Who The Heck Are The Piso Family

[anansi]

I for the very first time heard their name from the Mutabaruka Dr Ray Hagins interview egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1467/dr-ray-hagins-mutabaruka?page=1&scrollTo=7525



This got my interest and although I claimed to know alot of stuff I had never came across the name of this family and their supposed involvement with the creation of Christianity,after poking around on the net I came upon this site www.fargonasphere.com/piso/ 

The True Authorship of the New Testament


“Let’s see, a story that starts with fishing for men and has a human Passover lamb and a crucifixion scene where one survives out of three and concludes with the condemning of Simon and the sparing of John. Gee, what story could that be?”
- Joseph Atwill on the 'Judean War' by Flavius Josephus

Professor Bruno Bauer, in his work of 1877 "Christ and the Caesars", stated that he had concluded that the Romans had authored the New Testament and that Flavius Josephus was the inventor of Jesus.

James Ballantyne Hannay next wrote about the Roman authorship of the New Testament in his 1925 work "The Rise, Decline & Fall of the Roman Religion (Christianity)."

Abelard Reuchlin found the key to unraveling just who the actual authors were, and that the authors were to be found in the Roman Piso family, who were a part of the Piso/Flavian dynasty. He authored a booklet that came out in 1979 and is available from The Roman Piso Homepage.

In 2003 Joseph Atwill discovered that the Roman emperor Titus Flavius, working with Flavius Josephus and other authors in his patrimony wrote the New Testament. Atwill deduced this by comparing The 'Judean War' to the New Testament. The 'Judean War', written by Flavius Josephus, was originally part of the Christian Bible, and was removed around 1100 CE. 'The Roman Origin of Christianity', released as 'Caesar's Messiah' by Joseph Atwill documents the creation of the New Testament as a Roman satire devised to win over Judean dissidents by deceiving them into believing that the emperor Titus Flavius Vespasiani was Jesus! I know, it sounds strange, but that seems to be the way it was. Titus took great pleasure in calling himself "the greatest forger in history."

There are now several million persons who know about the Piso Theory, Atwill's book and the true authorship of the New Testament. This page is dedicated to the ongoing discussion, discovery and presentation of deductive proofs that establish, as much as possible, the authorship and motives for the creation of the New Testament.

Forget everything you may have learned in Sunday School. The New Testament was written by Roman patricians, among them The Calpurnius Piso family that was descended from one of the generals in the army of Alexander the Great. The family included such famous people as Cleopatra, the Ptolemys, Pythagoras, Flavius Josephus, and the Roman Emperor Titus Flavius Vespasiani.

The great temple at Jerusalem was built by Herod the Great, and utterly destroyed in 70 CE by Titus Flavius Vespasiani. Of course nobody knew it was the year 70 in 70. That date had to be invented by somebody. The Christian calendar set the date at 70, and you will see that it is probable that the Pisos (operating as Church Fathers) created the Christian calendar. Apparently the Pisos were obsessed with Julius Caesar, evidence of which you will see repeatedly in the following text.

It is certain that the Roman emperor Vespasian captured the city of Jerusalem for Rome in 66 CE (Common Era), and the Roman emperor Titus Flavius Vespasiani (the son of Vespasian), destroyed the temple there in 70 CE. In fact, both Zela (religious center of Pontus) and Jerusalem were the sites of temples that were destroyed: Julius Caesar destroyed the one in Zela in 47 BCE. The Piso family were aristocrats whose ancestry traced from Zela.

Julius Caesar was an in-law of the Piso family. His wife, Calpurnia, was a Piso. He had married her to cement an alliance with Pontus. When Cleopatra, also a Piso relative, seduced Caesar, it is possible that she was conspiring with her relative Pharnaces II, king of Pontus, to distract Caesar while Pharnaces prepared to wage war against Rome. But Caesar got wind of the activities of Pharnaces and rushed to Pontus with two legions, one of which was almost entirely composed of Judeantroops. Caesar turned the tables on Pharnaces. That defeat probably led to Caesar's assassination, and the eternal hatred of Caesar by the people of Pontus. There is no new historical information here. It is well known that Caesar took two legions from Alexandria to conquer Pontus in 47 CE.

Three years later, Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by Roman senators in the Forum. Several of the conspirators were Piso family members or close relatives.

As an illustration of just one of the hidden messages that exist in the New Testament, consider Revelation 1:7 "Behold, he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him; even they who have pierced him." He comes, they see, and they pierce him.

Caesar went to Pontus, they saw him coming in a cloud of dust, and as a result of this they pierced him to death.

There is actually much more in that little verse, but we will leave that for later discussion. This is just one small example of the hidden messages that exist in the New Testament and can be decrypted by a simple cipher based on the phrase VENI VIDI VICI. The infamous number 666, for example, is simply VIVIVI, which refers to VenI VidI VicI. Oh yes, you will say that 666 is really DCLXVI. Yes, it is, but it also can cleverly be represented as VIVIVI. Believe it or not; it really isn't that important, but it's an interesting possibility.

Imagine having the power to set the date of origin of the calendar! This was the kind of power held by the Roman aristocracy. Julius Caesar had changed the calendar himself. With the advice of Cleopatra's astrologer, Caesar had added four extra months to the year 46 BCE. This is the reason that the Piso/Flavians changed the calendar too. It was a kind of "one-upsmanship" on a grand scale.

A major reason to suspect that the New Testament was written for purposes that are not obvious at face value is the presence of multiple meanings, obvious jokes and mysterious number relationships. If the books were divinely inspired, one would assume that nothing would be hidden, unless the divine inspiration itself were somehow deceptive. If deceptive, then how could one trust such a deity? There are more than a few number games and double meanings in the text of the New Testament, as you will see. In fact, there seem to be two ways to read the New Testament: As a common person and as a member of the aristocracy. There are dual meanings to almost every verse; one for the Judean rebels and one for the royals.

[anansi]

This off course is an opening investigation for me if others have more they can add and contribute please do so if it's bunk also pls respond with reasons why you think or know it's bunk.

[anansi]

What is being revealed?

The last book of the NT is "The Revelation." What is being revealed? Could the "revelation" be that Roman aristocrats wrote the NT? Sounds preposterous? After you have read the articles on this site you may understand that the Romans really did write the New Testament. Why? They wanted to record their utter hatred for Julius Caesar, and they needed to provide an alternative to Judaism so that the slaves would stop converting to that religion.
But then why does it seem that the Romans hated Christianity? After all, didn't they "throw the Christians to the lions" in the Coliseum? The last thing the Roman rulers wanted was for the slaves to catch on to the fact that they wrote the New Testament. If they had said "Here, slaves, is a religion made just for you, and we endorse it." the slaves would have done anything but become Christians. Isn't that obvious?

Recent research by archaeologists and historians has revealed some interesting facts about the fire that engulfed Rome in 64 CE. This was the fire that was assumed to have been caused by Nero. Recall the popular saying, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned."? It turns out that the fire was set in places that were far apart, indicating that it couldn't have spread by natural forces, but was set by arsonists. Other facts point to the Christians, operating as revolutionaries, as having been those arsonists. Thus the Christians, and their leaders, including the "saints" Peter and Paul, were legally executed as arsonists by Nero, instead of being innocent bystanders who were vicitimized. The "spin" put on the execution of the Christians was one of the key factors in the acceptance of Christianity by the people of the Roman Empire. All along, the real battle was between the Piso/Flavians and the Julian Emperor Nero, and eventually the Flavians won.

Within Judaism there were several factions, but the most prominent political division was between the Herodians (Sadducees) and everybody else (Pharisees). The Herodians were in favor of Rome and slavery. They were composed of the descendants and associates of King Herod, who was a member of the Roman Piso family. The non-Herodians (the majority) were actively against slavery and fought vigorously against Rome.

If you know your Bible you know that the Pharisees are presented as the "bad guys." They were described as the group that insisted that Jesus be crucified. Knowing this, you can see how the Roman authors of the New Testament were against the Pharisees, and this was because the Pharisees were encouraging slaves to convert to Judaism.
In order to promote slavery and do something that would be attractive to the slaves, the Romans, led by the Piso/Flavian clan, created a religion that emphasized humility (turn the other cheek, the meek shall inherit, and so on) to promise an afterlife of bliss in heaven after suffering on earth. Knowing human nature, the Romans invented a propaganda machine and the slaves swallowed it hook line and sinker.

[anansi]

Behold, he cometh with clouds;
The Piercing Eye of The Revelation

Revelation 1:7 says "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." The word "pierced" can have more than one meaning. It can refer to piercing with a spear (ostensibly the piercing of Christ's body) or it can refer to the piercing by the eye. Could it be that those eyes which have "pierced" him are also they which have discovered the hidden messages in the NT? Does the phrase "cometh with clouds" refer to the "clouded", or hidden, messages under the surface of the NT? Perhaps we wail as the Judean People wail at the "wailing wall", the only wall remaining after the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman general Titus.
There is yet another way to interpret the verse. Notice that the phrase "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him." contains VENI VIDI VICI. He came. They saw. They pierced (conquered) him. It describes what happened at Zela in 47 BCE, and the assassination that followed three years later. They saw him coming with his troops, and they pierced him 23 times as a result of it.

666 - Who is the beast?

The number 666 has been an "evil" number since the dawn of Christianity. Did you ever wonder why? There is lots of information packed into this number. The simplest interpretation is that it can be expressed in Roman numerals as VIVIVI. Of course it can also be expressed as DCLXVI, and the literal-minded will never get the message. VIVIVI refers to the phrase VENI VIDI VICI penned by Julius Caesar. Thus, the number of the beast is the number of Julius Caesar, and Caesar is the beast. It is easy to see that, from the point of view of the Pisos, Caesar was the beast that betrayed them and destroyed their temple.

What was the Old Testament?

Did you ever wonder why it was called the "New" Testament? If there were a "New" Testament, wouldn't there also be an "Old" Testament? Well, yes, the Torah (or Greek Septuagint) is assumed to be that set of books, but what if the Old Testament was also the "last will and testament" of Julius Caesar? After all, when Caesar was assassinated (March 15, 44 BCE) his father-in-law Lucius Piso, opened Caesar's testament and read it aloud. Caesar's testament donated Caesar's gardens and immense fortune to the people of Rome. A substantial portion was left to Octavian, Caesar's son. The Piso testament created a new state religion that was designed to give hope of heaven, fear of hell and a masochistic philosophy of humility and self-subjugation to the slaves.

To the slaves, the "Old Testament" was intended to mean the Torah (actually the Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Torah). To the royals, the Old Testament was intended to mean the "last will and testament of Julius Caesar." You can see here a perfect example of a dual meaning - one for the slaves and one for the royals. The Septuagint, by the way, was written by seventy Rabbis at the library at Alexandria in Egypt. Because the Ptolemy pharaohs were ancestors of the Piso/Flavians the Septuagint was actually paid for by them. Because they owned it, they decided to include it in their new version of the Bible. It is also interesting that there were 70 Rabbis involved in the writing, and the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE.

It is clear from Hebrews 9:16-18 that the authors of the New Testament were referring to a testament as a will: "16 For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood." Note the reference to blood: The assassination of Julius Caesar involved 23 knife wounds and was extremely bloody. It is also interesting that the word "testament" is used nowhere at all in the Old Testament, even though Paul quotes Moses (Hebrews 9:20) as having used that word. In fact, if the outward message of the New Testament is that Jesus lives, then Paul has said that the testament "is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."

[anansi]

Loaves and Fishes
When Roman soldiers laid siege to a city they used a technique they called "loaves and fishes." They would bake bread with fecal matter mixed into it and amputate the penises of captured citizens of the city and throw the "loaves and fishes" over the besieged city's walls. It is well known that Roman slang for the word 'penis' was 'fish'. It is no coincidence that Jesus performs the "miracle" of the loaves and fishes. It is a cruel Roman joke.


Water Into Wine
When a Roman needed to attend to nature he or she would say something like "Time to turn water into wine." This was a joke, of course, for the act of urination was something like transforming water magically into a kind of 'wine' - urine. Knowing this, can you ever again think that Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding at Capernaum was a "miracle?" It was written into the New Testament by the Romans so that everyone in Rome, except the slaves of course, would get a belly laugh.

Why Jesus has 12 disciples.
Julius Caesar had been named Pontifex Maximus in 73 BCE. In the ancient Roman state religion (before Christianity) the Pontifex Maximus was the leader of the twelve Pontiffs, who were the chief priests of their day. That's why Jesus has twelve disciples. Jesus Christ displaces Julius Caesar as Pontifex Maximus, and in this way writes Caesar out of history. Check out the career of Julius Caesar for information about his activities in Asia Minor, and especially in Pontus.

Julius Caesar marries Calpurnia Piso.
Julius Caesar married Calpurnia Piso in 59 BCE. The marriage was made to cement the famous triumvirate of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus. (Pompey married Caesar's daughter Julia.) Calpurnia's father was a close friend of Crassus. In reality, the marriage may have had another purpose: To protect Pontus, the Piso homeland, by including the Piso family in the aristocracy of Rome. When Crassus died in battle in 52 BCE, evidently Caesar no longer felt he needed to honor the peace with the Pisos. He defeated Pontus at Zela in 47. Apparently this defeat, and Caesar's bragging about how easy it was, greatly angered the Pisos. Caesar wrote the famous words "veni vidi vici" (I came. I saw. I conquered) in a letter from Pontus to Rome after his victory there.

Three against two and two against three.
Jesus says in Luke 12:51 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This is an example of the use of Pythagorean triangular numbers. Three times two followed by two times three gives 66. You can find many such references to the number 66 throughout the NT. By the way, the mathematician Pythagoras was a Piso/Flavian ancestor.
The "house divided" refers to the division between the Herodian (Sadducees) and Non-Herodian (Pharisees) parties in the House of David. The Herodians favored the Romans and were members of the Piso/Flavian dynasty. King Herod was a Piso ancestor.
www.fargonasphere.com/piso/

[pristy]

Interesting, I'm currently doing my own research into the Piso family. The bible seems to be the ultimate mixing of history myths, fables, allegorical tales and some facts. It's all about controlling people actions and thoughts

[anansi]

Aug 22, 2013 5:16:18 GMT -5 pristy said:

Interesting, I'm currently doing my own research into the Piso family. The bible seems to be the ultimate mixing of history myths, fables, allegorical tales and some facts. It's all about controlling people actions and thoughts

Keep us up dated on what you find I am also interested in counter argument about the above claims.

[anansi]

Here is a pretty decent documentary vid by Atwel and others,interesting take on things,according to the Doc.
The very first saints were Flavian family members,and the first Christian Roman emperor was non other than Flavian Constantine or Constantine the Great.

[africurious]

Anansi, this is interesting. But, I have to say though that Atwell's theory that the NT is written by the Flavians and that christianity is just meant to legitimize them sounds like bunk. That the gospels weren't written by the apostles and the NT (and OT) are literary texts based on even older beliefs and texts have been standard doctrine in biblical scholarship for a long time now so there's not much to argue there. But, here are some points to consider...
1.contrary to the video, all the gospels are not anti-jewish (only the last 2 to be written, especially John). The 1st gospel (mark i believe) actually clearly presents Jesus as a jewish man preaching standard jewish doctrine. He actually says that one cannot be resurrected to everlasting life without following jewish laws perfectly so how the heck could this have been written as some plot by the flavians to discredit judaism?
2.The gospels don't agree on details about jesus's life nor do they totally agree on religious doctrine, and as you progress on to the gospels that were written in later times one gets more details about jesus's life. You're telling me that one family wrote all this thing and couldnt agree on the details of the central character nor the supposed doctrine they were crafting? And they needed to add additional details in later gospels? If later family members disagreed then they could've destroyed the older gospels and only use their version.

The latter part of the text you posted is kinda ridiculous. Jews were against slavery and romans were pro-slavery so that's why they fought and the NT was written so the romans could discredit jews and keep slavery? Hahaaaa! Nonsense! Newsflash to Atwell: judea was a small province so how the heck could they have posed any threat to rome or slavery in the empire? And where does he even get the idea that the judeans were anti-slavery? Also, many people referred to as jews outside judea weren't even jews. They followed a religion to varying degrees based on judaism and the roman authorities at first made no distinction between the two. A variant of this offshoot religion is what we now call christianity.

I'm not shooting the messenger Anansi but just commenting on what I see as glaring issues with Atwell's theory.

[anansi]

Oct 30, 2013 23:23:00 GMT -5 africurious said:

Anansi, this is interesting. But, I have to say though that Atwell's theory that the NT is written by the Flavians and that christianity is just meant to legitimize them sounds like bunk. That the gospels weren't written by the apostles and the NT (and OT) are literary texts based on even older beliefs and texts have been standard doctrine in biblical scholarship for a long time now so there's not much to argue there. But, here are some points to consider...
1.contrary to the video, all the gospels are not anti-jewish (only the last 2 to be written, especially John). The 1st gospel (mark i believe) actually clearly presents Jesus as a jewish man preaching standard jewish doctrine. He actually says that one cannot be resurrected to everlasting life without following jewish laws perfectly so how the heck could this have been written as some plot by the flavians to discredit judaism?
2.The gospels don't agree on details about jesus's life nor do they totally agree on religious doctrine, and as you progress on to the gospels that were written in later times one gets more details about jesus's life. You're telling me that one family wrote all this thing and couldnt agree on the details of the central character nor the supposed doctrine they were crafting? And they needed to add additional details in later gospels? If later family members disagreed then they could've destroyed the older gospels and only use their version.

The latter part of the text you posted is kinda ridiculous. Jews were against slavery and romans were pro-slavery so that's why they fought and the NT was written so the romans could discredit jews and keep slavery? Hahaaaa! Nonsense! Newsflash to Atwell: judea was a small province so how the heck could they have posed any threat to rome or slavery in the empire? And where does he even get the idea that the judeans were anti-slavery? Also, many people referred to as jews outside judea weren't even jews. They followed a religion to varying degrees based on judaism and the roman authorities at first made no distinction between the two. A variant of this offshoot religion is what we now call christianity.

I'm not shooting the messenger Anansi but just commenting on what I see as glaring issues with Atwell's theory.

Africurious by all means question everything and everyone there are no sacred cows here including myself..
From my understanding the Jews were against their own enslavement they were not necessarily universal emancipationist ,however there were populous Jewish communities in Roman controlled Alexandria reported to have the largest Jewish population at that time enough to spark a serious revolt that had it's origins in Libya this kind of revolt was enough to get the attention of any Caesar what if the revolt spread to non Jews to Kemetian nationals who wanted their country back add to that a powerful Pharaohnic civilization lay up river on the Kemetian boarder ..think Arab spring.Jews were in a up-roar all over the Roman controlled world including their most sacred of city Jerusalem,it is also important to remember that Josephus was a collaborator even accepting the name of Flavian so I would not poo poo the fact they had help from other turn coats who would help the Flavians manipulate Jewish works for their own benefit
and their Roman handlers ..if they were Black today we would regard them as Uncle Toms

[africurious]

There needs to be a distinction made between jews in the roman province of palestine and jews outside of said province. Palestine was a very rebellious province but there is no evidence that "jews" outside palestine were anymore rebellious than any other group. These jews in the empire outside palestine were almost all converts (they were not palestinian jews who migrated outside palestine) and followed judaism to varying degrees combined with their previous beliefs. This is how christianity was born. These jews couldn't be moved en masse to act rebelliously by instigation from jewish officials in Palestine so there was no significant jewish threat to Roman authority across the empire (only in tiny palestine). And while today there is a sense of one jewish people (crafted by the ashkenazi and dominated by them) this did not exist until in the last century. If there existed this jewish threat to the empire then it would be easy find in the records but it isn't.

[anansi]

Oct 31, 2013 22:58:20 GMT -5 africurious said:

There needs to be a distinction made between jews in the roman province of palestine and jews outside of said province. Palestine was a very rebellious province but there is no evidence that "jews" outside palestine were anymore rebellious than any other group. These jews in the empire outside palestine were almost all converts (they were not palestinian jews who migrated outside palestine) and followed judaism to varying degrees combined with their previous beliefs. This is how christianity was born. These jews couldn't be moved en masse to act rebelliously by instigation from jewish officials in Palestine so there was no significant jewish threat to Roman authority across the empire (only in tiny palestine). And while today there is a sense of one jewish people (crafted by the ashkenazi and dominated by them) this did not exist until in the last century. If there existed this jewish threat to the empire then it would be easy find in the records but it isn't.

I am not sure how much of them were converts living in Alexanderia but from my reading they settled in Alexandria in vast numbers 120,000 strong from Palestine according to Josephus during the time of the Ptolemies ,that would be alot of folks for that time and they would not be Ashkenazi but Sephardic.

They were not likely to be more rebellious than their coreligionist in Palestine like you said, but they would not sit tight and watch their heart land be trampled on by the Romans,so yes these rebellions were a serious matter for Rome, especially in key cities like Alexandria.

[azrur]

This has been theory for many years but all the historians (except the person who made this theory) think of it as nothing more than conspiracy theory and pseudo-history it recently came up again when the man that came up with this announced a press conference for this new evidence (it should be noted that most scholar have their theories peer review before publish them yes?) if he has conference yet I do not know can not find anything about it