaks of letting him be happy in his delusions – as such a person would not be a real thinking person, but would think in terms of faith and (groundless/baseless) hope (Book II, pg. 29).

As was already observed, Pliny peppers his letters with words that are synonyms for the word “innocent” such as “blameless.” And in addition to this he gives conceptual lines or phrases that indicate the same thing or that have the same meaning, as in the statement, “… no fault of her own…” I.e. she was “innocent” (Book II, pg. 29). Simple lines are also used. Lines that would appear on the surface to be incidental were perfect to say, indicate, allude to and infer certain things. One of those was the use of “I am” as was already discussed.

But there were certain words and phrases that were exclusive to the New Testament in their meaning (at that time) because of what they referred to specifically. For instance, the phrase “one day.” In a letter to Cornelius Minicianus, he inserts the simple phrase “one day,” which most people would gloss right over without a second thought. But it is this phrase which refers (secretly, of course) to the rising of Jesus after three days. This is because in the story it really was not actually three days – but two! “One day” was missing! (Book II, pg. 31).

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book II of II] (Wed. 05/01/02, Roman Piso)

In Book II, pg. 33, Pliny hints at his having been Pope when he says, “so I feel that I am performing a pious duty.” He was, as stated in his works, for a time, he was the official Roman overseer of religion under Trajan. And realizing that Christianity was created by the Romans, this would make him Pope.

Pliny says things to infer jokes such as when he says in Book II, pg. 47, “Otherwise, I shall have to erase all I write, good or bad, and use the paper (over) again… (this time, to wipe my a** with).” What people need to understand is that because history did not happen in the way that people have thought it had, but instead happened in a totally different way, the writers had the luxury of being able to “say” things without having to actually say them outright or with written words – all they had to do was to merely INFER them.

That is because all that they wrote was “pristine” in the sense that ONLY those who were authorized to write were writing and with everyone who was writing in on what was going on, they did not need to explain it to each other. Instead, what they did was to give the REST of their meaning in other places and in other ways. One of those ways was by setting precedent examples regarding alternate word meanings. This means that if one of them wrote somewhere, in some passage that a word somehow meant something in addition to its regular meaning that they could use that word as a euphemism or secretly to infer a meaning that would not be readily detected.

And Pliny again alludes to the passage in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 7:20-21) where it says, “Let each man remain in the same state (that he is in) when he is called (to heaven/death). Are you being called (going to die) as a slave? Never mind.” What is he jokingly saying is that if a slave dies as a slave that he will remain as one always. There is a surface joke that infers that if a slave dies as a slave that he will go to heaven as a slave or to a “slave heaven.” But beneath that meaning, he is also saying what is obvious to all other royals and that is simply that if he was not born royal then he is a subject (slave) and that there is no escape from that situation, he will die as one no matter what. In other words, he is teasing that the very (false) hope that the Christian religion offered to slaves was futile and that they were really all just fools for believing it. But of course, the slaves would never know that this is what he was saying or joking about.

That corresponding passage in Pliny’s epistles is, “I am always ready to grant my slaves their freedom, so I don’t free their death is so untimely when they die free men…” (Book II, pg. 47). This statement says something else if we examine closer and understand Pliny as he REALLY was. Pliny is supposed to have granted his slaves their freedom upon this death and has been praised for this act of kindness; in fact, a great deal of his fame is based upon his granting his many slaves their freedom. But in reality, what this statement exposes is what really happened. Upon his death, he had left orders to give his slaves a “mock” freedom and then be immediately killed. This is another play on words by Pliny as the says that he is always ready to grant his slaves their “freedom.” But what he means is their “liberty,” which is secretly saying “their death.” This is because liberty is synonymous with death. Seneca wrote about “liberating” the soul from the body at death. And the Roman god Jupiter is called “the liberator” because he liberated (freed) people of their life. A key to the true meaning of his statement is that he says, “I don’t feel that their death is so untimely.” No, it wouldn’t be “untimely” if it occurred anytime that Pliny wished it to. Which is exactly the case.

Pliny and the other Roman royals of his time were so power drunk and used to their position of power over other human beings that they admired the practice of the ancient Pharaohs to take their slaves with them into death when they had died that they desired the very same thing. As I had explained before, these Romans who were creating Christianity and writing the history of the time considered what they were doing to be the same as building their own literary pyramids as monuments to themselves – and that made them (secretly) like a new kind of “Roman” Pharaoh.

There was no way that Pliny was going to let his slaves outlive him and Pliny or no other royals were going to allow them to be free. That slaves were granted freedom appears to have been only another one of the illusions that ancient writers had created out of necessity – to give slaves one other false hope to hold onto. It would have been a dangerous thing to royals to let someone who was intimately familiar with them, all of their dealings, habits and all manner of things “loose” to let all of those secrets also escape their household.

It just did not make sense for royals to grant their slaves freedom, especially when most royals did not view slaves as being entitled to anything at all resembling rights or entitlement no matter what. Slaves were to be used in whatever manner their owners wished and were expected to comply or die. Their “lot” or fate was sealed upon birth and lasted to death. Any perversion, sexual whim or desire that a slave owner had no matter how depraved or what time of day or place, he had a “right” to do with his slave and was generally met with no resistance at all because the slaves were used to it and knew that resistance meant death. Those slave owners had the power of life and death over other human beings; this is precisely what caused the war that eventually led to the creation of the Christian religion.

Pliny uses a key phrase which is a very obvious parallel to similar statements which are found in the New Testament when he says, “Not that I would wish to be harder of heart…” (Book II, 49). The “hard of heart” phrases as used in the NT are there to set up precedent examples so as to make certain words and terms synonymous with each other, particularly making the word “stone” (which they had already made synonymous with “son” i.e., Jesus the Son of God) with “heart.” And knowing this, now you will better understand just why you find the “sacred heart” in the Catholic religion. This is something that I will illustrate better later on (Book II, pg. 49).

And Pliny makes some rather strange statements as times such as this one, “Even grief has its pleasure…” He says this in the context of what people would consider “comfort” in a time of grief; but comfort is NOT the same as “pleasure.” So, what he is really saying is that from SOME people’s suffering, SOMEONE ELSE may derive pleasure, IF it is the grief or suffering of those whom you hate or are MAKING suffer. He was alluding to the fact that he and his comrades enjoyed making and seeing other people suffer. This was a sick and depraved “pleasure” that they shared in common. It brings to mind a statement by Suetonius where he is talking about Domitian when he first became Emperor spending his time trapping and torturing flies (which became the source for the saying, “He wouldn’t hurt a fly.”). Now why would Suetonius make such a big deal of something such as this to put this in his works? Because the royal Roman view of this is that he was so stupid for torturing flies when he had the power to do so many other things! If he wished, he could be torturing other human beings and do so in the cruelest ways. Or he could be with any number of sex partners or whatever else he pleased. So, that was stated to make fun of how he was “wasting” his time and power (Book II, pg. 49).

When speaking of a “mirror,” Pliny alludes to his famous statement in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 13:12) saying in his epistles (Book II, pg. 53), “There is certainly no truth in the popular belief that a man’s will is a mirror (of his character).” If one will but examine the statement closer, they will find that within it is a statement which acts as a disclaimer for Christianity, “There is certainly no truth in the popular belief,” that “popular belief,” being Christianity. So, just as there are many other instances of disclaimers found in the works of that time, this is just one more of those.

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book II of II] (Fri. 05/03/02, Roman Piso)

Something that Pliny says in his epistle to Maturus Arrianus (Book II, pg. 65) may remind a person of the extremes found in the New Testament; from the grave image of Jesus upon the cross, to the (false) promise of salvation. He says, “In literature, as in life, I think it a becoming sign of humanity to mingle grave and gay (happy), lest the one becomes too austere and the other indelicate; and this is the principle which leads me to intersperse my more serious (literary) works with trifles for amusement.”

Now, there are a few things here to discuss. The first thing that I’d like to point out is what the very first part of what he says is analogous to – a mirror. What he says is, “In literature, as in life…” (today’s version of this is “In art, as in life…”). He is saying that they “mirror” each other; of course, alluding to his famous New Testament statement once again. Isn’t he just so clever? But that is not all… this is something else there that is just a bit more difficult to notice on the surface, because there is another NT passage that this relates to another one that indicates a parallel or “mirror.” And this one is key to understanding the true meaning of many other NT passages. There is a passage in Luke (11:2) that states, “Let (it) be done as it is in heaven, also upon the earth.” “Heaven” to them was a euphemism for death or “non-life” and therefore fiction or literature. And “earth” is used euphemistically here for “life.” And so, we see what was said as saying that “art (literature) mirrors life.”

The part about mixing “grave and gay” alludes to the NT and it can also refer to what he has said before about his taking pleasure in the pain or grief of others. And this portion, “which leads me to intersperse my more serious works with trifles for amusement,” means two things that I’d like to explain and possibly alludes to another. Firstly, he says “intersperse.” That means or could mean “inserting” lines or phrases which he had already created beforehand, as was already discussed.

Secondly, he says “for amusement,” but does not indicate specifically if it is for HIS amusement or that of the reader (this is much like the trick that we find in the works of Flavius Josephus where he says “and where it must be reproachful to write lies, when they must be known by the READER as such.” He is saying that an awful thing if the READER knows that what he is reading is a lie!!! Oh, it would be just the most terrible thing if the reader knows that what he is reading is a lie! Yes, it would. Because then the fraud would not continue to work! But even though he has said it THIS way, he make it appear as if he has accidentally written READER when he meant to say WRITER (“The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, Whiston Translation, pg. 428). Superficially, it appears to mean that he (Pliny) does this to entertain and keep the interest/attention of his readers. But, knowing what we do, we know that Pliny produced many inside jokes (gay/happy) within texts that were written superficially to be taken by non-privy persons as serious or solemn (grave); such as with the New Testament material.

And he speaks throughout his epistles about his “other” great literary works. However, all of the literary work that he have that was written by Pliny the Younger under own name as Pliny are his epistles and the Panegyricus, which was written supposedly, to honor Trajan. Which begs the question, just what ARE these other great literary works that Pliny refers to??? He makes them seem gigantically monumental.

So, these OTHER great works that he refers to appear to be the literary contributions that he had made to the New Testament! He has alluded to them and very nearly has referred directly to them on a constant basis throughout his epistles; and in fact, if one were to take those particular portions OUT of his epistles there would scarcely be anything left! In the same epistle to Maturus Arrianus, Pliny inserts the line, “I began by hoping…” This alludes to the (false) hope that Christianity would give to its believers (Book II, pg. 65).

Regarding his literary work, Pliny says, “but mine is more guileless and affectionate…” (Book II, pg. 65). He is alluding or pointing to the passages regarding “guile” in the New Testament, one of which is “But being crafty, I caught you with guile…” (2 Co. 12:16). Guile means deceit, trickery, the deliberate misleading of people, sometimes with “bait.” While, Pliny claims that his writings are more “guileless” (innocent, without blame) than others. However, as we are studying the literary complexities of Pliny’s writings, this does make me think of what royals might have gotten away with had they been able to use what we might term “antonyms.”

Traditionally, an antonym is a word that has the opposite meaning of a word. This can be taken to mean that another word is used in addition to one which was already given; but it could likewise mean a single word that when used in a sentence has the opposite meaning to what people would think that it does. An example of such a word that people are familiar with would be the word “rationalizing.” If this is so, then they could have gotten away with saying virtually anything and saying that it was “true” even though it was indeed a lie!

When we researchers consider everything else, we can’t help take note of Pliny’s use of the phrase “good book” and realize the implied reference to the New Testament Gospels, especially when the NT was seen as a collection of literary “good news”; for those who were royal and wanted to keep their position of power over everyone else, that is. So, to them, the New Testament was seen as the “Good Book”… a term that would later be applies to the Bible as a whole (Book II, pg. 67).

There is another phrase that stands out here as well. It is one that the Oxford professors who were compiling the Oxford Encyclopedia Biblica had identified as a euphemism for a phallus and which in the Roman writings of the time appears as “the greater part,” “the secret (sacred) part,” or as Pliny puts it, “the better part” (Pliny, Book II, pg. 67). Pliny is obviously alluding to a sexual instance depicted in the New Testament where Mary the Magdalene (as Jesus says therein), “hath chosen THE BETTER PART” (Luke 10:42). James Ballantyne Hannay discusses this very thing in his “The Rise, Decline & Fall of the Roman Religion,” pg. 57-58. The “better part” as we find, on one level is supposed to be his FEET. So that when people read the passage, they innocently think that it is Jesus’ FEET that Mary is attending to. But, we researchers know more than the general public does about what was really going on with regards to these writings and so we understand the true nature of what was being said in them. The words for “foot” and “feet” were used as euphemisms for the male sex organ (Book II, pg. 67).*

* James Ballantyne Hannay, author of “The Rise, Decline & Fall of the Roman Religion,” published in 1925; reprinted in 1972. Distributed by Health Research, P.O. Box 70, Mokelumne Hill, Calif. 95245. Hannay says that Forlong gives examples of “foot” and “feet” used in a phallic sense. He is referring to British Major-General Forlong, circa WWI (i.e. 1914-1918).

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book II of II] (Wed. 05/08/02, Roman Piso)

Here is one particular phrase that I have noted about Pliny the Younger had used in his epistles, and it is a phrase which is also found used in the New Testament. That phrase is “my mind’s eye” (Book II, pg. 71).
And, as you have already seen, there are many, many instances that can be found in Pliny’s epistles where a correlation exists between his works and the New Testament, just has we have already shown with the works of Flavius Josephus.

In an epistle addressed to Valerius Maximus he makes the statement “… or else it would be better for you to remain ignorant.” This echoes the New Testament statement “If a man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” Or “If a man IS ignorant, let him REMAIN ignorant.” (Book II, pg. 73).

And Pliny states just how their planned propaganda was based upon the appearance of genuine love and concern in order to gain their desired results when he says, “affection is far more effective than fear in gaining you your ends.” Which, when one thinks of it, is very similar to the saying, “You can catch more flies with honey and you can with vinegar” (Book II, pg. 75). This is the apparent basic rule which is found throughout the New Testament – make it appear adorable, good and loving; and as attractive as possible while playing down the fear factor involved, once it is made abundantly clear.

We can see that Pliny actively plants seeds of particular thought and ideology within his writings; just as we find in the New Testament. One such phrase that he uses is, “there is no danger of excess where there ought to be no limits.” And with Christianity having been made to appear synonymous with love, he means this to be said to those Christian believers so as to plant the idea within their heads that they cannot be over-zealous in their idea of Christian love and belief (Book II, pg. 77).

In an epistle addressed to Valerius Paulinus, Pliny plants the seeds of thoughts of martyrdom for Christian believers saying, “… the truly happy man is of one who enjoys the anticipation of a good and lasting reputation, and, confident in the verdict of posterity, lives in the knowledge of the fame that is to come” (Book II, pg. 85). He goes on to say in that same epistle, “that fame (once won), is imperishable or (else) man is (only) mortal.” This statement is extremely telling as to how Pliny and other royals saw life. And, of course, in the statement about “the fame that is to come,” Pliny is no doubt referring to himself and the “fame” that is to come to HIM once it is realized that he had a great part in the creation of the Christian religion. He realized, as did his fellow writers of the time, that their writings, since they contain the information that we need to work out the puzzle that they had created, would be essential for the study and research of all students and scholars of the subject.

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book II of II] (Fri. 05/10/02, Roman Piso)

Pliny jokes about the euphemistic meaning in the use of the word “eyes” in the New Testament by saying, “use your eyes and you will see.” This alludes to the NT statement, “they have eyes, but do not see; they hear, but do not understand” (Book II, pg. 97).

And Pliny very slyly mimics what Arrius Piso as Jesus had said in the New Testament, “let he who is without sin cast the first stone…” But Pliny says it this way, “surely everyone is liable to make mistakes and everyone has his own foibles.”

Also, Pliny appears to be echoing what Suetonius had said about boys (“Boys will be boys!”). Or is it the other way around? Did Suetonius echo what Pliny had said before him? Well, all of this anyway from what Pliny had said in his epistles, “Remember that he is a boy, and you have (also) been a boy (once) yourself…”

Once again, Pliny alludes to the “Never Mind” joke in the New Testament (which was mentioned and explained earlier), as he uses that phrase “Never Mind” in an epistle to Ummidius Quadratus (Book II, pg. 103). And he also teases us readers again about the fact that he had played the part of a prophet by saying, “All (this) have I foreseen and (it has) gone through my mind.” This is actually from a line that he had lifted from The Aeneid.

As we have observed in our research and which we have learned from the research of others such as Bruno Bauer, there are quite a few passages that the New Testament is actually comprised of which had originated in the writings of people like Homer and the great Roman Poets and philosophers. This is a very interesting aspect of this when one thinks about it. And, again, is very telling as it exposes the greater extent of Roman involvement in the creation of the Christian religion and the compilation of the New Testament. (Book II, pg. 103).

When it comes to certain phrases that Pliny uses in his works, I had just had to skip over many of the instances where he has used the phrase “blameless” as it would be a rather exhaustive task to cover each and very one of these currently. However, where other instances are that are not as numerous, I have done what I could to make you aware of those. Such is the case with the phrase “mind’s eye.” Pliny uses this phrase once again in Book II, pg. 109. In that same epistle, he gives us the phrase, “(you) have only yourself to blame.” Come to think of it, this may be the key phrase to all of those “disclaimers” that we have so far identified through the writings of that time.

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book II of II] (Wed. 05/15/02, Roman Piso)

There is, as I have said before, so much of value to us as researchers within the epistles or letters of Pliny the Younger that I cannot hope to cover it all – but I find that I must restrict myself to those things which I know that readers (who are also researchers) will be able to related to and use in their own research.

When and if the time comes that some readers may reach a more difficult level of study they may go on to tackle things which are decidedly more complicated. And hopefully, I will have written enough so as to aid them in that transition by then.

Now, with all that having been said, we find Pliny making a “testes” joke by writing the line “… with all that in the bag…” (Book II, pg. 113). By the way, in that very same sentence he alludes to the Isopsephia or “numbers game” which the authors of the time used in order to say or indicate things in cypher. He says, “… that the numbers couldn’t be counted.” (Book II, pg. 113).

Still in that same epistle to Pomponius Mamilianus, he used the phrase “new wine” – which is referenced to a particular passage in the New Testament where it is talking about “new wine in old bottles.” (Book II, pg. 113).

But Pliny really pushed it as far as he could in terms of all of the alluding to passages in the New Testament because he could not stop himself from doing so at every opportunity; even though these were disguised and he must have felt fairly safe in doing so, he really had no control over it as in essence he was so egotistic that he needed to brag about what he had done. It is as if he was power-drunk and addicted to bragging about his part in the authorship of the New Testament.

He writes, “I can bear witness to this myself…” (Book II, pg. 117). This is a direct reference to the passage in the New Testament where Jesus says that if he bears witness to himself that he is a liar; and then a few lines later he does just that!

And it appears that Pliny is referring to his sex slaves by use of euphemism calling them “little sparrows and doves,” in a letter to Pomponius Mamilianus (Book II, pg. 129). Pliny says, apparently of Arrius Piso, “his only fault is that he is faultless.” Meaning that he got away with it all flawlessly. (Book II, pg. 129). Come to think of it, this may be an indication of what was said about Titus, because Arrius Piso was also called Titus and had Titus as an inherited name (from the Flavians). It may well be that several of the things that are said apparently about Titus the Emperor were really being said of Arrius Piso as Titus. Such as being “the darling of the human race” and of what Suetonius says of Titus, “only a single sin lay on his conscience.” (Suetonius, ‘The Twelve Caesars,’ in the section on Titus).

Oh, and it is Pliny who was apparently the first to use the phrase “a snail’s pace.” (Book II, pg. 129). If not the first then surely one of the first. Pliny himself was well-versed in metaphor and simile, he never hides the fact that he is quite proud of his literary talents, and is always critical of the works of others. He says in a letter to Lupercus, “… he is, so pleased with this metaphor that he (often) repeats it…” (Book II, pg. 135).

And not only here, but in several places throughout the letters of Pliny do we find him very nearly bragging about this literary ability and being very specific in stating that he is a master of. And he mentions these things by name such as above where he states his knowledge of metaphor. So, this is proof that he indeed was well aware and capable of doing all that has been indicated.

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book II of II] (Fri. 05/17/02, Roman Piso)

While examining the epistles of Pliny we have seen many references and allusions to various passages in the New Testament texts. This is something that Abelard Reuchlin has already said existed within those epistles several years ago. In fact, the way that he had put this was that there are phrases and/or passages that are used by Pliny in his epistles that correspond to the epistles of Paul in the New Testament. So, I had expected to find a few of these phrases; but not nearly as many as have been found!

And in addition to this, we also find quite a few disguised bawdy jokes. These are obviously deliberate and original to the epistles. The manner in which these jokes are disguised is very similar to the way in which the same type of jokes and bawdy comments are found in the New Testament texts; and by observing the words and phrases that are used by Pliny we find that several of these actually correspond to those which are found within the New Testament texts. In the New Testament, for example, we find the use of the word “groan” as a part of a crude sexual joke. In Pliny’s epistles, we find his use of the same word in relation to a phallic joke as he had inserted the phrase in this particular epistle as, “… the rudder groans…” (Book II, pg. 137). The “rudder,” of course, is a phallic reference.

Pliny demonstrates his desire to keep people guessing about things by creating little riddles and mysteries. In this instance, he does so by saying, “Up came the friends (a phallic reference) of someone I won’t name” and only a few lines later in the same letter he says, “… for information withheld only sharpens men’s curiosity to hear (know) it.” (Book II, pg. 137).

This time he does so in a letter to “Plinius Paternus” – I wonder WHO that might be? Well, I have no doubt that Pliny, like Arrius Piso writing as Josephus, was in fact writing TO HIMSELF; at least in part. I am not saying that the people whom he addresses the letters to did not exist; in fact, the purpose of his mention of them by certain names is to inform the privy reader of the various alias names used either by or to identify royal family members and other royal individuals. A study of that particular aspect of Pliny’s letters will have to be done separate and apart from this examination of the words and phrases used in his letters.

As we have also seen previously in this examination of Pliny’s epistles, there are also a number of sayings and what might be called prototypes for what would later become sayings in those epistles. Those who have been critically studying the classics for a while now, will note that this is something that is also found in the works of Suetonius – whom Pliny admits he knows. And we have already discussed a potential connection between a “prototype” saying and one that shows up as a fully formed saying in the works of Suetonius. That saying is “Boys will be boys.”

The origin of the saying “robbing Peter to pay Paul” may have its basis in these words of Pliny, “other smart characters rob one person to give (pay) to another…” For one thing, they (Peter and Paul) were both “characters” alright – created fictional characters. And for another thing, regarding these two, one was Arrius Piso (Peter) and the other one was Pliny (Paul). Also, Arrius Piso as Jesus, worked miracles. And so, borrowing or “robbing” from that or another character (Peter), the “Paul” character was created and in so doing, also worked miracles. (Book II, pg. 143).

It is very interesting to note all of the instances that we find in Pliny’s epistles that relate directly to the New Testament in various ways. Restating one of the main themes of the New Testament with regards to the aim in its propaganda (used to placate slaves and those who were living miserably poor lives), Pliny says, “… be content with your own lot (in life.” (Book II, pg. 143). This echoes not only of various lines in the New Testament, but also of the kind of ideologies that Seneca was trying to put forth within his writings as a philosopher.

As researchers of the history of the time in which the New Testament was written, we are well aware of the fact that there were many uprisings going on and that these were long-standing. These uprisings consisted of or were described as being attributed to certain groups; at times, these groups were be described as “slaves” who were uprising. In other places, there were common citizens and others from within the Roman empire, even joining in with slaves in these uprisings.

Besides these, the Roman Empire was busy fighting long on-going wars and battles throughout the Empire and those lands which Rome was trying to either conquer and gain for itself and/or those that it wished to retain. All of this, was a very heavy drain upon the resources of Rome. And so, it was a strategic tactic to find a solution to all of these uprising and to get people to become more content in living their lives as poor people, slaves and others. That is, to just accept their station or “lot” in life and not make trouble for those who were enjoying lives of extreme wealth and privilege. That is why we see these Roman authors repeating the NEED for people to be content and be “humble.” As they were also obliged to include this same theme and make a point of it in the New Testament.

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book II of II] (Wed. 05/22/02, Roman Piso)

Later, in other studies, we will recall many of the examples that we have examined in the works of Pliny the Younger. Here is an example of one which we may return to later on. It is about Tacitus in the company of Pliny telling him how someone had brought up the close association between the two authors. Pliny says of Tacitus (to Maximus), “He was describing how at the last Races he had sat next to a Roman knight who engaged him in conversation on several learned subjects and then asked if he had come from Italy or the provinces.” “You know me,” said Tacitus, “from your reading.” At which, the man said, “Then are you Tacitus or Pliny?” (Book II, pg. 125). But what had Pliny published BEFORE that which he was to become well-known for?

When you read Pliny’s letters you will find just how overly excited he is at the fact that his name was so closely associated with Tacitus in several instances. However, “Pliny” was a pen name just as “Tacitus” was a pen name for that author. So, in order to receive the “credit” that they knew that would receive far off in the distant future (from the time in which they were writing), they would have to make certain that they true identities would one day become known. And so, this too, will be a point that we will be examining later.

And Pliny goes on in this same epistle (addressed to Maximus), to give us an example of deduction. He says, “A similar thing happened to me a day or two ago. I had a distinguished neighbor at dinner, Fadius Rufinus, and on his other side was someone from his native town who had come to Rome on his first visit that same day. Pointing to me, Rufinus said to him, “do you see my friend here?” Then he spoke at length about my work, and the man exclaimed, “It must be Pliny!” (Book II, pg. 125). This shows just how much pleasure these authors derived from fooling people into thinking that they were someone who they were not.

The phrase “reopening old wounds” appears to have come from Pliny’s use of the phrase by quoting “reopening old wounds” in an epistle to Lupercus (Book II, pg. 135). And here is an interesting bit of information, Pliny uses the Greek word “politeias” (in his Latin text, which isn’t that unusual in and of itself), but it is the same passage and I thought it worth mentioning that this word is a variant of the name “Pilate” (“Pilatos”). The word “politeias” is “State” (i.e. the “Roman State” or government in Greek. (Book II, pg. 135).

Pliny may or may not be the first to use the phrase “peace and quiet,” but it is worth noting his use of the phrase. He does so in a letter to the poet Caninius Rufus (Book II, pg. 149. Pliny puts forth the illusion that he believes in “soothsayers” so as to promote irrational thought and superstition. In a letter addressed to Mustius, he says, “I am told by the soothsayers that I must rebuild the temple of Ceres which stands on my property…” This too, gives the reader that impression that Pliny believes in the (old) Roman gods and puts a distance between him and his involvement in the creation and promotion of the Christian religion. This was done, of course, in an attempt to deflect suspicion away from Pliny (Book II, pg. 159). So, he pretended to keep up the worship of the old Roman deities.

And I really cannot make note of all of the times that Pliny used the word “pray.” He never missed the chance to use that word. “I pray you” is a phrase used by him quite often in his epistles, in case I had failed to mention it before (Book II, pg. 175).

Trajan alludes to the fact that royals would adapt religion to the particular regions (and kingdoms) in which they ruled by saying, “You are wise to adapt yourself to local conditions…” The use of the word “wise” in this sentence makes the sentence “say” to the person it is addressed to (in this instance it is Pliny the Younger) that he is a “wise man,” alluding to the Egyptian “Veru.” And Pliny was a “veru,” just as Arrius Piso was. “Veru” was the inherited name that Arrius Piso and his relatives used to establish the Roman dynasty known as the Annii Verii (Book II, pg. 187).

Pliny, like Suetonius and other writers of the time, put forth irrational ideas including the belief in good and bad omens; as religion and superstition went hand in hand. He speaks of a “good omen” in a letter addressed to Trajan (Book II, pg. 189).

End of book sample 2.

Sample: (Book) Pliny The Younger: His Words & Phrases

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book I of II]
(Wed. 03/06/02, Roman Piso)

Well, the time has come for us to focus our attention upon the letters (epistles) of Pliny the Younger on the level in which he makes statements and examine those for their true meanings. I say on this ‘level’ because there are other levels in which to examine ancient texts. In Pliny’s letters, for example, two of the main levels would be in what he says and means, and the other would be the names of the people that he has written about in his epistles. So, here, we are looking at what he says and means by his statements.

In the Loeb Classical Library edition of Pliny’s Epistles (PLINY: Letters and Panegyricus), we find a great deal of information; particularly when it comes to alias names and genealogies. We will get into further examinations regarding the alias names at a later date, but I will say for now (since we are on the subject), that in the introduction of Pliny’s Epistles (pg. xiv), there is a genealogy chart given that goes from Caecina Paetus and the Elder Arria (Arria the Elder) down to the son and two daughters of Helvidius and Anteia. This is the line from Arrius Piso’s sister Fannia down to the Emperor Pertinax, who was emperor in 193 C.E.

That people in Pliny’s time used alias names is actually nothing new in terms of being suspected by scholars, but actual examples had never really been explained or illustrated to the degree of being proven with facts and evidence as we now have. Some scholars have made it known that they have had their suspicions. Even in the Introduction of Pliny’s Epistles (pg. xviii), there is the statement, “It has been suggested that Juvenal satirizes Pliny’s circle in some of his pseudonyms.” (see Gilbert Highet, ‘Juvenal the Satirist,’ pp. 291 ff)

We should note the particular phrases and statements made by Pliny as they are instructive and important. He says, for example, “our master Cicero.” This is interesting and most likely of some importance regarding his ancestry (pg. 5). And he advises, “Create something, perfect it to be yours for ALL TIME(!)” (pg. 7)

Pliny also mentions and quotes Homer many times throughout his work. He says, “See what a pinnacle you have set me on, giving me the same power and majesty as Homer gives to Jupiter (the) Best and Highest.” But in this statement, he is also comparing himself to Arrius Piso as Jesus; when, as Jesus, he was at the top of the Temple as is stated in the New Testament when he is supposedly tempted by the Devil to jump off! (Pliny, pg. 19)

And just as he does when writing in the New Testament as Paul, he makes statements that are phallic in nature and he often alludes to things of a sexual nature. He mentions his own “figs and mushrooms.” Figs, of course symbolizing testes, and mushrooms referring to erect phallii (pg. 21).

We shall tackle this in sections. This is the end of part I.

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book I of II]
(Fri. 03/08/02, Roman Piso)

Now, it will be noted that many ancient historians mention libraries and this is true of Pliny the Younger as well (example, Pliny, Book I of II in the Loeb series, pg. 21), “I intend to ask you to spare another look at the speech I delivered to my fellow citizens at the official opening of the library at Comum.”

I doubt very much seriously that libraries existed in ancient times that were open to the general public – even if (and actually especially if) that is the impression that is given by ancient authors. Libraries would most likely have been restricted to use by royals only and/or certain precautions taken to insure that ordinary people could not make use of them. Remember, knowledge is power and they royals were keen on keeping the masses as ignorant as possible, while increasing their own knowledge; and therefore, their power and control over them.

Pliny makes it known that he is well aware of the key concepts in Christianity as Hope and Fear. He says, “Hopes and fears do not worry me…” (Book I, pg. 29). Pliny too, uses many of the same words and phrases that are also used in the New Testament. He uses the term ‘blameless’ several times. Such as in the statement, “He leads a wholly blameless life…” (Book I, pg. 33).

And Pliny uses a statement as a joke alluding to Nero, saying, “An artist – now WHO was he?” (pg. 61). He is teasing that people had by the time of his writings nearly forgotten all about the things that were going on in Nero’s time and how Nero had attempted to produce a great social change by making the public stage (as an actor/artist) a means to that end (see Bruno Bauer’s “Christ and the Caesars.”). This is because Nero, nearing the end of his life is reported by Suetonius as saying “Dead! And so great an artist!” (Suet., ‘The Twelve Caesars,’ Penguin Classics paperback edition, pg. 238).

I had told you before how so many of the sayings and phrases that were are familiar with today had come from Suetonius. Well, the same is true of Pliny the Younger. Pliny gave us a few of these also (by the way, in case you had not realized it, many of the sayings that we hear in everyday conversation come from the Bible as well – so, here is another connection between these guys and the Bible). Pliny says, for example, “I leave no stone unturned.” This statement makes me think of the passage in the works of Josephus where the word for ‘stone’ is substituted by the word for ‘son’ instead – alluding to, of course, ‘Jesus’ as ‘the Son’ (of God, of man). (Pliny, pg. 63) [Ref. Whiston’s translation of Josephus, pg. 557, near the end of verse 3. “THE STONE COMETH.” In the Loeb edition, you can see it is “The SON Cometh!”]

Pliny actually says a lot more than many people realize. He was a very clever fellow and took great care in his writings to conceal things to his greatest ability. But then again, we should not put anything past any of the authors of that time. Here is another example. Pliny says, “… when I am making a speech, I (will) scatter various arguments around like seeds, in order to reap whatever crop comes up (from them).” The words ‘crops’ and ‘harvest’ refer to Christian believers, because they are in fact euphemisms for ‘Christians.’ So, the statement is saying that he was making public speeches promoting Christianity! (Pliny, pg. 63).

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book I of II]
(Wed. 03/20/02, Roman Piso)

Continuing on in our examination of words and phrases used by Pliny the Younger in his epistles we note that he says things that indicate a cautious nature or style of his as he makes subtle, but revealing statements regarding how things ‘appear’ to be. Such as the case when he states, “so as not to ‘appear’ to court (or influence) their favor.” The implication is that he WAS trying to court or influence, but wanted to make sure that those in question would not easily know it – this was winning people over with guile. (Book I, pg. 27). This is also a word and theme from the New Testament. Pliny writes more later on in his letters about guile.

Pliny makes the statement, “the most immoral kind of fraud there is!” (Book I, pg. 155). He well knew about the stars and planets as he was a high priest and one of the Popes! He says, “gives me the same pleasure as (knowing) the fixed course of the planets.” (Book I, pg. 159). He also says that “innumerable tasks fill my time…” (Book I, pg. 163). Yes, it WOULD if you were busy creating a new religion and remaking old worship sites into churches!

And though he is talking about Corellia Hispulla’s son, he takes this as an opportunity to allude to the mention of a male with a grossly large penis (as mentioned by another author of his time), he says, “our boy happens to be endowed with striking physical beauty.” (Book I, pg. 167). He says too, “But there was no need of/for prayers and entreaties.” No, because he knew the truth about them. (Book I, pg. 217).

And, “only a few friends have heard me read what I have written for the general public.” (Book I, pg. 227). Speaking of Julius Frontinus, he says that he “never failed to put up my name for the priesthood on nomination day.” (Book I, pg. 257). Pliny speaks of translating some epigrams of Arrius Antoninus’ (Arrius Piso’s) from Greek into Latin. (Book I, pg. 297). And he uses and alludes to the word ‘Blameless’ again and again throughout his letters, and uses it in a letter to Titius/Titus Aristo aka Arrius Piso (Book I, pg. 329). He says, “often a mere touch is enough to set things moving with far-reaching consequences. (Book I, pg. 333).

He again points to the royal knowledge of the cosmos by saying, “You see too how Aratus traces and tabulates (even) the smallest (meaning furthest or hardest to see) stars.” (Book I, pg. 353, in reference to the astronomical poem “Phaenomena.”). He uses the phrase that has now become very well known, “I shudder to think (of it)!” (Book I, pg. 357). He talks about this aspiration for immortal fame, “Nothing attracts me so much as that love and longing for a lasting name, man’s worthiest aspiration, especially in one who is aware that there is nothing in him to blame (again, ‘blameless’) and so has no fear if he is to be remembered by posterity.” (Book I, pg. 359).

And he says, “Humanity is naturally inquisitive, and so factual information, plain and unadorned, has its attraction for anyone who can enjoy small talk and anecdote.” (Book I, pg. 359). He uses the phrases “bare bones,” and “nervous energy,” both of which we tend to associate with modern times. (Book I, pg. 361). He gives this phrase, “All I ask of you is to prepare the way…” He says this to Titinius Capito (which appears to be an alias name for Arrius Piso), and this phrase mimics that phrase which Jesus says in the New Testament. (Book I, pg. 363). He says, “set the crooked straight.” Which is an allusion to several things at once, from the crook of the Pharaohs, to that of the Pope in Christianity. (Book I, 365). He uses the word “generosity” for “Grace” saying, “generosity cannot stand still when once it is set in motion, and its beauty shines out the more it is exercised.” (Book I, pg. 369). And, “I wanted to hear the truth!” (Book I, pg. 369). He says, “they hail me as a prophet or pretend that this measure is directed against my own robberies and greed.” (Book I, pg. 375).

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book I of II]
(Fri. 03/22/02, Roman Piso)

Most people, even the so-called scholars up to this day, are not likely to notice certain words, terms or phrases that are used by Pliny the Younger; neither their true nature or their meaning, or what they actually refer to unless that is pointed out to them. And this is why I have taken up the task of doing just that – at least to such a degree so as to make a precedent that others may follow and expand upon.

In his writings, Pliny shows that he well knows the true nature of all things which dealt with religion, but he only plays a part in the person that he pretends to be superficially in his writings, and he teases at that with what he says in them. He says, for example, “as if in answer to my prayers.” He knew that prayers have no actual validity as he knew there are no supernatural beings to hear them, let alone do anything about them! He also knew the truth about ‘praying’ itself – meaning how and why it was invented, and incorporated into religion. But his aim (as well as the aim of his comrades) was to make praying (in general) appear to be common place to the point of being ‘natural’ (and therefore, not only palatable, but virtuous as well!) and to instill superstition into the minds of the ignorant masses. (Book I, pg. 377).

He touches upon the issue of “everlasting life” (in ‘heaven’) as portrayed in the New Testament by saying, “… or even a life to last forever!” (Book I, pg. 379). Hinting at the true meaning of ‘God’ making ‘man’ (Adam) in his own image (while talking about Minicia Marcella’s looks being like those of her father’s) he says, “(she) was her father’s living image…” And you may want to compare this to Suetonius’ use of the phrase ‘spit and image’ as well. (Book I, pg. 381). He makes certain to use at every opportunity, phrases such as, “I pray the gods…” Because, his immediate goals are to promote Christianity – not directly, but in a round about way, by promoting superstition and prayer, etc. And his statements about ‘gods’ (plural) are not necessarily non-Christian as in early Christianity both God (the Father) and his son ‘Jesus’ were portrayed as gods – even as if both were one and the same (“I and my Father are as one.”). (Book I, pg. 385).

Pliny also knew Tacitus (or rather, the person who wrote as ‘Tacitus’), and he knew him very well. He knew, for instance, that ‘Tacitus’ was an alias name or pen name. For, this was the practice of nearly everyone who was writing at the time – including Pliny himself! This can be deduced and demonstrated in a critical examination of the issue by making a compilation of all of the examples found in the works of Pliny. (Book I, pg. 391; Pliny knew who Tacitus really was as he says that he knows him, wrote and received letters from him, and Pliny used Tacitus’ alias names in his letters. He does so in this instance with a mention of a consul “Cornelius Priscus” aka Cornelius (Tacitus)/(Neratius) Priscus).

It is Pliny who used the phrase “nip (it) in the bud.” (Book I, pg. 393). And Pliny says, “… I am increasingly grateful for my blessings…” This sounds suspiciously “Christian” as do many of Pliny’s remarks. (Book I, pg. 401). Also, “I am full of forebodings…” Just a little earlier in his letters he said that he is “hailed as a prophet.” (Book I, pg. 403). And much like a preacher would say, he says, “… I need someone to share my prayers…” I.e., join in with me and pray! (Book I, pg. 407). He mentions “Threats and intimidation,” both of which are used in the New Testament in order to persuade people to ‘believe’ in Christianity. (Book I, pg. 415). And what a statement he makes to Tacitus saying, “So, you recommend Julius Naso as a candidate for office. Naso, to ME? It might (just as well) be ME to myself!” Now, this is a very interesting statement. And I am sure that someday the full meaning of it will come to light. But for now, let’s just highlight it as this is the sort of statement that leads us to discover important meanings in ancient literature. (Book I, pg. 415). Now here Pliny also says “never mind,” which recalls that statement in the New Testament about the slave entering into heaven in the same state (as a slave). (Book I, pg. 415). And, in the same line he says “I will forgive you.” He is teasing that he was like a second Jesus in the New Testament; and also teasing that he was a Christian Pope! (Book I, pg. 415).

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book I of II]
(Wed. 03/27/02, Roman Piso)

Pliny alludes to fame after death as life or immortality, which was also the kind of life after death that is always the actual type referred to in religion by those who created it, when he says to Cornelius Tacitus, “I know that immortal fame awaits him (Pliny’s uncle) if his death is (but) recorded by you.” (Book I, pg. 425). Pliny used the phrase “danger zone,” which many people say today in several instances. He may or may not have been the first person to use this phrase in literature, but it is certainly worth noting just the same. (Book I, pg. 429).

Pliny makes the statement, “There were people, too, who added to real perils (dangers) by inventing fictitious dangers…” (Book I, pg. 445). This is exactly what religion does. And Pliny frequently makes statements that are either ‘loaded’ or that ‘say’ things by inference only. He uses the phrase ‘human affairs’ for instance. “Human affairs,” as opposed to … (?). If not “human affairs,” then the inference is the affairs or matters regarding gods or a God. (Book I, pg. 461). Pliny speaks of setting ‘precedents.’ (Book I, pg. 463, 465).

“Built upon the stone foundation,” is an inner-circle reference to the creation of Christianity, as Jesus was the (son/stone) cornerstone (of the foundation) of the (Christian) Church, and this is in reference to that statement in the New Testament “upon this rock…” (Book I, pg. 475). He says, “for I do not conceal my guile…” No, in fact, in some instances he was rather blatant about it – to the point of making (inside) jokes! (Book I, pg. 479). By the way, on the subject of these people having ‘guile’ and of deceiving people with it (see the reference to ‘guile’ in the New Testament), this reminds me of the phrase given by Suetonius “birds of a feather, flock together.” Which for me is another way of saying that there was a type of ‘honor’ among thieves. And also reminds me of what Abelard Reuchlin calls Pliny and the others who were creating Christianity, he calls them “dirty birds.”

Pliny also makes mention of “the frequent use of short anecdotes,” which are short tales or stories that can either be real (or based upon real people, incidents or subject matter) or fiction. They may also be simply interesting, educational and/or humorous. “Short anecdotes” can include many things and/or allude to certain things. The first thing that sprang to my mind is that he may have been referring to or alluding to Arrius Piso writing as Aesop (of Aesop’s Fables fame), but then I realized that the statement was broader and included many other things – and so, perhaps, alludes more to the general ‘style’ of the writings of that time. (Book I, pg. 479).

Here in his letters, he makes another one of those statements that is designed to make people think about irrational concepts that were invented by ancient royals by saying, “what I am asking (for) is not beyond human capacity.” Or in other words, “I am not asking for supernatural intervention or a miracle.” (Book I, pg. 485). Then he alludes to a statement that he himself says of Christians. He says, “a kind of pledge (oath) to bind me to practice the same self-control in (the) future.” He said of Christians when pretending to report on them to the Emperor Trajan that they took ‘an oath.’ (Book I, pg. 487. Pliny uses the phrase “pay your respects.” (Book I, pg. 489). He uses the phrase “little book.” (Book I, pg. 493).*

Pliny says, “The most useful thing, which is always being suggested, is to translate Greek into Latin, and Latin into Greek.” This is the old ‘shell game’ being put into practice in literature. And this is what they eventually did with the New Testament to keep people from ‘seeing’ what was originally in it in the Greek – they translated it into Latin! And then from there, into many other languages (from Latin, not Greek!). So that now many of the versions of the New Testament and the Bible in general are English translations of the Latin version. Meaning that the original meanings and true statements are never seen or known by those who read those English translations. And this is also the reason why the Catholic church uses the LATIN (Roman) language primarily. The original and true meanings which were put into the New Testament cannot be found in Latin nor in English translations made from Latin texts – the truth can never be found in them! And, Pliny also makes mention of the use of ‘metaphor’ on this same page. (Book I, pg. 501).

* “Little Book” refers to a certain word in Greek that is used particularly and uniquely in ‘The Revelation’. (Ref. Rev. 10:2, 8, 9. 10). The word is ‘Biblaridion’. The use of this word by the author of ‘The Revelation’ appears to be (at least in part) to emphasize that when the author says “this book” (in ‘The Revelation’) he means ‘The Revelation’ (his book) specifically and exclusively.

The phrase has been noticed, used and emphasized by others. One of my favorite poets, Lord Byron, too, used the phrase ‘little book’. He said, “Go, little book, from this my solitude! I cast thee on the waters – go they ways! And if, as I believe, they vein be good, the world will find thee after many days!” (Don Juan, 1. CCXXII, Lord Byron aka George Gordon).

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book I of II] (Fri. 03/29/02, Roman Piso)

In a letter to Fuscus Salinator, Pliny talks about what “cultivates perception and critical (literary) sense.” Which is saying what is needed in order to read what they have written on the level in which they were writing – in short, saying that it takes the same genius to read what they have written in order to understand it AS they had actually written their works. (Book I, pg. 503).

He alludes to the writing of the epistles and narratives such as the style in which the New Testament was written – in the same way as a play is written, with acts and scenes. Which is just another way to tell that the New Testament is a fiction built around some real people and events, and placed within a certain time and place in history so as to appear true or plausible. But by being written in this style (as a play) it must be seen as a composition made by simple disciples; but rather by those with an extremely rich literary knowledge of the caliber that was only attained by the very elite of the time. Which further points towards royal or aristocratic authorship. And this in turn, points to a deliberate purpose (and not an honest one), and so, deliberate deception is now revealed by deduction. (Book I, pg. 505). By the way, one must wonder and ask the question “why was the New Testament written in this style?” It was done as a way to get back at Nero, because Nero was using the stage (by way of plays) as an attempt to destroy the separation between the royals and the common people. The New Testament was created to do the opposite of that, and so, writing the New Testament in this way was an “in your face” disrespectful thing to do to Nero. And as they had made their enemies assist them in creating Christianity, this the part that they “made” Nero contribute.*

Also, Arrius Piso is continually ‘honored’ throughout the works of the time and Pliny the Younger is no exception. One of the ways in which this is done is by mentioning Mars/Aries or ‘the god of war,’ as this too is an alter-ego and inherited name/title of Arrius Piso. His name as ‘Arrius’(or ‘Arius’) is scattered throughout the New Testament, albeit hidden in various ways. (Book I, pg. 505). Pliny points to his own atheism by speaking of robbing people of time. This is so because on one better understands the importance of time than atheists do, because they realize that that we all have only a certain amount of time in which to live the only life that we are certain of ever having. He says, “I am robbing you of time.” Yes, indeed. He certainly was/does! And not just from one person either – but all of humanity itself, in perpetuity! (Book I, pg. 507).

In a letter to Minicius Fundanus, Pliny half-heartedly complains that the consul of royals were editing out all of the best of his dirty passages from his works (we now know that these are inside jokes which can be found in the New Testament) and that because of this he had to redo a lot of it so that they only way to see them is to read between the lines! He talks about them (the consul of royals) “spoiling” his work, which might indicate that he thought these to be great (dirty) jokes which had to be changed so as to become hidden within the works instead of remaining in their open and more obvious state. He says, “as I do for these passages, you will find (them) marked with(in) an alternative version written between the lines.” (Book I, pg. 511). Pliny, in his letters as Pliny the Younger, jokes and alludes to his famous passage in the New Testament by simply restating it again only slightly differently. He says, “(Behold), I speak in riddles, you protest; (and) so I do (this), until I make my meaning(s) clear.” (Book I, pg. 513). And what does Pliny mean in what he says here? It means that what he has said in the form of riddles or in perplexing ways remain so only until the true meaning of what he has said is finally discovered and known.

He alludes to the Jesus story as a (Greek style) tragedy (in the form of a play) which was written with a display of talent and as he says, “which needs a stage and actors…” Which doubly reveals another part of the original intent in the creation of the New Testament texts, and that is that the Jesus story was written as a narrative play specifically for the purpose of having it ready-made to be performed – on the stage! (Book I, pg. 519). This is so, of course, as a means of promoting it and thus, making it more well-known. By writing it in the form of a narrative (as a play) they thought that they would be able to get the story out to more people by way of the stage. After all, they did the very same thing with other tragedies which were supposed to have been real events in history as well. For more about Nero using plays on the stage as a way to eliminate the separation between the royals and the common people, see “Christ and the Caesars,” 1877, Bruno Bauer (English translation), published by Alexander Davidonis, S.C., USA.

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book I of II] (Wed. 04/03/02, Roman Piso)

Unless a person has enough knowledge of the people, places and events of the time and has a base knowledge to work from, they will not be able to see nor understand what was actually meant in the things which were stated by people such as Pliny the Younger. Which is why many people have read the works of Pliny the Younger, but could not understand fully, just what he really meant in the things that he was saying.
This is why I consider it a great honor to be one of the very first persons to ever write about what was really being said in his works so that others may also know that, whereas before those things has escaped the attention of nearly everyone.

“The third day.” A phrase that is well-known to anyone who is familiar with the Jesus story and the New Testament. Though it is true that many people are familiar with this term because of the passage found in the NT about Jesus rising from the dead after 3 days, because it was Pliny who was writing this, supposedly in a letter to someone in a work that appears to be non-Biblical, and because its real reference is fairly well disguised, this has not been seen nor understood as it should have been. Pliny the Younger knew that this was a focal point in the Christian religion and the Jesus story, and so, he could not resist inserting a few lines in his work that would make it clear to those who could understand what he was referring to that he was using these phrases purposely.

All in one short epistle (letter) to Vibius Severus, he says these words and phrases; “a third day,” “three days,” and “the last three days” – again, all in the same short letter. He could have been less obvious by spacing them out in different letters, but he knew that most people would not catch on because they would not suspect HIM of having anything to do with the creation of Christianity! And this is what made him and his cohorts as bold as they were in the things that they were saying in their works. (Book I, pg. 225 & 227).

Besides this, he also refers to the freedom of speech (for the royal authors, not for the common people) and how depending upon the emperor who is ruling that freedom could be either a pleasure to write or that freedom may be greatly impaired so that it would not be the pleasure that it would have been otherwise (as it was for certain writers under Nero or Domitian). (Book I, pg. 225 & 227). His remark about this makes a thinly veiled comparison to what he views as a ‘better time’ in terms of the theater (meaning the stage where plays are performed) as opposed to the past – alluding to the time in which Nero was using the stage to destroy the separation between the royals and the common people. (Book I, pg. 225 & 227).

And there is a statement that appears to be a reference to the line in the New Testament that says, “If a man be ignorant, let him be ignorant,” when he gives the line “…you are before large numbers (of people) who may be quite ignorant.” (Book I, pg. 521). Pliny also says in his own way, that he realizes his position of responsibility as a writer (because no one but royals and their close relatives were allowed to do so) and that despite the impression that he may give (by joking and bragging), he does take it very seriously. This is a point that he tries to drive home at almost every opportunity (Book I, pg. 523). He slips in lines that he knows will stick to the subconscious mind, but which he cleverly disguises, such as, “Such was his faith…” (Book I, pg. 521). And he alludes to people being called “filthy rags” in the New Testament when he says, “dirty working clothes,” i.e. “rags.” (Book I, pg. 521). But as we have seen, he very cleverly disguises his true meanings so that they are not easy to spot.

Pliny sticks a number of words and phrases relating directly to Christianity within his works, because he wants to eventually receive credit for his part in creating it. One of those key words is ‘universal.’ Which he uses in places where it really is not necessary. (Book I, pg. 523). The word ‘universal’ refers to the original Catholic concept of Christianity. It is most interesting to read of Pliny’s statements about his closeness to Arrius the Younger and Fannia, and to Tacitus as well. He even says in a letter to Tacitus that he and Tacitus are “much the same age.” (Book I, pg. 529). And Pliny puts on the act of it being quite a chore to decide just which god our of the many gods to choose to pray to for the sake of Fannia, and this is done so as to make Christianity the more obvious choice and the most convenient one. He does this by saying, “these are my troubles at the time of (my) writing to you; but, if one of the gods [I know not which] will turn them to joy…” (Book I, pg. 529).

He really does say quite a lot that for so long has just gone right over the heads of so many people, which is actually quite amazing to me. He says, “…for it is my custom to tell the truth…” which sounds remarkably like something that Josephus (aka Arrius Calpurnius Piso) is famous/infamous for. Remember that Josephus is well known to be a “lover (Philo) of the truth.” And Pliny, as a bird of a feather, likewise made use of the truth by twisting it so that he could make disclaimers out of it just as Arrius Piso (as Josephus, etc.) did. That is WHY they so loved ‘the truth,’ because it was so easily twisted by them into disclaimers that would allow their statements to be ‘true’ – even if it was also deliberate deception. (Book I, pg. 529).

Pliny too, was all too aware of the importance of his own work (both in the New Testament and in his other works) and that also how important the work was of his fellow writers of the time in terms of the fact that they were actually the key to the ability of anyone being able to decipher and deduce the truth of so many things regarding both the creation of the Christian religion and the truth of the history of the time. (Book I, pg. 529). Oh, and before I end here I would also like to mention that fact that he inserts these words and phrases into sentences that were actually (at least at times) crafted around those words and phrases. He wants to use the phrase “the Tale” to refer to the Jesus story, but must think of how he can insert that phrase. He does so by saying, “I am delighted to think that if posterity takes any interest in US, the tale will everywhere be (or “the Tale will be everywhere”) told…” (Book I, pg. 529).

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book I of II] (Fri. 04/05/02, Roman Piso)

In Pliny’s letters we also find what arguably may be considered the source for the saying “the pen is mightier than the sword.” The statement is, “most points gain weight and emphasis by a fuller treatment, and make their mark on the mind by alternate/alternating (with) thrust and pause, as a swordsman uses his steel (sword blade).” This is a clear reference to a ‘pen’ (or writing instrument) being compared to a sword.

There is actually quite a lot being referred to in this one sentence, which is just what these writers were trying to do. What he refers to by ‘fuller treatment’ is the utilization of all or many of the related or peripheral elements relating to the subject or subject matter. Meaning “build it up to the fullest.” This too, recalls the phrase used by these authors referring to ‘the builder’ or the ‘master builder.’ As I have explained before in other writings, these authors saw their works in the same way as the Egyptian rulers saw the pyramids that they were building; as a monument to themselves. These authors, who created the New Testament were building monuments to themselves. They were building ‘literary pyramids.’

Then he says, “make their mark on the mind.” Here he is talking about the psyche or the subconscious mind particularly, although he makes it appear (on the surface to the untrained reader) that he is speaking of the conscious mind in terms of making literary work more memorable on a conscious level. In truth, both are involved and are being referred to, but the subconscious mind is what he is talking about particularly here – for those who are intelligent enough to realize it.

Next, he talks about alternating “thrust” and “pause.” Now, I will explain for you what he is really saying. “Thrust” is making the point or statement to the fullest in a more obvious way, while “pause” is making use of the literary device known as ‘inference.’ Inferring things is the same as saying things without actually connecting them directly with those things with which they are connected to by content. That is, without ever having to state them directly in an outright fashion. Making inferences instead of or in addition to outright statements make a mark or impression upon the mind, many times without the reader actually being consciously aware of it. Also, on another level, “thrust” and “pause” can be taken as a sexual remark. (Book I, pg. 59).

Pliny does much of the same thing as Arrius Piso does when he was writing as Flavius Josephus, but Arrius tends to ‘brag’ more and is oftentimes bolder and a bit more obvious than Pliny appears to be – you may easily gloss over Pliny’s letters many more times before discovering what he has hidden there. It may be that Pliny was a bit more ‘polished’ as a literary expert than Arrius Piso was; after all, Pliny appears to have had more training from his uncle Pliny the Elder while Arrius may have been learning his craft elsewhere.

Pliny, knowing full well that one day the full and true meaning of what he says will be known, purposely ‘loads’ what he writes by making many statements that have duel meanings (if not more than two meanings, as we have already seen; and this is the same style that was used in the New Testament). He also knows that when the truth about Tacitus is realized, that he too (Pliny) will be likewise exposed. What I mean is that once it is discovered that “Tacitus” is really a pen name for Neratius Priscus, it will also be realized that Pliny must have known this and deliberately helped to conceal his true identity, because Pliny knew him and was a close personal friend (and relative). And thus, the dominoes will fall, as all of the major authors of that time can be shown not only to have known each other on a very personal level, but to have been related to each other and of being of the royal ruling families.

Pliny says things like “we are left (our own) legacies of the same kind and value.” Where he says this, as in other examples, he disguises the true meaning by injecting the statement into a sentence to make it appear to be meant in another context. This is something else that I explain in other works. And he continues by saying, “… there are so many ties to bind us (together)…” He is speaking of Tacitus and himself being linked together, forever. [Is this the source for the phrase, “the ties that bind us”?] (Book I, pg. 531).

We also see that Pliny gives us a telling line in a letter to Arrius Piso (as Calpurnius Fabatus), speaking of Tiro, “I love him like a brother.” This is a patently sexual statement and all parties involved knew and understood this. The word for ‘love’ was interchangeable with ‘sex’ in terms of meaning and Pliny well knew this as a literary expert. This was no accident, it was a deliberate statement that was made with two distinctly different meanings contained in that one statement. Which demonstrates exactly how so many other things both in and out of the Bible were actually written – deliberately. In that sentence he says that he ‘loves’ Tiro like a ‘brother’ – we also know that the word ‘brother’ in that time had the alternate or double meaning of “homosexual lover.” So that the statement when read with the knowledge reads, “I love him (sexually) like a homosexual partner (because he IS).” (Book I, pg. 535).

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book I of II] (Wed. 04/10/02, Roman Piso)

There is another thing that keen readers will notice, and that is Pliny’s campaign of making prayer appear or seem to be common and done everywhere by nearly everyone. The statement here is, “the object of all his prayers.” (Book I, pg. 541). And there has been a precedent set in terms of the meaning of the word “innocent” also meaning “ignorant,” or of being used as a substitute word for it. Because of this, we read Pliny’s statement here “… a life of happy innocence,” as “… a life of happy ignorance.” Which in turn, we see as an allusion to the line in the New Testament, “If a man be ignorant, let him be (stay) ignorant.”

Pliny brings up the subject of ghosts (alluding to the “holy ghost”) and he uses this as an opportunity to put forth ideas (concepts) of the supernatural by his telling of ghost stories. He does this because the story of Jesus rising from the dead is also a ghost story (of sorts), though many people do not realize this. There are many instances in the New Testament where the word ‘spirit’ is used, and it is used as a substitute for ‘ghost’. Pliny talks about the ghost of a woman of super human size and beauty who was “the spirit of Africa” and that she had come to foretell (another word for prophesy) the future of Curtius Rufus (while he was just newly installed as governor of Africa). But Pliny and all royals knew very well the reality of all such stories, as they were the creators and promoters of all such irrational ideas and beliefs. (Book I, pg. 543).

Please note that I have actually made many more notes upon Pliny’s work, but I am confining myself to those things which I may currently explain and detail for the reader and which I may comment upon presently with considerable authority. Other words, phrases and meanings contained in Pliny’s work are buried quite a bit deeper than others and to extract them properly will take some time, attention and even more research. While still some others you will see that I simply make note of to show that they are there. My intent there is to get back to those and detail those when and where I am able to – as time and opportunity permits.

And, I have to wonder too, if Pliny’s story of the specter (ghost) of an old man in chains had been an inspiration to Charles Dickens in his story of Scrooge, as Pliny says “the rattle of chains could be heard…” and that he was “wearing fetters on his legs and shaking the chains on his wrists.” (Book I, pg. 545). And it is also worth mentioning that Pliny mentions in several places the phrase the “minds’ eye.” Which some have associated with the “eye of god” or “the evil eye,” and even the “third eye” – which is said to be located in the center of the forehead. (Book I, pg. 545).

Pliny continues telling his ghost stories saying, “… the clanking of iron and dragging of chains.” And, “… the noise grew loader, (and) came nearer…”, saying, “… it (the ghost) stood rattling its chains over his head…” This is obviously meant to both scare and amuse, and perhaps was intended to be something to be told around campfires, etc. It is playing upon the fear of the unknown which the ignorant common people had at the time; whereas, the royals did not have this same ‘fear of the unknown’ because they knew the source of these concepts and saw them for what they were. This, the same as many of the other creations of royals was intended to strengthen the belief by the common people in supernatural things. And, as I had said, the truth was known by SOME people, the tellers of such stories.

It is my opinion that such stories actually arose out of guilt. That they originated within the minds of those who were in positions of authority and power, who misused it and/or who delighted in the torture and death of others; but who also had a conscience which came back to ‘haunt’ them, at least a little. That is, because of what they did to others, their own conscience was playing upon their minds so that they could imagine those persons who they had tortured to death were revisiting them. The tale, for example, of a man in chains ‘haunting’ anyone in death seems to me to be the revisiting of a situation prompted by a guilty mind. In other words, perhaps the accusation of an innocent man who was then sentenced to torture and death. Or perhaps the act of personally torturing and killing of another (or others). As if, in some way, they could avenge those horrible acts. (Book I, pg. 547).

And Pliny uses the phrase “marked the spot.” This is a phrase that we see later used in stories of pirates who buried their treasure where an ‘X’ (the cross) “marks the spot.” (Book I, pg. 547). Pliny says something that he conveniently makes available to Christians to use as a pat answer to anyone attempting to snap them out of their delusion. He says, “why grudge me happiness in my delusion?” Almost a sarcastic remark. (Book I, pg. 551). Pliny also gives the phrase, “has to be seen to be believed.” Which is another reference to a passage in the New Testament. (Book I, pg. 551) [As per Jesus’ remarks and seemingly disgust with those who demanded proof in order to ‘believe’]

[Keyed to the Loeb Classical Library Edition, Book I of II] (Fri. 04/12/02, Roman Piso)

Concepts that are new and different from what people have been used to sometimes require some extra time, effort and emphasis to get used to them. And so, you may find that I stress or repeat particular points or examples from time to time. Although, for example, I have already stated this, it bears repeating; Pliny and the other writers of this time USED their works as a means with which to make statements that they could not say outright or in any other way. They “encapsulated” what they were dying to say by saying those things by hiding them with other material or statements that would make them appear in a different context to what the statements actually meant or referred to.

An example of this would be Pliny’s need to say “what a ridiculous farce it is (!).” (Book I, pg. 553). And so, he does so in the only way that he can without giving away just what it is that he really means by saying this. He simply inserts it into something with the appearance of being totally unrelated to that which he is actually referring to. But in reality, the very purpose of his overall work as Pliny, was to give the information necessary to find out the truth regarding the creation of the Christian religion, including the authors of it and the history of the time and their family relationship to one another.

He inserts many phrases that he can easily get away with, but which at the same time accomplish his purpose for inserting them. And, as we have seen by example, he thinks to give a word or phrase that will have more than one meaning or inference. In this next example, here he uses the phrase “dirt and filth.” (Book I, pg. 553). What this refers to can be easily seen by those who are familiar with the New Testament texts, as it is an allusion to the passage that says that people being as “filthy rags,” and also at the same time the New Testament references about “filthy lucre.” And it is an exercise in irony, because Pliny himself, in real life was a “filth” merchant (see the information on Pliny as Paul, and as a ‘tentmaker’).

When The Real Popes Came To Power

When The Real Popes Came To Power
(Roman Piso, 06-20-2018)

[French: ‘Quand les vrais papes sont arrivés au pouvoir’] [Hebrew: ‘כאשר האפיפיורים האמיתיים הגיעו לשלטון ‘] [Spanish: ‘Cuando los verdaderos papas llegaron al poder’] [Norwegian: ‘Når den virkelige pavene kom til makten’] [Portuguese: ‘Quando os verdadeiros papas chegaram ao poder’] [German: ‘Als die echten Päpste an die Macht kamen’] [Italian: ‘Quando i veri Papi giunsero al potere’]

This paper picks up where some of my other papers left off. That is, it is a supplement. And yet, it also serves as an overview. To better understand this paper, please read my other papers regarding the ancient royal oligarchy and the creation of religion by ancient royals (particularly, those regarding the creation of Christianity).

I’ve written several papers on the subject of the popes (at this time, about 35). If you are familiar with the work that I have done, then you should know that I have given the genealogies of various popes which were previously unavailable to, and unknown to the general public; and that includes academia. The work that was done in this and other related areas is of great importance as it is what is required in order to get at the truth and true nature of so many things in ancient history.

My work, and that of others who have studied ancient history as it should be studied, has exposed the true nature ancient history. And it is only by studying it in the correct context that we will ever be able to understand it as it should be understood. This is essential. [a]

What our work has exposed is that history was written from within a closed or controlled environment in which only certain royals were allowed to write. That meant that all that was being written was controlled by royals, and that the illusion that anyone could write for publication was a created facade; one that was deliberately created and maintained by successive lines of royalty. [b]

In other papers, I’ve given information on popes (as I had just said above), including the first ten popes (or bishops of Rome). Though to the public, the term ‘pope’ or ‘papa’ was not used for the popes until the 3rd Century CE, within the family who had created it itself, the term was being used. Since Christianity was created by certain Romans, and the way in which royalty operated was to keep power and control as close to the main royal family as possible, the same was true of those who were of this new branch of royalty stemming from the creation of the then new religion – Christianity.

When one examines just who the first ten popes really were, they see how they were all related to each other. The papal power, like that of the emperors, was kept close to the ruling family. When Christianity was first being established, the knowledge of, and truth about, the creation of Christianity, as well as the authority and hierarchy was kept close to the source of that religion (the family that created it). [c]

As time went on, the family developed branches or lines of descent that spread out to newly created royal and papal ‘dynasties’. And it is because of this, and the fact that those who had held those titles and positions wanted future generations to know who they were, that we are now able to find that information. They could not be obvious about who they were, as they did not want people outside their own families to know that during their own lifetime (we must always remember this). I’ve written more about this in other papers (see my papers on ‘The Royal Language’ and ‘Royal Supremacy’). [d]

Now, in other papers, I’ve also written about how the authors of the New Testament were Romans and how, under the emperor Tiberius, a committee to create a new religion was established at the city of Tiberias, in Galilee. I’ve also written about why that committee had been established. It was because the Herodians had asked Rome for help to get back the power and authority that the Sadducees (a sect of the Jews) once had in Judea. [e]

Over time, the Pharisees (another sect of the Jews, and an opposing one to the Sadducean sect) had gained control of the Temple and had more power and influence in Judea, than that of the leaders of the Sadducees; and the Herodians were the leaders of that sect (Sadducees), having taken that position from the former leaders of the Sadducees, the Hasmoneans. In reality, the Herodians were actually just another branch of the Hasmoneans (see my work on that also, such as ‘King Herod Was A Hasmonean’). [f]

The new religion that was to be created was one in which the hard line rulers wanted to promote certain things that they wanted to remain in place; slavery, ignorance and superstition of the masses, and they wanted to keep the form of government which allowed royals to retain their powerful positions. That is, they wanted this new religion to be (and reinforce), everything that was the opposite of what the Pharisees were promoting and fighting for. The Pharisees were trying to better educate the masses, they were trying to get basic human rights for the general public, they were trying to put an end to slavery, and they wanted a new democratic form of government. Many royals did not want that.

This fight among the sects of Jews had been a long one (from about 135 BCE/BC through 135 CE/AD). Though there are scant records that one may consult for info on that war before that time, it appears to me that that war was actually a long time in coming as well. And, long before the Herodians had asked Rome for help, the Hasmoneans had. [g]

This split within Judaism was not a simple disagreement. It had been an actual war; one that was hidden from history. One which was disguised by the royals who were writing history of the time. In the histories written by the Romans, it was divided up and called ‘revolt’. And that is still how many so-called scholars today think of it; as if these were only scattered ‘revolts’ instead of the actual all-out war that it was. [h]

The Pharisees, who were fighting for basic human rights for all, an end to slavery, and a new, fair government were fighting a war against all of the royals who had opposed them. And, as a result, the winners of that war, were the ones who were writing about it in their histories. And they chose to call the good guys, ‘religious zealots’ and other things, painting them as the ‘bad guys’, even as ‘robbers’.

The reason the royals who were against the Pharisees felt justified in calling them ‘robbers’ is because the Pharisees wanted to take away those things which the royals had enjoyed at the expense of everyone else. This was the true source for the story of ‘Robin Hood’, as the Pharisees did truly want to ‘rob’ from the rich, and give to the poor.

The Pharisees were in fact, not promoting religion, they were trying to wean the public off of it by teaching ethics instead. The proof of that is found in the Talmud, which was being written by the Pharisees and the other sect that played a supporting role for the Pharisees, a sect that became known as the Scribes (see my other work for more information about the Jewish sects). However, since the Pharisees were subjects of Rome, they had to at least “appear” to be a religion in order to exist.

Anyway, I think that with at least this much knowledge of how and why Christianity was being created, you can understand why the fraud had been perpetrated in the first place. Yes, greed had played an important part. But, it was the royal lifestyle and the continuation of royal rule that was at stake for the royals who were opposed to what the Pharisees were doing and promoting.

And that is why so many royals were on the side of those who wanted to protect that royal lifestyle, and why, eventually, those ‘Axis’ royals, won the war. In my work, such as in the book ‘Piso Christ’, the Pharisees and those who had helped them are referred to as the ‘Allies’, while those who took the side of their enemies, are referred to as the ‘Axis’. That is because we already have reference to those terms used in the same way for those opposing powers of WWII.

One of the things that those who were creating and promoting Christianity did was to backdate the stories that they were writing in the New Testament to a time earlier than the time in which they were writing it. There were several reasons for that. One reason was to throw off those who would try to discover just who the actual authors were; as they would then think to look at those who were writing in that earlier time, instead of when the authors were actually writing. Good trick. And it worked for a long time.

The Roman creators of the New Testament put a lot of work into it, but they were also having a great deal of fun doing so. They wrote inside jokes and puns into the NT; and they used it as a way to mock and belittle their enemies – the Pharisees (see my work and that of Abelard Reuchlin for more on that subject). While the Roman authors of the NT were mocking the Pharisees, the Pharisees and Scribes were witnesses to the creation of Christianity and they were giving info about those who were creating it, in the Talmud. [i]

Since Arrius Piso’s son, Julius Piso, did not approve of what his father was doing by creating and promoting Christianity, he asked his father if he could write the ending of the NT stories; and his father agreed. Thus, it was Julius Piso, who authored The Revelation. This is something which both Julius Piso and the Pharisees had in common.

And, this is why the Pharisees chose to write what they did, as they did, so that their information about the creation of the NT in the Talmud, would agree with and match much of what Julius Piso had put into The Revelation. In The Revelation, Julius Piso gave a lot of info about who is father was, and his connection to the creation of Christianity. But both, Julius Piso and the Pharisees could not state things outright. What they could do was give that info in the Royal Language. And, that meant using various literary devices which were a part of the Royal Language, such as using words to give names.

Another reason that the Roman authors of the New Testament wanted to backdate their NT stories was so that the illusions that they were creating in the NT would better be believed, such as things that they would ‘predict’ (or foretell) would happen, would appear, to have come true; when in fact, those things had already happened (such as the destruction of the Temple). Another nice trick.

Getting a new religion off the ground is no easy task, even for wealthy royals. As I had already stated in other papers, Christianity was being created and promoted by certain royal Romans. And they were descendants of other ancient royals who had previously created and promoted other religions long before their time.

So, they knew how to do it and they knew that the establishment of a new religion would take a very long time; in fact, several generations. So, they did not expect it to flourish right away; and in fact, it did not. Despite all of their efforts, Christianity actually fizzled out even before the last books of the New Testament were written. It basically died when its main authors had died, and that was around 117/118 CE/AD. What kept it ‘alive’ even though it was actually dead, was the efforts of family members who wrote as if it were still alive; another created illusion (see my work on the various illusions that were created by ancient royals).

Thus, the title of bishop of Rome or ‘Pope’ was at the time, a kind of honorary title or position. In reality, it was something given in name only, as no Christian church actually existed once the religion had failed during the first part of the second century. Again, despite the fact that there was no longer any actual Christian churches, family members kept the religion ‘alive’ by writing as if it were still active, and they even made it appear that it was thriving! [j]

And the reason that they had done this was because they were ‘saving’ it so that it could be revived at a later date when their problems with the Jews (Pharisees) had been taken care of and when a better infrastructure could be designed and put into place. It was a plan that required time and much preparation.

A dynamic ‘history’ for the Church had to be created and ‘established’ within the minds of those who they had hoped would become believers and members of the Church once they were able to get it off the ground. So, the family and their descendants wrote of Christian martyrs and of Christian persecutions, which never happened. And to entertain themselves while they were doing this, they used those writings to pass inside jokes to each other and to secretly identify just who they and their ancestors were, through the use of the royal language.

Remember, royals were in charge and control of all that was being written. And that means that those who were of royal blood were also those who were writing the histories, both Church and otherwise. And, they were also those who had written the biblical texts. But the reason that they were able to get away with it was because of the key illusions that they had created to throw researchers off. [k]

One of those, as I may have stated earlier, was the illusion that anyone could write for publication. Another was the illusion that many people were writing, when in fact, there were relatively few. How was this accomplished? It was something that royals had already been doing for thousands of years, using aliases and pen names. The true nature, that is, the true context, of ancient history will never be revealed to those who will not accept the fact that ancient authors used aliases and pen names. That is key, that is essential to know and understand. [l]

The early Church and the first ten bishops of Rome. I’ve listed these in another paper some time ago. But for this paper, it bears repeating. Here is the list:

[I] St. Peter (aka Arrius Calpurnius Piso)
[II] St. Linus (aka Pliny The Younger)
[III] St. Cletus (aka Alexander C. Piso I)
[IV] St. Clement I (aka Julius Calpurnius Piso)
[V] St. Aristus (aka Proculus C. Piso)
[VI] St. Alexander I (aka Alexander C. Piso II)
[VII] St. Sixtus I (aka Justus Calpurnius Piso)
[VIII] St. Telesphorus (aka Flavius Arrianus)
[IX] St. Hyginus (aka Silanus C. Piso)
[X] St. Pius I (aka Emperor Antoninus Pius)

Now, remember what I said about how at the beginning of the creation & promotion of a new religion, such as Christianity, only close family members of those who started it were trusted with high positions within that religion. And, that at the beginning of it, the family nucleus had not spread out to form branches; or, those who were of this initial group would themselves be the founders of those branches which would later take over as heads of the religion.

Here is the relationship of these first ten bishops of Rome. Arrius Calpurnius Piso was the main founder of the religion, and thus, was the first bishop of Rome. Pliny The Younger was his partner. Together, we may think of these two as a type of ‘dynamic duo’. Pliny The Younger was Arrius Piso’s younger foster brother, which I have explained in previous writings.

Alexander C. Piso I, was son of Arrius Calpurnius Piso. He died circa 95 CE/AD. He was probably killed in an attempt to assassinate emperor Domitian. Julius Calpurnius Piso was another son of Arrius Calpurnius Piso. I could detail a lot of information about each of these individuals, but I have already done that in other papers.

Proculus C. Piso was yet another son of Arrius Calpurnius Piso. His mother was Berenice, queen of Judea (who ruled along with her brother, Agrippa II). Now, I haven’t officially said this before, and I am not doing so here; but this Berenice, instead of being that sister of King Agrippa II, may have been daughter of that Berenice. More study will have to be done to make a further determination with regards to that issue.

Alexander C. Piso II, was son of Alexander C. Piso I. And thus, Alexander C. Piso II, was a grandson of Arrius Calpurnius Piso. Justus Calpurnius Piso was another son of Arrius Calpurnius Piso. Flavius Arrianus, was another grandson of Arrius Calpurnius Piso, via his daughter Claudia Phoebe, who was aka Pompeia Plotina, wife of the Emperor Trajan. Silanus C. Piso was a son of Proculus C. Piso, and thus, was another grandson of Arrius Calpurnius Piso. Emperor Antoninus Pius, was brother of Flavius Arrianus, and thus, also a grandson of Arrius Calpurnius Piso via his daughter Claudia Phoebe.

So that shows you how close all of these first ten bishops of Rome were. They did not allow any power or control of or in the early Church into the hands of anyone outside of their immediate family. And, it was these early creators and promoters of Christianity who were also writing as the first of the early Church Fathers. I’d detail that for you here, but like many other things, I have already done so in my other papers and other works. [m]

Now, as I had said, the early Church had failed. It died out. How long did it last? The family had gotten permission from Vespasian to create Christianity, and actually work on perfecting it and to promote it. So, during his reign, the gospels of Mark and Matthew were written and finished. When Vespasian died, his son Titus became emperor, and he too, allowed the Piso family to work on Christianity.

However, when Titus died, his brother Domitian took over as Emperor of the Roman Empire; and he not only would not allow the Pisos to work on Christianity, he banished them from Rome. All of the main family members were gone from Rome – except for Pliny The Younger. For some reason, Domitian liked Pliny. And, he evidently thought that Pliny also liked him. He must not have considered Pliny to have been a part of the immediate Piso family; probably because he was brought into the family by his adoptive father (Lucius Calpurnius Piso) who married the widowed Arria The Younger (thus, making Pliny The Younger, Arrius Piso’s younger foster brother).

So, there were not any churches in the Roman Empire under Domitian, and their probably were not any built before then either, as there were only two gospels finished at that time (i.e., Mark and Matthew). So, the family would have to wait until they could get rid of Domitian and put another emperor in who would be allow them to continue creating and promoting Christianity.

One of Arrius Piso’s sons, Alexander Piso I, appears to have tried to assassinate Domitian, and instead, being caught before he could, died in about the year 95 CE/AD. Well, that and other attempts on his life, caused Domitian to be even more cautious. Having failed in the attempt, others were planned.

There was another attempt on Domitian’s life, in which another of Arrius Piso’s sons would try, but he failed and was saved by another of his sons. Finally, with the help of Domitian’s wife, Domitia, his chamberlain and the Praetorian Prefect, he was assassinated in 96 CE/AD. It appears that in some way, Pliny The Younger too, was instrumental in his assassination. As the family, in certain writings, appears to honor or congratulate Pliny in association with Domitian.

Once the family had gotten rid of Domitian, they had already planned on who they wanted to replace him, and installed Nerva as Emperor. Thereupon, Nerva recalled the Pisos back to Rome. Nerva was elderly, which is one of the factors for choosing him. He may have also had a terminal disease, giving them the guarantee that he would not be ruling for long. They mainly wanted Trajan, a relative of Nerva, as Emperor. Which, was accomplished when Nerva died in 98 CE.

At that point, the family was busy working to finish the NT books and to create churches. About the year 100 CE/AD, Pliny The Younger went throughout the Roman Empire turning certain pagan altars into churches. While doing that, he was writing, and he was also shoring up Roman cities where vice was offered (such as prostitution and gambling). He in fact, would ‘advertise’ those cities by writing about them as the NT Paul.

So, the first of the Christian churches were built on a shoestring, by refurbishing old pagan altars. Some, were torn down and reconstructed. They were constructed in the same way as other places of worship and sacrifice had been constructed in the past; particularly, those whose religion or beliefs were a front for orgies and sexual depravity. That is, they had little “sex rooms” built into the sides.

Originally, the Christian (biblical) texts were written for duel purpose. One was to appear to be straight-laced and upright; and the other was to be sexual stimulating. It depended upon the person reading those texts in the original language, and whether or not they wanted to read it one way or the other – as long as the person reading it understood the Royal Language.

Their first attempts at getting people to join their churches was probably geared towards making believers think that if they believed, they would be somehow better than other people, and perhaps get a reward for their belief, etc. However, this approach just was not getting results. People were not going to the churches, and they were not giving enough to the churches to make them profitable.

The family had to figure out a way to help keep the churches up and running and still bring in a good profit. That is when they switched to plan B. They turned the churches into brothels, with the appearance of being a religion. This was nothing new, even the Temple in Jerusalem was doing this; as well as a number of other early religions. All of this was happening between the year 100 and 118 CE/AD. When the people of the cites in which the early churches were, found out that they were brothels, they ran them out of town. And thus, Christianity had fizzled out.

The family had gotten away with there not being an actual Pope in Rome for so long that none of the family members wanted to do that. Remember, none of them actually believed the things that they were writing about, as they knew it was all fiction. Any of them who would act as an actual pope or bishop of Rome, would have no real power and no real function when there were no churches or believers.

Those who have studied history have wondered why there is a written Church history, and Church Fathers writing, but there was so many other things missing between the early second century and the time of Constantine. This explains that. Descendants of the original Piso family members wrote as Church Fathers, and had taken the title of ‘bishop of Rome’ or Pope, as well as the position of Emperor.

They had just been writing ‘serials’ or a type of adventure story of and about popes and martyrs for hundreds of years, giving various family members the title of bishop of Rome or Pope. And, they sometimes did this in the same way that they had appointed emperors at times, via councils, and by choosing the one who either wanted the title most, and/or the one who worked either most or best to promote Christianity, and/or someone who didn’t have long to live (that is, a family member who was pro-Christianity, but who had a terminal illness). And this was done so that they would only have the title for a short time.

But those who had the title knew that they would have a place in history. And thus, in this way, they would continue to “live on” after their death. To many ancient royals, this was the only real way that they had in which to “live forever”. An option that was not available to non-royals.

It had not been a priority of mine or even of my fellow researchers (of the true nature of ancient history), to determine just which of the popes had become the first to be a real, actual Pope, with ritual duties and who would run the various churches from Rome for the first time. However, I think that we can systematically narrow it down and finally find out just who that individual was.

Knowing what I and others now know, we can narrow that down to someone after Emperor Constantine I, had become Emperor. And, it probably took a while before actual churches were built and they began to have enough members to them pay. One thing is certain, it did not happen until Christianity had established real churches.

But even while churches were being built and established, the same problem that Arrius Piso and Pliny The Younger had back in their day, still existed. The problem of witnesses and evidence that could expose Christianity as a fraud – the Jews and their Talmud. So, those royal Romans who were descendants of Arrius Piso and Pliny The Younger, who inherited their works and who were trying to start of the Church again, needed to find a “solution” to what could easily destroy their hard work.

This is why they set out to find a viable plan to rid themselves of the Jews, who no longer lived within Roman territory, but who mainly lived in relative safety, being protected and given sanctuary by the rulers of Persia. Where, the Jews had continued writing the Talmud – and producing many more copies of it. This was a threat to those who were planning to profit from Christianity.

They knew that they had been able to wipe out most of the Jews in earlier attempts, and that they had succeeded in expelling them from the Roman Empire. But now that most of the surviving Jews were now located beyond Rome’s reach, they had to think of some other way. Since they, themselves, could not reach the Jews to destroy them, they had planned to get the Arabs to do it for them.

And the answer to that was to create yet another religion that would instruct the Arabs to be friendly to Christians, and yet, desire to kill the Jews. It took a long time after the time of Constantine to create that new religion and to implement it, but they managed to do this by creating Islam.

Just as the Romans made Christianity appear to have been a branch of Judaism, thus, making it appear to have nothing to do with them, they made Islam appear to be an entirely original Arab religion. And, it worked, at first. And then, it backfired.

This plan, was the real reason why, beginning with Constantine, Constantinople and other cities in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire were being fortified and expanded. One is that they needed to be able to introduce the religion of Islam to parts of the Arab world, so that it could catch on. And, since it was originally geared to get the Arabs to kill the Jews, they wanted Roman troops to be stationed in places close to Persia – so that if asked to help with the extermination of the Jews, the Romans could “help” the Arabs with that.

Tracing the history of Islam, that is, its beginnings is very complex (but, remember, uncovering the truth about Christianity was no easy task either… yet that has been done). However, we can trace the earliest introduction of Islam back to Syria, which was a Roman held country. There had to be a well orchestrated plan in order to get this religion into Persia and to get it off the ground. They had to make it appear to be something genuinely Arab. They probably had sympathizers installed in various positions of authority within certain places in Persia.

Now we must remember that Rome held many areas which were close to the Arab world at the time, including Egypt to the South, all the way up to Syria in the North. And Constantinople was a key area as well for several reasons. This was a strategic move on the part of the royal Roman oligarchy, to fortify the Eastern territories of the Roman Empire. And, just as it had taken a very long time for Christianity to be established, and the Roman royals knew that, they had worked to try and expedite the establishment of Islam.

Just as the NT character ‘Jesus’ was a created composite character, so it appears that Mohammad was likewise a created character. And, just as behind the character of Jesus, there was a real person (Arrius Piso), so also, there was probably a real person who was called ‘Mohammad’; and just to make the illusion complete, this Mohammad was given a family tree – and even has recorded descendants!

But, like I said, the original idea for Islam was for it to make the Arabs want to kill the Jews, while still being friendly to the Christians. However, the rulers in the East were not stupid. And they began to change the religion into one that they wanted. Which is why instead of all of the Jews being destroyed, the Arabs, via Islam, began to fight Christians. And the only real way that the royal Romans and leaders of the Christian Church could make any real use of it was as an excuse to have ‘Crusades’.

During the late 700’s and 800’s, various treaties were established between the Roman royals, Church leaders and the leaders of the Jews. This allowed Jews from the East to come back to parts of the Roman Empire. This too, was a plan to get the Jews to move back into Roman territory so that they could be more easily accessed (to kill). So, many did, especially since at first, Islam was creating a dangerous environment for them in Persia. [n]

This is how certain Jewish towns, villages and cities came to be established within the Holy Roman Empire. So, for about 200 years, or so, many Jews moved into the areas to the East of Rome, but which were still within Rome’s reach. That is when the idea of the Crusades was put into use.

With the objective of the Crusades ostensibly being the recovery of the holy land from the Arabs, the Crusades were directed to go through certain towns, villages and cites, which just happened to be primarily Jewish. And in which the crusaders were instructed to pillage, plunder, rape and kill the inhabitants of those places along the way to Jerusalem; as well as on the way back. The crusaders were instructed to bring back all that they had plundered and to destroy as much as they could; often leaving those places that they had visited, raised to the ground.

It was during the time of the Crusades and the Inquisitions that most of the copies of the Talmud within the Holy Roman Empire were destroyed. And this, of course, before the invention of the printing press. It was also a time in which most of the ‘Inner-Circle’ scholars within Judaism were killed. And, thus, the knowledge of what was contained within the Talmud was lost to most of the surviving Jews.

To verify this, we must also verify that factual existence of a royal oligarchy. In what way might we do that? One way is via DNA evidence. Of course, that evidence must be collected. And that, in itself, may prove difficult. Why? Because what we would need evidence of, and access to, is of various popes (their physical remains), and the Vatican has province over such evidence. That is, many of those whom we would need to get samples of DNA from, might not be granted to anyone, if the Roman Catholic Church has a say in it.

Such evidence, I contend, belongs to Humanity and not to a group or power of any kind, when the future of all mankind is weighed in the balance. Now, let’s say we can obtain that evidence. Then what? One of the first things that would give us validation is that two or more individual who were not supposed to be related, are found to be related.

Another thing that we have found in examining this ancient fraud is that alias names and pen names were often used. This was done by those ancient royals who did the writing, and aliases were also used to hide the true identities of those being written about. Rulers, and their families, for example, were being written about via aliases. And popes, we know, chose a different name for themselves as pope (a papal name). And, though this appeared on the surface to have no real rhyme or reason, other than a story given by popes themselves (such as they chose a name of an earlier pope that they had admired).

Was there a real reason for the names that they chose? Maybe not always, but in many instances, I have found that the names chosen by popes were names which their ancestors, who were also popes, had used. Interesting, certainly. But it is even more telling, than simply something of interest. It is evidence that certain branches of families held power within the Roman Catholic Church and shared that power with only certain other branches.

And, they had shared common ancestry. What does that mean? It means that if this is what was happening, that these popes were well aware of their mutual ancestry, and that the only way that this would have been allowed within the Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire was if the rulers allowed it. Meaning that they too, must have known that all these popes were related to each other and had the same common ancestry. And even more astounding is that the popes shared the same common ancestry with those Emperors as well. Thus, we must test family lines and individual popes and other rulers, such as emperors and/or their family members. And, we need to take this line of study back as far as we can.

My studies, as well as that of others, have given us the ability to trace these individuals back and connect their families via genealogy. And this is because they left us records that allow us to do that. They could not do this in an obvious way, of course. The reason? They would have been found out during their own lifetime and would have been swiftly over thrown. All of the things that they did, were things that they had to do in order to keep the system (crafted by their ancient ancestors) going.

Related Papers & Other Info:

[a] The true context of ancient history: The Royal Oligarchy. (See ‘l’, Aliases & Pen Names)

[b] Royal-created Illusions & Facades: Royal Supremacy. (Also see ‘d’)

To truly understand those ancient texts, one would have to read those texts with the same knowledge that the authors themselves had; and that means examining those texts with a complete knowledge of the people, places and events of the time, in the original languages, from the earliest known examples.

How & Why Ancient Royalty Created Facades & Illusions
[The Effective Creation of an Alternate Version of Reality]

[c] The exception being those who had been fighting those who were creating Christianity, two sects of the Jews, who were trying to help create a new, and better world; The Pharisees & Scribes. More papers will be written to further illustrate the long war and the part that these sects had played in that war. (Ref. ‘The Synthesis of Christianity’, Roman Piso)

[d] The Royal Language & Royal Supremacy.

A Few Words About The Royal Language

Royal Supremacy: When The World Lacked Freedom

[e] The Roman Royal Committee to establish a new religion under Tiberius. Committee disbanded sometime after the death of Tiberius, members returned to Rome (including Seneca The Rhetorician aka ‘The Younger’, and Lucius Calpurnius Piso, etc.). Nero opposed the creation of a new Roman religion. Those royal Romans who wanted the new religion then tried to kill Nero, and eventually, succeeded. And, of course, since they had ‘won’ against Nero (and others who were against the creation and promotion of Christianity, such as the Pharisees), those who wrote history with regards to Nero, painted him as a bad guy. See my works where I have sorted out who was on what side of the war, by giving them the designation ‘Ally’ or ‘Axis’ (such as in ‘Piso Christ’ and ‘The Synthesis of Christianity’).

[f] King Herod was a Hasmonean. The way that ancient authors gave such information was by scattering it (deliberately), so as to best hide it in plain sight. The information about King Herod as a descendant of Eleazar Auran, is given in the works of Flavius Josephus.

King Herod Was A Hasmonean

[g] The Hasmoneans asked Rome for help just prior to (and during) the rise of Julius Caesar as Dictator. This was because the Pharisees had become very popular with the masses and had gained control of Judea; being then, more powerful and wealthy than the Hasmonean rulers.

[h] Arrius Calpurnius Piso, writing as Flavius Josephus, includes such ‘revolts’ in his ‘Wars Of The Jews’ to hint at the fact that they were indeed, fighting a war and he also gives important key evidence and information in his writings; while, at the same time, disguising the truth in those same writings.

[i] Inside Jokes & Puns written into the New Testament.

Sick & Dirty Jokes In The New Testament

Human Dung Jokes In The NT

New Testament Joke: ‘The Lump’

[j] See Abelard Reuchlin’s ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’ (Second Printing, 1986).

[k] Royals maintained control over all that was written for publication. Anyone who attempted to write for an audience who was not royal, and discovered, was put to death. Also, only wealthy and powerful royals could build and maintain Scriptorium. And, they had trained slave scribes whose lives were used only for the service they could provide within the royal publishing houses. They also had to have levels of ‘security’ and editing; and ways to make certain that those scribes would not be able to alter what they were writing. Those who were caught trying to alter texts were either put to death or made use of in some other way.

[l] Aliases & Pen Names. These two papers will further illustrate the use of aliases & pen names by ancient royalty:

The True Context Of Ancient History & The Gordian Emperors

Ancient Alias Names List (2017)

[m] In addition to listing the first ten bishops of Rome, this list is of some of the Roman Emperors who were descendants of that main creator of Christianity (Arrius Calpurnius Piso), and who also held title of bishop of Rome (or Pope) and/or who wrote as Church Fathers.

List of Roman Emperors who were also Popes, Xian Writers and/or Church Fathers
(Roman Piso, 06-15-2018; edited, 4 more added, 07-01-2018)

[I] Emperor Antoninus Pius (R. 138-161 CE; aka Pope Pius I)

[II] Emperor Marcus Aurelius (R. 161-180 CE; aka Pope Soter)

[III] Emperor Septimius Severus (R. 193-211 CE; aka Church Father Tertullian)

[IV] Emperor Maximinus I (R. 235-238 CE; aka Pope Pontianus)

[V] Emperor Maximus (son of Emp. Maximinus I, R. 235-238 CE; aka Pope Anterius)

[VI] Emperor Macrianus I [Senior] (R. 259-260/261 CE/AD, aka St. Cyprian)

[VII] Emperor Probus (b. 232, R. 276-282, d. 282 CE/AD, aka Church Father Malchion)

[VIII] Emperor Allectus (R. 293-296 CE; aka Pope Caius)

[IX] Emperor Constantius Chlorus (R. 305-306 CE; aka Pope Eusebius)

[X] Emperor Constantine I (R. 307-337 CE; aka Pope Melchiades)

[XI] Emperor Procopius (R. 365-366 CE; aka Pope Liberius)

[XII] Emperor Valens (b. 328, R. 364-378, d. 378 CE/AD, aka St. Basil)

[XIII] Emperor Honorius (b. 384, R. 395-423 CE/AD, aka St. Augustine)

Note: There were also secret co-emperors. Those are not listed here. And, within my private notes, I have much more information about emperors and their family as popes. All that was being done in the Roman Empire with the creation of ‘Emperors’ was that instead of there having been two co-ruling Consuls that were known to the public, only an Emperor would be known, while keeping the second co-ruler hidden from the public. In the Roman Republic, there were two Consuls who were co-rulers, and as such, had coins minted with their likeness. The idea to change to Emperors instead, was a means in which to have those two rulers, but only allow the public to know who only one of them was. In that way, they were protecting the secret co-ruler or co-emperor from assassination. This would then insure that no matter what, one of the pre-chosen royals would be ruling.

[n] During that period, Exilarchs descended from the Hillelian/Gamalielian leaders of the Pharisees were ruling as the leaders of the Jewish people, and had been doing so since the time after the (Hadrianic) Diaspora of 135 CE/AD. And various negotiations were led by those Jewish representatives in talks with others close to the then Jewish leadership; wherein, individuals such as Bostanai (Bostanai ben Haninai, b. 618, d. 670 CE/AD), and descendants of the Frankish Merovingian Kings were involved to some degree. And, others associated with the family of Bostanai, such as Guillume de Toulouse (aka Guillume de Gellone, of Aquitaine, whose brother Oliba, was a pope [see my other works for more info]). The family of Guillume de Gellone, was of a parallel or co-lateral line of royalty to that of Emperor Charlemagne; both were descendants of Clovis I. Another paper with more information about this should be forthcoming.

Reference material:

The works of Abelard Reuchlin. He wrote several other works besides ‘The True Authorship Of The New Testament’, including one on the subject of Islam. However, his work and studies on that subject could only take him so far.

This is a list of titles of the works of Abelard Reuchlin:

‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’ (second printing, 1986, Abelard Reuchlin)

‘The Pisos’ Further Writings’ (Vol. I & II, Abelard Reuchlin)

‘How Christianity Grew’ (During 96-217 To Near Power In Rome, Abelard Reuchlin)

‘From Ulpian To Constantine’ (Abelard Reuchlin)

‘The Talmudic Responses To Piso’ (Abelard Reuchlin)

‘Islam – Its Koran, Hadith, and its Leadership’ (Abelard Reuchlin)

Note: Other works are known, but may not have been made available to the public before his death. For more information, you may want to try this site:


See my research papers in Academia(dot)Edu:

The Roman Piso Papers

I’ve also posted many of them on my site in WordPress:

The Piso Project

Our work translated into Spanish:

En Espanol

Our work is also currently being translated into other languages, such as Portuguese and Norwegian.

To get a better idea of how to read the New Testament texts as literature and break down its various elements, I recommend this book; ‘The Bible As Literature: The New Testament’, by Buckner B. Trawick, published as one of the Barnes & Noble College Outline Series.

As for the New Testament that I recommend to people for use in their studies, it is ‘The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament’, by George Ricker Berry, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

This Title, ‘When The Real Popes Came To Power’ In Other Languages:

[Afrikaans: ‘Wanneer die werklike Popes aan bewind gekom het’]
[Albanian: ‘Kur Papët Real erdhën në Fuqia’]
[Arabian: عندما جاءت الباباوات الحقيقيون إلى السلطة]
[Armenian: ‘Երբ իրական պապերը եկան իշխանության’]
[Bosnian: ‘Kada su pravi pape došli na vlast’]
[Bulgarian: ‘Когато истинският папи дойде на власт’]
[Chinese: ‘当真正的教皇掌权时 ‘]
[Croatian: ‘Kada su pravi pape došli na vlast’]
[Czech: ‘Když se skuteční papežové dostali k moci’]
[Danish: ‘Når den virkelige paver kom til magten’]
[Dutch: ‘Toen de echte pausen aan de macht kwamen’]
[Esperanto: ‘Kiam La Realaj Papoj Venis Potenci’]
[Estonian: ‘Kui tõelised paavstid tulid võimule.’]
[Filipino: ‘Nang dumating ang mga ang tunay na Papa sa kapangyarihan’]
[Finnish: ‘Kun todellinen paavit tulivat valtaan’]
[French: ‘Quand les vrais papes sont arrivés au pouvoir’]
[Frisian: ‘As The Real Popes Came To Power kaam’]
[Galacian: ‘Cando os papas reais chegaron ao poder’]
[Georgian: ‘როდესაც ნამდვილი პაპები ხელისუფლებაში მოვიდნენ’]
[German: ‘Als die echten Päpste an die Macht kamen’]
[Greek: ‘Όταν οι αληθινοί Πάπες ήρθαν στην εξουσία’]
[Hebrew: ‘כאשר האפיפיורים האמיתיים הגיעו לשלטון ‘]
[Hindi: ‘जब असली Popes सत्ता में आए’]
[Hmong Daw: ‘Thaum twg tus tiag Popes tuaj hwj chim’]
[Hungarian: ‘Amikor az igazi pápák jött hatalomra’]
[Icelandic: ‘Þegar Real popes kom til Power’]
[Indonesian: ‘Ketika Paus nyata datang untuk kekuatan’]
[Irish: ‘Nuair a Tháinig na Peataí Réadúla chun Cumhachta’]
[Italian: ‘Quando i veri Papi giunsero al potere’]
[Japanese: ‘本当の教皇が権力を持つようになったとき’]
[Korean: ‘진짜 로마 교황은 힘에 올 때’]
[Latin: ‘Cum Verus est Summorum Pontificum Ad potestatem’]
[Latvian: ‘Kad īstie pāvesti ieradās pie varas’]
[Lithuanian: ‘Kai nekilnojamojo popiežių atėjo į valdžią’]
[Luxembourgish: ‘Wann d’Real Päpste zu Muecht kruten’]
[Macedonian: ‘Кога дојде вистинскиот папа на власт’]
[Malay: ‘Bilakah Popes sebenar yang datang kepada kuasa’]
[Maltese: ‘Meta ġew l-Popes reali għall-enerġija’]
[Mongolian: ‘Бодит попүүд хүч чадлаараа ирэхэд’]
[Nepali: ‘जब रियल पपल्स क्याम पावर’]
[Norwegian: ‘Når den virkelige pavene kom til makten’]
[Persian: ‘وقتی آمد پاپ واقعی به قدرت’]
[Polish: ‘Kiedy prawdziwi Papieże doszli do władzy’]
[Portuguese: ‘Quando os verdadeiros papas chegaram ao poder’]
[Romanian: ‘Când adevăraţii papi au venit la putere’]
[Russian: ‘Когда настоящие папы пришли к власти’]
[Samoan: ‘Ina ua oo mai le Popes moni i le mana o’]
[Scots-Gaelic: ‘Nuair a thàinig na Popan Reatha gu Cumhachd’]
[Serbian: ‘Када су прави папе дошли на власт’]
[Sindhi: ‘جڏهن ريئل پوپس ڪاهي طاقت ڪرڻ لاء’]
[Slovak: ‘Keď skutočné pápežovi prišiel k moci’]
[Slovenian: ‘Ko pravi papeži prišli na oblast’]
[Somali: ‘Markay Real Popes Awood u Haysata’]
[Spanish: ‘Cuando los verdaderos papas llegaron al poder’]
[Sundanes: ‘Nalika The Real Popes Datang Ka Daya’]
[Swahili: ‘Wakati mapapa kweli alikuja nguvu’]
[Swedish: ‘När de verkliga påvar kom till makten’]
[Turkish: ‘Gerçek Popes güç geldiğinde’]
[Ukrainian: ‘Коли до влади прийшла справжня Пап’]
[Urdu: ‘جب حقیقی پاپائے روم اقتدار سنبھالا ۔’]
[Uzbek: ‘Haqiqiy Poplar kuchga kirganda’]
[Vietnamese: ‘Khi các giáo hoàng thực sự đến quyền lực’]
[Welch: ‘Pan ddaeth y popes go iawn i rym’]
[Yiddish: ‘ווען די רעאַל פּאָפּעס געקומען צו מאַכט ‘]
[Zulu: ‘Lapho i-Real Popes Ifika Emandleni’]


Attention (Scholars & Researchers):

We must work to change academia. Virtually all ancient history scholars have been wrong, because a) as I have explained in my book ‘Piso Christ’, all of their work is based upon 6 major assumptions, and b) as a result of these assumptions, they view ancient history in the wrong context. And, this is a cycle. They were taught to study the subject incorrectly, and they continue to “teach” others to be wrong. This must stop. Spread this information and help better educate as many people as you can, particularly, those within academia. Please share this information.

Attention Classics & Ancient History ‘Scholars’: Richard Carrier, Marcus Borg, Robert M. Price, Bart Ehrmann, Robert Eisenman, Werner Eck, Anthony Birley, and Joseph Atwill. Particularly, Werner Eck, as I have talked to him a number of times at the urging of Abelard Reuchlin and have sent him my material to study.

Attention New Testament/Biblical ‘Scholars’: Elaine Pagels, John Dominic Crossan, Jonathan Reed, Ched Myers, Bernard Brandon Scott, N.T. Wright, Stanley Hauerwas, Amy-Jill Levine, Taylor Weaver, Richard Hays, David Horrell, Bruce J. Malina, Craig Evans, Craig Keener, Raymond Brown, James D. G. Dunn, Dale Martin, Stanley Stowers, John Barclay, Philip Esler, Garrett Fagan. And Ralph Ellis.

Also, various authors of ancient history and historical themes need to pay attention to this and other works. Particularly, those who have written about a “historical Jesus”. Including Laurence Gardner.

Note: I have personally talked to several of these individuals, as well as friends of theirs who have tried to get through to them about this work. Religious people particularly, strongly reject anything that contradicts their beliefs. Which is why it has been so slow to make any real change within academia, because so many of those who currently comprise it are either religious or biased in some way.

Many problems still exist within Academia. We need to bring Academia into the 21st Century.

Essential Changes To Academia Now Required (Objectivity Is Essential)

The New Classical Scholarship: The New Forensic Study Of History

A Few Words About The Royal Language (A Language Within Language)

The True Context Of Ancient History & The Gordian Emperors

Ancient Alias Names List (2017)

How & Why Ancient Royalty Created Facades & Illusions
[The Effective Creation of an Alternate Version of Reality]

The Roman Piso Papers

Key Words & Related Terms:

Roman coins, denominations, coinage, province, Augustus, Claudius, Nero, Vitellius, Domitian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Severus Alexander, Elagabalus, Gordian III, Philip I ‘The Arab’, Claudius II ‘Gothicus’, denari, denarii, denarius, coins, coin, ancient coins, numismatic, celator, ancient mints, silver, gold, copper, aureus, drachm, didrachm, tetradrachm, follis, antoninianus, antoninianii, potin, billon, error, restrike, restrikes, silver wash, silvered, limes, AE, AE3, AR, AV, miliarense, siliqua, centenionalis, argenteus, dupondius, quadrans, cistophorus, sestertius, quinarius, as, As, Semis, triens, sextans, unica, quadrigatus, moneyer, victoriatus, solidus, scripulum.

History, Ancient History, Rome, Ancient Rome, Roman Empire, Roman Emperors, Popes, Papal History, Christianity, History of Christianity, Origin of Christianity, Emperor, Emperors, Roman Catholic History, Holy Roman Empire, Arrius Calpurnius Piso, Roman Piso Family, Ancient Alias Names, Ancient Pen Names, Gordian Emperors, Emperor Antoninus Pius, Arius Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, Oligarchy, Royal Supremacy, Royal Language, Aliases, Genealogy, Ancient Genealogy, Ancient Genealogies, Historia, Historia Augusta, Flavius Josephus, Pliny The Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch, Hero of Alexandria, Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus ‘The Athenian’, Philostratus ‘The Younger’, Herodian, Emperor Constantine, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Lucius Verus, Commodus, Pertinax, Pescennius Niger, Didius Julianus, Clodius Albinus, Septimius Severus, Severus Alexander, Maximinus, Maximus, Probus, Clodius II, Constantius, Constantius Chlorus, Eusebius, Pope Eusebius, Church Father, Early Christianity, Roman Creation of Christianity, Nero, 666, Julius Calpurnius Piso, Julius Piso I, First 10 Popes, Justin Martyr, St. John ‘The Divine’, The Revelation, gospels, The Gospel of Thomas, Gnostic, Gnostic Gospels, Apocryphal, texts, holy, sacred, free, info, sample, paper, papers, research, research paper, Heron, Herod, Agrippa, Philo, Logos, Talmud, Pharisee, pharisees, sect, Cornelius, Theodosius I, Arcadius, Honorius, Byzantine, Byzantium, Constantinople, ancient literature, forensic history, censorship, Medieval, medieval censorship, Inquisition, Crusade, crusades, Church, Church History, comparative, religion, religious, organized religion, Abelard Reuchlin, Professor, Bruno Bauer, James Ballantyne Hannay, Marcus, Antonius, Cleopatra, Julius, Caesar, Caesars, Antonius Primus, Cestius Gallus, Nero, Vitellius, Otho, Licinianus, Frugi, Piso, Julius Servianus, Julius Severus, Julius Constantius I, Galba, New, New Testament, Bible, gospels, epistles, Panegyricus, Timothy, Justinian The Jurist, Proculus Calpurnius Piso, Silanus Piso, Herodes Atticus, ben Pantera, Scribes, genealogy, genealogies, royal, royal line, royal blood, historiography, philosophy, history of, historical Jesus, Dark Ages, Secular Humanism, Atheism, Atheist, Atheists, Historical Anthropology, Anthropology, Anthropology of Religion, Imperial, Imperial Rome, Roma, Classics, Classical Antiquity, Religion as psychological warfare.

Anthropology, genealogical charts, genealogy, archaeology, Origins of Christianity, Holy, Holy Roman Empire, Imperial Rome, Roman Empire, popes, emperor, emperors, King James, Bible, biblical, classics, classical history, historic, Pliny The Elder, Seneca, Aria, Arria, Arria The Younger, Arria The Elder, Arius, Arrius, Fadilla, Arria Fadilla, Arria Antonina, Antonius, Marcus Antonius, Antonius Primus, of Alexandria, of Tyana, of Rome, of Athens, Gnostics, gospel, Gospel of, Thomas, Mary, Magdalan, magi, three, three days, three wise men, rooster, hen, cock, crow, crew, Alexander, Sabina, Gaius Calpurnius Piso, Constantine, Julius Constantius, Constantius Chlorus, Emperor, emperors, Flavia, Flavian, Flavians, Titus, Domitian, Vespasian, Nerva, Augustus, Julius Caesar, Caesar, Tiberius, Gneius Calpurnius Piso, Gaius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Clodius Albinus, Septimius Severus, Severus Alexander, Pupienus, Claudius Gothicus, Probus, Gallienus, Tacitus, Florian, Florianus, Balbinus, Postumus, Philip I, Philip II, Pacatian, Jotapian, Aquilia Severa, Annia, Annia Faustina, Julia Soaemias, Julia Maesa, Diadumenian, Elagabalus, Julia Domna, Caracalla, Lucius Verus, Lucilla, Geta, Titiana, Manlia Scantilla, Didia Clara, Pescennius Niger, St. Peter, Saint, Saint Peter, Linus, Gnostic, Apocryphal, Apocryphal New Testament, Gnostic texts, Gnostic Gospels, Gospel of, Ignatius, St. Ignatius, Saint, Saint Ignatius, Pliny, canon bible, canon new testament, extra-biblical, bible, god, gods, inside jokes, jokes in the new testament, emperors in the new testament, Josephus, Inner-Circle, The Oligarchy, Royal Supremacy, the Royal Language, the 1%, royal blood, grail, holy, King James, King James I, of England, Lady Di, Lady Diana, Prince Charles, Queen Elizabeth, Prince William, Prince Harry, royal family, Buckingham palace, earl of, prince of, Wales, the Tower, inherit, religion, religious, religions, dumb-down, apocryphal, duke of, royal title, sir, lord, lady, duchess.

La verdad sobre el cristianismo. El trabajo de Roman piso, ahora está en español.

Nuestro amigo (VictOr HugO), ha hecho traducciones de los trabajos de investigación de Roman piso. Estos están ahora disponibles para el público. Algunos romanos reales eran los creadores del cristianismo. ¿Cómo lo sabemos? Una de las razones son los judíos de la época. Los judíos eran testigos. Escribieron información en el Talmud.

Por eso el Vaticano siempre ha intentado destruir a los judíos y su Talmud. Otra parte de esto, es que los romanos reales, permanecieron en el poder. Sus descendientes, utilizaron la religión para permanecer en el poder. Esto se llama una oligarquía real (o una regla por algunas élites). La situación era, un “ambiente cerrado”, donde nadie podía escribir, excepto para los reales. Esto se llama “supremacía real”.

Hubo una unificación o solidaridad, también. Para que los gobernantes reales de muchos países pudieran tener protección, con el apoyo de los demás en caso de que la gente se enterara. Fue Carlomagno, cuya familia creó el ‘ Sacro Imperio Romano ‘, o el ‘ Reich ‘. Sí, el primer Reich, el segundo Reich, y luego el tercer Reich.

Por favor, lea y comparta esta información. Otros trabajos, en inglés, pueden ser encontrados online por buscador. Utilice estas frases clave: ‘ el proyecto piso ‘, ‘ el piso papers ‘, y ‘ piso Christ ‘ (un libro de Roman piso). Muchas gracias.

Tanta gente ha vivido sus vidas, y nunca tuvo la oportunidad de saber esto. Tú sí. Y todos merecen la oportunidad de saber esto. Es la única manera. que la raza humana tendrá una oportunidad. La oligarquía todavía está en el poder, pero ya no se la conoce como Royals. Ahora son la élite del 1%. El “uno por ciento” son los que poseen virtualmente toda la riqueza de nuestro mundo. Se lo robaron a la humanidad. Necesitamos tener la misma distribución de riqueza, o equidad de riqueza, para tener un progreso real en nuestro mundo. Esta es tu oportunidad de hacer una verdadera diferencia en el mundo.

VeHache (VictOr HugO)

Click to access Ilusiones_creadas_por_la_aristocracia_de_la_antig%C3%BCedad.pdf

Click to access Flavio_Josefo_alias_de_Arrio_Calpurnio_Pis%C3%B3n.pdf

Click to access El_fen%C3%B3meno_de_hacer_milagros.pdf

Click to access Descendencia_de_Constantino_desde_el_emperador_Augusto.pdf

Click to access Corolarios_entre_Flavio_Josefo_y_el_Nuevo_Testamento.pdf

Click to access Arrio_Pis%C3%B3n_y_su_familia.pdf

Click to access Arrio_Calpurnio_Pis%C3%B3n_y_el_emperador_Domiciano.pdf

Click to access Algunas_palabras_sobre_el_Lenguaje_Real.pdf

Click to access A_prop%C3%B3sito_de_Joseph_Atwill.pdf

Religion Is Harmful.

Religion is much more harmful than most people have begun to realize; in many ways and on several levels. Organized religion, according to new studies was created by ancient royalty as a means to easily manipulate and control the masses. In reality, religion is a form of psychological warfare. Below is a list of various studies and information that further exposes the dangers of religion.

‘Spiritual, But Not Religious’ Can Be More Dangerous Than Outright Religious Belief

Beware Of ‘Spirituality’ As Opposed To Simply ‘Religious’ (Mental Illness More Likely In ‘Spiritual’ People)

OCD: Religion & Risk (Religious Fundamentalism & Religious Fanatic Radicals, Terrorists, Psychotic Behavior, Etc.)

Click to access Elizabeth%20Cosgrove%20Religious%20devotion.%20A%20risk%20factor%20for%20mental%20illness.x.pdf

Why Religion Can Cause Mental Illness (Many Sources & Much Research Cited)

Religion & Schizophrenia

How Psychopaths Use Religion

Religion Is Not Benign

Religion Is A Mental Illness (Research Study By Kathleen Taylor, Oxford University Neuroscientist)

Religious Tolerance Is Propaganda

Rhetoric & Propaganda In The New Testament.

Angry & Vicious Bible God Causes Mental & Emotional Problems For Believers

The Roman Piso Papers

Misc. Related Keyword Subjects List

The Roman Piso Papers

Related Subject Matter:
(Key Words & Terms)

History, Ancient History, Rome, Ancient Rome, Roman Empire, Roman Emperors, Popes, Papal History, Christianity, History of Christianity, Origin of Christianity, Emperor, Emperors, Roman Catholic History, Holy Roman Empire, Arrius Calpurnius Piso, Roman Piso Family, Ancient Alias Names, Ancient Pen Names, Gordian Emperors, Emperor Antoninus Pius, Arius Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius, Oligarchy, Royal Supremacy, Royal Language, Aliases, Genealogy, Ancient Genealogy, Ancient Genealogies, Historia, Historia Augusta, Flavius Josephus, Pliny The Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch, Hero of Alexandria, Apollonius of Tyana, Philostratus ‘The Athenian’, Philostratus ‘The Younger’, Herodian, Emperor Constantine, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Lucius Verus, Commodus, Pertinax, Pescennius Niger, Didius Julianus, Clodius Albinus, Septimius Severus, Severus Alexander, Maximinus, Maximus, Probus, Clodius II, Constantius, Constantius Chlorus, Eusebius, Pope Eusebius, Church Father, Early Christianity, Roman Creation of Christianity, Nero, 666, Julius Calpurnius Piso, Julius Piso I, First 10 Popes, Justin Martyr, St. John ‘The Divine’, The Revelation, gospels, The Gospel of Thomas, Gnostic, Gnostic Gospels, Apocryphal, texts, holy, sacred, free, info, sample, paper, papers, research, research paper, Heron, Herod, Agrippa, Philo, Logos, Talmud, Pharisee, pharisees, sect, Cornelius, Theodosius I, Arcadius, Honorius, Byzantine, Byzantium, Constantinople, ancient literature, forensic history, censorship, Medieval, medieval censorship, Inquisition, Crusade, crusades, Church, Church History, comparative, religion, religious, organized religion, Abelard Reuchlin, Professor, Bruno Bauer, James Ballantyne Hannay, Marcus, Antonius, Cleopatra, Julius, Caesar, Caesars, Antonius Primus, Cestius Gallus, Nero, Vitellius, Otho, Licinianus, Frugi, Piso, Julius Servianus, Julius Severus, Julius Constantius I, Galba, New, New Testament, Bible, gospels, epistles, Panegyricus, Timothy, Justinian The Jurist, Proculus Calpurnius Piso, Silanus Piso, Herodes Atticus, ben Pantera, Scribes, genealogy, genealogies, royal, royal line, royal blood, historiography, philosophy, history of, historical Jesus, Dark Ages, Secular Humanism, Atheism, Atheist, Atheists, Historical Anthropology, Anthropology, Anthropology of Religion, Imperial, Imperial Rome, Roma, Classics, Classical Antiquity, Religion as psychological warfare.