# France - Biblical Israel



## Sasyexa (Sep 22, 2021)

This post was inspired by the Apollonius's thread about the parallels between the figure of Julius Caesar and the figure of Jesus Christ. This is a translation of a transcription of a Russian documentary and the original information was uncovered and compiled by Alexey Khrustalyov.

Шифр Библии взломан, и явилась сенсация: родина Христа - Франция. Фильм Первый | Путешествуем Сами. We Travel
Шифр Библии взломан, и явилась сенсация: родина Христа - Франция. Фильм Второй | Путешествуем Сами. We Travel
This topic goes along with other historical research quite well. Enjoy!

*First part*





*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Traditionally the New Testament places are considered to be the territories of present-day Israel, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. However, no clear evidence of this has yet been found. There are some piles of shards, or there are some stones, they are immediately and happily written in the minus 20th century or minus 30th century, but any real, any really interesting finds that would unequivocally confirm the Old Testament or New Testament history in Israel are practically nonexistent.

And, in fact, almost all of the finds that pop up there from time to time, are either fakes or are so obviously staged that it is ridiculous. Here's one of the last of these very funny stories, you probably remember the urn being found. An urn with the name of Jesus' brother on it was written, Jacob, I think, as was the name of one of Jesus' brothers, and literally three or four years later the man who brought this wonderful urn to the world was prosecuted in Israel for forgery of artifacts. Yes, he was caught, just caught by the hand.

*Alexander Grinin*. And this is against the backdrop of, remember, when literally a month or two ago they found Adam's grave.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Well, they can find anything they want there, it's not written there that this is Adam's grave. There must be some confirmation of what they find, and there is no confirmation. And if we're talking, for example, about Old Testament history or New Testament history, we would like to have at least something... It's clear that a lot of time has passed, it's difficult to find some artifacts, but at least something that connected this particular land with the text of scripture or with the text of the Torah or with the text of the Old Testament.

Israeli archaeologists and their American, English, German colleagues who work there have big problems with this. That is, they can't find anything significant that unequivocally indicates that the events of the New Testament or the Old Testament took place there. Actually, if we talk about the Israelite archaeology in general, it appeared quite recently. For all of archaeology it seems to be such an interesting land, it is the land of the Holy Sepulchre, those are sacred places for Muslims too, but, nevertheless, some of the first more or less systematic excavations there began in general only in the 19th century. Even closer, so to speak, to the middle of the 19th century. And the first who began to work there were, I think, Americans Robinson and Smith, if I am not mistaken, well, at least one of the first, yes. The Frenchman Clermont Hanneau made a great contribution and also the Englishmen worked there, then the Germans came, and at the very end of the 19th century the Russians excavated there.

*Alexander Grinin*. Are you talking specifically about the territory of Israel?




*Map of Palestine*​
*Alexey Khrustalyov*. On the territory of Palestine, let's be clear, it was Palestine. That's the land of Palestine right there - in Jerusalem, around Jerusalem, that is what is now the land that now belongs to Israel, Palestine, partly Lebanon, partly Syria, and so on. More or less serious expeditions appeared there in the middle of the 19th century. And the first plan of Jerusalem, a proper plan, was made, if I'm not mistaken, by an Englishman named Talbot somewhere in the second half of the 19th century. And what was before that, the whole Christian world didn't show any interest in the Holy Land?

They did, but again, no significant traces that would link these places with biblical events were ever noticed. That is, of course, there are some notes from the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth centuries. By the way, it's very interesting, if we're talking about the testimonies of the Holy Land, there are very big breaks there. First, Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, appears there. This is the very beginning of A.D., 3rd century A.D., and then some information appears only after the Crusade.

*Alexander Grinin*. Yes, and moreover, she takes out a bunch of artifacts...

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. We'll come back to this later, where and what she takes out, it's also very interesting...

*Alexander Grinin*. A Piece of the Holy Sepulchre Cross...

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Absolutely right, she found a lot of things there, she led the excavations herself, founded several churches there and so on, we will come back to that.

*Alexander Grinin*. Note that there were organized excavations in the 3rd century...

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. In general, we can say that at this time Helen was about 80 years old. Imagine the age of 80 in the 3rd century, when much later the average life expectancy was 35, 40, 45 years in Europe. What is an 80-year-old woman and what is it like for her to travel for example from Trier, where she lived, to Jerusalem. Well, just imagine what it's like. I mean, not every man would dare to do that, and a healthy, strong man, well, we'll get to that question later. And now it probably makes sense to go back to the 19th century, to the beginning of the excavations.



> _So if you start looking at what was actually there in Jerusalem and in the Holy Land in the 19th century - there was basically nothing._


Anyone can go on the Internet and by typing in the right words find images of Jerusalem, for example, from the 19th century and compare it with what we have now. And people will realize that, in general, most of Jerusalem was rebuilt from the 19th century, from the second half of the 19th century, and was built in the 20th century. As for other Old Testament cities or settlements, or New Testament cities and settlements, the picture there is even sadder. Virtually no Old Testament or New Testament cities or settlements have been found.

That is, some piles of stones are found, and they are often tied to Old Testament or New Testament names quite arbitrarily.

Actually, if we talk about Israel, about the Holy Land, about how to connect the text of the New Testament and the Old Testament with this land, then we must first of all talk about the mass of inconsistencies in the texts describing these territories and what we see in reality. In fact, it is no big secret that scholars have been knocking themselves out looking for Capernaum, Gadara, Sodom, Gomorrah, the land of the Gergesenes, and so on and so forth. Well, what to speak of such cities, if the temple of Solomon, in fact, can not be tied to the area, and Calvary can not be tied to the area.

And it's a well-known fact enough that in the mid-19th century, an English officer, moved Golgotha, that is, he believed that Golgotha was not where everyone else saw it, but in a completely different place. So there are a lot of points of view out there, where in general..., in the 19th century they couldn't yet determine where Golgotha was.

*Alexander Grinin*. Well, it's localized now.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Now it's localized, but the thing is that we're told that there's an unbroken tradition, that for almost two thousand years people knew where Golgotha was and it was clearly localized; people understood that this is Jerusalem, this is Golgotha, this is the Way of the Cross and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, as it turns out, even in the 19th century there were no clear ideas about where Golgotha was. And the reason there were none, we can understand, because there are no structures of that time and it is very difficult to determine where was the Way of the Cross, where was Golgotha, where was the Temple of Solomon, where were some other buildings of Herod's time.

Indeed, even according to traditional history, Jerusalem was simply razed to the ground more than once, from the first centuries AD to the most recent destruction of the 20th century, let's suppose. So it is insanely difficult to determine exactly where, what was located, and the sources do not give an unambiguous answer, where and what was located and it is Jerusalem. Jerusalem is kind of a central point, what about other points in Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, and so on, it's very difficult to pinpoint them.

*Alexander Grinin*. And let me ask you this. I haven't been to Jerusalem, but is there a lot of sites that can be considered controversial, like Golgotha, that there are several hills or mountains that can be called Golgotha? As far as I remember they had a seven-hill structure, seven hills.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. You see, if you want more, any hill can be called Calvary. The question is not what you can do, the question is where it really was, and the problem is just that it is impossible to localize it properly. That is why linking Calvary to Jerusalem and linking the entire biblical history, the entire New Testament history to these places is, to put it mildly, questionable. To begin with, the same Arabs, for example, do not know the city of Jerusalem, they know the city of Al-Quds or there are some variants of pronunciation, I probably will not reproduce it as Nikolai Nikolaevich Vashkevich, for example, will reproduce it, a brilliant Arabist.



> _But nevertheless, there is the Arab city of Al-Quds and the Arabs know about the city of Al-Quds, they do not know about any Jerusalem and from this point of view, where Jerusalem was is not clear._


Whose name is Jerusalem itself? Is it Arabic, is it Greek, whose name is it?  The etymology is very, very vague, because it seems to be a Greek name combined with some Semitic root.

*Alexander Grinin*. Which one is that?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Well "Hiero" is Greek. It is a Greek word and therefore the second part - "Salim" is connected with Shalom, and this is why, honestly, I've never seen such a mixture of roots in the name of cities, then... Actually, the interesting question is what do Arabs think about all of this history. And in general it is very interesting to look at the history of Jerusalem and the holy places, not from our European point of view, but from the Arab point of view, from the point of view of the Middle Eastern authors.

For example, when they write about Jerusalem-Al-Quds, the Arab authors do not deny that it is indeed a holy city. But why is it a holy city? Not because Isa was there, whom, by the way, they also revere very much, the prophet Isa, Jesus, but because from Al-Quds, the prophet Muhammad made his night ascent to heaven, it is absolutely not a holy city because Isa was there, but because Muhammad was there.

*Alexander Grinin*.  Didn't it happen somewhere in Mecca or Medina?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. This is an interesting point. The fact that the Arab authors, for example, the same Nasir-ibn-Husrau wrote that those who could not make the hajj to Mecca go to Jerusalem. Well, that is, Mecca is certainly the holy city for all Muslims, but those who cannot go to Mecca, they went to Jerusalem. And Jerusalem, specifically Al-Quds, again, I emphasize, because all the time this mixing happens. In fact, in all Arab sources, without exception, it is called Al-Quds, there is no Jerusalem, there is Al-Quds, there is Al-Bayt Muqaddas, there is Beit al-Maqdis and so on, well there are names, I will not compete again with Arabists in pronunciation.

Nevertheless, all these names appear in Arabic literature, and of course there is no Jerusalem there. There is even such a literary genre as "fadail Al-Quds," an Arabic literary genre that describes the virtues of the city of Al-Quds and Muslim authors they write with great respect about the tombs of the common prophets, such as the tomb of Ibrahim, if I'm not mistaken, Moses, and so on and so forth. That is, they write about the graves of common prophets, but they do not write about the fact that in this city the prophet Isa, whom, by the way, they respect very, very much, was crucified. Moreover, there is direct evidence from Arab authors that the Franks, as they called them, those people who came during the Crusades, the so-called Crusades, openly fabricated the story of Christ's stay in Al-Quds.

Here, for example, I can quote a piece from Isfahan, he writes: "As for the Dome of the Rock, the Franks made a church and an altar in it, they decorated it with pictures and statues and they designated places in it for the monks and a place for the Gospel. Above the footprint of the prophet," the prophet, attention, yes, we're talking about Mohammed, "they erected a little gilded dome and said it was the footprint of the messiah. Well, here again, you can take different views of this evidence, but nevertheless.

*Alexander Grinin*. And what is this source?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. This is Isfahani. So it is interesting that the footprint of one holy man turns into the footprint of another holy man.

*Alexander Grinin*. And now, is it still like that, or...?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. It's hard to say, to be honest, I haven't checked personally what's going on there now with this particular footprint, I can't say, honestly, I just can't, you can look.

*Alexander Grinin*. And the Dome of the Rock, what term is that, is it some kind of church?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. The Dome of the Rock is one of the holiest places for all Muslims and the Dome of the Rock is the place associated with the Holy Sepulchre. Now there is a serious battle going on around this place, as far as you know, as to whom it will belong.

*Alexander Grinin*. So this is some kind of object on the territory of Jerusalem, yes?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Of course.

*Alexander Grinin*. So theoretically inside this very Dome of the Rock there must be a trace of the prophet, we don't know what happens to it there, but it must be there.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Well, theoretically it has to be there, yes. That is, in practice it is probably possible to check it in some way, but again, we have to be very careful with all this evidence, because many times it was rebuilt, demolished, remodeled, well, that is whether there is something that was after the crusades is a big question.

*Alexander Grinin*. Within the framework of your concept that you're telling us today, I take it that in that case it shouldn't be there at all. If we come, for example, to this place, which is now called the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, there can be no footprint of the prophet...

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. There can be anything, because you probably know very well how things are restored and how they are resurrected from oblivion. When you come to Italy you can see how it all happens, they do not even hide it. For example, in Italy when there is restoration of frescoes there, in fact, all this is not closed, the masters work and you can see how it all happens. People crave for a spectacle, it is clear that the business is the tourists. Well, this is sort of the second question, because the first one is still politics and it is important for people that these events took place at their place, and the consequence, for example, is the attraction of tourists and so on and so on.

So, if we return to Muslim authors, for example, very interesting testimony left by Al-Harawi: "as to the places of pilgrimage of the Christians, the most important of them is the church of scum. The Christians have a tomb there, which they call the tomb of resurrection 'kiyamah' because they believe that the resurrection of the Messiah took place there, in fact, this place was the Kumamah scum, a place of refuse, because they threw garbage from all around there", interesting, really.



> _And we are talking, for a second, only about the temple that today bears the name of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre._


That is, in those days it was called the Church of Waste, in fact, there is nothing pejorative in it, because it is simply a reference to the local toponymy, like our church in Kulichki or in Gryazy and so on and so on, also they have this church at the place of waste and it had no relation to the resurrection, according to the Arab authors, at least, it did not have. And it is unlikely that the Arab authors made fun of the memory of Saint Isa, because they really respected him, and the relations with Christians, by the way, at that time the Arabs were very decent, but with the Franks they did not have very good relations, and with the Christians in general the relations were very good.

*Alexander Grinin*. By the way, they have a favorable attitude towards Isa, any imam would say for sure that Muslims respect Isa a lot.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. It is only natural because they really respect Isa, and I don't think that if resurrection of Isa really happened they wouldn't mark it in some way, but at least they would write that there is an opinion that...

*Alexander Grinin*. They wouldn't have littered the place with garbage so to speak.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, I don't think they would, at least there wouldn't have been a dump at that place, that's true. I mean, it's unlikely that the Arabs and the Muslims, who had a lot of reverence for Isa, would have set up a dumping ground there. Here's the same Nasir-ibn-Husrau that we've already talked about today, he wrote that the Christians own a large church in the city that goes by the name of Bayt al-Kumama, the church of scum, and they honor it highly. But there is a subtle point here, there is some difference between honoring it highly and relating it to the messiah. That is, in Moscow there are also many temples, which are revered, which are highly revered, but this does not mean that it is in these temples that some gospel events took place, that is, "to revere" and "to relate to" are different things. Well, as far as the Arabic authors are concerned, yes, of course, if we are talking about gospel events, then the most important text that tells about gospel events is the text of the Bible.



> _Despite the many corrections, despite the many insertions, distortions, and so forth that have taken place in the history of scripture, which in fact is acknowledged even by churchmen themselves, the church itself acknowledges that many places in the Bible have been changed, the Gospel rewritten, and so on._


In spite of this, the text of the Gospel is still there, whatever it may be, and it is a basic source for any reasonable person, for any Christian, for any reasonable person it is one of the basic sources on the history of early Christianity, on the history of Christ, and so on and so forth. Well, if we take the text of the Gospel right off the bat and start reading it, there are immediately a lot of questions and there are immediately a lot of inconsistencies with what we see and know, yes today, about the land of the Gospel and what is written in the text of the Gospel itself. Well, I will read bits and pieces from the Gospel, this Gospel in Russian.

In fact, I checked all these places with the text in Old Slavonic, with the text of the Vulgate, but I did not check the Greek text. In the Vulgate, and with the Old Slavonic, in general, everything is conveyed adequately. For example, read Luke's Gospel: "And as he was going to Jerusalem, he passed through the region of Samaria and Galilee. As he entered a village, he was met by six lepers, who stood afar off, and with a loud voice said: "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us"". In general, a quick glance at a map of ancient Israel is enough to realize that the Gospel passage quoted here is not about the Middle Eastern kingdom of Herod's time, if only because it is physically difficult to pass between Samaria and Galilee bordering each other. Now, if you look at a map, you'll see that these are just bordering territories and if you walk between them, you'll get anywhere but Jerusalem.

Well, let's say that between these lands, or between these cities, there was some kind of lane where the savior walked, or another possibility is that, Christ walked along the border of Samaria and Galilee. But again, in this case he must have come anywhere but to Jerusalem, because both the neutral strip and the border between these lands, it goes in a direction strictly perpendicular to that by which he could have come to this ancient city. But besides all this, in general a very interesting point, purely chronological point, in general what kind of Samaria can we talk about, if even according to traditional history, Samaria was renamed to Sebastia in the minus twenty-fifth year, and it remains Sebastia to this day. That is to say, here since those times, the name does not seem to have changed...

*Alexander Grinin*. Well, they can refer to this fact that, say, historian or chronicler simply used some archaic names and he did not have a modern map, as usual.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Perhaps, anything is possible, I by no means claim to carry some kind of truth in the last instance, I just reason and speculate. And in my picture of the world it somehow does not fit very well. Firstly, the fact that the direction is wrong, and secondly, even purely chronologically, well, it does not work. Although, if we are talking about chronology, that is a separate topic, when the Gospel events took place. Actually, I am a supporter of the short chronology version, and I believe that the Gospel events did not take place two thousand years ago, they took place closer to us in time, well, we will return to this question.

But, nevertheless, even I emphasize, even within the traditional concept, it does not work out that Samaria was there. In general, the question whether there was Samaria, if from time immemorial there has always been Sebastia and now it is Sebastia, where did this association with Samaria come from is a big question. Yes, you can say that now a certain Israeli territory around these lands is called Samaria, but then again, this is already a tribute to tradition, this is what is called the work of the 19th-20th centuries, and it's hardly relevant to the history we're talking about today.

*Alexander Grinin*. In general, probably, I'm curious why to lie in principle, why to invent something that hasn't existed, well, take the map if there is information that this territory was renamed in 25 B.C. Well, name it Sebastia at once and there are no problems.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. You see, the thing is that when you see these inconsistencies, you begin to understand that there was nothing to rely on, there was no continuous chronology. If we generally talk about the chronology as such, you can treat the works of Fomenko as you like, but nevertheless he writes, in fact, very correct things, at least as far as the chronology is concerned. And even if we're talking about biblical chronology, gospel chronology, it would seem that, yes, you can very simply do really as you say, if you had to interpret something correctly, you could take some sort of composite table and see when was what and write correctly.

But that's the thing, they couldn't write it right, because there was nothing to rely on, well, there was no unified chronology, so there are holes like this, so there are terrible inconsistencies. That's what I just said - 25 years going back and forth is really nothing. By the way, we are not talking about 25 years here, but because we are not counting, roughly speaking, from year zero, and the events of the Gospel, which took place there towards the end of the 20s, maybe in the 30s, 31, 32, it is very difficult to determine right now, So it was renamed in minus 25, and we are talking about, let's say, about the 30th year of our era, so there is already a decent difference, that is 50-60 years for that time in general you could already understand that on this place is Sebastia. But the thing is, people weren't writing about this region of the world or this time, which is why Samaria arises there and why the option arises there, when it passed between Samaria and Galilee. What was the place they written about?

*Alexander Grinin*. Yes that is the question, I feel that there is a big landmine laid here.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, in my opinion, we are talking about a completely different place. If we take a map of medieval Europe, because in my opinion all these events have taken place already, conditionally speaking, this is the 11th-12th century of what we call the 11th-12th century of our era. I can't say more precisely, because there are so many inconsistencies in the chronology that it's impossible to determine more precisely yet. Well, if you take even the same papal documents, papal chancellery and look at them, you see that there before the 12th century, and maybe even to 13th, the dates of the documents in the papal chancellery were not stamped, and only starting from the 12-13th centuries, there may even be later, there are dates from the birth of Christ, that is for them even for the papal chancellery was a big question when these events took place.

*Alexander Grinin*. So the dates were the third year of the papal reign...?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Actually, I do not want to eat other people's bread. It is all described, repeatedly described by Fomenko, it is described in the earlier works of Postnikova it is described in the earlier works of Morozov, here, I will not say anything new about this and these authors, and the German authors, the same Uwe Topper, have works devoted to chronology, you can look and read there. So, there was no unambiguous chronological scale, so if we are talking about the events of the Gospels, then we can express different points of view. By the way, there is a very interesting point here, that what Christians believe is formulated in the Creed, as we know. But in the Creed, in fact, there is only one binding "crucified for us under Pontius Pilate," it says in the Creed, there are no other bindings in the Creed.



> _That is, even for a Christian, the only chronological reference, by and large, is this one under Pontius Pilate._


When Pontius Pilate lived and where he lived is a separate question, but we'll talk about that later. Where did these events take place, where could we pass between Samaria and Galilee? Let's open a map of Europe, you know, this place is located immediately, oddly enough, the place is northern France. Everyone knows that the ancient name of these lands is Gaul. Gaul existed until the 16th century exactly, at least there are even coins of French kings, which says "King of Gaul".

*Alexander Grinin*. That is, Gaul is the self-name of the French state, the French called themselves Gauls, or as?...

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. The French called... There is such a very subtle question in general who to call the French and who to call Gauls, it is a linguistic question, on the one hand...

*Alexander Grinin*. Well yes, there was a lot of these small duchies, principalities.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. If you look at this, this is a completely separate issue, a very interesting one, about who the Gauls were and where they lived, and in general what is Gaul and what is the Gallic Belt of Europe, and so on and so forth, I think we can return to this question at the end. Now, to stay on topic, let's just look at a map of northern France, a map of Gaul, and see that the city called Amiens today used to stand on the Samara River, which is now the Somme River, and in ancient times it was called Samara, and the city was called Samara-Breguet or Samara-Bravy, and there are different names. So that's Samaria for you.



> _And the territory of Gaul respectively, as if it did not go anywhere, the territory of Gaul was a modern France, and a piece of Germany, and a piece of Switzerland, and a huge piece of Italy, by the way, and further there into Galicia and so on and so forth._


And it's very interesting, if you look where you can go between Samaria and Galilee, you will see that you will come to the city of Paris, well, let's just remember that for now, I won't comment on it, let's just remember it and move on. Where to next? Well, for example, to Cana of Galilee, where the first of the Gospel miracles of the transformation of water into wine was performed.

Here's how to get to this ancient city is a question for an encore. Historians still don't know which city to consider Cana. Israeli workaholics from archeology have several versions.  They believe Kanami or Kfar Kanum 6 kilometers from Nazareth, or Herbatkannum, for example, 8 kilometers from Tzipori, well, perhaps there is a third, fourth, fifth option, just these two options are the most famous. But, the fact is that all of these present candidates for Cana, in New Testament times they were not settlements, they were not even spits on the map, that is, you can call it a settlement with a great stretch and, in fact, there are no clear indications that these places are Cana.

And yet there are very interesting passages in the text of Scripture, which are, in fact, clues for the researchers of this question, in general, scholars either do not notice them, or do not want to notice them. Look here, in the Gospel of John, it says that Philip, a resident of Bethsaida, finds Nathanael telling him about Christ - this is the Gospel of John. Further, the same Gospel of John said that Nathanael was from Cana of Galilee, is it so hard to compare these passages and understand that Cana of Galilee and Bethsaida must be somewhere near or overlapping, after all, Philip did not meet Nathanael on Mars.

*Alexander Grinin*. Yes, he didn't cross rivers, he didn't climb over mountain ranges.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, that is, it has to be somewhere near, it has to be somewhere in the neighborhood. But this turn does not suit the researchers of the Gospel, because Cana and Bethsaida do not overlap with each other within the framework of the traditional version. And in fact, strictly speaking, the settlement that today is passed off as Bethsaida is not in Galilee, just for a second, but in Gavletide, on the other side of the Jordan.

Actually again the same question, a certain pile of stones was excavated there and whether it should be considered Bethsaida is a very big question. And Bethsaida and Cana should be, according to the scriptures, according to the text of the Gospel, side by side or overlapping with each other, in the territory where they are searched today there is neither Cana nor Bethsaida, but they exist in another place and the most interesting thing is that under the same names they exist, under which they existed in ancient times. Where are they located? Again in the same Gaul on the territory of modern France and again with the same Yen Samaria, which is very interesting, there is a city known to all, the city of Cannes, located not anywhere, but in the historical territory of Bessen.

If you compare the French spelling of, for example, the territory of Bessen with the name of Bethsaida, you'll realize that it is almost the same, so here's Cana in the territory of Bethsaida and they perfectly overlap each other, and then it becomes clear why Nathanael was both a resident of Bethsaida and a native of Cana and there is no witchcraft and magic in it. And these are real places, by the way, unlike the legendary Ancient Israelites and, by the way, this is a very important point, both of these cities existed in the Roman era, whenever it was, that is even traditional historians recognize that these two cities existed in the Roman era as well.

*Alexander Grinin*. So it turns out that people study these maps, there are great docs great biblical connoisseurs. Is it really hard to see it and compare?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. You know what the thing is, there's a lot of aspect problem. For the people of the church, there are two pillars: sacred scripture and sacred tradition. And, in general, it is not known which one is more important. In fact, both are insanely important, and on these pillars the church of Christ is founded and without sacred scripture there is no sacred tradition and vice versa. So when the people of the church approach this question for them everything is unambiguous and obvious they can't even doubt that...

*Alexander Grinin*. Canon.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Canon. Maybe it's not so bad and it's probably not so bad, but nevertheless, for most believers, well not so, I say incorrectly, not for most, for a certain part of believers, because for most believers these are really immutable things. For some part of the faithful, the issues of geography and faith can probably still be separated. In fact, I myself belong to this second category, that is, for me there is no doubt, I absolutely do not doubt the text of Scripture as a Christian, but at the same time for me the issues of geography can be separated from the issues of faith in a certain way. Again, I come back to the fact that there is a Creed that articulates what a Christian believes and the Creed, which, to put it bluntly, was not composed by the most recent people of Christianity and not the most foolish.



> _In the Creed there is only one spatio-temporal reference "crucified for us under Pontius Pilate," it says_.


But who this Pilate was, when he lived, where he died - this is a serious question, and by answering this question, maybe we can somehow geographically shift the current references. But, again, I want to say again, what I am saying is just some version and I do not claim to be the final truth, it is some version, to me it seems plausible enough at least worthy of some attention. How other people will react to it, I do not know, it is difficult enough everyone decides for himself, where belief ends and science begins.

*Alexander Grinin*. I absolutely agree, it's obviously interesting, this comparison with Cannes is the simplest one.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. The point is that, first of all, the comparison with the city of Cannes, not with Caen, which is to the north, by the way, is also a very interesting point, I'll talk about it now. First, there are two cities with very similar names there is the city of Caen in northern France, there is the city of Cannes in southern France. I don't remember now. I think Postnikov mentioned this very specific point, or I'm not sure now, or Postnikov's, I think I may be mistaken. So, and Fomenko, in my opinion, also has this, that the city of Cannes is associated there with that very evangelical place that the New Testament talks about, that is, I'm not the first to look at France from this point of view. The other thing is that in that hypothesis we're talking about the southern Cannes and by the way, a very interesting point, why does this phrase Cana of Galilee arise at all. Was there some other Cana?

*Alexander Grinin*. Yes.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Why does the question of Cana of Galilee arise at all, why does this steady phrase combination of Cana of Galilee arise? All the other cities are just given regular name...

*Alexander Grinin*. Just one word, Bethlehem.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. ...in one word, and here it is Cana of Galilee. And where was Cana not Galilee on the territory of ancient Israel?

*Alexander Grinin*. That is to say, this is Cana of the Festival.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. So the thing is that if we are looking at the territory of Gaul-France, this option is possible, because one Caen was in the north and was part of the territory of Galilee...

*Alexander Grinin*. Galilee, yes.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. ...and the other Cannes was in the south....

*Alexander Grinin*. They were preparing to become the capital of cinematography.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, they were preparing to become the capital of cinema. And what territorial state formation they were part of is a big question. Perhaps, again, this is why the phrase "Cana of Galilee" comes to mind. So if we return to the question of Cana in Galilee, this is the place, as I have already said, where the first miracle was performed - the turning of water into wine, then this connection to Cana in Galilee and to Bethsaida looks quite justified in my opinion. Let's move on and look again at the Gospel text.

Here, for example, is what it says about the places where Jesus was born and raised. "In those days came out a command from Augustus Caesar to make a census throughout the whole land. This census was the first in the reign of Quirinius of Syria. And all went to be enumerated, each to his own city, and Joseph of Galilee went also from the city of Nazareth to Judea to the city of David, called Bethlehem. For he was of the house and lineage of David, but to sign up with Mary his betrothed wife, who was pregnant, and when they were there the time came for her to give birth, and she bore her firstborn son and swaddled him and put him in a manger, for there was no room for them in the inn." Well, this passage is talking about the two cities of Bethlehem and Nazareth.



> _It is traditionally suggested that Bethlehem be considered the city of Beitelham or Beitlachm, again I will not compete in phonetic art, it is located south of modern Jerusalem, and Nazareth is considered the city of Natzrat or Annasier._


Here again, it must be said that people conducting excavations in Israel call Nazareth of the first century A.D. just a village where about 25 families lived, that it is such a farmstead, to put it bluntly. Is this farmstead so famous in general in all Israel, that it deserved the phrase "Can anything good come from Nazareth?".

A famous phrase, and it is said by the very Nathanael of Bethsaida. You can look at the map, where officially it is even called Bethsaida, and where this village Nazareth is, and you'll see that Nathanael has some really amazing savvy, he knows about some farm people, about the famous, sadly famous for him city Nazareth, and so on and so forth. Is this the Nazareth that he's talking about? I would venture to guess that he's talking about a different Nazareth, one that still exists in the Gaul territory of France called Saint-Nazaire, which is northwest France. The history of this city is recognized by the French themselves as rather turbid and dark, although the history, in general, is quite ancient.

It is noteworthy that close to Saint-Nazaire is another city with a distinctive name, Quiberon or Kebren. Why distinctive? Because in a town called Hebron was born a fairly close relative of Christ - John the Baptist, of course, if we are talking about relatives, these cities must be somewhere near, and they are indeed in the Gaul territory of France. Just look at the map you will realize that St. Nazaire or maybe Nazaire, as it used to be called, and Kebren are very close to each other.



> _Okay, let's assume it's a coincidence._


What if, for example, I told you that Bethlehem is located not far from Saint-Nazaire and Kebren, and Bethlehem is indeed there. Bethlehem of Gaul and this town is exactly on the way from Saint-Nazaire to Paris, if you look at the map - it's called Belem until today, that is practically Bethlehem. If you look there are still Belem Towers in Portugal, so called Bethlehem Towers. In the Latin transcription it will look exactly like that, that is really the town of Bethlehem - Belem, it is on the way from Saint-Nazaire to Paris. This is a triple coincidence.

The entire territory of modern France-Gaul is not such a large area. By the way, here is also a very interesting point, because according to the scriptures, Jesus preached about three years before he was executed, before he was crucified. If you look at the territory of modern Israel, the question arises where you can walk there for three years.

So, we've settled on the fact that this triad of Saint-Nazaire, Quiberon, Belem we have it on our face, again in the territory of that very Gaul, which I think is Galilee. So now it's time to talk about the places where Jesus performed his miracles, such as the land of the Gadara. Well, here we should enjoy an extended quote from the text: "and they sailed to the land of the Gadara lying against Galilee". Emphasize the point "against Galilee".

*..."When he came ashore, there met him a man from the city who had been possessed by demons from long ago, who was not clothed and did not live in a house but in coffins, and when he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell down before him and said with a loud voice: "What have you to do with me, Jesus son of the Most High God, I beg you not to torment me" For Jesus commanded the unclean spirit to come out of this man, because it had tormented him for a long time so that they bound him with chains and bonds to keep him safe, but he tore the bonds and was chased by a demon into the wilderness.
Jesus asked him, "What is your name? " he said "Legion", because many demons entered him and they begged Jesus not to command them to go into the abyss, there was a large herd of pigs grazing on the mountain and the demons begged him to let them enter them, he let them, the demons. The herdsmen, seeing what had happened, ran and told in the city and in the villages, and they came out to see what had happened."*
Well, and so on.

Usually, this is a fairly commented on piece from the Gospel and usually all the commentary boils down to one thing, that it refers to the city of Gadara inside the Decapolis, southeast of Tiberias or about that area, although the real Gadara has not yet been found, which means, again, that there is no real connection.

It is believed that Gadara was somewhere inside the Decapolis. How is it that Gadara was inside the Decapolis? After all, Luke gives the exact address against Galilee, and it is necessary to sail, not by caravan on donkeys. Then why study the text of the New Testament at all, if the right city will be designated as Gadara anyway? And where did the herd of pigs come from? This is in Israel, where the pig has been considered an unclean animal for centuries, what, a decorative breeding or something? And there is not just a herd, there is a herd with a shepherd, not to mention the fact that there is not even a feed base for this herd of pigs, but that is another matter, but the pig in Israel is an unclean animal.

*Alexander Grinin*. Well, the fodder base is possible, then there was a different climate considered that...

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Anything is possible, but nevertheless a pig was considered an unclean animal.

*Alexander Grinin*. ... Definitely according to Judaism.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Definitely about this and no herd of pigs could be there by definition.

*Alexander Grinin*. Who did he herd the pigs for?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Or, as they sometimes very ridiculously write in some comments that Gadara was supposedly a Greek town and this Greek shepherd was herding Greek herds, well, quite ridiculous, of course, what the Greeks were doing. Actually, they usually settled along the coast they generally did not go deep into the desert, but that's putting it mildly. Not to mention the fact that nothing Greek can be found in the Tiberias area. Well, okay, a herd of pigs. And what steepness did they jump from, it says quite clearly in the Gospel text that they fell from a steepness into a lake, and what lake, if Gadara is inside Decapolis, look at the map.

What lakes are there? There is no lake, no sea, nothing, i.e. there is one overlay, i.e. there are nothing but overlaps, and it can be explained, well, if you want, of course, you can explain anything, i.e. you can pull everything up by the ears, but to tie this Gadara to the Gospels is very difficult, and here modern Gospels commentators make rather a serious mistake. And the real Gadara, meanwhile, quietly and peacefully exists to this day, you may be surprised, but it even exists under its own name. Where?

*Alexander Grinin*. I suspect in Gaul.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. You know the funniest thing is that, or rather it's not even funny, you just have to read the text of the Gospel carefully and Luke gives a very accurate address - against Galilee is the country of Gadara. Against Galilee we take a map of Northern France and see what happens if we, for example, sail from Bessen by boat from Bethsaida and cross the mouth of the Seine. Where do we end up? We end up in the canton of Goderville, that is, the town of Ville, this is the town of Gadara in the canton of Goderville. The place remains with the same name. Surprisingly enough, I think this is the Gadara country we are looking for and by the way here and with pigs has always been good, well, Gaul is famous for its pig herds and pig culture and with steepness it is all right here.

*Alexander Grinin*. And where is the steepness?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. There are very decent, very steep slopes. If you drive by the French Bank you will see that they are very decent steeps and there is a place to jump a pig herd.

*Alexander Grinin*. It is quite possible to fall down.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, and quite, quite possible. And, most importantly, on the opposite shore would really be Gallia - Galilee, all preserved.

*Alexander Grinin*. Terrific.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Preserved to this day. By the way, here's an interesting point. Very many people pay attention to the similarity of episodes described in Matthew and Luke, where Luke talks about the country of Gadara, and Matthew talks about the land of Gergesen or Gerasenes. Here is what Matthew writes: "and when he came to the other side to the country of Gergesin, he was met by two demoniacs who had come out of the tombs, very fierce so that no one dared to pass that way, and behold they shouted, what have you before us Jesus the son of God?" Well, again, it's the same situation-Jesus casts out the demons puts them in a herd of pigs and the pigs steeple into the sea. At the same time, the location of Gergesa or Gerasa of antiquity scholars, of course, still can not establish, so they try to draw one episode to another and say that the country of the Gadara and the country of Gergesa are one and the same.

And the place of Gergesia is not assigned anywhere else, but in the depths of the Decapolis, where, as we remember, there are big problems with the herds of pigs and with the steepness and water. And the most interesting thing is that interpreters are not confused by the words of the Apostle to the other side, that is, we are talking about the fact that there was a crossing to the other side. What other bank are we talking about if these cities are in the depth of the Decapolis? By the way about the Decapolis, that's a separate question, what is the Decapolis and how did it end up in that place in the first place. After all, if you look at the map,there are big problems with the cities there.

*Alexander Grinin*. Do you mean the map of Israel?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. A map of Israel, of course, you can scrape together ten cities, if you count all the houses in the Decapolis and take them for cities, then you can say that there are ten cities. Ten cities there is simply unreal to find, and here it is cities, not just towns, not just settlements, but cities of the Decapolis, the Decapolis of Greece. It's an amazing thing.

*Alexander Grinin*. And on the territory of Gaul, there is ten cities?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Now we will come back to this question to the territory of Gaul and so on, while we are talking about the land of the Gergesenes. Let's try to see what happens if we don't interpret Matthew's words, but arm ourselves with them as an exact indication. Suppose Jesus sailed from the same Bessen or the country of the Gadara, for example, and to get to the other shore to the country of the Gergesenes. Where would he end up?



> _In general, it is probably not necessary to question the words of the apostles, they knew geography no worse than modern interpreters._


If you take a boat out of northern Gaul, you get to one of the ancient Roman bases on the island of Jersey, Gerasa, compare Jersey and Gerasa you get the land of Gerasenes, which is unsuccessfully sought in the area of Decapolis. And all you had to do was to follow the words of the apostle of Christ. Everything is very clearly stated, everything is written.

By the way, on the way to the country of Gerasenes or Gadara, Christ and the apostles get caught in a storm, well, probably this episode everyone remembers "and when he entered the boat his disciples followed him and behold there was a great commotion on the sea, so that the boat was covered with waves, but he was sleeping, then his disciples, coming up to him, woke him and said Lord save us, we will perish and he said to them: "Why are you so fearful and of little faith?" Then he got up and forbade the winds and the sea, and there was great silence, and the people marveled and said: Who is this, that both the winds and the sea obey him?"

Well, interpreters of scripture have been telling the tale for centuries of how terrible the storm was on Lake Genesaret aka Lake Tiberias, aka Lake Tiberias aka Lake of Galilee. Yes, the storm was terrible, well really? What kind of Pharisee would it take to ascribe to the true God such a miracle of overcoming the storm in a glass of water? If someone was on this very lake of Kinneret, he knows that it is simply, to put it mildly, a puddle.

*Alexander Grinin*. Maybe it dried up.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Everything may be, again, it's a stretch. But there hasn't been a storm there probably since creation, what storm can there be with wild waves and winds in this place is completely incomprehensible. At the same time, if we look at medieval maps, we learn that the strait, which today is called the Channel, used to be called the Gallic Sea. The Gallic Sea, where the real Gerasa or Jersey is, and that is where the storms are not unlike the storms that people try to attribute to Lake Kinneret, there are storms with gale force winds and huge waves, and I think that was the storm that the Savior tamed and that was recognized as the great miracle.



> _A little more about miracles and the places where these miracles took place._


Well, one of the most significant acts from every point of view in the earthly life of Jesus was the raising of Lazarus from the dead. This event took place in the village of Bethany, which, as you can already guess, has long been sought in Israel, but cannot be found. It is assumed that it is somewhere near Jerusalem, but it is not very clear what the basis for this opinion is. In the Gospel of John, Bethany is mentioned as a place associated with the raising of Lazarus, and, in fact, there is no mention of Jerusalem in the nearest verses, nor is Mount of Olives, which is often mentioned in connection with Bethany.



> _So, Bethany, where could this place be?_


I think where it is now in the north of Gaul in France and again the name has not changed today, as many centuries ago this city is called Bethune. If you want to challenge this version, I suggest to write in French Bethany and Bethune and compare these names you will understand that, in general, we are talking about the same place.

*Alexander Grinin*. Given the French passion for swallowing letters.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. By the way, Lazarus himself, whom the Savior raised from the dead, is not buried far away, he is buried in the cathedral of Otön. According to legend, this holy man after the resurrection moved with his sisters Martha and Mary to Gaul and he became the first bishop of Marseilles. And the most interesting thing is that the cathedral of the city of Auteuil, where St. Lazarus is buried and was called before and is now called, I think, the cathedral of St. Nazarene Saint-Nazaire - the cathedral of St. Nazarene. Well, probably someone may say that it is again a coincidence, well, perhaps it is time to stop being surprised by these coincidences.

*Moving on.*
There is a curious passage in Matthew's Gospel in which Christ mentioned several cities at once: "Then he began to rebuke the cities in which his strength was most manifest, because they did not repent. "Woe to you Chorazin, woe to you Bethsaida, for if in Tyre and Sidon there had been powers manifested in you, long ago they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes, but I tell you Tyre and Sidon will be more glad in the day of judgment than you. And you Capernaum, who were raised up to heaven, will be brought down to hell; for if the powers that were revealed in you had been revealed in Sodom, it would have remained until this day; but I tell you that the land of Sodom will be more glad in the day of judgment than it will be for you." This is the fragment that I think makes sense to dwell on in detail.

We've already talked about Bethsaida today. Tyre and Sidon. Maybe it's much simpler. Maybe Tyre and Sidon aren't exactly Sur and Saida, maybe the Sea of Galilee and the Decapolis were not exactly where modern interpreters of the Gospels find them today. Let's look at a map of France-Gaul, maybe you'll immediately find an answer to the question of how you can go from Tyre, Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the Decapolis, look, in the heart of France are two cities of Tours and Issoudun. Leaving them and going north-east you get to the Decapolis - a union of Alsace cities that we are told existed in the 14th century, but given all the joys of modern chronology it is quite possible that it existed before and after.

Nevertheless, the Decapolis in Alsace are the real ten cities, not the ten mythical settlements in the territory where they are trying to find them today. So, going through this very Decapolis and going strictly north you get to the Sea of Gaul, that is, you get to the Sea of Galilee, all strictly in accordance with the Gospel text. Now it's turn for Chorazin, Sodom, and Capernaum from Matthew's quote above. None of these cities in the near east, as you understand, have been found. Well, I guess I don't need to explain now why it is not found, better to look for them, because this part of the Oikumene is probably better in Gaul. Chorazin is probably modern Quercy, which was called Karsin in Oxytan, compare with Chorazin.

The name Sodom probably refers to Sedan, which is in the northeast, and, incidentally, nearby is a town with the equally sonorous name of St. Omer, formerly simply Omer. Given the aspirated nature of the first consonant - simply Gomorrah. And another evidence in favor of this version is that in the neighborhood is Lotharingia - that is, the land of Lot, who, as we remember, leaving these sinful cities, was the only righteous man there. So, the only point about which, frankly, I can't say anything is Capernaum. Here there are some difficulties and I can not localize it in the territory of modern Gaul in France, although there is one clue and a very interesting clue.



> _Everyone knows that one of the most famous grape varieties in France is cabernet, but the etymology of this word is very, very vague and it seems to me that it may be related to the events of the Gospel._


So if we take the view that a certain area of Cabernet is that same Capernaum, then, in general, everything will probably come together. Although, again I emphasize, this is the only place to find, which is difficult enough to localize, and what I say is just a hypothesis, beautiful or not is not for me to judge, but nevertheless there is a little hitch. So, when we have found most of the evangelical names on the map of modern Gaul of France, it's time to go back to the beginning.

Remember when we were talking about Luke's Gospel, when we were talking about Samaria and Galilee, when he was going to be in Paris in between, then I said we should stop and talk a little bit about something else, well now that we've talked a little bit about something else it's time to go back to Paris. Now that Samaria and Bethany and Gadara and Cannes and Bethlehem and other cities are around the eternal city, I think it makes sense to take a closer look at Paris. So what do the two real and mythological capitals of the world have in common?

Let us begin, perhaps, with the inhabitants of these glorious cities. Well, as you may recall, who were the people who schemed against Christ the most? The Pharisees. Well, I think it's no big secret to linguists and people who read and love history and linguistics that the letters "f" and "p" are interchangeable in many languages, so if you replace the first letter in the word "Pharisees" with "p", you get a very interesting word.

*Alexander Grinin*. Terrific!

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, you get "Parisees".

*Alexander Grinin*. Parisians.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, yes, the same Parisians, who gave their name to the city of Paris. That is, the very tribe that gave the city of Paris its name. Were they really involved in the crucifixion of Christ? Let's take a look. Let's begin, perhaps, with the crucifixion - with Golgotha. As I said the location of Golgotha is now considered certain, but nevertheless, as I said, in the 19th century to determine, to localize this place was not possible, at least there were still options and the debate continued and continues to this day. But in Paris, if we accept the view that Paris is the Jerusalem, there is a mountain which corresponds exactly to all the descriptions and is called Mount Montmartre, the mountain of the martyr.




_*Montmartre*_​
This mountain is not in the city; it is outside the city. That is, again, all in accordance with the Gospel tradition and it is very symbolic that this mountain is crowned by the Sacre-Coeur Cathedral, the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart of Christ, which was built in the 19th century, but we will return to the history of the construction of this cathedral.



> _So Montmartre, at first, it seems that when you say Montmartre, it's a certain place where the Parisian bohemians have always lived and, in general, it seems like Calvary, what can we talk about? Nevertheless, let's take a closer look at this mountain._






*Sacré-Cœur Basilica*​
First, the history of Montmartre itself is very interesting; if we rewind the tape back in time, we learn that Montmartre was the birthplace of one of Europe's most famous secret societies, the Jesuits. And it was on Montmartre that Ignacio Lopez, who is known to the world as Ignacio Loyola, together with his companions took vows, certain vows, on Mount Montmartre, and it was on this mountain that the Society of Jesus was founded.

*Alexander Grinin*. What, just here on the mountain, he did it right out in the open?




*Saint-Pierre de Montmartre*​
*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Also a very interesting point. In addition to the Sacré-Coeur, there is another small temple on Montmartre - the "Temple of Saint Peter". It is so unknown that even dodgy Parisian cab drivers do not know that there is a temple of Saint Peter behind the Sacré-Coeur. And the temple is very ancient, very old, as they say it is part of a monastery, the middle part of an abbey of some antiquity. And, by the way, this place was a place of pilgrimage in the Middle Ages. And a very serious pilgrimage. Very often the crowned heads from all over Europe went there. So it was in this very temple of St. Peter that Loyola and his companions took certain vows and this place is considered the birthplace of the Society of the Jesuits; actually, it is clear that this place was chosen by them absolutely not by accident.

*Alexander Grinin*. It should be clear that this place is not random. Of all places, why there?




*Saint-Pierre de Montmartre*​
*Alexey Khrustalyov*. It is interesting that by the way the French, if I am not mistaken, were not among these people and why they chose Montmartre in Paris as a place where the Society of Jesus will be founded is a good question.

*Alexander Grinin*. Alexey, is this official data?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, this is absolutely official data.

*Alexander Grinin*. The Jesuits don't argue with that?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. No. No, this is absolutely official data, you can read about it everywhere, just not many people pay attention to it and not many people connect it with the Gospel story. "They just founded it and that's all to this story".

*Alexander Grinin*. Well, yes, that's if you just read the history of the creation of the Society of the Jesuit Order.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, but why in Paris?

*Alexander Grinin*. Well, they just wanted to do that, why not?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. They just decided so apparently.

*Alexander Grinin*. So there is a deep sacred meaning...

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. In my opinion, yes. By the way, Ignacius Loyola and his friends, when they took these vows, were going either to Jerusalem or to Rome for their ministry if it didn't work out. Judging from the fact that they didn't go to Rome and didn't get to Jerusalem of the Middle East, we can make a neat assumption that they stayed in Jerusalem, the real one, that is Paris. By the way, a very interesting point, as you know Paris is on the hills, like many cities, so the hill next to Montmartre is called, not accidentally, Buttes-Chaumont, that is translated simply as Bald Mountain. Well, I do not need to tell you what the Bald Mountain is for Christianity, and what it is associated with. Here is such an interesting moment in the life of the city of Paris.

*Alexander Grinin*. Is this a literal translation of Buttes-Chaumont?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. It is a literal translation, yes, the Bald Mountain. And the Jesuits were not simple guys at all, they knew what they were doing, where they were doing it, and how. A very interesting question, by the way, which place was really Calvary, this particular Bald Mountain or Montmartre? In order to understand this, we have to go back a few centuries and see what another Jesuit said at the end of the 19th century, very interesting. There was a Cardinal Heber, under whom the Sacre-Coeur was built, who motivated the fact that the temple of Christ's heart had to be built here, and he said very interesting words.

I allow myself to quote: "This is it, this is the place of martyrdom he cried out, this is the place where the holy heart must rule, where it can cry out incessantly at the foot of the hill where Christianity was born, born among us in the blood of our first apostles, a monument to our religious awakening must be erected," I think it could not be clearer. I don't know whether he regretted what he said or whether it was a deliberate leak, but nevertheless, these words were written down by the Abbé Loggineau in the late 19th century and can be found in a number of brochures describing the construction of the Sacré Coeur.



> _By the way, the construction of this Temple of the Sacred Heart, it was controlled by the Jesuits from beginning to end at all stages, by the way, the very idea of building this temple was planted by the Jesuits._


When they say that the construction of the temple is connected with the Franco-Prussian wars and so on and so forth, this is a bit of slyness, that is, of course, there was some cover-up, that it is being built under some pretext, but, nevertheless, the basic idea was thrown in by the Jesuits and they brought it to completion, a very interesting point. The majestic Temple of the Sacre-Coeur, which towers over all of Paris, such a crown of Paris, is just on the site of the martyrdom on Montmartre Hill.

*Alexander Grinin*. Well, besides the fact that the temple is very beautiful, visible from afar in general it has some architectural features that could be indicative, do you know? Indicative of some of its mysterious meaning.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Maybe they are there, but I have not studied the temple so thoroughly. I mean, of course I have been there, of course I have looked at it from all sides, of course I have seen how it is built, how it is organized and so on, but maybe there is something I have not noticed yet.

*Alexander Grinin*. The Jesuit generals haven't said anything about it, that is if they have deliberately allowed a leak then...

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Or I just did not pay attention to it... It is possible that there are some clues in the architecture of the temple.

*Alexander Grinin*. There are elements that are most likely indicative...

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. We have to look at it, we have to study it more closely, more thoroughly.

*Alexander Grinin*. Well, by the way, even the name, is somehow not quite standard.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. The name, yes, to put it mildly, is quite non-standard - Sacre-Coeur. Well, a few more strokes to the portrait of Paris-Jerusalem. Everyone knows that one of the most important cathedrals dedicated to the Virgin, if not the main one, is located in Paris. It's called Notre Dame de Paris.

First of all, in this cathedral is one of the most important Christian relics - the Savior's crown of thorns, and secondly, it is very interesting that this cathedral was decorated with statues until the 18th century, and these statues were not of French kings, those were 28 statues of the kings of ancient Judea. For what is left of these statues, these heads are in the museum of Cluny, today in the center of Paris, these are the kings of ancient Judea.

That is, all nations seek to immortalize their homegrown kings, holy warriors, and the French, for some completely unknown reason, suddenly decide to immortalize the kings of ancient Judea. Why should they? Well, unless the kings of ancient Judea and the French rulers are one and the same. Next. Another very interesting point.



> _In Paris in the 12th century there was a cemetery with a very interesting name, it was called "The Cemetery of the innocent infants murdered by King Herod", that is a long name._


In the 12th century, well, according to the traditional chronology, in the 12th century this cemetery appeared and, interestingly, only infants were buried there. It gradually grew to unprecedented size, in the 18th century it was closed, then, however, everyone was buried there - not just babies. But originally it was really an infant cemetery, in the 18th century it was closed, and by the 18th century the name was already shortened to "Cemetery of the Innocents." Well, perhaps the Gauls or the French, I do not know who at the time, were so impressed with the Gospel story that they gave the cemetery such an interesting name. Well, as you understand, there are no such cemeteries in the Middle East, that is, no innocently murdered babies by King Herod, no cemeteries of innocently murdered babies by King Herod there.

*Alexander Grinin*. Although, in theory, they would be preserved in these conditions, dry climate and so on.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, they should have been preserved... There are some in Paris though. Well, what babies, even if they can not show well the temple of Solomon, they can not show the place where it was, only approximately something is shown, but they do not say how it all was located. The most interesting thing is that there is one such very subtle point, in general, when they read the Gospel, they do not notice that there were moneychangers in the temple, whom Jesus drove out of there.



> _What, in fact, were the money changers doing in the temple?_


That's a good question. If we lean on the point of view that Jerusalem is where they are trying to construct it today, I'm afraid this question will go unanswered. But in Paris there is still a Temple street, on which stood the Temple at one time, the Tour du Temple - the Temple of Solomon, and the Knights of the Temple were the very Templars, whose official name was Knights of the Temple of Solomon and the Templars' central office was just in Paris. By the way and the history of the Templars, if you remember, also ends in Paris, along with the execution of Jacques de Molay, it is the beginning of the 14th century. And, in general, everyone knows that the Templars had a very direct relation to what today we would call the banking business, if we accept the point of view that...

*Alexander Grinin*. Well, it is believed that they created it...

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, in general, yes. And if we take the viewpoint that the Templars are the same money changers, then it is quite understandable how they ended up in their own office, i.e. there is nothing so strange here. By the way, one of the towers of this "Paris office" was called Caesar's Tower. Well, I suggest that historians look for Caesars in the 12th century, when it was called like that, what kind of Caesars we had in the 12th century, in whose honor the tower could be named.

*Alexander Grinin*. Well, they liked to read ancient literature.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Well, that was later, they started to read antique literature later in time, this is closer to humanists and early Renaissance, and in the 12th century I am afraid...

*Alexander Grinin*. No, the traditional ones will say.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, well, naturally I'm afraid that in the 12th century antique literature was just started to get written. By the way, I wanted to tell you about another interesting coincidence. We have already talked today about Lazarus, who was resurrected by Christ; his remains, as I said, are in France. And according to some apocryphal texts, he was appointed bishop to a certain city of Kiti, now they are trying to link this city of Kiti with Cyprus and the city of Larnaca.

Well, Larnaca must indeed once have been the city of Kition; it is quite possible that we are really talking about that city of Kiti. But it seems to me, in the light of all that has been said above, that the city of Kiti must be looked for in a completely different place. Well, if you even look at a map of modern Paris, you'll see that the center of Paris is Cité, which is the same as the English City, which is the same as, I believe, the Moscow's Kitay-gorod, which is the same as the Jewish Ghetto, which is the same as the Italian Citta, and in principle these are all words derived from the same root, all words are related.

Now, it is not at all certain that Cyprus was the residence of Lazarus; it is quite logical to assume, if Lazarus is buried somewhere nearby, that he was made bishop in this very city of Sita, Kita, it is quite probable.



> _The most interesting thing is that Cité, the island of Cité itself, the Parisians themselves have always called it the Jewish City or Jewish Island, as it was sometimes translated._


*Alexander Grinin*. And on it, by the way, the execution of Jacques de Molay took place.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. It was there that Jacques de Molay was executed, absolutely right. So it is quite logical to assume that it was to this city of Cite that Lazarus was sent as bishop, and not somewhere in the middle of nowhere, to Larnaca in Cyprus. By the way, Cité was mostly rebuilt during the time of a French king with a very antique name, Philip Augustus.

If you remember Christ, according to traditional history, lived just in the time of Emperor Augustus. This may or may not be just another coincidence. Interestingly, by the way, in Paris, among other things there are remains of the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Queen Helen, which, incidentally, not many people know about. That is, people who are interested probably know, so deeply digging and strongly interested, but in general few people know about it.

*Alexander Grinin*. It's that 80-year-old grandmother.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Yes, here we are just back to that very 80-year-old grandmother, St. Equal-to-the-Apostles Helen, mother of Constantine the Great.

*Alexander Grinin*. Who worked tirelessly on the hot shores.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Generally, she - Helen, is one of the central figures of the original Christianity, it was she who, as we have already said, went according to the legends to Jerusalem, found there some relics of the Passion, and brought them back to Gaul.

*Alexander Grinin*. Well, in general, you should agree that by today's times it is a heroic deed to go such a long distance on, say, a wooden vessel, carrying such values, even for those days, that is, as I remember, it is a huge trunk with the relics she was carrying.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. To put it mildly, the story is not very believable, not very believable, because, as I said, imagine a shaggy century and an eighty years old, even if the queen, even a person who works for hundreds of thousands of subjects, this kind of journey is the hardest, at that time, this excavation too, which they allegedly led there. And, most interestingly, a certain porphyry sarcophagus is shown in Rome, in which, supposedly, she was buried.

Anyway, if anyone thinks that this is the sarcophagus of a Christian saint, well, everyone is free to hold his opinion. It is absolutely pagan sarcophagus and, again, some kind of dark history, they allegedly took it from under someone and so on and so forth, that is for the queen could not find a proper sarcophagus, in general, some kind of strange story. And the most interesting thing is that while she was buried in Rome, by some strange coincidence her remains ended up back in Reims in Gaul, and then they were transported to Paris.



> _So, if we take the view that Helen did not travel far away to faraway Middle Eastern Jerusalem, but went from Trier to Paris, then everything looks logical enough._


From Trier to Paris is not such a long distance, here indeed even an elderly person could do this. Understandable climate for her to live in, make some excavations or find them in the end and return to Trier. By the way, here is another very interesting story related to Saint Helen, because Helen was helped by a man named Judas Cyriacus or there are different transcriptions, but the most common is Judas Cyriacus and this name is translated from something like Judas of the Lord, so here is a strange translation, And Gregory of Tours is Gregory from Tours, Aristarchus of Samoa is Aristarchus from the island of Samos, and so on and so forth, but for some reason Judas Cyriacus is translated as Judas of the Lord, well, at least it sounds ambiguous, right, Judas of the Lord. And why actually Judas Cyriacus is translated as Judas of the Lord, I think for the reason that finding a town of Cyriacus or a town with a similar name, in the Middle East, in general, is very problematic.

*Alexander Grinin*. And here in Gaul?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. And here in Gaul, to this day, not far from Paris, there is a town called Quirillamot. The most interesting thing is that the only saint with the name Cyriacus was born in Gaul and preached not somewhere, but in the city of Trier, where Queen Helen lived. And then everything falls into place. If you take the viewpoint that queen Helen did not go far away and was not helped by someone with a strange name, but by a local resident, everything will go back to the right place.

*Alexander Grinin*. Yes, she hired a foreman, and, by the way, she had enough administrative resources in these places. Well, imagine that in this situation you don't remember in any way the hard routine of those days, that is, for example, we are not talking about the robbers, the hostile armies - it's even amazing!

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Actually that's what I meant when I said that the way was, to put it mildly, not close and not safe, that's what I mean. The most interesting is that Queen Helen, after she went to Jerusalem, she returned not to the new capital Constantinople, built by her son Constantine, and not to the old capital, which she could not stand and Constantine himself could not stand it, but to the allegedly out-of-town city of Trier in Gaul. Why would she, well, maybe she just wanted to be close to some holy places? As an option.

So, putting an end to the subject of Paris, I want to draw attention to another very interesting detail. Here's a look at the coat of arms of Paris, which, by the way, few people can explain why this particular coat of arms is a rook. And let's compare it with the coat of arms of the city of which I spoke about today, which I believe is the birthplace of Christ the city of Saint-Nazaire or Nazaire. This is a series of find 10 differences absolutely identical coats of arms and the key is very appropriate, it is immediately clear where something began, where it ended, absolutely identical coats of arms. By the way, the ship in this form - a boat is one of the oldest Christian symbols, it's not less ancient than say fish, and here are such symbols can be seen, including, and in the caves of the first Christians, by the way.






_*Coat of Arms St. Nazaire and Paris*_​
There are similar ships even near us in Chersonesus, where the caves were excavated, and similar ships are depicted in the caves of the first Christians, and the boat ship is one of the oldest symbols and means salvation in the church, salvation in Christ, salvation in the church. And, in general, it is clear why these two cities have such coats of arms. By the way, if you look at the French heraldry in general, you will find similar coats of arms only for these two cities, all other coats of arms are different in one way or another, and there is no such similarity at all. Why is it that Paris and some out-of-the-way Saint-Nazaire have such similar coats of arms?

*Alexander Grinin*. And how do you explain this, why they are so similar, I do not quite understand why?

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. These are the cities where the Way of the Cross began and where it ended in Saint-Nazaire or Nazareth, where Christ was born, and Paris-Jerusalem is where this journey ended, which is why there is this connection.

*Alexander Grinin*. Yes, brilliant.

*Second part*​
*Alexey Khrustalyov*. Such an interesting detail. The number of facts that I was able to dig up, that I was able to discover, at least allows us to look at Paris from a slightly different point of view, from a less traditional one, so to speak. By the way, when last time I was talking about Paris, I forgot to say one more interesting thing, according to the Gospels there must be Emmaus, a place mentioned in connection with Christ, and of course this city must be not very far from Paris. In Palestine this place has not been found yet, but near Paris still exists quite an ancient town Meaux.




_*Map of Paris*_​
If you look at how it is spelled, how it is written by the French themselves, you will realize that Emmaus and Meaux are very similar. There are a lot of cities with such names, including biblical ones, but it is very important to understand which of these names are primary and which are introduced later. For example, in Portugal there is a place called Nazareth, but it does not have a rich history and was established quite late. This is one of the objections I always hear, that in fact there are many such places with biblical names. And very often when people oppose me, they say, look, there are quite a few places with biblical names all over Europe both here and there, that is, you can localize what you are talking about anywhere in Europe.

To which I say, no, guys, not in any place, because if somewhere there is one, two, three such places it is very good, but try to find any territory in Europe, where biblical places are collected on a small enough area. Besides the history of France and the history of Spain, the history of the Iberian Peninsula, they are also connected with the history of the Arabs, they are also connected with the history of the Hebrews, and that is where the Arabs and the Jews always lived - in France and in Spain, and that is where the Arabic and Hebrew languages were spread, that's why places with such names could arise there. Moreover, it is very interesting, when we talk about the Jews in France, and there have always been many Jews in France, they spoke and wrote in a certain French-Jewish language.

It is interesting that this so called Hebrew-French, is actually identical to Old French. Moreover, when the scientists begin to look through the old dictionaries and old Jewish books it turns out that a lot, well, let's say not a lot, but a fairly large number of French words that are not recorded in the French sources are recorded in the Jewish sources, and they are written in Hebrew letters. That is such a very interesting thing, which is rarely talked about.




*Jerusalem, Old Town*​
The same can probably be said about the Arabs, because everyone knows very well that the history of Spain, the history of the Iberian Peninsula is mostly the history of the Arabs. And when they try to say that there was some kind of Reconquista it's quite ridiculous, because what Reconquista can we talk about? The Conquista, yes, but the Reconquista I seriously doubt, because the whole history of Spain and Portugal and partially France, which can be touched, which you can read something and look at with your eyes is the history of the Arabs and the Jews. It is not the history of the Spanish or the French or whoever else.

Therefore, when we say that the Gospel events could have taken place in what is now Gaul, we must be very clear that the territory of present-day France, the territory of present-day Spain is where two very different cultures, two very different civilizations collided - European civilization, while we will not say which, pagan or Catholic, but it was a European civilization and a Jewish-Arab civilization. In other words, there were two completely different cultures, two completely different civilizations, which could not help but clash, with completely different approaches to life, with completely different ethics and so on and so on. By the way, the conflict that emerges in the Gospel is quite possibly one of the reflections of that clash of civilizations, which emerged between Europeans and the Arab-Jewish civilization, which was in Spain, in Portugal, partly in France and so on.

That is, in general, when people talk about the history of Spain, for example, they always say that yes, there was an Arab presence, but for some reason this Arab presence is always downplayed somehow. Well, they say that yes, it was there, yes, there is some evidence of it, but, nevertheless, the attitude to the Arab culture was as to the culture of the conqueror, that is, it is love and hate. They admit that it was there, but, nevertheless, they claim there was a Reconquista, that is, "we regained what had been lost". A good question is when was it lost and by whom was it lost? Now, by the way, the Iberian Peninsula has a lot of names there that echo both Old Testament names and New Testament names, even the very name of the peninsula, you'll excuse me, of course, the Iberian Peninsula, but isn't that the Hebrew Peninsula?

And the Ebro River, and the French part where there is Ever and so on? I mean, Jaffa, Maqueda aren't those Old Testament places? Generally speaking, the whole Spanish educational system, in general, is built on some Arab things, on some Jewish scientific points, again, it's all from the Jewish-Arab world. So it's not homegrown, it's not indigenous Spanish, it's not Castilian, it's all taken from the Arabs and the Jews. And, in general, the whole history of Spain is this story of love and hate. Well, we've gone a little off topic now, and we'd like to go back to Gaul and Galilee.

We began to talk about, or rather ended up talking about the fact that Paris could be the Jerusalem that is described in the Gospels, the city of Emmaus - Meaux. Another very interesting point - we talked mostly about geography, now it probably makes sense to talk about the people, those people, those characters that are mentioned in the Gospels. We should probably start with Pontius Pilate, because Pontius Pilate is one of the main spatio-temporal references that exist in Christianity, the name of the man is mentioned in the Creed, and he is one of the central figures in the Gospel. Pontius Pilate, what is known about him?

Not much is actually known about him, and what is known leads to very interesting thoughts, well, for example, where Pontius Pilate ended his life. Pontius Pilate was exiled to Gaul to Vienne, where he either died, or committed suicide. We know about it only from the apocryphal sources, and we cannot say for sure, but nevertheless most of the apocrypha about the life of Pontius Pilate say that he finished his life in Gaul in Vienne, and even in Vienne the tomb of Pontius Pilate is shown.

Although there are several versions. There is a version that Pontius Pilate committed suicide by throwing himself into the river, but the river did not accept his body and carried it somewhere else. There is a version that Pontius Pilate committed suicide somewhere in the Alps and there is now an ice lake, a lake covered with ice in which Pontius Pilate's body is frozen, there are in fact many versions. But all these versions, they all really mean one thing, that Pontius Pilate finished his life in Gaul, which is either the territory of today's France or the borderland between France and Switzerland. Vienne is located in what is now France, close to Italy.

The most interesting thing is that this part of northern Italy, the part which borders with France, this piece was Gallia. Another interesting point is that on this piece of land now flows a river - the biggest Italian river, the most full-flowing, which is called the Po. And the thing is, this river's name in the ancient times was "Iridan", i. e.  "Jordan", between us two. And this river, if memory serves me correctly, passes into the Rhone, so theoretically this whole water artery could be called the Jordan (Iridan). So if we're talking about the territory of Gaul, Gaul is a huge area. Gaul is today's France and a piece of today's Germany, a huge piece, and the same Trier we were talking about, where Queen Helen lived, it was part of Gaul, it was not part of any other formations, it was a piece of Gaul. So this Pilate ended his life there in Gaul, and what's interesting is that his wife Claudia Procula, not much is known about her either, was from Narbonne.

Well, I think it is not necessary to say that Narbonne still exists in the territory of modern France, it is the south of France, by the way, one of the cities where medieval pilgrimages were made very often. So Claudia Procula was from Narbonne and spent her entire childhood in Narbonne. The question is, where, when and under what circumstances could Pontius Pilate, if he was not from Gaul, have met Claudia Procula, be acquainted with her family and how did he get her as his wife? As it turned out, apparently, Caligula had such a tradition, as soon as he did not like a person, he immediately exiled him to Gaul. As it turns out from the Apocrypha Herod Antipas, who was also mentioned in the Gospel, was also exiled by Caligula to Gaul and he ended his life in Gaul too. Archelaus is another son of Herod the Great. Where do you think he ended up?



> _You must be laughing by now - they ended up in Gaul._


Archelaus, too, was exiled to Gaul and ended his life in Gaul, too. Such interesting fates they had. For some reason, as soon as people finished their service, they all went to Gaul. But nobody exiled Mary Magdalene; she came by herself, as they say. She sailed to Gaul and according to the stories, she lived in southern France and her remains are still located in Provage in the cathedral of Saint-Maximen, this cathedral was built, if my memory doesn't betray me, at the end of the 12th or 13th century specifically to house the remains of Mary Magdalene.

By the way, I certainly do not claim anything with stubborn certainty, but the city of Magdala, from which the name Magdalene may be derived, is not located in Palestine. The city of Magdala is in what is now Germany, which, by and large, is not very far from the larger Gaul in question. And it is quite possible that the woman from whom Christ cast out the seven demons is just the same Mary of Magdala, from that German Magdala.

Another name that is not mentioned in the canonical text of the Gospel, but which I would like to mention, is Longinus. The same Longinus who pierced Christ with his spear. If you write his name in Latin, you get a very interesting word, which you can very easily read in French, Longine. In general, little is known about this man, there is, however, a small village in the East of France with this name, I certainly do not know whether it existed in Gospel times, I think that it did not exist, but nevertheless the name itself leads to some very interesting thoughts. As for the other characters in the Gospels. Joseph of Arimathea, for example.



> _Where to look for the remains of Joseph of Arimathea? Well, of course, in Gaul._


To this day they are in the Benedictine Abbey of Marienne Moutier. Much has been written about the life of Joseph of Arimathea, and there is a great deal of apocryphal literature about his deeds and his life. Joseph of Arimathea is primarily known for asking for the body of Christ to be buried. And it is believed that Joseph of Arimathea collected the blood of Christ, and this blood of Christ is one of the most revered relics in the Christian world. By the way, it is interesting that the first time the ceremony of veneration of the blood of Christ is mentioned in the 14th century and the place where it all took place is Bruges. Again, this territory is very close to Gaul. So, we'll come back to this when we talk about the relics associated with the life of Christ and the life of the apostles, but right now I would like to go back to Joseph of Arimathea.

Well, there is quite an extensive apocryphal literature about the life of Joseph. It is written that he came to Gaul together with Saint Lazarus, the one we already spoke about, with the Apostle Philip, sisters Martha and Mary and that he preached for some time in Gaul. I wonder what language he preached in, if Galilee and Gaul are different lands? Probably Aramaic. By the way, all those who allegedly came to Gaul, the same sisters Martha and Mary, they are all known as preachers. A very good question - in what language did they preach, if they were illiterate women, and most likely knew only one language - Aramaic. In what language did they preach in Gaul to the then Celts?

But if they were local, then everything falls into place and they didn't come from anywhere, not from the distant Palestine. By the way, if we are talking about Joseph of Arimathea, there is a certain apocryphal account of Joseph of Arimathea allegedly taking the young Christ with him on a business trip to the British Isles. The apocryphal literature on this subject is vast, that is, the list of literature is enormous and you can find a lot there, nevertheless, there is one of the apocrypha that tells us that Joseph of Arimathea travelled with Jesus to Cornwall, then returned again. I wonder where he went back to? That is, if we even assume for a second that this apocrypha is talking about a trip that actually took place. How do people, who say that he sailed from one of the ports of present-day Palestine and ended up in England, imagine that trip? Imagine yourself.



> _We talked about the fact that in Helena's time three centuries after that, it was almost impossible. It was impossible in the Crusades era 1,000 years later._


If we assume that Gaul and Galilee are the same thing, then indeed he may have planned some business trip to the British Isles, it was not far, it was just across the Sea of Galilee, that is, across the English Channel. As for Joseph of Arimathea, as I said, his remains are in what is now Gaul. I have already mentioned that the fair head of John the Baptist, is also in what is now Gaul in the city of Amiens, which is the former Samara-Brega or Samara-Breva and so on. St. Lazarus's remains are also in what is now France.

The remains of St. Helen, who did the excavations in Jerusalem, as we recall, are also in Gaul in what is now France. Well, now, I guess, heavy artillery. Let's talk about Christ's grandparents, Joachim and Anne. Also two very interesting characters. They're not mentioned in the canonical Gospels, but there's a church tradition, there's a lot of church literature from the first centuries, there are writings of the church fathers and according to all this, Joachim and Anna were the grandparents of Christ. So, curiously enough, the remains of St. Anne are not somewhere, but in France again. They are located in the town of Apt.

How did they get there? A good question, if they were not from Gaul or from neighboring territories, how could these remains be there. Of course, they can say that they were the result of the Crusades and so on and so forth. You can say anything you like, but somehow it is interesting that as a result of the Crusades, everything ended up in one place practically scattered over the territory of ancient Gaul. So, as far as St. Anne's is concerned. There is an area In what is now France, called Brittany. And in this very Brittany there is a cult of St. Anne, which, by the way, is traced back only to the 13-14 centuries, according to the official data.

It is believed that St. Anne according to legend was a Breton woman and lived in Brittany and Joachim, a resident of Jerusalem, met St. Anne, fell in love with her and she became Joachim's wife. So, if Joachim lived in Jerusalem and St. Anne was a Breton woman. First, the question is, in what Jerusalem could Joachim meet Anne or where could they meet at all? Because according to these Breton legends, Joachim was a resident of Jerusalem, and Anna was a Breton woman. A lot was written about this in the 19th century and in the early 20th century, and then somehow this topic has gently died out. Now, why might this be true? If we look at a map of France, we can see that Brittany is very close to the very cities I was talking about, to the city of Kebren (Hebron) and to the city of Saint-Nazaire, it's really very close. And, if we're talking about how Joachim and Anna had some relation to Mary the mother of Christ and had some relation to Christ, here you have it all lined up.

These are the places where kinsmen may live, the family of John the Baptist, as we know, was related to the family of Joachim and Anna, so they do live not far from each other. Kebren/Quiberon and Brittany are not far at all. Accordingly, and Nazaire, which then became St. Nazaire, all those places are within reach. That is, you don't need to take a trip of a lifetime, you don't need to travel a week, two weeks, a month, and so on, it's all very close. Where are the remains of St. Joachim - the unfortunately, I can't say anything specific. Interestingly, most of the main characters mentioned in the Gospels have their remains either in modern Gaul, or somewhere quite nearby.



> _If we look at where the chief apostles are buried, we can see that we are talking about a fairly small area, a fairly small area in terms of coverage in Europe._


Yes, there are apostles who are buried, as they say, in the outskirts. There are legends that they are buried in what is now Turkey, even India and so on, but, nevertheless, most of the apostles are buried somewhere within/not far from Gaul. And, by the way, if you look at the pilgrimage routes of medieval Europe, you will see a very interesting thing. Most of the pilgrimage routes go through the territory of modern-day France, with entries into what is now Italy, northern Italy for the most part, and into the territory of northern Spain.




_*Santiago de Compostela*_​
That is, one of the pilgrimage routes is going precisely to Santiago de Compostela, where the tomb of Saint James is located. And most of the places to which pilgrimages were performed in medieval Europe are in the territory of modern France, in Gaul, most of the places I spoke about today, they somehow turn out to be points of these very routes of pilgrimage. By the way, one such famous place of pilgrimage was Paris hill Montmartre. One of the places of pilgrimage was the Apt. One of the places of pilgrimage was Narbonne, Lyon - the ancient Lugdunum is also one of the places of pilgrimage, this is what concerns the main characters of the Gospels, whose names are connected in one way or another with Gaul.



> _Now, it makes sense to talk about such important things as relics related to the life of Christ and to some gospel events._






_*Shroud of Turin*_​
It is also a very interesting topic. First of all, it is interesting when all these relics in general appear in medieval Europe, when they arise at all. Well, we should probably start with the most famous relic associated with the life of Christ - the Shroud of Turin. It has already been written about the Shroud of Turin, which would be enough for more than one documentary. That is, it has been written and said a lot about it, and radiocarbon dating has been done on the shroud.

And what is interesting, if you abstract away from all the verbal nonsense that exists around the shroud, there are several points, let's say, the turning points, drawing attention to which we will understand that the shroud, as a relic, first appears only in the mid-14th century in Europe, the rest of its history is legendary, well, that is the mildest word that could be used. The shroud first appears in the 14th century, and it emerges, not anywhere, but in what is now modern France. And it emerges in a family that was most directly related to the Templars.



> _What else is interesting?_


When radiocarbon dating of the shroud was done, and as far as I remember, it was done twice, or even three times, the result was disappointing for people who believed this relic to be an authentic relic of the Passion of Christ. Radiocarbon dating gave, if I'm not mistaken, either the 11th or 12th or 13th century, so there was about that range. So if this is the 12th/13th century, then it fits in with Fomenko's concept that the Gospel events took place in the 12th century, and it fits in with what I am saying, that the Gospel events took place in what is now France, that is in Gaul, and it was probably somewhere in the late 11th or 12th century, probably early 13th century.

So, if we go back to the shroud, there is another very interesting point. Based on the fact that radiocarbon dating gave the 12th, 13th century, they began to say that the shroud is fake. But if the events of the Gospel took place later and not in modern Palestine, then why is it fake? Just if it is the 12th/13th century it is likely that the shroud is indeed real. Moreover, when they talk about the shroud, there is another interesting point, which for some reason is always forgotten. Weaving - the way this shroud is woven did not exist at the beginning of our era. This way of weaving, it arose at least 1,000 years later.

So when they say that the shroud is from the 12-13th century, and when they say that the way of weaving, which can be found in the shroud does not correspond to gray-haired antiquity, but to the 11th, 12th, 13th century, everything becomes very real, and then you really can say that the shroud is really something that is related to Christ's passion, crucifixion, and so on and so on. By the way, recently, if I'm not mistaken in 2005 or 2006, another radiocarbon dating was carried out, another relic associated with the Passion of Christ. The plaque with the inscription Jesus Christ the King of the Judeans, which was nailed over the cross. It is now, if I'm not mistaken, in Rome, it first surfaced in Rome, I think in the 16th century, if I'm not mistaken, the end of the 16th century.

Nevertheless, on this very titlo, radiocarbon dating was conducted, which also gave a spread. I think, it turned out to be approximately from the 10th or the beginning of 11th century. Also, by the way, very interesting result, again the same skip of a thousand years, again, it is not gray-haired antiquity, and much closer to our time. According to the legend, it was found by the Saint Helen, brought allegedly to Rome, to which Helen did not like to return and again it emerges only in the 16th century. In general, if we're talking about relics associated with the Passion, most of them surface in Europe in the 14th century, either late 13th or 14th century. There are, of course, some exceptions, but the vast majority of these relics are late thirteenth, fourteenth century.

Well, we just talked about the Shroud of Turin, what about the parts of the Savior's cross? There are quite a few of them and someone from the Protestant preachers in the 16th century said that if all these parts, all these wooden parts that today are passed off as parts of the cross are put together, then you can make a ship out of them, not a cross. Well, nevertheless, these pieces of the cross of Christ exist and the largest part is in Spain in Santo Toribio and the first mention of it was in 1316, if I am not mistaken, that is again the same 14th century that we were talking about.



> _By the way, if we're talking about crucifixion and the cross in general, that's also a very interesting topic._


If we are talking about the fact that the crucifixion was in the territory of present-day Israel, why is the wood, which is almost non-existent in Israel, which is worth its weight in gold there, used for a shameful execution. Why? Where one can be crucified on a cross - where there is plenty of trees, at least not where the forest is worth its weight in gold, and the forest is really worth its weight in gold in the territory of present-day Israel and Palestine, there simply is none. So the easiest execution for those places is stoning, simply because there are lots of them. But crucifixion, why waste precious wood? No, of course there is the hypothesis that they could have been reused and so on and so forth, but then what about the excavations of Queen Helen, who found this cross in the same place where it is said to have been.

So this means that the cross was, to put it quite crudely, disposable for each execution used, the cross was used for each subsequent execution, moreover, if it was not disposable there would have been no way of the cross and no way of Christ with the cross on his shoulders. First of all, why waste the valuable wood on some criminals, why make such a show and so on and so forth. There are really many questions, unfortunately, no answers to them. In general, if we're talking about these criminals, Barabbas was a released bandit, the bandit who was released. That is, they could have let Christ go before the Easter or they could have let Barabbas go - they let Barabbas go.

Well, everyone knows this plot well from Bulgakov, I know it more from Bulgakov than from the Gospel or some Gospel literature. So, Barabbas was let go, and Dismas and Gestas were executed. In the Russian Orthodox tradition, the prudent robber was called vorakh, vrakh, or simply rakh, as they wrote on ancient icons. It is quite possible that this same Barabbas (Varavva), who was released, turned into a varakh, rakh, or just then into rakh. Most of the sources claim that the names of these bandits were Dismas and Gestas. By the way, also another interesting point, in the Arab Gospel of the Savior's childhood they are called Titus and Dumah, and there are apocryphal versions, in which these outlaws are called Dijmon and Gesta, there are versions Dijmon and Esta. Very interesting, they sound quite French.

In general, names are interesting in themselves. Here, for some reason no one asks the question, when they etymologize their names Dismas and Gestas no one asks the question, why do they even have such names, is that a Greek translation or what is it, why the two local kosher brigands have Greek names - a good question. Frankly, I haven't found an answer in traditional gospel literature to this question - why do they have Greek names. This is the same situation approximately as with the herd of pigs, if you remember we said that there was a herd of pigs and it was written off as Greek. Here is the same situation where the local robbers have Greek names.

_*Alexander Grinin*_. Yes, it's strange.

*Alexey Khrustalyov*. It's a little strange, really. Moreover, when they begin to etymologize them, it turns out to be even more interesting. The name Gestas can not be etymologized at all. If you try to find information about how to translate it, for example, from Greek or Aramaic or something else, the name Gestas - it somehow does not work out very well. With Dismas it is roughly the same story, it is etymologized through a Greek word that means "sunset of death". Well, imagine such a name in reality. "Boy, what's your name?" - "Death". It is funny, really. That's how it turns out, they execute, along with Jesus, two Greeks one of which Dismas "sunset of death", and the name of the other is simply not etymologized. It's a strange plot, isn't it?

Why then, with such pomp for some Greeks, are they executed with the help of Rome? Well, I mean, there are actually a lot of questions. What are these local brigands with Greek names, whose names are also so strange? No, quite possibly, if we're talking about these indicative names, like the name Peter in the Gospels, they should be understandable, at least they should be understandable to the translator, but there's such variation in the translations, and then there's the Arabic childhood gospel, in which they are Titus and Dumah. These names can very well, oddly enough, be derived from Slavic languages, because the same Doumakh is spelled variously Dimas, Dismas, Doumakh, Dijmon. We recall that it was a prudent brigand, that is, thinking (думающий/dumayuschiy from the word думать/dumat'), that's why it is Dumakh, that is, the root is the same.

And as for Gestas, his name is also well etymologized - a guest. Guest (гость/gost') in Old Russian and Old Slavonic is also a stranger-enemy, and, by the way, according to the Church legend, Dismas is the first man who entered the paradise with Christ, that is what Christ promised him, when Dismas believed in him and told him about it. And the second outlaw reviled Christ in every way, and it is said of him in church tradition that he was an unwise outlaw, that is, hostile to Christ, hence the guest is an enemy. Well, this is one hypothesis, such a hypothesis is more likely than the hypothesis that people have such strange names. Even if we abstract away from the way these names are etymologized, the question remains - why are they not Aramaic, why are they not local, if it happens in the territory of modern Israel-Palestine. Slightly off-topic.



> _By the way, there's another interesting thing, we talked about Barabbas, the bandit who was not crucified, who was set free instead of Christ._


If we accept the traditional interpretation that Barabbas is the son of the Rabbi, then, in general, it becomes clear why they let him go, because it is not very kosher to execute the son of a rabbi before Easter. As for, if his name is etymologized differently, and most likely it should be etymologized differently, then he will be neither Barabban, nor Barabba, but simply barbarian - the normal Greek word barbarian, that is, again, an outsider. From here could then appear in the Russian version vrakh, vorog, rah and so on, but again, this is only a hypothesis. Now, let's go back to the facts, we've deviated a little bit from the main line. If you remember, we were talking about those things that are now highly revered by all Christians over the world - relics connected in some way either with the life of Christ or with the lives of people close to him, or with events that were going on at that time.

So, we stopped at the Shroud of Turin and the plaque that was nailed to the cross. What other relics are there? In fact, there are quite a few relics, for example, there is such a relic as the iron crown of the Langobards or Corona Ferrea. It is known to have been made from one of the melted nails with which Christ was nailed to the cross. The time, the first mention of this crown is 1311, it is now in Italy, that is, not far from the present-day Gaul. Next is the blood of the Savior, which we have already spoken of today. The blood of the Savior, which was collected by Joseph of Arimathea according to the legend, is in Bruges and the first mention - the year 1311 again.



> _One of the most interesting relics is the Spear of Destiny, the Spear of Longinus, around which there are so many interesting stories, about which they write a lot, talk a lot, which, again, according to some indirect data, Hitler dreamed of getting hold of and so on._


The first mention of the spear is the 13th century, in a more or less reliable source it first comes up in the 13th century. All the rest are legendary, but the first more or less intelligible mention in a normally dated source is the 13th century. By the way, Emperor Charles IV ordered an inscription on this spear to certify that this is the same spear and it was in the middle of the 14th century, by the way, also 1354. What other relics are there?

There is also a holy chalice. It is often confused with the Holy Grail, but that's a bit different. According to legend, the Holy Chalice is the cup from which Christ drank at the Last Supper. This Holy Chalice is located in Spain in Valencia and the first mention of it again is the 14th century, 1399, there is even a place of the first mention - the monastery of San Juan de la Peña.




_*San Juan de la Peña*_​
*Aachen shrines*. In the city of Aachen, the museum has three flasks containing some of the greatest relics of the Christian world: the dress of the Holy Virgin Mary, the scrolls of Christ, his armband and the shroud of John the Baptist. And they were first shown in 1349 and there is some evidence that they came to Aachen from Bohemia from Prague and at least the reliquaries for these items were made in Prague at the end of that 14th century again. Well, there is a legend that, supposedly, these things did not get to Aachen by accident. They got there thanks to Charlemagne. But what Charlemagne is - this is a separate and very funny story, not about that now, now we are talking about other things. So, again, back to the time of the 14th century again.

Next, the *crown of thorns*. Well, unfortunately, not very much is known about it, again, there were a lot of medieval dodgers who said that they had a piece of the crown of thorns, well, this situation is approximately the same as with the cross of Christ. But, nevertheless, it is considered that this crown of thorns, at least its main part, is in the Notre Dame de Paris in France and it arrived there from Byzantium. Well again, the question whether it arrived or not remains open, but the fact that it is in Gaul, is in the Cathedral of Notre Dame de Paris is a fact.

Another very important thing is the Sudarium of Oviedo. The Sudarium is very often confused with the shroud of Christ, with the Shroud of Turin. The Sudarium of Oviedo is a kind of shroud, which was thrown on the head of the deceased. And here it is believed that the Sudarium is in Oviedo in Spain, and here we are dealing with just an exception, the first reliable mention of it is the 11th century, late 11th century. But the thing is, again, we don't have a document from the 11th century, we have a copy from the 13th century, which says that this was actually in the 11th century.

By the way, here, if we're talking about the Sudarium from Oviedo, it was researched, I think, by Janes Benet. She was researching just the history of this same Sudarium from Oviedo and she mentioned in one of her interviews that in the middle of the 14th century, the Spanish King Alfons, I don't remember the number, I won't deceive, so this same King really wanted to see this Sudarium, this shawl, but he was not shown it in the middle of the 14th century. And for the first time, this Sudarium from Oviedo was shown to the public in the middle of the 16th century - in 1547 at the earliest.



> _The next relic is the chiton of Christ_.


According to legend, the Virgin Mary is believed to have woven a robe for the infant, and this robe supposedly grew with Christ. The two cities of German Trier and French Argenteuil claim this relic, meaning that both parties believe that it is they who have the most authentic chiton, but what the competitors have is a fake. Well, the last pearl of those parties is that both chitons are real, both are not fake, only in one place the chiton is seamless and in the other it's just an ordinary chiton. Well, they agreed to distribute this one. So, anyway, both have all the arguments when they argue with each other whose chiton is older. In both cities all the arguments end at the end of the 12th century. So up to that point they can show some history, it doesn't matter how they do it, maybe they're being a bit deceitful there, but nevertheless, up to the end of the 12th century they show that history, and then again there's a gap, a cliff.

Well, here it is necessary to remind that Trier is just again the territory of Gaul, this is the place where Queen Helen lived, that is, that Trier and Argenteuil are two Gallic cities. In Trier, despite the fact that they say that they had the relic at the end of the 12th century, it was first shown in 1512, that is again the beginning of the 16th century. The French don't admit when was the first display, but the history goes all the way back to the 12th century. Nevertheless, the areal is interesting, Trier and Argenteuil are two Gallic cities. About the plaque with the inscription you and I have already talked. There's another interesting one.

In the Cathedral of Cologne, as you know, there is a tomb with the remains of the Magi. It is believed that the Cathedral began to be built at the end of the 12th or early 13th century, specifically to place the remains of the Magi, however, it was finished in 1322, that is again in the 14th century. And again, the question is - why did it take that long to build the cathedral? Well, of course we can say that some cathedrals were being built for 500-800 years and so on. Nevertheless, the shrine with the remains of the Magi was placed in 1322, that is the 14th century.



> _We have already talked about the remains of St. Mary Magdalene. Again - the territory of modern France, Provence and we are talking about the end of the 13th century, when these relics appear there, but pilgrimages begin in the early 14th century._


Well, these are the main relics associated with the life of Christ or people close to him and, as you understand, they all emerge in the same territory, that is, the area is small enough. The main mass is on the territory of Gaul - on the territory of modern France plus the contiguous territories of Italy, the Czech Republic, Germany, Belgium, somewhere near. In general, if we talk about Gaul, we should say a few words about the territory which now for some reason nobody notices, or rather about the phenomenon which anyone can see on the European maps, but for some reason nobody writes about it, nobody speaks about it, as if it does not exist.

There is a Gallic Belt in Europe, and if you look at a map of Europe, this Gallic Belt is perfectly visible, it starts in Portugal. They can try to derive Portugal from the word Cale all they want, but it's still Portugal, it's a port of Gallia, which is an entrance to Europe, a port in Gallia. Then it flows smoothly to the north of Spain into Galicia, again a Gallic territory, then comes France - Gaul, there is nothing to do here, it is the main Gaul. Then this Gallic belt goes through Switzerland, which is Helvetia. It is actually not Switzerland, they themselves write on their coins that they are called Helvetia, which is again Gallia. Then this belt goes partly to Italy, partly it goes to Germany, there is Holstein, the city of Halle. Then a huge area goes to Galicia, Galicia is a huge territory, which falls on the territory of modern Austria, Poland, partly Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, even Russia.

Further on there are some chunks, there is Latgale. Further it goes south, into Turkey, where there is Galatia and ends in Galilee in the territory of modern Israel. In fact, there is a huge Gallic belt. When they talk about this Gallic belt, for some reason all the scientists believe that one Gaul has nothing to do with the other. That's how it turns out for them that none of these territories are related to the other. Moreover, if you open, for example, the dictionary by Fasmer you will be surprised to learn that Galicia (Галиция) and Galicia (Галисия) are different words, turns out they have no relation to each other, because according to etymologists our Galicia is derived from the city of Galich, and the city of Galich is derived from the word Galka (jackdaw). It turns out that Slavs probably had such a tradition to name the city in honor of jackdaws, not to confuse with the bird troika. Galicia flies by the European expanses.

So, these Gallias do not seem to be connected in any way, although it is absolutely clear that this belt is not interrupted anywhere, it is a continuous belt which goes from the west of Europe to the east and goes to the south quite clearly. Let's put the question this way, who lived in this belt? The Celts lived in this belt, the Slavs lived in this belt, the Germans lived in this belt. And, if you look at it from a linguistic point of view, this gets very interesting, and not even just from a linguistic point of view. Who are they in general, where did the word Gaul come from, what's the etymology of the word Gaul? Well, there are different variants, there is a Greek version, there is a Latin version, there is a version that this is a self-name, and so on. That is, in the notes on the Gallic War Gaul is mentioned by Caesar. But, where the proud name of Gauls came from in the first place is not very clear.

That is, if you try to etymologize directly, the researchers stumbled on a very interesting thing. Look, for example, what the word "Gaul" means in any Celtic language, Middle Irish, for example, the word "Gaul" means - "glory". From here, by the way, comes the word Call "to call", "to praise" and so on, there are many words of this root they are all quite obvious. By the way, I wonder why the rooster is the symbol of Gaul. We are told that the word for rooster in Latin - "Gallus". The word Gaul and Gallus coincided, and stupid Gauls, who didn't know anything about anything, made a rooster as a symbol, just because there was this consonance.

A good version, but such a kulturtrager, civilizationalist version. "There lived stupid Gauls, who did not know a thing about Latin, who on the basis of some incomprehensible consonances suddenly decided that the cock and Gaul are one and the same". At the same time, for some reason it is left out of brackets, why is this in the Latin language, why Latin words are compared, and so on and so forth. Let's look at it from this angle, who is the cock-gallus? Well, although Fasmer was a terrible Germanophile and a Russophobe, he was ready to attribute the word "mama" to the German language, but even he, with all his bias, to put it mildly, could not fail to mention that the word "gallus"-"rooster" and the Russian word "голос" (golos, means "voice") are related words, which is, in fact, obvious. If you look at some Old Russian dictionaries or Old Slavonic or something else, you'll see that the word "голосовяк" was used for songbirds, including roosters.

That is, the words "golos" and "gallus" are related words. That is, their rooster is related to our voice. Generally speaking, a rooster can be called a voice, indeed, what distinguishes this bird is its voice. Now let's look further, let's not get hung up on it. Gaul in Middle Irish - "glory." And a very interesting series starts to line up. Golos, then galus-cock, and gaul then glory. Now let's look at the Slavic languages. In Russian we have the word "глаголить" (glagolit', means "to speak"), which comes from gologolit', gologol. Glagolithic derives from here too, nagal in here as well, it is a "password" in Old Russian and so on and so forth, a lot of words with this root. But if you look at this root, it is a dual of gall-gal, gol-gol, this is the root. And so it turns out that men of voices, these very Gauls, they are men of glory (слава/slava), in other words - Slavs.

So in fact, Gallus is a tracing of the word Slavic. I do not want to say that Slavs appeared before Gauls and so on, but one word is unconditional tracing of the other. In fact, it turns out that Gauls are men of voices, they are men of words, speaking people, talking people, Slavs, in contrast to non-speaking people, are people who were united by the word, but what word is a big question. It is necessary to understand one simple thing, that between a word "Slav" and a word, for example, "Russian" we cannot put the = sign and when we speak about Russians it does not mean that we speak about Slavs. When we speak about Celts or about Gauls, which in my opinion, are synonyms of Slavs, we speak not about Russians, we speak about Slavs. That is, we must understand that the Slavs may well have walked from west to east, not from east to west.

Therefore the fact that the whole of central Europe was Slavic in the Middle Ages is no secret. The whole territory of modern Germany is, excuse me, solid Slavic place names you will not find practically any German toponym that would go back to the hoary antiquity, almost the entire territory of modern Germany is a Slavic toponym. And Germany is already directly bordering on Gallia, which is what we are talking about. Therefore there is nothing surprising that there was linguistic interference, and nothing surprising that people spoke a very similar language.



> _There are several theories as to where Slavs can be derived from._


In this case I am interested in the cultural aspect, the linguistic aspect. It turns out that the Gauls and the Slavs, the people of the word, are people who were in the same linguistic field, at least very close, and what language those Gauls from Galilee spoke was a big question. And in this connection I want to tell you an interesting story. Well, there are a number of forums, which are dedicated to the topic of new chronology or which are dedicated to some kind of historical reconstructions, there are a lot of free platforms where discussions take place.

So, on one of these sites was a very interesting story posted by a man. The man lives in Ukraine, I understand that in Kiev, unfortunately, I can not give the name, I do not know the name, I only know the nickname on the Internet, his nickname is Lupus. So he tells a very interesting story. That he went to the Carpathians, there live a people named Lemky, passing by one of the houses in one of the villages, he heard a widow mourning for her husband, loudly mourning with the words "ле-ле-леле, лемесе восстане" ("le-le-lele, lemese vosstane"), that is "God, God why have you left me" - the last words of Christ on the cross, which are written down and not translated, or rather they are translated, but in an interesting way, first the main phrase is given, "Элохим, Элохим левеха вохтаны" ("Elohim, Elohim leveha vohtany"), this is how it is written, the main phrase is given, and then the translation is given, supposedly "God, God, why have you forsaken me".

And what language is the translation from? And here everything is clear "леле, леле, леммесе восстаны", "God, God why have you forsaken me". Approximately the same in Bulgarian, oddly enough, a little bit different phrase, but the meaning will be the same, "God, God why have you forsaken me". Jesus Christ was a Galilean, according to my conception - a Gaul. What language did he speak? - he spoke in this unified language, which now we call Slavic, which in ancient times could be called anything - the language of the glagol (verb). By the way, if this single language was spoken, then it becomes clear why the French have the famous Glagolithic Reims Gospel.

After all, no one can understand why, all of a sudden, French kings swore in Rheims, took an oath on the Rheims Glagolitic Gospel until about the 16th century. Why? And, if we accept the version that there was some kind of unified language, which was the very language of the glagol, language of the Gauls, then it becomes clear. According to the version of American researchers, the same ones who wrote about Mary Magdalene as the wife of Christ, this very famous book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" by Bagent, Lee and Lincoln. Based on its stolen motives Dan Brown wrote his famous "Da Vinci Code". It's a fairly well-known hypothesis, that kings from the Merovingian dynasty had the blood of Christ in their veins.

And if this is really true, if it's really close to the truth, then this concept that it was in Gaul, it brings it all together, and then it's clear why the French kings used the Glagolithic Gospel and it's clear why the blood of Christ and it's clear why the lily, these ancient signs. And it is clear why is there a special attitude to the French monarchy and so on and so forth. That is, very many answers within the framework of this concept, very many questions within the framework of this concept receive intelligible answers, at least. The fact that they are now trying to pass off the Gospel in Aramaic or Hebrew as a primary source is ridiculous. The Gospels, the real Gospels, which you can touch and see, exist in Greek, exist in Latin, they are really quite ancient texts, just like the ancient Greek Gospels.



> _There is an Old Slavonic Gospel, there is a Glagolitic Gospel, but no one has ever seen an Aramaic text._


There are no textual traditions linking Christ and the apostles with Aramaic, there is simply no such thing with Hebrew as well. You can find some parallels between the Old Testament and the Hebrew texts, but that's another story, because the Old Testament is a completely different book, which, even according to traditional scholars, could have been written after the Gospel. And as for the text of the Gospel, as for the text of writing in general, this text, first of all, has been translated many times, repeatedly corrected, then it was cut down, then something was added. In general, if we are talking about the Gospels - there are many Gospels, there are also what are now called apocryphal Gospels, which were cut off at some stage, but nevertheless, they were very cleverly cut off, but they remained in the church tradition and are used and are recognized as texts of the church lore, which, as I said before, has the same weight as the scripture, the scripture and the lore are in balance.

And there is the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Gospel of Judas, there is the Gospel of Childhood, and so on and so forth, there are quite a few. But if we're talking, for example, about that Gospel text that exists now, the canonical text, for example, then that text exists, there is the Greek tradition, it's clear where it comes out of, that is, you can trace it, there is the Latin tradition, there is the Slavic tradition, there is no Aramaic tradition. The example with the last words of Christ is a very interesting example, an insanely interesting example, I think the man should be given a monument for finding this, a really brilliant finding, just brilliant.

Moreover, as I said, there are a lot of Greek names in the Gospels - Andrew, Peter, tax collector Matthew, somehow his name is very interesting, he has the name tax collector, that is, мытарь (mytar'), do you see that the name Matthew and the word Myto they have the same root. What language did this indicative name come from? I'll tell you an even more interesting story. We often say that there is the Gospel, but there is also the New Testament Gospel, which consists not only of the four canonical Gospels, it consists of some other works.

There are also the Acts of the Apostles, there are also the Epistles. By the way, if we talk about the authorship of the New Testament, even the churchmen themselves admit that many of the letters of the Apostle Paul, for example, were not written by Paul the Apostle. This is quite official information, they talk about this in seminaries. There is a series of lectures about it, for example by Archimandrite Januarius in which he talks about these texts, he says that of the 14 letters of the Apostle Paul, at least 6 absolutely do not belong to him. That is, it is either some disciples of his, or some followers who signed in Paul's name and gave out some texts under his name. Nevertheless, these texts are considered canonical. This is a paradoxical situation: on the one hand we know that these texts absolutely do not belong to Paul, but on the other hand they are part of the canon.



> _Even more interesting is the story, of the acts of the apostles._


There is an interesting place where it says about the synagogue of the Libertines. It is alleged that there was a sect of Libertines or freedmen, they are mentioned there, if I am not mistaken, in connection with the execution of St. Stephen, it is interesting that it does not talk about the sect of Libertines, it talks about the synagogue of Libertines, but the fact is that the word Libertine is a word invented in the 16th century by Jean Calvin. And with this word he stigmatized the sect of Libertines, or rather they were not called Libertines, it was because of Calvin that they began to be called Libertines. He branded a certain sect, which, by the way, was originally on the territory of Gaul. They were originally, I think, in the city of Bruges, and then they moved to Lille, which is Gaul again.

So, these very Libertines and the synagogue of the Libertines are not freedmen of the first century. In general, what freedmen could there be? Why freedmen of the first century suddenly call themselves Libertines with such inhuman joy? But in the 16th century it is quite a real thing. That is, by this measure we can very easily understand before what time the sacred texts were edited. Probably most of the Gospels were indeed written by the apostles who were either close to Christ or those who were close to his disciples. Indeed, these texts were written by people who knew the subject, who knew what they were writing about. And so this study of mine, although it can be considered very, very heretical, but on the other hand, it seems to me that this study confirms that the events in question, at least the geographical references that exist, the historical references that exist, and the fact that the Evangelists describe the place and time with sufficient precision, seems to me that this is just a confirmation that the events of the Gospel really did take place.

But they took place in a different part of the civilized world, not somewhere in the Middle East, but in the territory of Gaul, one of the most powerful provinces of the Roman Empire, at whatever time it existed. Then it is clear why the area of spread of Christianity is like that, it is clear why the main relics of Christ ended up in Gaul. It is clear at least how it is culturally, how it is ethically connected with previous generations.

Because if we are talking about evangelical Palestine, it is not at all clear on what ground Christianity grew up there, it is not clear, not at all clear. Moreover, if you remember the Savior's father was a carpenter, again we come back to the subject of carpentry and the question of woodworking. Where, in what part of the oikumene is there a need for carpenters, and what kind of carpenters can we talk about in Nazareth, in that city that is now commonly called Nazareth? Moreover, there is one very important thing to note here. In the Celtic tradition, more precisely in the Gallic tradition there is a myth about the god named Ezus, who was either a lumberjack or a carpenter, and who was hanged on a tree with such a streamlined formulation "hung on a tree", and what does it mean - whether he was hanged on a tree, or crucified?

But at least if we compare the Celtic myth and compare what is said in the Gospels, I'm not talking about Christianity, because if we talk about Christianity in general, then naturally we have to look at some Middle Eastern myths, and we have to look at Egypt, those are not some random things in Christianity, and in Christianity there is a lot mixed together. Again, I'm talking specifically about the Gospels, I'm talking specifically, shall we say, about the narrative part, the part that gives reference to place and time. I am not now discussing the cultural aspect deeply, we are now talking about more superficial things. Because you can, of course, dig deeper and see there Mitra and Sita and so on and so on. If there is something to talk about and there is a direction of search - you can talk endlessly.

What I am saying now is that Christianity, having absorbed all these traditions, could certainly have emerged in the form in which it emerged, not somewhere on the margins of civilization, not somewhere in Palestine, where it would have been forgotten immediately the day after the execution, it emerged there and then, when it was already possible to pick it up and spread it around. I think just the Crusades themselves are the answer to the question of where it took place. Let's first remember where the crusades came from and who was the initiator of the crusades. Moreover, let us remember that the papal court was not only in Rome, but also in Avignon. Moreover, often the papal court was not in Avignon, for example, but in the same place as the pope, because the pope had to move often.

Not everyone was eager to welcome him to their lands. Here we are confronted with the history of the Vatican, and the history of the Vatican is exactly the same myth as many other national histories. The Vatican needed to lengthen its history, which is why all these popes who supposedly sat in Rome on the Tiber arose. In fact, the papal court and the papal chancellery is no deeper than Avignon. That is, if we are talking about the papal throne, the papal court, then again, it is possible that popes are a phenomenon, at least originally purely Gallic, purely French, although there is an opinion that the Vatican is generally a Spanish project of the 15-16 centuries, well, the Vatican that we know now. Nevertheless, back to the Crusades.



> _Let's remember where they all came from and why the knights weren't involved in the crusades. There were very few knights from Catholic Poland, the Czech Republic, from Germany, who were quite prosperous at that time, why?_


Yes, in fact, practically the first campaign was entirely Gallic. I don't say French on purpose, because the Ile-de-France, which was a small area around Paris, had various Gallic entities, that is, we can say that they were French, but in fact they were Gauls. They were called various things: Bretonians, Normans, and so on and so forth, but nevertheless, they were all knights from the territory of Gaul. So the first crusade was Gallic. Why exactly from there and why go to Jerusalem?

To conquer the city after 1000 years is questionable, in terms of profit - I doubt they could have caught anything there, there were much more interesting cities in the Middle East, where you could get something. My guess is that the crusades are just a special operation to relocate the scene, if they were crusades at all. Because the history of the crusades is very, very vague, and generally it is not very clear how many of them there were, who participated in them, they talk about some crusades of children, which is also, in general, difficult to confirm, problematic. So, if we are talking about the crusades, and if we accept that there were crusades, we must clarify when they were. Because the Arabs, the Arab sources say that they fought the Franks.

With which Franks is also a question. Because maybe they were just fighting free people and not the French, which, in general, is not the same thing. And if we understand that the crusade was a crusade of knights and quite specific knights, then it is likely that it was a very real special operation, one of the first special operations to create a kind of mirage on the territory of modern Israel, on the territory of present-day Palestine. That is, so that you could always say where it happened, where Christ was crucified, there - in Jerusalem, he was crucified far away, and then again, everything becomes clear, everything becomes in line, why they were there so briefly.

I think that given the degree of preparedness of these knights, they were absolutely able to get a foothold there and hold these territories for a very, very long time. In spite of that, they had great difficulty in holding territories, they didn't have much people at hand. So during the Crusades, the myth was created that all this was happening in that Galilee, in that Judea, here in those lands, not in the territory of Gaul, but in the territory of some distant land, so that there was someone to point the finger at. Well, who would want to be responsible for the crucifixion of the Savior. And to have the pope sit in the same place where the Savior was crucified, who would like that. I think it has something to do with the history of the Vatican, with the history of the papacy, with the history of the orders.



> _The same Templars. Who are the Templars?_


They are moneychangers, that is a kind of analogue of the banking system. Accordingly, somehow it was necessary to move the business, it was necessary to somehow promote it all. How can you promote it if you have a brand on your forehead? In general, it's probably quite difficult, but if you've distanced it all a little bit from yourself - it's much easier. So I think that the history of all these secret orders, including the Templar Order, with the execution of Jacques de Molay in 1414, the history of some other orders, looking deeper into the real history of them, we can get closer to understanding what was really going on in the lands of Gaul and Galilee. The Templars are a kind of forerunner of the secret societies, which did the business of turning the tables. The New History is a project, conventionally speaking, of the 16th century, when nation-states in the modern sense of the word began to emerge.

Because what nation-states can we talk about before the 16th century? In fact, none at all. If you look at old maps, you see that there are some common names of territories, i.e. before the 16th century France is called Gaul, the whole France is called Gaul, say in Russia there is Scythia or Tartaria, and so on. Some general names of territories. By no means do I want to say that my version is the only one, true, correct, immutable, fundamental, etc., it is only a version, I mean, we can give as many facts as we want, but, nevertheless, there is a tradition that is very difficult to push back, even a millimeter.

So until there is some absolutely crazy strong evidence, well, at least for the people who read it, listen to it, etc., until then it will remain just a version. It seems to me, personally, and to the people I talk to there, it seems to us that this version is convincing enough. Despite the fact that I spoke for hours on end, I sort of, as you understand, didn't put all my cards on the table. In other words, I could have talked as long as I wanted, I could have given absolutely amazing facts, for example about the famous Mount Montsegur, a separate topic, about why there was a crusade against the Cathars. Now, Mount Montsegur, what was it called before? It was called Favor, so for a second, that's Mount Tabor. What's more, I was talking about the fact that there is the Jordan River - Iridan, it's still a piece of the Po River and the Rhone.




_*Map of Paris*_​
There are plenty of other toponyms that I haven't even mentioned today, there's Guyenne, which is compared to the Gehenna of Fire. You'll realize that very close there is Mount Sion, it, by the way, still exists on the border in the Upper Savoy department in France, on the French/Swiss border there is the modern Swiss city of Sion, everyone knows it, no one just connects it with these events. Moreover, if anyone is interested, you can look up what Lake Geneva used to be called and whether it has anything to do with Lake Genisaret. Well, biblical toponymy is scattered all over Gaul and partially touches the modern territory of Spain, Iberia, whatever you want to call it, and partially, a little goes into northern Italy. Gaulish territory.



> _To summarize, it is a very interesting thing that most of the biblical toponymy exists in Gaul or in some adjoining lands._


Moreover, if you look at the Gospels, for example, Christ went around preaching for 3 years. A good question is where can one preach for 3 years in Israel, with the distances that are offered to us. Another good question is where does one get such discernment about wine? Remember the scene in Cana of Galilee when at the wedding feast Christ turns water into wine. If you remember, the master of the feast tells the host in a very interesting way that usually they give good wine first, and then they give anything else, but you saved that good wine for the very end of the feast - a rarity. This is to the question of wine culture and to the question of what kind of wine culture there was in ancient Israel. Now it exists, but you have to understand very firmly where it comes from - the whole current Israeli wine culture is the Rothschilds, this is the 19th century.

There really are amazing vineyards now, there really are very tasty wines, but almost all of those vineyards are from Rothschilds and 19th century. And the French winemaking has a centuries-old tradition and if people at the feast are still able to distinguish which wines are better, which are worse, you still have to look at the degree of preservation. Could wines in Israel be preserved like that? What kind of winemaking can we talk about in this territory, such deep winemaking where people still understand which wine is better, which is worse, also a good question in line with carpentry, with wood and so on. In fact, there are a lot of these questions, I do not list the various chronological inconsistencies, it is not even interesting to talk about them anymore.




*Map of Jerusalem*​
So, returning to the question of Fomenko and versions of history, that is, what I am talking about is just a version, a version quite heretical, probably, although it seems to me that I just confirm that it really was a matter of faith and geography is a different issue. So, Fomenko's version is also quite interesting, but again, Fomenko mentions southern France and the city of Cannes in connection with Christ and he says that one of the miracles could happen in the city of Cannes, that is, in France. And he considers Constantinople to be Jerusalem. In this case, we must somehow explain how the Gallic Sea suddenly turned out to be the Mediterranean Sea, and there is no answer to the question - in what particular territories did Christ preach. Besides, let us remember that in the territory of modern Turkey or in the territory of Byzantium Christianity certainly has very deep roots. Nevertheless, even though it has deep roots and a very respectful attitude up to now to Christian shrines, Christian evangelical toponymy has not survived in the same volume as in Gaul of France.

Of course, we can say that something has been lost there, something has not been noticed, something has not been paid attention to, and so on and so forth. But the fact is that in France we have a kind of quintessence, some kind of product that we can almost already touch. Look, everything here is quite compact and everything is consistent, everything agrees very well with the Apocrypha and Scripture, which, by the way, is also rare to be consistent with both, because if you move the place of action to Palestine, then you will have many differences between Scripture and the Apocrypha, here the Apocrypha and Scripture converge, traditions converge. Fomenko - Nosovsky version certainly deserves attention and discussion. Moreover, Fomenko was precisely one of the first to draw attention to this problem. Fomenko, like Morozov, like Postrinkov, like Kesler, like many other talented researchers, did a great job and they found a lot of interesting, important, necessary and, not fearing to swear, exclusive information.

So moreover, when a very important point in their research is the dating, when they move it all closer to our time, that is 12th, 13th, 14th century. And, really, if you move it by time, you realize that you don't have any other obstacles in general. The only thing, I am somewhat skeptical about that part of his research, which says about the stay of "Andronicus" Christ in the territory of Russia, Byzantium, but again, this is my personal view of the subject and I in no way want to say that I am right here unequivocally, And Fomenko is completely wrong and understands nothing about history, no, I urge everyone who is interested to read Fomenko, certainly read Fomenko, because even with the ambiguous attitude to him that exists, Fomenko has a huge number of sensible and interesting ideas and thoughts from all points of view.



> _And even if one hundredth of what Fomenko says is true, it is a revolution._


In fact, I have great respect for everyone who is looking, who is trying to look, who is even making some mistakes and stumbling towards something, this is much more interesting and, in my opinion, more correct than just sitting in a chair and doing flea hunting. It's just that, perhaps, there is a certain common critical view of the version of history that exists, because what is now passed off as the only version of history, the only possible version of history, it is flawed from every point of view and people who are now already writing some work on history, they are unwilling, they are detached from life, they are terribly far away from the people. If you look at how history is written today, even look at the history of the 20th century, how it is created before our eyes, how it is mythologized.

I remember when I was educated in the Soviet Union, and we were brought up on the idea that in October 1917 the Winter Palace was stormed and so on and so on. When I was taken into pioneer service, a participant in the storming of the Winter Palace, a living man, told us about the storming, the battle, how everything was burning and cracking, the myth was created before our eyes, with the help of the living participants, even though in the 20th century there is radio and television, newspapers, books, so there is more than free access to information. And yet, even though all information is accessible even in the most closed societies, it is still possible to construct myths. Especially since it is clear that any chronicler, any historian of the 19th, 18th, 17th century wrote exactly the same under dictation, exactly the same by order, as modern scribes do.

That is, nothing changes, well, for some reason it is believed that the ancient chroniclers, ancient historians must be believed unconditionally, and if it is written that in this or that century or year, this or that prince, count, king, whatever, did this and that, then it was so, neither a year earlier nor a year later. For some reason it is not taken into account that there are always interested parties, there are always those people for whom it is written. Why were all these chronicles created at all, why were all these chronicles created, why, for whom, where, under what conditions? Let's rewind the tape and we will realize that all chronicles, all history, any of the same documents there, which are now called one hundred percent proof, they were always fabricated in any era, forged.

Moreover, since the 16th century there is such a business as the antiques business, which has its own lobby, which is ready to throw rotten tomatoes at Anatoly Fomenko and Yaroslav Kesler and everyone else who doubts the antiquity of artifacts, antiquity, that some things were created in the ancient era. Try it, fight this lobby. And this is just one example of the fact that in order to make history older and to show it in the right way, to illuminate it from the right side, a huge number of people are interested, and people in power, who, let's say, will stop at nothing. You have to be critical of all sources and that's how I approached it. I always approach history from this point of view.

And for me in general, the era was very interesting, the era of early Christianity and the era of medieval Europe was very interesting. When I began to read, to compare, I realized that one is inseparable from the other. I sincerely hope that I have not touched anyone's religious feelings, I want to repeat this, because I myself have a great respect for people of faith, but I believe that the issues of faith and geography can be quite easily separated. So, I hope that I have not touched anyone's religious feelings, and I hope that someone learned something new for themselves and maybe will start reading more on this topic, will find something else interesting that I have not reached and maybe convince me that I am not right in the fact that these events took place somewhere else.

*Well, that's about it.*


----------



## Safranek (Sep 23, 2021)

That was an amazing read, thanks for the work you put into compiling it.

The coincidences are overwhelming, The implication of this research are enormous. It demolishes all claims to the 'Holy Land'. Good luck to any 'academics' who might try to run with this research, it will surely bring an abrupt ending to their professional careers.

I would say that this topic not only should be on the front page, but deserves it's own thread.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Sep 23, 2021)

Well, @Sasyexa, I'm blown away to be honest. This is fascinating. Under normal circumstances I don't have the heart for claims regarding the relocation of biblical scenarios to America, Bulgaria or anywhere else, with their 'clutching at straws' Khaoz etymology, but I didn't find anything that caused me to recoil. Or maybe just one instance... or two:



Sasyexa said:


> the ancient Roman bases on the island of Jersey, Gerasa, compare Jersey and Gerasa you get the land of Gerasenes



It would make more sense to me if it was the island of *Guernsey*, which is right next to Jersey. Also, the Cannes Film Festival reference was quite a stretch, imo.

For me this is on a par with the 'Homer in the Baltic' material presented by @Silveryou to which I feel sure there is a connection. I would agree that it's so important that it needs its own thread, otherwise it could end up buried and lost inside this one.

It has caused a kind of personal 'reset' for me and already thoughts and ideas are shifting into new patterns and forming new connections. It absolutely ties in to the Normans and is shedding more light upon who they really were (the Romans?)

I don't personally see this as confirmation of the veracity of the biblical narrative, but it certainly identifies the locality or 'backdrop' used by the authors. I habitually shy away from issues of chronology as I find it distracting and lean towards the notion that it wil all sort itself out in the end.

By the way, Ignatius Loyola was from the Basque region of Spain and originally Jewish. Furthermore, the Jews themselves will tell you that their original European settlement was in what they call the *Shum Cities* of Speyer, Worms and Mainz in the state of the Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany and dating to the 10th century. These cathedral cities are UNESCO world heritage sites and the Jews go on pilgrimages there - *not *Israel.

Many thanks for sharing this, let's hope it doesn't get ignored.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 23, 2021)

Israelites with Western armor and weapons. Jan van Eyck, *Annunciation,* 1434-1436



Taken from a certain blog...


> *Jeanne de Laval* (1433-1498), *wife of René d’Anjou* (1409-1480) lived much later though we certainly deal with the same character. *She was* *Queen of Jerusalem* and Countess of Provence. On this engraving, we see the text «* Ioanna Ierusalem Utriusque Siciliae Regina* ». Obviously *she was queen of the Two Sicilys too*. This kingdom of the Two Sicilys joins the Kingdom of Naples to the island of Sicily. Historians often say the title was not in use most of the time and prefer to use the words « Kingdom of Naples » usually we encounter Two Sicilys on the ancient documents. René d’Anjou (1409-1480) had pretensions over the island of Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples, though it is said he lost Naples to Alphonse V of Aragon.







> Jerusalem is not mentioned in both biographies of *Jeanne and René*. As the Kingdom of Jerusalem is Tuscany and Puglia, it means that the two *ruled over* *most of Italy*. It is said that the Gaulish nobility, Anjou and Valois abandoned both titles of Jerusalem and two Sicilys after 1442. Obviously this is wrong.


----------



## Sasyexa (Sep 24, 2021)

Finished the second part and fixed some translation errors.

Some comments from under the articles:
​About Capernaum.​​I just remembered that I had read somewhere about incorrect translations of neighboring letters from Latin-Greek. In general, it did not mean Cabernet, but Caverna​
There is such a place for Cavernaux in France, a matter of one letter.​
​By the way, about the Gallic Ezus - in the biblical Acts of the Apostles (5:30) about Jesus Christ it is literally said: "The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging on a tree." An interesting coincidence with the myth about the "hanged from a tree" Ezus, isn't it?​


----------



## Will Scarlet (Sep 24, 2021)

Great to see this in its own thread with all fancy pictures and stuff 

How does all this affect the Crusades? If Jerusalem was/is Paris then did the Crusades happen in France? Arab history records the two Crusades as taking place in the Middle East with the capture of Jersualem etc, although it is presented in a very different way. A quick internet search brought up this:

"_In practice, the Crusades were a much more complicated and haphazard affair, and the Frankish Crusaders appear in Muslim sources as puzzling strangers more often than valiant Christian knights. The most important Arabic sources dating to the Crusader period were not unified in their perspective, but they demonstrate that the Crusaders, rather than Christianizing the Holy Land and expelling the influence of Islam, largely settled into the local context and sought to reproduce the medieval societies they came from._" _Source_​​So were the Crusades just another Norman/Roman land-grab? Perhaps it was more subtle than that as the Church and the Crown benefited from the land that belonged to dead Crusaders back home.


This new information has stirred up a lot of old information that had sunk to the bottom of my head:

The *Merovingian *claim to the bloodline of Jesus. The gist of it is that Jesus either escaped crucifixion or that it never happened and that he and Mary Magdalene fled to France. They had a child and that gave rise to the Frankish Merovingian dynasty. Well, if this theory has any validity then they wouldn't have needed to go very far as they were already in France.

There's also the Joseph of Arimethea legend concerning the Glastonbury Thorn. Joseph was claimed to be the great-uncle of Jesus who brought Christianity to Britain. Again, not far to go if it all happened in France, especially if Lyonesse and Doggerland were still above water back then and connecting the island to mainland Europe.

Helena, Constantine's mother, was also claimed to be the daughter of a British king, Chlorus. She may have been born in the town of Colchester in 255 AD. A 'local girl' then as far as the French Holy Land goes.




Sasyexa said:


> There is such a place for Cavernaux in France, a matter of one letter.



To get to Cavernaux from Cabernet is more than one letter, it's actually four.




Sasyexa said:


> So it is quite logical to assume that it was to this city of Cite that Lazarus was sent as bishop



This has been playing on my mind... it's like saying the town of Town, or village of Village. I'm not keen on it as an explanation personally.


----------



## Sasyexa (Sep 24, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> To get to Cavernaux from Cabernet is more than one letter, it's actually four.


It is more a matter of the root of the word



Will Scarlet said:


> This has been playing on my mind... it's like saying the town of Town, or village of Village. I'm not keen on it as an explanation personally.


Tautology is quite common in Russian, although original text has more variations. Where did the word city come from?

P.S. This one came to mind too


----------



## Alexandra (Sep 24, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Herod Antipas, who was also mentioned in the Gospel, was also exiled by Caligula to Gaul


Antipas - Antibes


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 24, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> The *Merovingian *claim to the bloodline of Jesus. The gist of it is that Jesus either escaped crucifixion or that it never happened and that he and Mary Magdalene fled to France. They had a child and that gave rise to the Frankish Merovingian dynasty. Well, if this theory has any validity then they wouldn't have needed to go very far as they were already in France.


I don't know where this claim comes from. I think Maximilian I (the First) would have talked about it if this was true. Instead he speaks about their Trojan connection (Arch of Glory of Imperator Maximilian I).


> _At the very bottom will be seen three matrons who represent the most distinguished nations of Troy, Sicambria and Francia. It must be understood that *the male line of the Merovingian dynasty extends back to the first king of France; who is descended from the magnanimous Hector of Troy* and who conquered the Pannonian territories, now known as Hungary and Austria, and gained victory over the Sicambrians, subsequently known as the Franks, and over the Gauls._


----------



## Sasyexa (Sep 24, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I don't know where this claim comes from. I think Maximilian I (the First) would have talked about it if this was true. Instead he speaks about their Trojan connection (Arch of Glory of Imperator Maximilian I).


I wonder how this thread plays into this:



> ​_(from left to right)_
> *The three Christians:*
> 
> _Charlemagne_ bearing an eagle upon his shield
> ...



14th century again

P.S. It's from City Hall in Cologne, Germany


----------



## Safranek (Sep 25, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> It has caused a kind of personal 'reset' for me and already thoughts and ideas are shifting into new patterns and forming new connections.


It had the same effect on me. An awakened curiosity has inspired me to attempt to connect the many loose ends from previous attempts at the digestion of written history (mainstream and alternative).

IF we were to start out with the *assumption* that the premise arrived at by this research is correct (and its the best premise I've encountered so far), then it would be interesting to go back through the history of all of Europe from the 11th to the 16th centuries with this in mind, and see if there may be clues within to support the hypothesis laid out in the OP.



Will Scarlet said:


> How does all this affect the Crusades? If Jerusalem was/is Paris then did the Crusades happen in France?


I recall reading about Polish and Hungarian kings sending troops to Jerusalem when I was researching the logistics of who held the purse in the European countries (monarchies) as related to the Habsburgs and the Fuggers whom it seems later became the Medicis. It struck me as odd why these Central European countries would be joining some military campaign led by Rome to 'Jerusalem', given that there were a lot of internal conflicts as well as conflicts with 'neighbors' going on simultaneously at the time for both. It made no sense, unless finances and political affiliations were influencing the matter. And why 'Jerusalem"?

I will try and relocate that info and skim through it again to see if there may be any clues regarding the logistics of how the said armies traveled to 'Jerusalem'. (Time, distance, travel through water, mountains, etc.) It would also help to look at this from the perspective of the other countries involved.



Sasyexa said:


> I wonder how this thread plays into this:


I'm guessing you're well aware how that thread plays into this. Coats of Arms are another aspect that may yield some clues to confirm or confuse.

Additionally, another couple of threads came to mind;
Ancient Coins: are they fake?  ​SH Archive - Ancient Coins: are they fake?

and,
The Church Inquisition did not persecute people, but counterfeit coins​The Church Inquisition did not persecute people, but counterfeit coins

And here's a site where we can check a lot of coins:

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/index.php?ct=coin

Another important aspect that may yield some clues would be linguistics. On the premise of the OP, there may have been an original language for all Europeans where they understood each other in the so-called 'Gallic-belt', not to rule out that more than one language may have been used. Its also possible that an entire nation's language can be completely sabotaged via an inquisition, destruction of literature, and three generations of descendants being instructed in the replacement language. If this happened (and it most likely did for the divide and conquer), then our task would be to try and determine what this original European language was but lets NOT try and do this in this thread as it would derail the OP as its a big enough topic for a separate thread.

Additionally, this thread by Silveryou, which I just rediscovered through his last post about the Fomenko site being down, may provide some background info if we consider the missing 1k years.

That would put these events into the 11th century, a runner-up to the so-called biblical events.

*Arch of Glory of Imperator Maximilian I*

Arch of Glory of Imperator Maximilian I


----------



## Will Scarlet (Sep 25, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I don't know where this claim comes from. I think Maximilian I (the First) would have talked about it if this was true. Instead he speaks about their Trojan connection (Arch of Glory of Imperator Maximilian I).



Sorry, I wasn't implying that any of the resurfaced theories in my comment were true, but their proximity to the "Biblical France" offers an explanation as to how they could have come into being. What I mean is that an old legend about the so-called 'Holy Family' visiting Tasmania would be much more understandable if Tasmania was actually the Isle of Wight (please note people -_ I'm not suggesting this as a possibility._)

Having said that, the various interpretations of the Messianic or Grail Bloodline theories, as they're known, may actually contain a great deal of information that's relevant to the OP and which has the potential to link it with the Homer in the Baltic material (imo). I just wish I had the time to research it, but I don't at the moment.

What I'm talking about is a legend that's based in the relevant area concerning the true identity of Jesus, alleging a continuation of his ancestral line, linking to King Arthur, with Norse/Anglo-Saxon connections and even as an added bonus occult supernatural rumours. What more could you ask for? 

This stuff featured heavily in the 'Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' book and 'The Da Vinci Code' film/book, which doesn't particularly recommend it of course, but underneath all misinformation there's information buried somewhere.

"In a history of the Frankish people, the cleric Fredegar attributed the founding of its ruling dynasty, the Merovingians, to one guy named Merovech. Gregory of Tours was the first source to mention Merovech. He doesn’t give Merovech a monstrous lineage, instead making him a mortal man who founded a new royal dynasty.

"Gregory stressed the accomplishments of his descendants, including his son Childeric, rather than giving him any illustrious ancestors. Merovech might be related to a prior king named Chlodio, but it’s not confirmed. What does this mean? Perhaps Merovech wasn’t of noble lineage, but was instead a self-made man; either way, it seems that Merovech’s descendants were of more historical significance than his ancestors. Other sources, like the anonymously-penned Liber Historiae Francorum (Book of the History of the Franks ), explicitly identify Merovech as being related to Chlodio.

"But the aforementioned Fredegar goes a different route. He says that Chlodio’s wife gave birth to Merovech, but her husband wasn’t the father; instead, she decided to go swimming and, in the water, mated with a mysterious monster, a “beast of Neptune which resembles a Quinotaur.” As a result, Merovech was the son either of a mortal king or a magical beast.

 "...there was a long tradition of casting the Franks as heirs to the classical Mediterranean (and thus as legitimate heirs of the Romans); [*WS*: that would be the Baltic/Hellenistic Romans] after the Trojan War, the Trojans and their allies reportedly fled [*WS*: south] to the Rhine, where their descendants eventually became the Franks.

"Perhaps Fredegar was elevating Merovech to hero status. A *semi-mythical ancestry* was a characteristic of many mythological heroes; think of,* for example, the Greek king Theseus of Athens, who claimed both the sea god Poseidon and the mortal king Aegeus as his fathe*r. In other words, having a sea monster father made Merovech—and his real-life descendants, living and ruling during the times of Gregory and Fredegar—different from those they ruled over, perhaps as demigods or, at least, divinely ordained. Some historians have suggested the Merovingians were indeed thought of as “sacred kings,” somehow more than mortal, men that were holy in and of themselves. The kings would be special, perhaps invincible in battle. The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail , *who posited that the Merovingians were descended from Jesus*—whose hidden bloodline migrated from Israel to France via Mary Magdalene [*WS*: or vice versa] —were big proponents of this theory. Others scholars have suggested that this tale was an attempt to parse out the name “Merovech,” assigning it a meaning of “sea bull,” or some such." Source

That was a fairly sane version of the legend. There are many more radical ones out there. Some involving Rollo - the alleged founder of the Normans/Romans.



Sasyexa said:


> Tautology is quite common in Russian, although original text has more variations. Where did the word city come from?



It's similar to the 'Shum Cities' I mentioned with regard to the first Jewish settlement in Europe or Ashkenaz as they called it. It's very difficult to get a reliable translation, but it could mean 'name' giving 'Name Cities'... almost sounds like a questionnaire - 'insert name here'.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 25, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> "In a history of the Frankish people, the cleric Fredegar attributed the founding of its ruling dynasty, the Merovingians, to one guy named Merovech. Gregory of Tours was the first source to mention Merovech. He doesn’t give Merovech a monstrous lineage, instead making him a mortal man who founded a new royal dynasty.
> 
> "Gregory stressed the accomplishments of his descendants, including his son Childeric, rather than giving him any illustrious ancestors. Merovech might be related to a prior king named Chlodio, but it’s not confirmed. What does this mean? Perhaps Merovech wasn’t of noble lineage, but was instead a self-made man; either way, it seems that Merovech’s descendants were of more historical significance than his ancestors. Other sources, like the anonymously-penned Liber Historiae Francorum (Book of the History of the Franks ), explicitly identify Merovech as being related to Chlodio.
> 
> ...


I think my reconstruction based upon the Arch of Maximilian (Arch of Glory of Imperator Maximilian I) is more insightful than this source. This source seems just an expansion of the wiki article adding, as you said, the 'royal blood' (sang real - saint Graal) story from the 1982 book 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' (casually after the great success of the film 'Excalibur' in 1981).
I am not saying this to diminish that point of view, but when you look at the prime sources the story is always a little different. Go read that thread and give me a comment, since the Arch contains precious infos contradicting the narrative.
EDIT: to explain it better, all these theories are built upon the uncritically accepted history passed down by modern historians. But the primary sources tell something else.

Here below the same author, Jean Fouquet, imagines Roland's death at the Battle of Roncevaux Pass and Saul's death at the Battle of Gilboa. The titles of these paintings were most probably given in recent times.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Sep 26, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Go read that thread and give me a comment, since the Arch contains precious infos contradicting the narrative.



So now you're giving me homework!? 

I will, but I need some time.



Silveryou said:


> This source seems just an expansion of the wiki article adding, as you said, the 'royal blood' (sang real - saint Graal) story from the 1982 book 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' (casually after the great success of the film 'Excalibur' in 1981).



To be fair I don't think the book and the film were related. There is some solid research in there, but the 'fly in the ointment' was the Priory of Sion element, which was a hoax (but not by the author's.) They produced sequels, but they deteriorated further, ending in a work of Masonic apology - The Temple and the Lodge. What's important though is with that first book they unwittingly spawned a movement that began *doubting the official narrative* which, in turn, inspired people like me and my brother to investigate things for ourselves.

So, was Clovis Merovech then or just a pigment of someone's imagination? Merovech is more appealing because Clovingians doesn't sound good.


----------



## Sasyexa (Sep 26, 2021)

Found a blog claiming to be from Alexey Khrustalyov: Галльское Евангелие . Some interesting content:

*A Living (Gospel) Story in Pictures...*​
It is not always possible to put pictures taken "on the ground" in articles, books, and postings.  Digging through my own photobank, I found a lot of interesting things.  I publish them now.  For it is important. 







The stone found under the remains of the two Maries, the sisters of Lazarus.  In France it is called the pillow of the saints Maries.  It is now in the cathedral of Sainte-Marie-de-la-Mer.  Excavated in the mid-15th century.  And the remains were not disturbed until then.






The altar in the church of Sainte-Marie-de-la-Mer.  The sisters converted a gypsy community to Christianity (where did the gypsies come from in the ancient Roman province of Gaul, historians are bashfully silent).  Since then, gypsy gratitude has known no bounds.  For they understand who brought them to the true God.






The church where the remains of Mary Magdalene are buried.  Quiet and deserted.  This is what the temples originally looked like.  Rough finishes, uneven walls, stones sticking out of the walls.  This church was not improved by Viollet-le-Duc.  Thanks to this fortunate circumstance, we can see what the ancient sanctuaries really looked like.  Of course, modern historians and culturologists will explain to you that this is a medieval long construction, and the façade was not cut for lack of money.  It just makes you want to weep, doesn't it?






A piece of the Lazarus Mausoleum.  Already wrote about it.  They saved it.  Perhaps now they even regret it.






These are the heads of the Judean kings.  They adorned the main cathedral of France, Notre Dame de Paris.  At the time of the great French Revolution, they were knocked off the cathedral because the revolutionaries thought they were French monarchs.  Who prompted it?  Well, it's a riddle...
Today, these heads are in the Cluny Museum.






The city of Vien.  Since ancient times it is believed that this pyramid was erected over the tomb of Pontius Pilate.  The locals are afraid to check the version.  But Karamzin, traveling through Europe, lamented that, while in Switzerland, did not visit the homeland of Pontius Pilate, although he was nearby.
Well, I did.  And I took pictures. And I moved on.
Where to?
Galilee, of course...






Just don't think I'm darting off to the Middle East.  In France, too, there is the Valley of Galilee.  Here, it welcomes everyone.  Didn't you know that?
Okay.  You didn't know about Bethany in France either?  You're welcome!






By the way, here in the neighborhood, in Germany, they found the tombstone of Abdes Panther, whom the Jews recorded as the father of Christ. It is purely coincidental that the Panther was also from Sidon. What Sidon is like in Gaul-Germany, let the historians tell you.  I'm just posting pictures.  Here:






That's a living history

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Easter Anemones*​
According to an ancient (very ancient) tradition, anemones bloomed on Calvary after Christ was crucified.  Such little red flowers that looked like poppies.  A detail to which no one, except for the old authors and medieval painters, pays much attention.  Well, they bloomed, what's more to that?

The only trouble is that anemones in Israel bloom in winter.  In January and February.  And Easter never happens in the winter. 

But, no matter how you conjure it up, all evidence suggests that Christ was led to the cross in the spring, and not the earliest.  More accurately, in April.

And there are no anemones in Palestine in April, for the age of this flower is short: a week or two at most.  At this time, the pseudo-poppies bloom in a different geography.  I suppose I don't need to explain which one.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Sep 27, 2021)

Now that I have had some time to gather my thoughts since first reading this theory, I have just noticed the 'elephant in the room'. What's really embarrassing is that it was me that introduced it...



Will Scarlet said:


> the Jews themselves will tell you that *their original European settlement *was in what they call the *Shum Cities* of Speyer, Worms and Mainz in the state of the Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany and dating to the 10th century. These cathedral cities are UNESCO world heritage sites and the Jews go on pilgrimages there - *not *Israel.



The Gospel stories all concern a Jewish boy living in a major Jewish settlement. Except there wasn't a major Jewish settlement in northern Europe until about 1000 years after the time of the Gospel stories, therefore they couldn't have actually taken place in and around Paris, France. The first Jewish settlement in France was at Troyes, in Champagne, but *after *the Shum Cities in Germany.

This information is from official Jewish history and can be verified in all their online encyclopedias and especially here:

ShUM, Jerusalem on the Rhine: Speyer, Worms, Mainz

I am 100% convinced that if there had been a "Jerusalem on the Seine: Paris" then they would have made sure everyone knew about it a long time ago. It seems that the Jews are very keen to use the 'Jerusalem' (originally just Salem, btw) motif in as many countries as possible, a bit like MacDonalds. This may explain the Jewsuits, sorry Jesuits, later consecrating their order in the temple of St. Peter on Montmartre.

So, where does this leave the 'France - Biblical Israel' proposition? Unless anyone can solve the conundrum above (...mudflood, reset, magic timeloop ) then my thoughts are that if it's not just a huge coincidence, or something like the Glastonbury Zodiac, but in France, then it's logical to make the assumption that whoever wrote the Gospels had an intimate knowledge of the landscape around Paris and the geography of France. They used this knowledge as a setting for the Gospel stories, just like Tolkien used his Middle Earth landscape, because they had no information regarding Palestine to draw upon.

The Gospel stories are looking more like fiction since this theory came along than they did before, imo. The fact of the first Jewish settlement in northern Europe during the 10th and 11th centuries would seem to rule them out as the authors of the Gospels, because they wouldn't have had the topographical knowledge and Christianity had already become a well established religion hundreds of years before they arrived in the area.

I'm not familiar with the theories of who actually wrote the Gospels, or when, but I remember David Icke (and others) claimed it was a Roman aristocratic family named Piso, who were somehow related to Constantine the Great, in his 'The Biggest Secret' book. I have also heard it said that the Gospels were adapted from Hellenistic Romances which were very popular during the first few centuries AD and written in the very same style. Neither of these theories get us into northern France though, unless someone in Paris was big on Hellenistic Romances.


----------



## Sasyexa (Sep 27, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Now that I have had some time to gather my thoughts since first reading this theory, I have just noticed the 'elephant in the room'. What's really embarrassing is that it was me that introduced it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The author did assume the shortened chronology version, so arrival of the Jews may just have overlapped with the creation of the Gospels. However, even if incorrect - he also mentioned this mythical Esus figure, who might be a basis for the New Testament character, don't forget this thread too. So whatever may have happened in reality, the end result - a Jewish coat of paint.

That also reminds me of something. Long ago I heard a hypothesis that when the tribes were scattered from Palestine, one of them ended up in Denmark. They are called Jutes. It always struck me as odd that they would choose Denmark, of all places. But if the assumption in the OP is correct, then the proximity of "Jutes" to the ancient "Judea" doesn't seem so far-fetched. That would account for the Jewish presence on the continent before the arrival of Khazarian banksters.

P.S.


Will Scarlet said:


> Neither of these theories get us into northern France though, unless someone in Paris was big on Hellenistic Romances.


Maybe that's the connection to Homer in the Baltic you were looking for? 

P.P.S.
Could "Hellenic" be related to the "Gallic Belt"?


----------



## Gladius (Oct 1, 2021)

Great thread first of all. I've seen this particular information for years but never so much here.
The channel Nik Research had great videos about Biblical France - but now I see all content was removed... shame.

I'd like to make a unique contribution to this subject: The name of France in Hebrew, and names of nations in  general.
From the point of view of Jewish scholars, we can see different takes on who they are and how events took place.

In modern Hebrew we can find some unique names for nations or countries, either carried in tradition, or simply a 'modern interpretation' of biblical countries. Here are some examples:

France - *צרפת *- Tsar'fat [TS-R-F-T]
Spain - ספרד - S'farad / Sephard [S-F-R-D]
Greece - יוון - Yavan [Y-V-N] [as in: Ionian]
India - הודו - Hodu [H-VD-V]
Egypt - מצרים - Mits'rayim [M-TS-R-Y-M]

For any of those, there's no absolute proof that the words actually represent those countries.
Since you got the idea, let's focus on France. In modern Hebrew, it is still called Tsar'fat by the speakers.
What is the origin of this name? Well, "Tsar'fat" is mentioned several times in the Old Testaement, and together with other locations.

*- Obadiah 1:20:*
"וְגָלֻת הַחֵל הַזֶּה לִבְנֵי *יִשְׂרָאֵל* אֲשֶׁר *כְּנַעֲנִים *עַד *צָרְפַת *וְגָלֻת *יְרוּשָׁלַ‍ִם *אֲשֶׁר *בִּסְפָרַד *יִרְשׁוּ אֵת עָרֵי *הַנֶּגֶב*."
"This company of *Israelite *exiles who are in *Canaan *will possess the land as far as *Zarephath*;
the exiles from *Jerusalem *who are in *Sepharad *will possess the towns of the *Negev*."

*- 1 Kings 17:9:*
קוּם לֵךְ *צָרְפַתָה *אֲשֶׁר *לְצִידוֹן*
"Go at once to *Zarephath *in the region of *Sidon *and stay there."
[Notice the english translation spells it Zarephat, that's not literally correct and not how it sounds. It is Tsar'fat, not Za,re,phat.]

How are those locations interpreted?
Tsar'fat = France
Sephard = Spain
Negev = semidesert, south Israel [Negev]
Sidon = Sidon, Lebanon

Many questions arise, to which PTB already has answers prepared.
How come that the OT, which allegedly describes only describing local Near-East nations, is speaking about Spain and France?
Moreover, why would they say that the exiles of Canaan will receive France, and the exiles of Jerusalem are in Spain, and will get the Negev cities? May I note, that the Negev is partially arid, and not a popular place to build cities? Not a very nice 'reward' for God's chosen.

In the Jewish tradition, it is told that the jewish scholars of medieval times were the ones to attribute the names Tsar'fat and S'farad to France and Spain. As can be expected, however, modern-day PTB came to our assistance.
Apparently, us plebs did not know of the existence of.... Sarepta ! A tiny heap of ruins, discovered in 1968, just south of Sidon, near a town called Sarafand.
"was a Phoenician city on the Mediterranean coast between Sidon and Tyre, also known biblically as *Zarephath..."*
Modernists hurried to attribute this Sarepta to the old Tsar'fat of the bible, without any proof.
For wiki, it's already sufficient to claim: "Obadiah says it was the northern boundary of Canaan" , in reference to the biblical verse I mentioned before.

*What about Spain = Sephard?*  [see: Sephardic Jews]
The identification persists throughout all medieval Jewish texts, with a repeated comparison of S'farad to mean Hispania.
Again, the plebs were saved by archeologists. Sephard is now Sardis, Asia Minor.
A 1912 Sardis Excavation was co-documented and analyzed by Enno Littmann, German orientalist who had mainly worked on Ethiopia.
Apparently, billingual inscriptions were found there, allowing us to translate ancient Lydian language to Aramaic/Greek.
Sardis, volume VI: Lydian inscriptions. Part I by Enno Littmann
Page 16 in PDF, the author goes on in great length about how he cross-converted Sephard ספרד (in both Hebrew/Aramaic) into Sardis,
done in a tiresome way, imo. This was sufficient for the official sources to claim everywhere (in Hebrew, at least) that 'biblical S'fard is Sardis'. In fact, none even bothers to mention the source - I had to 'dig' to find this excavation document.
So there you go:
- One stone of a yet deciphered, B.C.E language, Lydian, and the opinion of 1 person, is sufficient to replace the centuries-old locating of S'fard as Spain, to Sardis.
- A group of ruins, and a few roman texts speaking of "Sarepta" + similarity to Zarephta (wrong, should be Tsar'fat),
is sufficient to replace Tsarfar from France to Lebanon, to fit the narrative.

- In literature, all discussion about the origins of the words צרפת and ספרד is merely speculative. 'Phoenician this, Semite that, reminds of this, sounds like that.' Now that we saw the quite ridiculous attempts to re-identify the locations, we must wonder: Where those names come from? We can stick to the traditional identification of France and Spain. We of course remember the connection of Gallia, Galilee.

- Is Tsar'fat simply France as we know it? Not necessarily.
David Gans, a Jewish chronologist, published "Tzemach David" in 1592, a chronology book, from Genesis to his day.
The book is only in old Hebrew. Tsar'fat is mentioned many times, and in most of them, the author tends to distinguish between "Tsar'fat" and "Frankia" (as in "king of france attacked king of frankia") indicating they're not the same.
The chronology in the book falls away from the official narrative at times. A certain paragraph (section 25) describes the Treaty of Verdun, which ended the Carolingian civil war between the grandsons of Charlemagne. The Jewish book describes the results:
"_Lothair I__ (806-876 A.D) inherited Italia, *and all of the GLILOT* from the North Sea, to the Rhine river, and he named that country Lotharingia, still called until this day"
"And his brother Karlus, inherited all the country of *TSARFAT*" [France]_

What's GLILOT? In Hebrew, it is the plural of *Galil*. It has double meaning: Galil can mean a roll (as in paper-roll), and can mean "*a region*".
In jewish scriptures, 'Galil' is sometime referred to as the Israeli Galil, and sometime as a noun for a region.
Rashi, a prominent French Jewish scholar, said the Galil is ALL of the holy land, since "all of the nations rolled into it".
So, we can see here some local distinction between "Galil" and "France", and also a clear recognition that even in 16th century, Tsar'fat meant the area of France, and that "Galil" doesn't actually mean that small area in Israel's north.

Another paragraph in the book, shows us a severe chronological *error*, in relation to the Avignon Papacy (1309 A.D) discussed in the OP.
Carloman of Bavaria (830-880 A.D) is portrayed in this way:
"_And in that year (?), Carloman conquered the city of Rome, and chased out the Pope Johan out of there, and the Pope escaped to Tsar'fat [France], and there he christened and crowned Ludwig as King of France and Rome." ;_ the Vikings are later described as invading Europe, taking advantage of this particular event_ - "Christians fighting Christians"_.

Official history tells us a different tale. Carloman is described as marching to Italy, yes, but not in this way.
Best extraction is from his French wiki:, translated: "_After the death of his uncle Charles the Bald in 877 , he inherited the kingdom of Italy , also prepared during his father's lifetime in agreement with the emperor Louis II the Younger.. Already in summer, Carloman planned to go to Rome to be crowned emperor by Pope John VIII  ; however, the king and his army fell ill near Pavia in November. Stricken with paralysis, he returned to Bavaria and ceded Italy to his younger brother"_

The Avignon Papacy is the only reference I know of, that describes the 'exile' of the papacy to France.
*How can a 14th century event be described in 9th century?* I'll note that this Jewish book pretty much follows chronology. The author was also an astronomer who worked for *Tycho Braha* -then I assume he was informed about the 'new narratives' of his time.
Moving on, Charles the Fat, Charlemagne's great-grandson, is described as being a great hero for saving the Frenchmen from the invading Vikings. Wiki however says he paid them bribe, and was seen as weak.
The Jewish book then says, after his victory:
_"He then built his great fortress by the Rhine,_ (Sélestat)_, which he had named after his son *- Gaal'ariom*, whom after him is named the country: *Gaal'er "געלר*", even to this day. And though, at first, the country was named Frankia, from there the French (Tsar'fatim) came *out*... ... _
_.... but from that day, their names (Frankia, Tsarfat) _*were cancelled, and they were now Gaal'er."*

Wiki mentions only 1 son for Charles: Bernard, an illegitimate child. Charles spent much energy legitimizing the child, without success.
He ended up 'dead in a ditch' like many illegitimates.
So, a strange story indeed. Gaaler/Galia is given to us being a name of a royal from 9th century, and is said to be the replacement for Frankia, and Tsar'fat (France),  modern chronology however tells us the order should be: Galia -> Frankia -> France.
Also, the author identifies the 'French' [Tsarfatim] as people who separated out of the 'Franks'. Combining with Avignon, I begin to speculate that TSARFAT refers to the southern part of modern France, the one close to Spain [Sephard] and Italy.

And surely I'm not the only one who wandered, if *TSAR'FAT* has to do with the etymology of *Tsar/Kaiser*. There's simply zero information about the etymological origin of the word.

- A look from a non-Jewish perspective: Concordantiarum Hebraicarum Capita, is a 1556 sort of dictionary, described as "written a 109 years before by a Rabbi, now translated by a Strasbourg professor of Hebrew language".





צרפת = והוא שם עיר או מחוז ("and that is a name of a city, or a province")
It then clarifies about Frankia / Gallia.
However, we see an early mention of our dear Sarepta, excavated in late 20th century. _[Sarapta in Tyrum et Sidonem]_
Sarepta, in its greek-latin form, is apparently a city that is mentioned in early Christian sources.
The "Bordeaux Itinerary", dated 333 A.D, tells of a pilgrim from Bordeaux, south France, who travels to the Holy Land and describes its locations. Interestingly, a catholic, *titular see *is starting to be granted to individuals since around 1350.
"Jaroslav of Bezmíře .... was appointed Bishop of *Sarepta* by Pope Boniface IX on 15 July 1394"
Pope Boniface IX reigned in the *Avignon *period.
Many bishops carried the title, notably ones from south France, in Lyon, Grenoble, Narbonne, Toulouse, but from other places too.
The local Chrisitian-Lebanese sect, the Maronites, 'remembered' to establish their own titular only in 1983, several years after the American excavations ended. That's probably when they first learned they've been sitting on a "lost Christian stronghold", if you ask me.

- The first Jewish book to focus on the history of France, Sefer Divrei haYamim, was wrritten in 1496  late 16th century by Joseph haKohen, in Avignon.
The author opens the book with a furious paragraph against the "kings of the goyim", and makes these connections:

_"All of my people knows, that there is no such author as me in Israel, Joseph haKohen, who writes about the wars of Judea and Jerusalem.
The others have ceased to write of it. Until I came, Joseph, to write the memories of the horrors that found us in the lands of the foreigners, from the day of exile from Judea, and the many wars between the foreigners' kings over the lands of Judea and Jerusalem and the [jewish] expulsion of France and Spain, so that all shall know of this". ... ... "I took it on myself to write a book, of the chronicles of the kings of France, and the Ottomans: to place their times (=set in chronology), about that which the Egyptians (Mits'raim) did to us and our forefathers, and it shall not be forgotten..."_

The book proceeds to describe how Noah gave birth to Japeth, who birthed Gomer, and the Franks are his sons. He jumps instantly to the late Roman period, describing the rise of Gaul. The interesting part is that he, probably, identifies the French, Spanish or the Ottomans, as directly related to hardships made on the Jews that are attributed to either the old testament period, or the early Roman period, supposedly more than a thousand years before he lived. He seems to have no knowledge of any chronology between the flood and the rise of Rome - that's when the Gauls appear, in his words.

Well that was a lot of info that can be expanded and dug further, I'll try to elaborate more on it soon.


----------



## TuranSilvanus (Oct 2, 2021)

Here is the English translation of full video of Hrusztaljov; the Engl. translation was made automaticaly by YT from original Hungarian trans;lation; so you who know better english check out if is good [as i see is some kinf of good]

Alexey Hrustaljov - The decoding of the Bible - France the cradle of Christanity (2008)


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 2, 2021)

There is a lot more to this topic, there exists a book authored by Alexey Khrustalyov. It's called "ГАЛЛЬСКОЕ ЕВАНГЕЛИЕ. ИНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЕВРОПЫ". It has two parts. I don't know if the book exists in English, so here's a translation of an interesting chapter:


*Chapter 12. The Cathar Question*​
It would be nice to remember that all the "dissenters" of southern France, Italy, Aragon, Germany and other Central European lands were branded with a name that they never appropriated to themselves and did not claim. After all, the _Cathars _(translated from Greek, by the way) are _pure, purified, perfect_. For Catholics (that is, for the Roman Curia), they were "perfect": perfect heretics. They did not call themselves that (in use were the more humane _good woman_ and _good man_).

It seems that all the heresy of the Cathars was that they: 1) didn't care for any claims of some pope, who thought of himself as the navel of the universe; 2) were the branch of the original Gnostic Christianity, which was allegedly trampled in the first centuries of our era. From this point of view, the so-called Cathars were monstrously inconvenient to Rome.

First, the presence of an independent enclave in the heart of Europe prevented the "unity in Catholic ecstasy" of all the "progressive forces" of the future European Union. While the chosen one, the good Roman Archpastor, fell asleep under the lullaby of another comforting fairy, the vile renegades of Toulouse, Béziers and Carcassonne allowed themselves to outrageously sincerely believe the New Testament Word of God and live in harmony with it. In the settlements of these Christians, if I may say so, the division into praying/workers/warriors was arbitrary, they (heretics) did not honor the Old Testament, suspecting that it had nothing to do with Christ. And in general: a person can have only one dad [S: the word for dad and the pope is the same in Russian]. And if some people do not revere their mother and father (and the Pope is an all-father!), he must be (according to Jewish law, by the way) stoned. True, the representatives of the Curia were sophisticated and even civilized people somewhat, so the rough, bestial stoneing was replaced by refined roasting on the fire. Yes, _refined_ _taste, father, excellent manner_...

So, having said about "first", it would be good not to forget about "second". First, as we remember, the independent enclave greatly disturbed someone on the Tiber (or in Avignon, or somewhere else, now you can not say for sure). And secondly, the presence of Gnostic original Christianity in the heart of Europe in the XIII century means that the Gospel events happened not a 1000 years ago, but about 100-200, or even less. By and large, we must realize that the heresies allegedly opposed in the second/third/fourth centuries AD by Origen, Irenaeus and other church fathers existed safely in Languedoc and Provence during the Albigensian Crusades. I deliberately do not say in what century it was, because according to traditional chronology it is the XIII century, but there is no faith to this pro-Roman chronology. So, we are talking about the crusading time, when some Christians (signed by Rome) went to war against other Christians (who did not have the happiness to clean the papal shoes).

Perhaps it was at this time that the writings of the Church Fathers began to appear like mushrooms after the rain, denouncing heretics of all stripes. And to push them (heretics) into the legendary past, in times distant and immemorial.

And more about heresies. There is an amazing thing in the history of the Church. Most of the unorthodox teachings arise as if in the East or have a significant eastern component. However, these heresies do not spread where they originated, and not at all where the first Gnostics lived and preached. Dualistic sects are mentioned as operating only in Central Europe (Gaul, Germany, Northern Italy, Spain), which becomes the arena of struggle between Catholics and spiritual opposition. Manichaeans, Massilians, Priscillians, Publicans, Cathars, Waldensians, Arians and other non-Catholics are alive only in the European context and precisely in those points where the Curia had to deal with undesirables. At the same time heretics of the II century are no different from the heretics of the XIII century. The Cathars emerge first in the II-III centuries, then disappear for 1000 years to be destroyed in the XIII-XIV centuries. Manichaeans then appear, then disappear, the execution of Priscillian at the end of the IV century is committed due to the accusation of his two Councils of heresy and witchcraft (typical for XV-XVI centuries, but, to put it mildly, completely implausible formulation for the fourth century). On the one hand, we are told that the Cathars of the XI-XIV centuries have nothing to do with the Cathars of the II century and we can only talk about the coincidence of the name, and on the other hand, it turns out that in essence the teachings of the Gnostics of the second century are not much different from the teachings of the Gnostics of the late Middle Ages. And this, mind you, with absolutely not coinciding economic, political, and just a domestic context. If there is virtually no difference between the Gnostics of the second and thirteenth centuries, does this not indicate that we are talking about the same people, teachings and events? And aren't they 1,000 years separated only on paper? After all, if a modern person, brought up in a more or less humanistic era, is told that all the persecutions, oppressions and executions, to which the Roman Church is involved, occurred at a time interval of 50-100 years (and not for 1000-1500 years, as traditional history assures), he (a contemporary) will ask the question: "And how does the RCC differ from some regimes of the XX century, for sympathy to which you can now be even put behind bars?". Even excluding this, Catholics always apologise, either for the burned Giordano Bruno, or for the complicity in the Holocaust, then for some other nasty things. And here you have this: pure genocide and terror against their fellow brothers in faith. These are not petty crimes a la sodomy or poisoning of the competitor with poison. It's all grown-up. For this it would be necessary to answer, and not tearfully repenting before the television cameras, as the heirs of St. Peter have been practicing lately.

And when everything is smeared over 1000-1500 years, you can always say that yes, there were excesses in some places and in some periods, there was a struggle against heresies, but mainly by word, not fire and sword, and only occasionally and in the most extreme cases the most odious of the representatives of the RCC decided to use force. Of course, we condemn these bastards in our ranks, but is it worth blackening the bright image of the Vatican because of two or three obscene outbursts in the course of 1000 years?

It would be interesting to consider at all the question of where the animal hatred that the Roman Catholic Church felt for the heretical movements of the Middle Ages sprouted. No, it is clear that the importance of influencing minds (read: collecting money from these immature minds by all means possible) has not been canceled. Plus interest in territories, plus control of local rulers, plus, plus, plus. But those who only advocated a return to the simplicity of the original Christianity, could not expect anything but mass genocide by the hands of papal hires.

It is worth noting that the so-called heretics themselves never went into open conflict with the Roman Archpastor. Moreover, many of them turned to the lords of Rome for blessing (as, for example, Pierre Valdo). However, instead they did not receive a paternal parting word, but a gang of punishers and places of compact residence. Moreover, the main task of the papal commandos was not to pacify, but almost total destruction of those who deviated from the Catholic course.

It is today the RCC loves everyone. Or pretends to love. The pope apologizes for the unfortunate haste in the Bruno case, does not deny that Galileo was right in some places, pals up with the Jews and - it is terrible to say - tries to say kind words about the Orthodox Christians. Even the date of the Birth of Christ is ready to be questioned by the current Great Pontiff (do not rush to rejoice: Benedict is for making Christianity older). The hour is not far off when the head of the Vatican, sighing with a broken sigh and tearing profusely, will fall prostrate before the Muslim brothers and recognizes as a mistake the growth of commercial campaigns in the Holy Land, mistakenly called the Crusades. Yes, today the RCC loves everyone. White and black, Krishnaits and Scientologists, healthy and sick, rich and poor. Even atheists, they love those too. And recognizes their right to remain so.

But don't be fooled. For the love of the Vatican is always a complex artificial feeling that is a tool for achieving political goals. So, looking lovingly into the eyes of the cardinal, some Borgia offered him a cup with poison. Hiding behind words of forgiveness and deep compassion for their neighbor, the Roman high priests sent hundreds of thousands of people to the meat grinders of quasi-religious wars. And most disgustingly, the Roman pontiffs with a frenzied Pharisaic persistence destroyed fellow christians in the faith on the mere grounds that the latter were real evangelists who followed the covenants of Christ. The mechanism was worked out to automatism. First, people who disagreed with the Roman model of Christianity were declared heretics, then excommunicated, cursed or anathematized, and then simply destroyed. And even those who were not going to resist with a sword in their hands, such as the Waldensians.

So where do the roots of Roman hatred come from?

The answer, as usual, came from an unexpected side.

In the book of the English researcher of medieval symbolism Harold Bailey "The Forgotten Language of Symbols" (first published in 1912), the following information is found:

Curiously, there is direct evidence of the influence of the Waldensians, and it stands at the end of one of the earliest editions of the Bible (the 1535 edition, which is known to collectors as the Olivetan) - a skillfully hidden statement with the help of a cipher:

Les Vaudois, people e’angeique
Ont mis ce threor en publique

(The Waldenses, the people of the Gospel, released this treasure into the people.)

The means of transmission and shelter from the big world for this interesting cryptogram are the stanzas, which conclude the book. The first letters of the words of this poem constitute, as you will now see, the secret message mentioned.

Lecteur entends, si vérité’ adresse Viens donc ouir instamment 
sa promesse Et vif parler: lequel en excellence Veult asseurer 
nostre grille esperance Lesprit iesus qui visite et ordonne Noz 
tenders meurs, ici sans cry estonne Tout hault raillart escumant 
son ordure.
Prenons vouloir bienfaire librement,
Iesus querons veoir éternellement.

(Reader, listen, if the truth speaks to you. Come constantly to hear its promise and the living speech that seeks to perfectly strengthen our fragile hope. The Spirit Jesus, who visits us and prescribes our soft manners, here without shouting awes any arrogant screamer who spews his dirt with foam. Let us have a desire to voluntarily do good, let us strive to see Jesus forever.)

So here it is: a direct indication of who the real people of the gospel were. The Waldensians, the people of the valleys, as they were called. Until now, in the French-speaking part of Switzerland, the canton of Vaud has been preserved, whose inhabitants are called vaudois (that is, those same waldensians-vaudois). And what about the repeatedly blessed Jewish people? In flight, citizens, in flight. Like a plywood drone over Jerusalem. By the way, after that, the words of the Song of Songs "Азъ цвѣтъ польный и кринъ удольный" acquire a completely different shade. After all, the *удольный* is the *valley, from the valley*. That's what Solomon was proud of, not that he's *Narcissus of Saronica and the Lily of the Valleys*, how they modified it in the King James Bible and then in the Synodal translation. There is no Saronic Narcissus in the Greek original. Nor is there narcissism, which is inherent to completely different human communities, after all.

And it is clear what the papists have always feared. They were papicly afraid of exposure. After all, their entire power structure is built on a grandiose historical falsification. Only by removing the Gospel landscape away from oneself and removing from the stage the real supporters of Christ's teaching, it was possible to declare oneself a true apostolic Christianity. Only by following a line from Peter (not Paul) could the Old Testament be legitimately pulled to the Gospels. And the harmful Cathars-Albigensians-Waldensians constantly prevented the implementation of this grandiose scam. Only by erasing them from the face of the earth, it was possible to count on unlimited power in the spiritual (and in parallel in the secular) sphere.

Obviously, not everyone was delighted with such a treacherous trampling of Christ's teaching, hence the fateful schism of the Churches, and mutual anathematism, and other demarcations.

Over time, of course, much has been forgotten. And who went to war on his brother, it became not so important. Events were erased from memory, names were distorted beyond recognition, generations of masters and slaves were replaced.

In this world, the one who should have won - won.

But the kingdom of Christ is not of this world.

And that's comforting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, this is not the only interesting thing in the book. It is a large treasure trove. Emphasis on large. If no translated versions will be found, I'll translate other parts later.



Gladius said:


> Great thread first of all. I've seen this particular information for years but never so much here.
> The channel Nik Research had great videos about Biblical France - but now I see all content was removed... shame.


Thanks for the information. Actually, this removal took place because I reposted these videos. This thread is a kind of a retribution for that. Perhaps you remember any of the unique info from Nik himself?


----------



## Gladius (Oct 3, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Thanks for the information. Actually, this removal took place because I reposted these videos. This thread is a kind of a retribution for that. Perhaps you remember any of the unique info from Nik himself?


There was a lot of info on Nik's. In regards to Biblical France, most of his points were the ones in the OP. He put much effort into analyzing location names, and biblical scenes that cannot take place in Palestine.

Sea of Galillee, for example, perhaps the most ridiculous site for the stories around it. It is literally a small lake, you can see the other side from the shore.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Oct 3, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> 2) were the branch of the original Gnostic Christianity



This is actually a misnomer as the terms 'Gnostic' and 'Christianity' are mutually exclusive:



Felix Noille said:


> Modern religionists and historians have been careful to divide the Old World Belief system into different regional or cultural groups and to describe them as either pagan heresies or early Christian sects. The labels we have today include Hibernia, Levantine, Samothrace, Mithraism, Brahmin, Phrygian, Egyptian, Osirian, Orphic, Druidic and Gnostic. However, they were really just different flavours of the same ideals adapted to different environments.



This is supported by evidence from the Nag Hammadi Library.


----------



## theheir (Oct 4, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> This is actually a misnomer as the terms 'Gnostic' and 'Christianity' are mutually exclusive:



I suppose it depends on whose dictionary one is using. If we take the word 'Gnosis' itself:


> Gnosis refers to knowledge based on personal experience or perception. In a religious context, gnosis is mystical or esoteric knowledge based on direct participation with the divine.
> Wikipedia


According to this definition, the word in itself doesn't contradict with Christianity and 'Gnostic Christianity' would be a precise description if the idea is 'Christianity based on direct participation with the divine through personal experience and perception'.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Oct 4, 2021)

theheir said:


> I suppose it depends on whose dictionary one is using. If we take the word 'Gnosis' itself:
> 
> According to this definition, the word in itself doesn't contradict with Christianity and 'Gnostic Christianity' would be a precise description if the idea is 'Christianity based on direct participation with the divine through personal experience and perception'.



I wasn't referring to dictionary definitions or the official wikipedia type narrative. It's about disguising the pre-Christian belief system and its surviving remnants as 'Christian' heresies, when what was actually going on was an all out assault against them by Christianity. 'Gnostic Christianity' is a modern invention designed to obscure the genocide of the old world belief systems, such as took place in the Albigensian Crusade mentioned previously. It's the same old integrate and dominate trick which has always been the trademark of Christianity. The Gnostics were pre-Christian, they rejected Christianity and paid the price.


----------



## theheir (Oct 4, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> I wasn't referring to dictionary definitions..


I think it was obvious what you were saying. I don't wan to dive deeper into this discussion as it's irrelevant to the thread, but my point is that 'Gnostic Christianity' as I defined it is a real thing.. and perhaps the realest Christianity.


----------



## trismegistus (Oct 4, 2021)

While I appreciate the distinction made above re: Gnosticism - we have plenty of other threads to discuss Gnosticism including but not limited to: 

https://stolenhistory.net/threads/the-nature-of-the-beast-part-5-the-gnostics-archons-devas.3748/

Albigensian Crusade: The genocide of the Cathars

Tartaria - Paganism, the Destruction of Gnosticism, and the Real Missing Civilization: Cathay

Further discussions on Gnosticism should be continued elsewhere, with the focus of this thread on France being biblical Israel.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Oct 4, 2021)

theheir said:


> I think it was obvious what you were saying. I don't wan to dive deeper into this discussion as it's irrelevant to the thread, but my point is that 'Gnostic Christianity' as I defined it is a real thing.. and perhaps the realest Christianity.



My comments were in response to what was termed the "original Gnostic Christianity," not some modern cult. Let's agree to disagree and leave it there.


----------



## wild heretic (Oct 5, 2021)

Can I get a cliff notes version?


Sasyexa said:


> These are the heads of the Judean kings.  They adorned the main cathedral of France, Notre Dame de Paris.  At the time of the great French Revolution, they were knocked off the cathedral because the revolutionaries thought they were French monarchs.  Who prompted it?  Well, it's a riddle...
> Today, these heads are in the Cluny Museum.



Notice how none of those kings look like modern "Jews". Not one of them, in the slightest.


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 5, 2021)

wild heretic said:


> Can I get a cliff notes version?


The events of the New Testament happened in late medieval France and its surroundings


----------



## wild heretic (Oct 5, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> The events of the New Testament happened in late medieval France and its surroundings



I guessed that by the title. 

I mean the bullet points of the evidence thereof. I managed to skim read the first bit and got:


Modern Jerusalem was rebuilt at the earliest from mid-nineteenth century.
No confirmed evidence of anything biblical found in and around Israel, or possible way to confirm anything like that.

Was Paris the city of Jerusalem or something?


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 5, 2021)

wild heretic said:


> I guessed that by the title.
> 
> I mean the bullet points of the evidence thereof. I managed to skim read the first bit and got:
> 
> ...


Yes.

Paris is surrounded by cities bearing a similar name with biblical ones
Jesuits established themselves on Montmartre (mountain of the martyr), when they were supposed to give oaths in Jerusalem or Rome. One Jesuit even said outright that this was the correct place.
Templars (aka money-changers) also had a base there, Jacques de Molay was executed there too
Remove 'h' from Pharisee and it starts to look awfully close to Parisian
80 year old Saint Helen travelling to Paris from Trier to stay and make excavations there makes much more sense than doing that with Palestine
This is just for Paris. I recommend reading the interview fully for more details


----------



## wild heretic (Oct 5, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Yes.
> 
> Paris is surrounded by cities bearing a similar name with biblical ones
> Jesuits established themselves on Montmartre (mountain of the martyr), when they were supposed to give oaths in Jerusalem or Rome. One Jesuit even said outright that this was the correct place.
> ...



Thanks.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Oct 6, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Yes.
> 
> Paris is surrounded by cities bearing a similar name with biblical ones
> Jesuits established themselves on Montmartre (mountain of the martyr), when they were supposed to give oaths in Jerusalem or Rome. One Jesuit even said outright that this was the correct place.
> ...



Personally, I think the most important point is that the geography seems to match that as described in the NT in terms of distances and locations (though I haven't personally verified it.)  The rest is speculation which for me doesn't work when you consider that Jewish history claims the Rhineland as their first northern European settlement as from the 10th to 11th centuries.

Also, the Jesuits were a crypto-Jewish organisation founded by a Spanish marrano Jew - Loyola - much much later. It's also too easy to fall into mainstream traps regarding the Templars, i.e. "money-changers."  There was so much more to them, for example, what's significant about De Molay's execution wasn't the location, but why he was executed in the first place,.. imo.

As I've probably said before, for me this all points to a forgery created in the Paris/*Norman*dy area in about 1000AD and then backdated by 1000 years.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Oct 6, 2021)

Maybe i understand you wrong here, but isnt it quite obvious with this information in this thread that the NT was written in europe, recently? Ofcourse there never was a i0 jesus king/martyr whatever. Recycled stories in a new book forced on to you. Probably why we were not once taught about starforts, it ties in the same story of the takeover imo.


----------



## Eheieh (Oct 7, 2021)

In the bible, the word translated as Persia is PRS, that is 𐤐𐤓𐤎 in Phoenician, and פרס in Hebrew.  If you pronounce PRS without the rules and modifications of modern hebrew, in a Western European way, it would be PeReS.  Which sounds a lot like Paris, obviously.
H6539 - pāras - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

In the biblical language, when a Y is added to the end of the name of a nation, it denotes the people who are the inhabitants that nation.  So, the word for the people who dwell in PRS is PRSY, that is 𐤐𐤓𐤎𐤉 in Phoenician, and פרסי in Hebrew.  Prounounce PRSY as PeReSY, and you get a word that sounds like Pharisee.
H6542 - parsî - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

The kingdom of PRS is an important part of the prophecy of the 4 kingdoms in Daniel- I haven't studied it in depth yet, so I will leave it for you to draw your own conclusions about it.  Just keep in mind the word PRS translated as Persia in the translation is incorrect: read it as Paris instead



> Bible Gateway passage: Daniel 8 - Young's Literal Translation
> 
> 20 `The ram that thou hast seen possessing two horns, [are] the kings of Media and Persia.





> Bible Gateway passage: Daniel 11 - Young's Literal Translation
> 2 and, now, truth I declare to thee, Lo, yet three kings are standing for Persia, and the fourth doth become far richer than all, and according to his strength by his riches he stirreth up the whole, with the kingdom of Javan.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Oct 7, 2021)

Blackdiamond said:


> Maybe i understand you wrong here



To whom are you speaking?



Eheieh said:


> If you pronounce PRS without the rules and modifications of modern hebrew, in a Western European way, it would be PeReS.



Actually no, it's simply "PRS" - the nearest sound would depend on the language of the speaker. In French they pronounce Paris as "Pareeee" with a silent S. In English the nearest would be be "pairs." or "pears", but then  without vowels it's anybody's guess. Which Western European language calls Paris Peres?

Why do the Jews themselves claim that their first northern European settlement was in the 10th to 11th century in the Rhineland. Are you saying that they don't know their own history?


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 7, 2021)

Eheieh said:


> In the bible, the word translated as Persia is PRS, that is 𐤐𐤓𐤎 in Phoenician, and פרס in Hebrew.  If you pronounce PRS without the rules and modifications of modern hebrew, in a Western European way, it would be PeReS.  Which sounds a lot like Paris, obviously.
> H6539 - pāras - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)
> 
> In the biblical language, when a Y is added to the end of the name of a nation, it denotes the people who are the inhabitants that nation.  So, the word for the people who dwell in PRS is PRSY, that is 𐤐𐤓𐤎𐤉 in Phoenician, and פרסי in Hebrew.  Prounounce PRSY as PeReSY, and you get a word that sounds like Pharisee.
> ...


It could be Prussia, not Persia or Paris


----------



## Gladius (Oct 7, 2021)

PRS can also be read as PARS, which means a region in old texts.
"Kingdom of PRS" could refer to an unnamed kingdom, a hypothetical one, or perhaps "that kingdom" that the reader is supposed to know about.

In example, today when one says
"The United States", we all know what it means. A person from the future, in a lets say post-new-reset one could say, "well, I know of many states which are united, then which one is it?"


----------



## Silveryou (Oct 7, 2021)

I think Israel was on the dark side of the Moon


----------



## Will Scarlet (Oct 7, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I think Israel was on the dark side of the Moon



I have the album, but I don't recall that track...


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 7, 2021)

By the way, in Prussia there was a Baltic tribe called *Gal*indians. Wiki:


> *Galindians* were two distinct, and now extinct, tribes of the Balts. Most commonly, Galindians refers to the Western Galindians who lived in the southeast part of Prussia. Less commonly, *it is used for a tribe that lived in the area of what is today Moscow.*
> 
> The name "Galinda" is thought to derive from the Baltic word *_galas_ ("the end"), alluding to the fact that they settled for some time further west and further east than any other Baltic tribe.



Fits the meaning of the word PARS, much like Ukraine meaning "outskirts", "bordering region"


Gladius said:


> PRS can also be read as PARS, which means a region in old texts.
> "Kingdom of PRS" could refer to an unnamed kingdom, a hypothetical one, or perhaps "that kingdom" that the reader is supposed to know about.



Also if we count the Felice Vinci conception, Prussia is situated close to Visla ("Nile") and the bulk of it is situated east of Pomerania ("Crete")


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 10, 2021)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't find any translations of the book, so here's mine. This is a part of the introduction and the chapter 13:

The vast majority of manuscripts dating from the dark and ancient ages have no reference at all to the chronology, except for the one written out by scientists retroactively on the basis of the ideas of the scientists themselves about how everything should actually be. Interestingly, paleography (that is, the science of the peculiarities of the development of writing in time) arose in the XVIII century as a response to the assumption of the Jesuits about the forged nature of many ancient documents. That is, initially the goal of paleographers was not to reveal the truth, but to powder the brains of all who doubted the authenticity of old papers and parchments.

And the reasons for suspicion were very strong. They are most fully set out in the works of Jean Hardouin, a French theologian-encyclopedist that knew ancient languages brilliantly and explained quite popularly why most of the so-called ancient manuscripts are outright fakes of the Renaissance. Under the hot hand and sharp pen of the truth-lover Hardouin, both secular and ecclesiastical sources fell, so the spread of the works of the Jesuit-intellectual was not provided. That is, they could not put them under the spot for that simple reason, that the quality of Hardouin's works turned out to be simply exemplary and there was no way to challenge them, but the Roman rulers refrained from advertising and launching the masses of heretical books. Just think: Hardouin, on the basis of textual analysis, came to the conclusion about the fictitious nature of the records of all (emphasis: ALL!) church Councils, up to the Trident, and this is the middle of the XVI century. A few decades earlier, another French researcher, Spondanus, came to a similar conclusion about the chronicles of the Fourth Council of the Lateran. And Hardouin, without dwelling on the documents of the Councils, rode through the manuscripts of the Greek fathers of the Church, sarcastically noting their gaping absence in the Greek-speaking part of the Ecumene, but littering the French libraries. One of the features of these works, as Hardouin points out, is the striking similarity of the language of the authors, who wrote in the same way for 1500 years. Any normal language changes quickly enough, Hardouin said, and it is hard not to agree with him. But in the Greek Hall, the vocabulary and syntax have not changed for centuries, and they all use the same dialect of the Greek language. The same inescapable constancy is present, according to Hardouin, in some Latin texts as well. "Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodorite (*Obviously, this refers to the Orthodox theologian Theodorite of Kirsky*), Justin were co-owners of one library ... - the French Jesuit quipped, - ... they praise the same authors, they prove the falsity of the same stories. It's the same with the others," Hardouin said (*Hereinafter, Arduin's book “Prolegomena ad censuram veterum scriptorum” is quoted*).

Very categorical was the theologian-encyclopedist about the Bible in Greek. "Now it has finally become obvious to me that until the beginning of the fourteenth century, or until the end of the thirteenth century, the Greeks had no other Bible than the Latin, and no other liturgy than the Latin, just as it is now in the Indies and throughout America. I tell you, it is clear to me that until that time there was no Bible in Greek, there was not even a Psalter. The Greek Bible we now have is monstrously distorted and is designed to support the wicked assumption that denies the existence of a true God. It is for this reason that the Greeks do not have a printed Old Testament; because they never had a common single text, and the manuscripts differed greatly." Note that by the time of writing the work of Hardouin, the Complutensian Polyglot (*The first complete edition of the Old Testament in Greek with parallel Hebrew and Latin texts, as well as the New Testament text in Greek*) was published for almost two centuries, the publications of the Antwerp, Heidelberg, Hamburg and Paris polyglottes were carried out, the Sistine Bible was printed, etc. And the Greeks, who would have been the first to perpetuate the sacred text in their native language, did not deign to swing to do it.

Hardouin's rhetorical question is unflattering: how in Spain from the "approximately VII century" to the "approximately XV century" there were only seven writers. The Jesuit scholar ridicules the practice of corralling most medieval authors into the Paris herd: "Hence their unsubstantiated statement that almost all Germans, Italians, Englishmen studied or taught in Paris: Alcuin, Raban, Peter of Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure and countless others". Quite amusing. For some reason, all the authors did not live where they were born, studied and taught not where their works were later discovered, wrote not about their era, but about centuries distant and dark. And this applies not only to the above-mentioned "French" of different origin. Suffice it to recall Matthew of Paris. According to historians, even if he left his deep English province, it was not for long and for Norway, he had nothing to do with Paris in principle. Or Gallus Anonymous, who, despite his "French" name, wrote a chronicle of the kings of Poland (in Latin, of course).

Of course, Jean Hardouin was not the only one who noticed the total falsification of secular and ecclesiastical history. However, in his works, the theme of the terrible dependence on unreliable, purposefully introduced into circulation sources is revealed most fully. Simultaneously with Hardouin and subsequently on the issues of falseness of history and chronology wrote Isaac Newton, Robert Baldauf, Wilhelm Kammayer, Nikolai Morozov, Immanuel Velikovsky, Mikhail Postnikov and other authors.

Of our contemporaries, it is necessary to mention Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovsky, who made a huge contribution to the debunking of many myths of history and created their original version of historical events, Yaroslav Kesler and Igor Davidenko, whose natural-scientific approach to the study of the development of civilization does not leave any chance for history fairytellers to quietly multiply their opuses, as well as Alexander Zhabinsky, Dmitry Kalyuzhny, Sergei Valyansky, Herbert Illig, Jordan Tabov, Uwe Topper, Andreas Churilov and Evgeny Gabovich, with facts in their hands showed all the defectiveness and inconsistency of traditional history.

With these and other authors who wrote and continue to write about the strangeness of chronology and life descriptions, you can agree or disagree on a number of issues, you can accept or not accept their reconstruction of history, you can blame them as much as you like for not having a special education and a diploma with an appropriate record. However, the essence of the questions to the general idea of the past of mankind formed over the centuries will not change from this. The traditional picture of history is thoroughly false, monstrously politicized, commercially dependent and banally implausible. Armed with such a canon as knowledge, you can go anywhere, but not in a civilized future. And the whole world was and still is hostage to this paradigm. But the destruction of the illusion of the past should not be in a hurry. Because people who are part of the "circles close to those close to them" understand perfectly well what the slightest surrender of positions in the myths of ethnogenesis, antiquity or the birth of a particular religion can turn into. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I don't see the machinings of the world’s “behind the scenes” in every line of the history textbook. However, the tenacity with which certain historical clichés are promoted to the masses leaves no doubt that any truth about the past gives a lot of headaches to some in the present. Therefore, despite the colossal breakthrough in information technology, the availability of almost any sources and the obvious inconsistency of the current picture of the history of the ancient (and not very ancient) world, in the field of perception and decoding of the acts of the past, we are not far from the first humanists of the new era, who lived (approximately) in the XV-XVI centuries, and perhaps even lag behind them.

Otherwise, the Tatar-Mongol horde would not have wandered through the pages of history, the saga of the Vikings, who almost subjugated the whole world, would not have been spread over the pages of history as well, the Al-Quds would never have gained the glory of Jerusalem, and there would have been many more things if once the recorded history had not been launched like a pony in a circle. And everything that does not fit, according to circus performing historians, into the fairy-tale world of a pony winding meaningless mileage, is withdrawn from circulation with stunning shamelessness. Incorrect, from the point of view of current historians, sources are lost, spoiled, disappear, hushed up, distorted, corrected, etc. From the latest egregious examples - the "scientific" restoration of the fresco in Italy, in the city of Massa Marittima, where the plot of the presumably XIII century was decided to be slightly corrected, removing some details and destroying images of phalluses hanging from the fertility tree. Indeed: how could such indecencies be painted in the absolutely Catholic Italy, and even close to the popes?! It just couldn't be. It shouldn't have been. Hence the restoration zeal of the "real scientists”.

Even those sources and artifacts that can no longer be withdrawn from circulation due to their prevalence or great value are reflected in historical science, as in a crooked mirror. That is, literally one thing is written or depicted, but all claim that it meant something completely different. And hypnosis works. For some reason, in the history books of Russia, there are no chapters about the Great Tartary, although on all European and even Russian maps until the middle of the XVIII century, this formation is present. Not one clear comment is heard from connoisseurs of antiquity about the epitaph on the facade of the villa of Pharaoh Mennel; on stone plates among the cities destroyed in 1631, the "ancient" Pompeii and Herculaneum are mentioned, which seem to have gone into oblivion more than 1500 years ago. None of the historians are touched by the phrase of the Italian humanist Leon Battista Alberti: "undoubtedly, the temple is the abode of the gods" (just in case, a reminder that this is not written by an ancient pagan writer, but by an adviser on architecture to Pope Nicholas V at the end of the XV century). A phrase from the Chronicler of Hellada and Rome that "Constantine and his warriors went to Britannic Galilee" is skipped by commentators, as well as other revelations of the same source, placing Galilee not at all in the Middle Eastern context.

The amount of evidence is high. But anything that does not fit into the historical pattern is contemptuously studied with eyes wide shut. And the comments after familiarization are always of the same type: the author was mistaken, the scribe was poorly educated, the reader did not understand everything at all, etc. The apotheosis of rejection usually becomes the accusation of everyone and everything in unprofessionalism, misguided patriotism, cheap vilification and an attempt to undermine the foundations. Putting on top of the above stamps the stigma of "pseudoscience", representatives of this large, official science usually calm down and continue to stamp opuses about the role of predicative quintessence in quasi-amorphic syntax. And if not about this, then at least about the Swedish roots of Rurik. Or the role of Homer's stanza in Nero's suicide. Which certainly brings science to a new level of development. And all those interested in history are closer to understanding its mechanisms.

The narrative of the emergence and spread of Christianity, as well as the history of the Church, suffer from the same sores as secular life. Moreover, it was in the bowels of the Church that the entire event fabric of the current historical picture of the development of civilization was woven, and it was the Church that once decided that humanity lives in a certain year from the Incarnation of the Lord, making Christmas the main reference point of the chronology. Within the framework of the church tradition, the accomplishments of the past and the people involved in these acts were built and linked together on the timeline. As mentioned above, the chronological canon was finally formed after the Council of Trident, in the middle of the XVI century. But this does not mean that by the decision of the Council all historical realities were located on the shelves automatically, taking the places prepared for them. The process of finding out which historical characters should go to distant antiquity, and which should be located closer to modernity, dragged on for a couple of centuries. Therefore, for example, there is nothing strange in the fact that, according to people who lived in the XVIII century, in the city of Bologna "... in the Library of the Dominican Monastery the parchment (charter) of the Old Testament is kept, written by the hand of the Prophet Ezra in the Hebrew language”. Indeed, by that time the named prophet had apparently not yet been exiled in the minus sixth century, and what he personally wrote could have been accessible. So had many poets, philosophers, and scientists, of whom humanists wrote about as older contemporaries or figures of recently departed generations, not yet found their place in antiquity. And according to Saxon Grammaticus and Mavro Orbini, who quoted him, in Scandinavia, the following happened: "When Svev Arngrim, who later became the son-in-law of the Danish king Froton, attacked them and defeated them, the fleeing Finns threw three pebbles into the enemy's face, which seemed to the pursuers to be as impregnable mountains. [...] When they were defeated the third time ... they surrendered and almost became tributaries of the Danish kingdom. At that time, their king was Tengil. These events, according to Saxon Grammaticus (V), occurred shortly before the coming of Christ to earth" (*Rot E.R. Old in Europe. М., 1782. С. 58. Orbini M. Slavic kingdom. М., 2010 - The book was first published in Italy in 1601*). The prototypes of Arngrim and Froton (even according to the now accepted historical tradition) could live no earlier than the IV century AD, which, of course, is very far-fetched. The Danish kingdom - not earlier than the X century (the first king of Denmark, according to traditional sources, died in 950). The manuscripts of the "Acts of the Danes" - not earlier than the XIII century, published by Pedersen in 1512. Thus, it turns out that Christ, according to Saxon Grammaticus, appeared after (sic!) Danes, their kingdom, Finns and all the northern dealings between them. And books of this content were obviously not perceived in Europe in the seventeenth century as something out of the ordinary, although, from the point of view of the Roman Church, they contradicted its new ideas about the glorious past, which stretched for more than 1500 years.

There are several reasons why the Curia needed a historical road lost beyond the horizon line.

First, to justify the supremacy of the Roman pontiff over representatives of all other Christian confessions, especially the Orthodox. Obviously, the split, which on paper is removed from sight down to the dark year 1054, occurred much later, if at all. Traces of the late division are especially clearly visible on the Catholic periphery, where Orthodoxy in one form or another persists almost to this day. By creating a list of popes and connecting it to St. Peter, the RCC formulated its claim to supremacy in Christendom. It is worth noting here that even in the not-too-distant fourteenth century, the Roman rulers were not quite Roman. What was before the Avignon captivity of the popes (or the Babylonian captivity, as it was called in ancient times), the question is not cheerful. But the Vatican strongly needed a continuous tradition that connected them with the Apostle Peter.

Secondly, the Crusades against brothers in faith, called heretics after the fact, have just died down. In order to somehow culturally explain why Christians were ruined and killed, Rome needed an impressive history of the struggle against sects and heresies, leading to the idea that some comrades of the RCC are not comrades at all, and for a very long time.

Thirdly, the RCC of the time of the Council of Trident did not resemble the Apostolic Church of the first years of Christianity. The persecuted turned into a oppressor, a non-possessor turned into the largest owner of Europe, Christ's call to "give caesar's things to Caesar, and God's to God", to put it mildly, was ignored. Popes have become more like jewish high priests of Old Testament times than shepherds who care about understanding the New Testament. And this metamorphosis had to be explained somehow. It was for this that a long history was needed with wars for the faith, the works of the Holy Fathers, giving the necessary explanations from the "gray antiquity", the Councils and documents of these Councils, from which it was clear that "enemies are everywhere", etc. Another - purely mercantile - task was to find a place in history for all church saints, and there were many of them. The lengthening of history gave a simple and uncomplicated solution to the problem: each saint found a place on the 1500-year scale.

Fourthly, the antiquity of Christianity made it possible to painlessly talk about the Gospel events, as they say, from a distance. That is, it was a long time ago, in a distant land, almost on the outskirts of the empire, who was involved in this atrocity is unknown, for 1500 years Christianity has grown stronger, survived all the crises and diseases of growing up, and the RCC from time immemorial leads its sheep in the right direction.

And finally, fifthly, the stretch of Christianity in time made it possible to send to the distant past the necessary precedents, decisions of church councils or works of phantom authors, the reference to which would confirm the unconditional correctness of the popes in the contemporary political situation. Refuting sources of unthinkable prescription, allegedly consecrated by centuries-old traditions, is not the same as starting a dialogue from scratch. Therefore, potential opponents of Rome in advance were in an unequal position with the heirs to the throne of St. Peter.

The almost total illiteracy of the population, the lack of access to the fundamental historical chronicles and documents, the high cost of books, the actual church monopoly on history and chronology, the ease of replacing some Latin or Greek manuscripts by others within the Church itself, the lack of a single biblical canon and the presence of other similar factors suggest that before the beginning of the era of printing, changing the past was not the most time-consuming task. Given the RCC's desire to bring its history almost to Noah and the possibilities that this organization undoubtedly possessed, it is not surprising that the papal office rooted itself in the historical landscape in the most shameless way. This was partly explained to the public by Hardouin, although the purpose of his work was not initially to denounce the RCC, but only to point out some dark personalities who poured heretical water on the Greek mill. Later it became clear to many, but only a few decided on an open revision of the history of Christianity and the Church. After all, the RCC has not left the historical scene and still has considerable weight on it. And church history is the basis for most national and genealogical stories, and this private world is very well-guarded: any attempt to change at least one letter (even on logical grounds) is considered an attempt on the most sacred and at best meets with a harsh rebuke.

*Chapter 13. The Gallic Question*​
There are topics in history that are not supposed to be touched. That is, the fact lies in plain sight, lying around, one might say, for many centuries, but discussing it is taboo. It's like there is a spell on it or some kind of curse. Linguists and historians wince squeamishly at the mention of such topics and almost always hang on the person invading the closed zone, the label of an amateur. At best, you can hear something like "nonsense" or "random coincidence" from professional humanitarians; and at worst: "Where do you go with your pig snout in a kosher reserve, where every creature has long been registered?!" Neither the first nor the second reaction implies a detailed conversation about an interesting topic, only puts a fat cross on it until another doubter stirs up a dull professional anthill. And then - again: "Nonsense, coincidence, accounting and control, and you are an amateur!" etc.

One of these topics ordered for non-professionals is the presence of the Gallic belt of Eurasia. Anyone who is even partially familiar with the history, geography and toponymy of the Old World will be able to easily find this zone running from the Atlantic to the Middle East. This now invisible belt begins in Portugal, then goes through Spanish Galicia, continues in France (Gaul), Germany (also part of Gaul, plus the remnants of former luxury: Holstein and the city of Halle), Austria (Hallstatt), Italy (the entire upper part of the Italian boot, almost to Rome, was once Gaul, and today this is reminded with a huge number of placeholders such as Galliate, Galarate, Semigallia, etc.) and Switzerland (Helvetica), flows into Galicia (now Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Ukraine, Russia), islets reminds of itself in Romania by the city of Galati and Latvia (Latgale), goes south and reveals itself in all its glory in present-day Turkey (ancient Galatia and the Hellespont) and Israel (Galilee). And that's just what's on the surface. A more scrupulous study of the map of Europe and parts of Asia will surely lead to a multiple expansion of the above list. ( There is another Galatia in the Italian Compagnia. In a small piece of space there are three towns with speaking names: Calatia, Caiatia, and Calles. There is an exact same Calles in Spain, on the southern coast, near Valencia)

But in the scientific literature the term "Gallic belt" is absent. As if it does not exist at all. Indeed, what kind of kinship can there be between Galicia (Галисия) and Galicia (Галиция)? There can be none. Here is a noble linguist Fasmer in the article Galicia: "... coincidence... a pure chance." And what else remains to the great etymologist who derives the name of the city of Galich from the word "galitsa" (jackdaw, that is)? In his competent opinion, the whole of Galicia is carried by a bird-jackdaw (not to be confused with Gogol's bird-troika) through the expanses of European history. The performance is, frankly, at the level of "bears walk the streets in Moscow", but the scientific world considers Fasmer to be almost the chef of the etymological plates in Russian-speaking culture.

Well, other German etymologists do not lag behind the glorious Max Julius Friedrich Fasmer. Speaking about the origin of the name of the Gauls, Western linguists then derive it from the Greek ethnonym _*Galatians*_ (and it, in turn, from the word _*milk*_), then remember the Irish Goydels, which in the ancient world no one knew, then suddenly the Gauls come from the German Walh (a stranger, with the replacement of the initial W with G). Doesn’t matter that the Germanic word could acquire its current form only during the formation of the French language (that is, in the late Middle Ages), and the Galatians were already Galatians in the minus III century (Traditional History). Never mind that omniscient historians consider the Galatians to be Gauls who migrated to Asia Minor. Arrived, were called milky-white, declined. And the sediment in the form of a name remained. And where did it remain and how it returned to Gaul is not very clear, but in the ancient world all kinds of miracles happened, so who knows.

And during the Renaissance, the strange Franks for some reason began to associate the word "Gaul" with the word "rooster" and even made the latter a symbol of Gaul, not realizing that this is just an homonymy of gallus (in Latin means both a Gaul and a rooster). But the fasmers opened their eyes, opened them. And now the French know for sure what gallus really is. And all sorts of Swiss Helvetians there are not Gauls at all, but are... who knows who they are.

As for the Holsteins, their ancestors were recorded as a certain mythical tribe mentioned by Adam of Bremen, so that there would be no associations with french frogs. And where did the first part in the name of the Austrian Hallstatt came from, scientists writing about the Celtic Hallstatt culture, simply can not imagine. Well, indeed, the Celts and the Gauls: what can there be in common?

In short, there is a Gallic toponymy, there are plenty of ancient sources indicating the presence of this toponymy, but all this is absolutely accidental. Analogies are groundless, fabrications are chauvinistic, attempts to anything bring together are absurd.

Why? Because the simplest etymology of the word "gall" lies on the surface. But, taking it into service, you are faced with the need to take the next suggestive step. And this step, to put it mildly, turns around some ideas about the history of Europe. And who needs it?! Why root the glorious, good past, which now brings some groups of individuals good dividends?

However, we were not hired to play according to the rules of "separate individuals", so we will step when and wherever we like. And first of all, let's go in the direction of common sense, which suggests that there are no such accidents that they want to make us believe. And then - everything is simple. In etymological dictionaries and reference books there are a lot of useful articles, bringing the data from which together, we will get a more than satisfactory result and find that all sorts of European Gauls are chicks of one ancestral nest.

To begin with, let's turn to Fasmer's dictionary and find in it the Old Russian word *гологолить* (gologolit‘): "to talk", Old Slavonic глаголъ (glagol) "word", глаголати "to speak", Czech hlahol "talk, speech", hlaholiti "to sound, to proclaim".

The double root seems to be related to the word голос (voice) and Middle Irish gall "glory; swan", Cymraeg galw "to call", Old Icelandic kalia "to call, to sing", Upper-Middle German kaizen, kelzen "to talk, to boast"; see Thorpe 41; Elquist 1, 435; Holthausen, Awn. Wb. 148; Berneker 1, 323; Meye - Vayan 31. A comparison with the Old Indian gargaras "type of a musical instrument" or Old Indian ghargharas "thundering, gurgling, noise" (see Berneker 1, 320; Meyer, Et. 229) is doubtful, because here “g” is of Indo-European origin, as in the Greek γαργαρίζω "gurgle". Hardly a better comparison with the Old Icelandic gala "to sing" (see галдётъ и галитъся), as well as with Armenian gai. galium "strepito, susurro" (from *ghl-ghl-); see Petersson, ArArmSt. 99.

Note that Irish *gall* means _*glory*_. Also, do not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with the so-called double root (GOL / GOL), and this root is in such important words from a cultural point of view as голос (voice), глаголица (Glagolitic), глагол (verb) (in the meaning of a word, нагал (Old Russian password), etc.

Now let's move on and open the article голос:

Ukrainian голос, Belarusian голас, Old Slavonic гласъ φωνη, Bulgarian гласът, Serbo-Croatian niâc, Slovenian glâs, Czech. hlas, Polish glos, Upper-Sorbian hiös, Lower-Sorbian gîos. || Formation of -so is similar to Lithuanian garsas "sound", Old Indian bhäsä "speech, language", Lithuanian balsas "voice": bilti "to speak|| Middle Ossetian yalas "voice" (Hubschman, Osset. Et. 33), further, Old Icelandic kalia "to shout, to speak", Irish gall (*galno-) "famous", Cymraeg galw "to call, to summon"; see Fortunatov, AfslPh 4, 578; Berneker 1, 323; Trautman, BSW 77; Thorpe 42; Meyer, MSL 14, 373; Persson 852 (according to which, correlation to Latin gallus "rooster"; against see Walde - Hofm. 1, 580 and pp.); Stokes 107. Next, here is нагал "password".

Fasmer was unable not to point out the kinship of the Russian golos and the Latin gallus (rooster). This was above his Germanophilia and Russophobia.

Let's remember this magnificent passage and open the dictionary of Dahl, who wrote that the голосовик (golosovik) is "a bird with a good, loud voice; vocal." And why is the same rooster (*gallus*) not *gallus'ovic*?

Now we return to the medieval Gauls, who chose as their symbol a vocal bird named gallus. Homonymy, you say? Well-well.

And having compared all the above, someone else doubts what kind of people the Gauls are?

*Gauls are talking people who speak (GOL/GOL), that is, people of the verb = people of the word. In Russian, these guys are called: people of слово (word) / слава (glory). Or Slavs.*

And in this scenario, everything suddenly falls into place. People of the verb (words) are not an ethnic criterion, but a linguistic, cultural one! And then it is clear why we find the so-called Slavic roots throughout Europe. It is not the inheritance of the Russians, as Fomenko writes. Russians are part of a huge Slavic culture that includes all people of the word/verb (voice). And this culture was really spread from the Atlantic to the outskirts (hello Israeli Galilee!). And Holstein is also part of the culture of the voice, no wonder even the Germans recognize there an essential Slavic component. And Galicia (Галиция) and Galicia (Галисия) are not unrelated, but are a part of a single cultural space.

And it becomes clear why the last words of Christ were words in one of the Slavic dialects (compare "Eloi, Eloi! lamma savakhfani?" (the evangelist's rendering of the text in an incomprehensible language) and "Lele, Lele, lem z mya sya ostash" (a Lemki dialect of the Ruthenian language). The translation is almost identical: "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?")..And in what other language should the Galilean (or Gaul?) speak, the God of the Word, as the whole world calls Him, or the God of Glory, as he was often called by the Slavs? Some aspects of the development of Christianity also appear, which could not arise in the Semitic Middle Eastern environment for the simple reason, that it was dominated by a completely different culture and ethics, which fundamentally contradicted the culture of the word.

In this perspective, you can take a completely new look at the fate of the famous Glagolitic Reims Gospel, on which the French (Gallic) kings swore. It was their native, primordial language, and all sorts of Latin there were brought by the papal comrades who "came here".

Well, etymology is good, but material evidence is better. And it would be quite curious if there are any different conclusions here than from philological arguments in favor of the fact that the Celts (Gauls) are the same Slavs.

It turns out that such evidence and arguments exist. But they are resolutely rejected (or, let's say, until recently resolutely rejected) by all advanced carriers of scientific knowledge - both in our country and abroad. Despite the universally cited visual aids in the form of maps of the culture of the fields of burial urns:






or Hallstatt and then Laten culture:



_Hallstatt and Laten cultures_​
And after all, it is enough to overlap what is recorded on the maps with the Gallic belt and the area of settlement of the Slavs. However, on the cage of the elephant still hangs a sign "buffalo".

Here is what the conscientious Soviet historian-archaeologist V.V. Sedov wrote in 1979:

"The identification of the Slavs with the various ethnic groups mentioned by the ancient authors is characteristic of the Middle Ages and the first stage of the new time. In the writings of Western European historians, you can find the statement that the Slavs in ancient times were called Celts. Among the South Slavic scribes it was widely believed that the Slavs and the Goths are the same people. Quite often the Slavs were identified with the Thracians, Dacians, Getae and Illyrians.

At present, all these conjectures and theories are of only historiographic interest and do not represent any scientific significance. Those who wish to get acquainted with them in more detail can be sent to an interesting book by I. Pervolf and the first pages of the article by V. Antonevich. "

That’s it: if some Pervolf and Antonevich in the XX century acquainted all those interested in details, then the topic is closed, and the significance of the reports of ancient authors on this account was exaggerated by the ancient authors themselves. Well, these dark scribes and Pharisees could not rise to the heights of truly scientific knowledge, they could not. They did not master it. They did not digest it. Allowed themselves to sink to matters unworthy of a real kulturtrager.

However, as it turned out a little later (however, I suspect that this was always known, just not voiced), medieval writers knew what they were writing about. And in 2002, the same historian-archaeologist V.V. Sedov - as if he‘s a different person:

Slavic blacksmithing craft of the I millennium AD, as shown by metallographic surveys, in its features and technological structure is closest to the metalworking craft of the Celts and the provinces of the Roman Empire, where the traditions of iron processing of the Celts continued and developed. This applies not only to the Vistula-Oder region, but also to the Slavic population that spread to the East European Plain. It would seem that the carriers of the Chernyakhov culture, among whom were the Slavs, should be the successors of the high skill of the Scythian artisans in the processing of ferrous metals. But it turns out that the technique of processing iron in the Chernyakhovsky population was not based on the experience of the blacksmiths of Scythia, but developed on Celtic traditions.

Pottery production of the Przewor culture was also a legacy of Celtic craft. In Lesser Poland, on a number of Przewor monuments (Igolomya, Zofipol, Tropiszów), excavations investigated several dozen bugles for firing pottery, similar in design to Celtic pottery kilns. They actively functioned already in Roman times, when pottery became widespread in the Przewor area. It is obvious that the basis for the development of pottery technology in the Vistula-Oder region was the local Celtic traditions.

Celtic influence, as shown by the Polish researcher J. Rosen-Przeworska, is manifested not only in material culture, but also in the spiritual life of the Slavs. It was so powerful that traces of this influence are found even in pagan religious buildings of the early Middle Ages. For example, the pagan cult building of the ninth to twentieth centuries and the temple building of the seventh to eighth centuries at Feldberg in the district of Neubrandeburg studied in the Slavic settlement of Gross Raden in Schwerin find analogies in the Celtic cult building. Wooden stylized figures discovered at Gross Raden find parallels in Celtic art. The temples of the Celts are also comparable to the Slavic sanctuary in Arkona on the island of Rügen, known from the descriptions of Saxon Grammaticus. It is quite obvious that the cult pagan buildings of the north-western Slavs of the early Middle Ages date back to the temple construction of the Celts of Central Europe. Moreover, J. Rosen-Przeworska sees Celtic traditions in the sculpture of a number of early Christian buildings in Poland.

No, well, what a revolutionary discovery: they had to develop in the bosom of the Scythian blacksmith traditions, but followed the Celtic! And in pottery technique Celtic motifs somehow appear. And before they were not noticed, because, following the great fasmers and non-fasmers of the Russian land, they considered medieval authors to be dreamers and fantasists, disgraceful. The buildings of the Slavs, as it turned out unexpectedly, are exactly the same as the Celtic ones. And wooden figures, you know, are already finding parallels in Celtic art. Previously not found, and now – here you go.

Of course, there is no question that the Slavs invented something of their own or used the experience of their ancestors, it’s simply inconceivable, because what savages and cannibals have inventions or traditions? Here at the Germans - yes, they have them. The Romans have them. The Greeks (this is before their last 700 years of complete stagnation, but before that - they have Socrated and Plato-ed so much!). Even the Celts can have cultural traditions and the development of crafts. But the Slavs - those are only able to borrow. And not from the first-class civilizations, but from the peripheral ones. Peasants...

However, the fact that the connection between Celtic and Slavic is established and fixed, albeit at a primitive level, is a great victory. And unsuccessful shameful attempts to draw a line between Celtic and Slavic are doubly pleasing.

It is impossible to explain within the framework of traditional history how at a certain historical stage everything Celtic suddenly abruptly and without noise became Slavic. To recognize that the Celts and Slavs are the same peoples, as medieval authors wrote, by the way, historians are not able, because the picture of the world is already well-settled and to destroy it - too expensive for everyone. Therefore, they will see the commonality and talk about the influence of the Celts on the Slavs, and they are already doing it. But the next step, most likely, will have to wait a very long time.

In 2005, an excellent monograph by S.V. Tsvetkov entitled "Celts and Slavs" was published. The author analyzes with heartbreaking scrupulousness all aspects of the cultural heritage of the Celts and Slavs and comes to the following conclusions:

“Look at how many similarities are found in the Slavic and Celtic tribes:

The Hyperboreans, Venetians, Neurs and Antes were mistaken by various authors for the Slavs and for the Celts, not to mention their cultural closeness and continuity. In many ways, the confusion created by ancient authors is caused by their rather contemptuous attitude towards barbarians. In addition, when dealing with the highest layer of tribes of Central Europe, where the tone was set by the Celts and Germans, they were the main informants of the Romans, the Slavic tribes were attributed to one of these two peoples, especially since the Celts themselves were not ethnically united people.

Taking into account the fact that the formation of the Slavic ethnos took place on the territory of Vistula not only with the huge cultural influence of the Celts, as evidenced by the study of the Przeworsk archaeological culture, but also there was a possible significant ethnic "infusion" of the Celts into the Proto-Slavic environment, we can say that the Slavic tribes themself, already known by this name to Byzantine, Arab and Western European sources, were a mixture of Celtic and Proto-Slavic tribes (perhaps the Venetians, who have long been part of what we today call the Celtic civilization). Moreover, it is possible that the Slavic tribes under the name of the Venetians, Andes, Lugians and, possibly, under other names were originally part of the multi-ethnic composition of the Celtic community. There is no doubt about the common anthropological type of both tribes, especially since anthropologists have _a special "Celtic-Slavic" type of skull structure._ Both Celts and Slavs are connected by many purely humane characteristic features: good-naturedness, traditional hospitality, fearlessness in battle, love of dance and music, attitude to power and religion. Both of them were considered the most cruel peoples of Europe. Without going into moral and ethical assessments, let us only note that in many respects the cruelty of the Celts and Slavs was caused by religious and mystical ideas about the world, where a clear distinction between people of "their own", that is, living in the real world, and "aliens", that is, representatives of the other world. It gave reason to look at people of other tribes as "undead", which should be dealt with accordingly.

Ideas about the origin of the world and man among the Celts and Slavs are not just similar, but have deep Indo-European roots, which allows us to talk about the unusually archaic ideas of these peoples even in the I millennium AD. e. Many similar features are in the customs and rites of these two peoples, in particular, the funeral rite, and it was from the Celts that the custom came to the Slavic environment to bend the swords of buried soldiers, breaking or bending their weapons. The sacrifices offered to the various gods practically do not differ both in their systematization (bloodless sacrifices, bloody sacrifices and plant sacrifices), and in the ceremonial side, not to mention the repetition of the act of creating the world during the dismemberment of the sacrifice.

Volokhs from chronicles are Celts, whose name was used to call the Russian pagan priests Volkhvs (and most likely it was the Celts, or rather their priests-druids who were the first Russian Volkhvs, as well as, subsequently, the Greeks were the first Orthodox priests in Russia). Both the Slavs and the Celts had the power of the priests. Only after the adoption of Christianity did the situation change among both peoples, and secular power began to stand above spiritual power. Thus, the torch of ancient Celtic culture was transferred by the druids into the safe hands of the Volkhvs.

The Celts, having adopted the construction of pagan temples from the Romans, passed these traditions to the Slavs. This also applies to the construction of defensive structures. In the fortress construction of the Slavs used the same principles and the same technological techniques as the Celts.

The pagan pantheons of celts and Slavs are close. Close were also the relationship to especially revered natural objects: trees, groves, forests, springs, streams, rivers, hills, mountains, stones. Very close is the sacred, especially solar symbolism, which has common Indo-European roots.

The Celts, being the best blacksmiths in Europe, transferred knowledge to the Slavs in this industry, making them the main suppliers of iron products in Central Europe. All blacksmith and foundry technological techniques of the Slavs have roots in the Celtic world.

Celtic traditions in decorative and jewelry art were reflected in the Slavic traditions, especially in the north of Ancient Russia, which, apparently, until the late Middle Ages did not lose ties with the remnants of the previously powerful Celtic world. The closeness of Russian and Celtic traditions in the manufacture of book miniatures is striking, although, if we recall the version that the first Slavic writing, Glagolitic, was invented by an Irish monk, then this commonality of traditions becomes more understandable.

In addition to mutual influence in the pagan period, the Celts had a great influence on the Slavic countries during the formation and spread of Christianity, moreover, they laid the foundations of Byzantine and, subsequently, Russian Orthodoxy.

From all of the above, it naturally follows that the early medieval Slavs are in many ways direct descendants of the Celts and not only heirs, but also carriers of Celtic traditions and Celtic culture. The very phenomenon of the Celtic civilization, as, subsequently, slavic, in its multi-ethnicity and in the superiority of spiritual values over worldly ones. Perhaps that is why, already under the banner of Christianity, a real Celtic renaissance swept the whole of Europe. The scholarship and bookishness nurtured in irish monasteries spilled out into wild Europe, laying the foundations of poetry, prose literature and many other forms of art there. Thanks to the last remnants of the Celtic civilization on the islands, modern Europe was able to become a stronghold of world civilization. Let's not forget to whom we owe it.”

And if it were not for the bad chronology followed by the author, he would have come to exactly the same conclusion as I did on the basis of an analysis of the etymological material. However, we can definitely say that S.V. Tsvetkov (now, alas, deceased) was more astute than most historians, who did not even encroach on thinking that "the early medieval Slavs are in many ways direct descendants of the Celts and not only heirs, but also carriers of Celtic traditions and Celtic culture."

*Yes, the Slavs are indeed descendants of the Celts (Gauls). As well as the Celts (Gauls) - descendants of the Slavs. Because it is the same community of people from which the professional masters of the world stole the past in order to deprive it of its future. *Which is greatly successful. I want to believe that it is temporary. Nothing personal, but still...

And in order to finally draw a line under the theme of Celto-Slavic unity, I hasten to convey unlaconic greetings to all restorers of true antiquity from Bartholomew of England.

There was such a medieval author, as if of the XIII century. Living, according to contemporary historians, in France, Saxony, Bohemia, Poland and the devil knows where, bore the normal Jewish name Bartholomew (Bar Tolmai) and, apparently, for this unearthly cosmopolitanism nicknamed Anglicus (that is, English).

So, this same learned man wrote a book "On the Properties of Things", which sets out some ideas about the historical geography and ethnogenesis of peoples. Of course, there is no certainty that the work that appeared in the heyday of the humanistic boom did not come out from the pen of some German author of the late XV century, but let's not be petty. In any case, "On the Properties of Things" is quite an ancient work. Even if it is not of the declared XIII century.

Here is a piece from a treatise of Bartholomew of England:

"Gallatia is an area in Europe occupied by ancient Gallic tribes, from which it takes its name, as Isidore says in books IX and XV. After all, the Gauls, called to help the king of Bethynia, divided the kingdom when they brought him victory. So, then mingling with the Greeks, the Gallogreks first [formed]. Now, from the ancient name of the Gauls, they are called Gauls, and their edge is called Gallatia. And this region is the most extensive and fertile, including most of Europe, which is now called Ruthenia by many."

Wonderful, isn't it? Especially about Gallatia, which occupies most of Europe and is called Ruthenia by many. And another thing:

"Rutia, or Rutena, aka the province of Moesia, is located on the border of Asia Minor, bordered by the Roman borders to the east, Gothia to the north, Pannonia to the west, and Greece to the south. The land is huge, and the speech and language [of it] is the same as that of the Bohemians and Slavs. And it is in some part called Galatia, and its inhabitants were once called Galatians. It is said that the Apostle Paul sent a message to them. See above about Galatia."

In my opinion, it is stated bluntly that the Galatians/Gauls of Galatia speak the same language as the Slavs and Bohemians. And it was to them that the Apostle Paul sent the Epistle. And what kind of message it is, everyone already knows. Yaroslav Arkadievich Kesler explained everything very culturally to everyone (_Kesler_ _Y.A._ *Where Christ was crucified and when the Apostle Paul lived*). So, before whose foolish eyes was Jesus Christ crucified?

And from the same Anglicus about Latvian realities:

"Semigallia is a small province located beyond the Baltic Sea, near Ozilia and Livonia in lower Moesia(?), called this way because it is inhabited by Galatians, who captured it and mingled with the inhabitants of [this] land. That is why the Semigalls are called those who descended from the Gauls, or Galatians, and the local peoples. The land is beautiful and rich in bread, pastures and meadows, but the people are pagan and rough, harsh and cruel."

So, it seems that Latgale is from the same opera as Semigallia, aka Zemgale, the middle part of Latvia.


----------



## yoxdo (Oct 10, 2021)

Eheieh said:


> In the bible, the word translated as Persia is PRS, that is 𐤐𐤓𐤎 in Phoenician, and פרס in Hebrew.  If you pronounce PRS without the rules and modifications of modern hebrew, in a Western European way, it would be PeReS.  Which sounds a lot like Paris, obviously.
> H6539 - pāras - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)
> 
> In the biblical language, when a Y is added to the end of the name of a nation, it denotes the people who are the inhabitants that nation.  So, the word for the people who dwell in PRS is PRSY, that is 𐤐𐤓𐤎𐤉 in Phoenician, and פרסי in Hebrew.  Prounounce PRSY as PeReSY, and you get a word that sounds like Pharisee.
> ...


I wonder how that would work with Sadducees?


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 11, 2021)

*Chapter 14. Arguments and artifacts*​Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, “De vita Caesarum” ("The Life of the Caesars", or, as it is customary to translate for some reason, "The Life of 12 Caesars"). Famous phrase:
Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit (Jews, constantly agitated / incited to riot / By Chrest, he expelled from Rome).
"He" is the emperor Claudius, about whom Suetonius has much more information than about Christ.

There are many interpretations of this passage of the Roman colleague. Some believe that Suetonius wrote about people agitated by Christian teaching. Others say that we are talking about a preacher with the same name. Others even claim that slaves were called chrests. But everyone agrees that Suetonius' phrase has nothing to do with the historical Christ. Well, really, how could Christ be in Rome, and even between 41st and 54th year of our era (the reign of Claudius)? He couldn't. This was formulated more concisely and clearly by the Soviet researcher of the issue I.A. Kryvelev:

Claudius held the imperial throne from 41 to 54 A.D., which means that he became emperor almost ten years after Jesus' alleged death. At least because of that, it could be considered that we aren’t talking about the latter. In addition, if we assume that Christ lived for some time and "aroused confusion" in the city of Rome, then we must question his entire New Testament biography, according to which his entire life path passed in Palestine. (Kryvelev I.A. What history knows of Jesus Christ. M., 1969.)

Paradoxically, in a thoroughly atheistic book, the most sensible idea about the study of the historical Christ is expressed. “We must question it!” Oh, we have to! Not a "New Testament biography" though, but the tradition of awful commenting on the New Testament biography. After all, it would seem that Suetonius writes about Chrest (this spelling of the name was practiced in early Christianity) in Rome. Why not listen?
Chronology gets in the way. And the tradition of sending Palestine to the Middle East. But everyone knows perfectly well that the date of Christmas is calculated very poorly. And the difference of ten years is nothing at all compared to the centuries that were painted to the royal dynasties of the Middle Ages or the Egyptian pharaohs. And not much is known about the life of Jesus as to dismiss the version of His possible stay in Rome. But no! The absolutely unequivocal evidence of Suetonius is twisted both by this and that. The main thing is that everyone recognizes that there was no Christ in Rome. Peter was. Paul was. Even Mary Magdalene was. Not to mention Pilate and other Herods. But Christ was not supposed to be there. Otherwise, someone can guess which Palestine the Savior walked on.

Jean Boden in "The Method for the Easy Knowledge of History" (Chapter IX) reports:
The Canaanites, ousted by the Jews from the abundant Palestine, withdrew to Illyria and Pannonia, as Rabbi Kimhi wrote at the end of his commentary.

Well, an "abundant" Middle Eastern Palestine is ridiculous. But about Illyria and Pannonia I would like more details. We pick up a map of the Mediterranean region and see how it is so miraculously possible to "withdraw" from Palestine to Pannonia and Illyria. Just in case, let me remind you that Pannonia and Illyria are the territory of present-day Slovenia, Croatia, Austria, Hungary, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia. If the events referred to in Boden's book took place in the Middle East, it turns out to be utter nonsense. If the Jews drove the Canaanites out of Western Europe, where, obviously, the real Palestine was located, everything immediately falls into place.

Some more from Boden:
"In Gaul and Spain, the oldest of all seems to be the Leviticus clan, which begins with Leviticus, so the rulers of the Abyssinians and Israelites are called nobilians."

They have pinpointed the origin of their own people, so Alvarez makes no additions. So, only the Jews surpass other peoples in their antiquity, no one but them can trace the ancient roots of their kind. All mixed together strengthen the trunk, but reject the branches. It is true that the sacred people, who are established in the sublime glory of nobility since the time of Aron and flourished for 2300 years, die out in retreat in the lands of the Goths and Vandals, without encroaching on sacred revenge.
That is, for the historian of the XVI century, it is quite obvious that the Leviticus family is the oldest of all in Gaul and Spain. So, there is nothing supernatural in the fact that the Hebrew land (Iberia) was just on the territory of present-day Spain. Also, there is nothing strange that neighboring Gaul is the "same" Galilee from which Christ came. *This land was ours until we got bogged down in the struggling...*

E.R. Roth, “The Old in Europe”:
When the French King is crowned, His Majesty takes communion according to the special authority of the Most Pure Mysteries of CHRIST in both forms, that is, in the body and blood of Our Savior: which according to the law of the Roman Church, no one except the one Christian Monarch is allowed. This Holy EUCHARIST is received by the King from the Holy Chalice with his own hands, kneeling.
So, the French king is special, not like all other monarchs. And even in the XVIII, monstrously enlightened century. Why such privileges? Is it not because the Gallic rulers are not trembling creatures, but have the right? And a legal right that is not disputed by any of the lords of the earth.

This is confirmed by the symbolism of the French monarchy.
Michel Pasturo, "A Symbolic History of the European Middle Ages":
"The King of France is one of the few Christian monarchs whose coat of arms does not include animals; moreover, it draws its main emblems and symbols from the plant world. In the first place is the heraldic lily. Then a floral motif in all sorts of forms, especially in the form of two symbolic equivalents of the tree of life - so significant for medieval iconography - namely a flowering rod and a scepter decorated with flowers. Since the eleventh century, they have been present on the seals of the Capetian kings and will continue to accompany the rule of every sovereign until the French Revolution. Then the palm branch - a Christological attribute and a sign of power - which was already present in the Carolingian royal symbolism and which the Capetian gradually modified into a short scepter, and then into the hand of justice. Finally, a crown that can be decorated with flowers or heraldic lilies in many different ways, but can also be decorated with other plant motifs (shamrock, palmettes, celery leaves). All these attributes are present on the seals of His Majesty, where through them the royal person, the monarchical ideal and dynastic policy are positioned. Other plant motifs found on other types of seals and images could be added to this series. For example, the tree of Jesse, which is important for Sukeria, which, since the XII century, is so often associated with the kingdom of lilies that it eventually becomes a real iconographic symbol of the latter. And a little later - the image of the Annunciation (with the indispensable presence of a lily) and a rich floral bouquet of the Virgin Mary, which occupies a prominent place in the royal iconography of the late Middle Ages."

Palm branch as a sign of power. You don't have to smart to understand where this comparison comes from. Did it not occur to any of the thousands of other lords to use the palm branch for heraldic or decorative purposes? Or was the right to use palm branches strictly restricted? And lilies? The Flower of the Virgin and... the French crown. And why not English, Spanish, Austrian?.. Perhaps precisely because the representatives of these and other non-French ruling houses knew the real history of the emergence of the Gallic monarchy and did not even dare to think that they could approach it in glory. And the tree of Jesse is not anything, but the supposed genealogy of Jesus Christ. And symbolic associations with the lily (Virgin) are more than appropriate here. In addition, a parallel can be drawn between the name of the flower and the word "god" in some languages. After all, el’/alla(h)/lel’/eloi is the very name of God. Compare, for example, lel’ and lily. It is likely that this is not just a consonance.

From B.G. Derevensky. Work "Near-Gospel Artifacts":
On the tombstone of the I century AD discovered near the German town of Bingerbrück, under the relief image of a Roman warrior there is a Latin inscription reading: Tib[erius] Iul[ius] Abdes Pantera Sidonia ann[orum] LXII stipen[diorum] XXXX miles exs coh[orte] I sagittariorum h[ic] s[itus] e[st] - " Tib[erius] Iul[ius] Abdes Pantera of Sidon, [lived] 62 y[ears], who has served for 40 years as a soldier of the shooter‘s coh[ort], is buried here." This finding caused a great revival among historians studying early Christianity. Some have even suggested that this warrior was the same Pantera soldier whom Celsus (in Origen's transmission) called Jesus' illegitimate father. In favor of this identification say both chronological and geographical coincidences: Phoenician Sidon was in the neighborhood of Palestine, and during his long service shooter Pantera (probably by origin he was a Semite with the name Abdes) could well visit the Galilee.
In any case, this finding indicates that the male name "Pantera", mentioned by Celsus and appearing in Talmudic reports about Jesus in the form of "Pantira" or "Pandira" is not a linguistic error and not the fruit of anyone's imagination. The Romans, and in particular the Roman warriors, bore this name as a cognonym (nickname).




_Tombstone of Abdes Pantera (Museum of Bad Kreuznach)_​
And again we are faced with the fact that the gospel artifact - the tombstone of the Pantera soldier - was found not somewhere, but in the Gallic region. Today the city of Bingerbrück seems to be one hundred percent Aryan, but in ancient times these places were inhabited by Celts (or Gauls). By the way, Sidon is very close. Just not the mythical Middle Eastern, but the one that today is called Sion, in Roman times Sedunum. Obviously, this settlement is mentioned on the tombstone (the difference in Sidonia/Sedunum can be attributed to the instability and variability of ancient orthography in general and topography in particular).

And another curious source. “The Book of Wanderings of Rabbi Benjamin”. (Rabbi Benjamin is Benjamin of Tudela)
Of course, we can say that the author of the book was not Benjamin himself, but an anonymous person who wrote everything after the fact from the words of a traveler from Tudela. It may be recalled that most of the lists of "The Book of Wanderings" belong to the XV century, and not the XII century, where historians place the narrative. However, even with these features, the "Book of Wanderings" provides abundant food for thought. Moreover, if in the XV-XVI centuries, when the work of an anonymous admirer of Benjamin spread through Europe, the information of the tudelian was still relevant, this speaks volumes. (Strictly speaking, there are no copies from the XII century. The oldest manuscript, located in the British Museum, dated (very arbitrarily) XIII Century. All other manuscripts are much younger)
So, from “The Book of Wanderings”:

Next, a two-day distance from Béziers, is Gar-Gaash, called Montpellier, a convenient trading point lying two farsangs from the sea; here Edomites and Ishmaelites flock to trade from the countries: Algabria (Portugal), Lombardy, the region of the great city of Rome, from all the land of Egypt, Israel, Greece, France, Spain and England, in short, merchants of all nations visiting Genoa and Pisa.
The commentator of the text (The Russian translation was made by P. V. Margolin for the book "Three Jewish travelers of XI and XII centuries, Eldad Danit, p. Benjamin of Tudela and p. Petachijus of Regenburg" (St. Petersburg, 1881), to whom belong also explanations of the text) with a confident hand deduces: "Gar-Gaash, i.e. Mount Gaash. The mountain of this name is located in Samaria, in the tribe of Ephraim. On its northern slope Joshua is buried (Is. N. XXIV, 30). In addition to the Bible, this mountain is mentioned in the Talmud (tractate Shabbat, 1056). The Hebrew word gaash means to tremble, to shake; the mountain got its name because at the moment of Joshua's death an earthquake occurred in Judea."

And now the question is: if Gar-Gaash, called Montpellier, was located near Béziers and at the same time was in Samaria, in the tribe of Ephraim, where was the ancient Samaria actually? Is it in the Middle East? Read on:
From Marseille they go by ship to Genoa - a city lying on the seashore, and arrival there is four days of the journey. There live only two Jews, brothers: r. Samuel, son of Kilam, and his brother, from the city of Sabata, they are good people. The city is surrounded by a stone wall, does not have an autocratic ruler, but is governed by senators, whom citizens choose at their own discretion.
Sabata is the present Vado Ligure, ancient Sabatia. I wonder if the father of the apostles James and John mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew originated from these places? Given all the oddities of ancient geography, it is possible that Sabatia was the birthplace of a man named Zebedee (Ζεβεεαίος in Greek).

And another beautiful passage:​"From here I went to Pozzuoli, otherwise Sorrento, a large city built by Hadadezer (King of Suva), who fled from fear before King David of blessed memory. But the sea that once emerged from the shores covered two parts of this city, and to this time you can see the squares and towers that were in the middle of the city. In that place a source rises from the depths of the sea, giving a healing oil called petroleum, which residents collect from the surface of the water and use in medicines. There, from the bowels of the earth, on the seashore, hot waters flow, over which two baths are arranged, and anyone who bathes in them receives relief from illness and healing. All sick from Lombardy come here in the summer.

From here, fifteen miles away, the road runs under the mountains; it was built by the Roman king Romulus, the founder of the city of Rome, out of fear of David, king of Israel, and his military commander Joab. For the same reason, he made buildings both at the top [of the mountains] and under the mountains where Naples stands. This is a very fortified city, lying on the seashore, built by the Greeks. About five hundred Jews live in it, and between them r. Hizkia, r. Solomon, r. Elijah Kogen and r. Isaac of blessed memory, a native of Mount Horus. "
It turns out that Sorrento, according to Benjamin, was built by the Suva king Adraazar (mentioned in the II Book of Kings), who was constantly at war with King David. I wonder how the Syrian ruler was able to grab a tidbit on the Apennines? Did he, taking advantage of Cypriot offshore companies registered on slaves, buy up real estate in Italy? Where, let me ask, was King David looking at this time? Ah, I know. He was busy sorting things out with a local fratello named Romulus. Then, of course, there are no questions. While the mafia was building a "road under the mountains" so as not to catch the eye of the authoritative David, the Syrian Zar (aka Tsar) Adraa (Adriatic?) forged iron without departing from the cash register. What manners, honestly! Though... Italians, what to take from them!
Let’s travel with Benjamin of Tudela further:

"From here one day to Benevento. It is a large city located between the sea and a high mountain. In it, the society of Jews, consisting of a man of two hundred, of which the main ones are: r. Kalonimos, r. Zarah and r. Abraham. From Benevento - a two-day journey to Melfi, in Puglia; it's the biblical Pula; there are about two hundred Jews, and at the head of them are r. Ahimaac, r. Natan and r. Zadok. From here one day of the way to Ascoli, where there are up to forty Jews, between which the main ones are: r. Kontilo, r. Tsemakh, his son-in-law, and r. Joseph. From Ascoli two days to the city of Trani, lying on the seashore; all wanderers who go to worship in Jerusalem gather here, because in this city there is a very convenient harbor. The Jewish society here consists of about two hundred people, and at the head of them are r. Elijah, r. Nathan the Preacher and r. Jacob. The city is nice and big."

That's where the biblical Pula is! And the commentators of Benjamin disagree: "The land of Pula mentioned by the prophet Isaiah (IXVI,19) should be in Africa. According to scientists, it was one of the islands on the Nile River: Philae or Elephantine. In all likelihood, r. Benjamin, calling Puglia the biblical Pula, was involved in the error only by the similarity of sounds in both names."
It's business as usual. Even boring. "It must be in Africa”, but if you go there – you won’t find it. Why should it be there? On what basis? Why in Africa? Because Palestine is nearby?

Again, all-knowing critics are convinced that Benjamin was "involved in the mistake." Well, of course, when the model is built, but something indicates its incompatibility with the facts, it's easier to reject the facts than to break the model. Who cares, some traveler from Tudela? We had all sorts of them. Everyone was digested. Everyone.

_Through the valleys and the highlands_
If someone still believes that there is only one Galilee in the world and it is in the Middle East, I’ll have to disappoint. Out of territories that bear a proud and a famous name, even today there are several, more than one. And in ancient times they were uncountable. Everything rests on the medieval concept of history, with the help of which everyone was divided so that the few but "right" guys ruled. And these good fellows needed a version of the past in which their (and only their) families always owned certain pieces of Europe. And if the genealogy was not quite tied to the frankly raider fragments of the biography, there were definitely references to the ancient clan, which was viciously thrown into the abyss of disasters, but Providence wanted the descendants of ancient, noble families to return to the lands of their ancestors. I repeat: it was advantageous for all the powerful of the world of that time to separate Gaul from Galilee, Golicia from Galicia, Galatia from Helvetica, etc.

As a result of such non-resistance of the parties, game was raised, hunting for which is actually prohibited until now. That is, it is possible to make the assumption that the Galatians are Celts. But it is impossible to openly declare that Christ had nothing to do with the Israeli Galilee. That is, you can try to say this without claims to anything, but in the scientific community (and not only the scientific community) the reaction will be traditionally harsh. People from science will call such an assumption amateurism or quackery, and those who have not read Pasternak, but whose credo is "Always!", will find in their repertoire something about "an attack on our values", "an attempt to denigrate and tarnish", etc.

So, back to our artificially divided Galilees. They were separated. And even the spelling they corrected in the right way. But the hands of gentlemen medieval raiders did not reach everything. That is, in the main directions they walked first with fire and sword, then with bonfires, then with reforms and revolutions, and in the XVIII-XIX centuries they also varnished it all with reliably financed scientific research. And it turned out to be pretty. But no one cared about the walkways and small streams. Because no one, except for small-aim local historians, was interested in these remnants of the past. They were simply forgotten, how they forget about things taken to the cellar. But it was these relics that preserved for us the realities of the world that national medieval Europe wanted to forget. And today, while not everything has migrated from the cellar of history to a technological plant for processing its garbage, there is a chance to collect a unique collection of artifacts of the present that were not invented by humanists of the ancient world.
One such artifact is the Valley of Galilee, located in present-time France.

Yes, that's right, not Gallic, but Galilean, and the name was there from almost the antiquity. At least since the seventh century of traditional history. It's funny that almost nothing has been written about the history of this toponym. There are only references to the gray antiquity, in which local monks called this the valley of Galilee, and then this name dissolves into the historical mist. To surface at the beginning of the XXI century, the valley was suddenly returned its historical name. Of course, modern inhabitants of these places will not even think of associating them with gospel stories. And in vain. There would be something to be proud of.




However, I am not sure whether the current French need to know that "Tsar Constantine and his warriors went to Britannic Galilee". Or that "Valentian, the right roman advisor, hearing rudeness, fearing the speech of Attila, went to Alarich in Galilee, the Roman warrior..."[S:My translation may be inaccurate]. And what is the use of this for the descendants of the Gauls: “And the divine Christian Constantine in Galilee and Brittany ruled piously.” (Citation: Chronicler of Hellada and Rome. Т.1. St. Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, 1999) 
Well, there was some Galilee. Well, some Constantines, Alarichs and other Attilas wandered through the local valleys and hills. It was a long time ago, if at all. And the Levites... So what? But our cognac is the most delicious.

And you can't argue. It is delicious.


----------



## yoxdo (Oct 11, 2021)

Hard not to be curious about this topic still I always wonder the personal reasons of others. For those who don't believe the christian narrative for whatever reason why would one give 5 minutes to pondering over it. We are at the mercy of liars and forgers in all things. If the story isnt true why would anyone care about the names surrounding the narrative. If the story is somewhat true in that a man did live whom people followed and believed but wasnt actually god in the flesh and yet the story was changed to fit the rulers perspective seeing the story is obviously an allegory of the sun, for that reason also it becomes a tedious process one that invariably seems impossible to get to the bottom of. I grew up a christian but started having doubts in my late teen and early 20's, roman catholicism always seemed weird to me. I also found it weird how many groups, governments, and peoples have called themselves christians throughout history yet went about murdering at will. Which begs the question of what originally was christianity supposed to be about or is it more an archtype used as a control mechanism by rulers. I know this forum isnt supposed to be a place to spew my thoughts randomly but sometimes I need to exhale.


----------



## Gladius (Oct 11, 2021)

In regards to the word "Cnaan" (Canan, כנען). French names such as Cannes were suggested.
I found a rererence to another town, not a Cnaan candidate, that follows a similar etymology path, that can give validity to the process itself. 

The name seems to originate from the Hebrew spelling of Cnaan, at least thats what is considered the "base" word.
We have the word כנען, C.N.A'A.N, notice the ending נען , Naan.

In a Jewish chronology Emek HaBacha from 1570s, a chapter describes the events of Jewish pogroms during the Crusades. The land of Carinthia, south Austria, is named קרנען KRNA'AN.
This is probably the "Jewish name" of the country, as the book in general uses unique forms for names of locations. 
We can see a kind of formula here.
Carinthia, CRN, gets the AAN suffix to form Crnaan. The book lacks punctuation therefore we get this name without vowels.
Knowing this formula can help us apply it to Cnaan, and figure out the original land or city.

By the way, the name of Carinthia in German is "Karentan", identical to the infamous town of Carentan in France.


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 11, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Jean Boden in "The Method for the Easy Knowledge of History" (Chapter IX) reports:
> The Canaanites, ousted by the Jews from the abundant Palestine, withdrew to Illyria and Pannonia, as Rabbi Kimhi wrote at the end of his commentary.





Gladius said:


> In a Jewish chronology Emek HaBacha from 1570s, a chapter describes the events of Jewish pogroms during the Crusades. The land of Carinthia, south Austria, is named קרנען KRNA'AN.


We've got a match


----------



## Will Scarlet (Oct 12, 2021)

yoxdo said:


> For those who don't believe the christian narrative for whatever reason why would one give 5 minutes to pondering over it.



Because it may shed some light as to the where and by whom, the "christian narrative" was conceived/written. Also, this is a forum - it's what happens here.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Oct 12, 2021)

yoxdo said:


> Which begs the question of what originally was christianity supposed to be about or is it more an archtype used as a control mechanism by rulers. I know this forum isnt supposed to be a place to spew my thoughts randomly but sometimes I need to exhale.


I think christinsanity is from the top to the bottom. Weather or not it used to be some obscure cult in the levant mountains, or if that is a made up story as well, i have no idea what to believe. 
All the main storys, jesus virgin mother etc and architecture of the romans / vaticans. Nothing is original. It is all older storys, pushed on a new public in the form of a or more bible/'s. This is why it is very interesting and a good read.


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 12, 2021)

*Chapter 11. What Egypt the* *holy family visited?*​According to the Gospel of Matthew, the holy family fled to Egypt, fleeing from the wrath of King Herod, who, considering himself to be deceived by the Magi, decided that it was easier and more reliable to destroy all the babies of Bethlehem than to find out which of them was Christ (Matt. 2:1-16). As you know, the massacre was useless for Herod, but he immortalized his name, and now almost every civilized person knows that the words "Herod" and "monster" are synonymous.

However, every soul gets what it deserves (this is my opinion, not a statement, for the record), and the soul of the murderer is no exception. So, let's not aggravate the situation of the disembodied substance of a single ruler (especially since many modern characters have long outheroded their "spiritual father"), but focus on the geography of those places where the barbarism described by Matthew happened.

So, in a short segment of the Gospel of Matthew, the toponym Egypt (in the Greek original -Aΐγυπτος) is used several times, and there is no reason to suspect that it was there by accident. The traditional interpretation of the geography of this episode is unambiguous and does not imply discussion: it happened in the territory now belonging to Israel/ Palestine, and the holy family fled to Egypt, which is now Egypt. The option is simple and uncomplicated, does not require additional explanations. And most importantly, it corresponds to the current map of the world. If you wish, you can, of course, wonder why it was necessary for Joseph and Company to shuffle with a newborn through the waterless desert into the land of captivity of the Jews, if it was possible to move to his native Nazareth, where after the Egyptian wanderings the family returned, now being fearful of Herod’s son. What is there to it? They went through the desert means they went through the desert.

But someone stubbornly continues to believe that there were no evangelical events in the Middle East. Is this someone entitled to that view? Obviously, he does. And now this someone (let's not point fingers, although everyone knows who to point at) invites everyone interested in this non-banal story to ask the question: was there another place in the ancient world associated with the name of Egypt or with the Egyptians?

At first glance, there wasn't. And on the second. And even on the third. But it turns out that the word *Egyptian* was applied not only to the inhabitants of ancient Misra.

And to whom else? For those to whom it still applies, but it is not obvious for everyone. Despite the word being in several European languages. We are talking about the Gypsies, who to this day in England are called gypsies (in Middle English it was gyptians), and in Spain - gitanos. Both of these words, like the Old French gyptiens, go back through different means to vulgar Latin with its Egyptanus (that is, Egyptian). And the Latin word leads to the very Greek that is used in the New Testament. Well, people of the Middle Ages thought that the Gypsies and Egyptians are one and the same, what can you do about it? And now let's ask ourselves the question: in what country did Joseph the Betrothed go - to the land of the Egyptians or to the country of the Gypsies? The traditional answer is known.

But let’s compute the untraditional one. If ancient Galilee is identical to Gaul, then the holy family most likely saved themselves in the nearest Gypsy lands. That is, in the south of present-day France or in Spain. Where the Gypsies lived, in vulgar Latin called Egyptians. That's, you know, an interesting flamenco.

This is indirectly confirmed by the ancient legendary history of the city of Saintes-Marie-de-la-Mer in Gaul, where the remains of the three Marys and their maid St. Sarah are venerated. It is assumed that in Gaul in the company of Joseph of Arimathea, St. Lazarus, Mary Magdalene and other worthy people arrived two Marys – Mary of Jacob and Mary Salome the midwife. They and Magdalene were served by a certain Sarah, later recognized as a saint. And here there is a curious plot twist: this very Sarah seemed to be an Egyptian, but at the same time she is revered as the heavenly patroness not of the Egyptians, but of the Gypsies. So it is likely that for the time of writing the Gospels, the land of the Gypsies was also the land of Egypt. Well, as a dessert: the ancient name of the city of Sainte-Marie-de-la-Mer is Oppidum Ra. If it's not an Egyptian (gypsy?) plot, then I'm passing.

In the South Gaul unexpectedly ends the path of another "Egyptian" saint, and not some unknown and insignificant for church history, but the founder of Christian monasticism Anthony the Great. His remains incomprehensibly appeared in Saint-Antoine-l'Abbaye, near Vienne, where they have been staying since the X century (traditional, of course), that is, from the time before the crusades, and part of the remains was transferred to Arles. What does the Egyptian desert have to do with Gallic civilizational joys? However, it is in Gaul that the remains of St. Anthony of Egypt are found, and it is there that they begin to work, curing patients with ergotism. And this is another (perhaps insignificant, but still) reason to think about what lands in ancient times could be called Egyptian.

Another interesting testimony emerges from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew:

"(22) And as they walked, Joseph said to Him, 'Lord, we shall have to suffer from the great heat; if you like, we will go by seaside road so that we can relax passing through the cities that are on the shore. And Jesus said unto him, Fear nothing, Joseph; I'll shorten the path, so that what you have to go through in thirty days, you will pass in one day. And when He spoke again, they saw the mountains and cities of Egypt.

And, filled with joy, they entered one city called Sotinen. And since they did not know anyone there from whom they could ask for hospitality, they entered the temple, which the Egyptians called the Capitolium. In this temple stood one hundred and seventy-five idols, and they served these deities every day a blasphemous service.

(23) And it happened that when Blessed Mary and Her Child entered the temple, all the idols fell to the ground, on their faces, and were destroyed and broken. Thus, what the prophet Isaiah said was fulfilled: "Behold, the Lord sits on a cloud, and all the creations of the hands of the Egyptians will tremble at the sight of Him."










_*Saintes-Marie-de-la-Mer*_​
(24) And when the chief of this city, Afrodisio (Affrodosio), found out about this, he came to the temple with all his army and all the generals. And when the priests of the temple saw Afrodisio approaching with the whole army, they thought that he was going to punish them, for the images of the gods were overthrown. And when he entered the temple and saw all the statues laying on their faces and broken, he approached Mary and bowed to the Child whom She was holding in her arms. And when he worshipped Him, he addressed all his soldiers and companions, and he said, "If this Child were not God, our gods would not have fallen on their faces at the sight of Him, and would not have stretched out before Him. This testifies that He is their Lord. So, we will not act prudently if we do not do before Him what we did before our deities. For in this case, we run the risk of causing His wrath, the same that killed the pharaoh, the king of Egypt, who did not heed the great signs and was absorbed by the sea with all his army.

Thus, all the people of this city recognized Jesus Christ as their Lord (Domino Deo)."

What kind of city is it, Sotinen, that has a Capitolium? They say it is the Egyptian Bubastis. But the Egyptian Bubastis never changed its name, it was not famous for the Capitolium, and on what basis it is believed that Bubastis and Sotin are the same place is a mystery. Moreover, in ancient Egypt there was no city with such a name at all. Of course, as is usually the case with ancient manuscripts, there are several variants of writing the toponym. Apart from the said Sotinen, there are Sotrina and Sohinen (Demetrius of Rostov gives another variant of the spelling of the toponym: Siren). There are no such names in Egypt too.

It is believed that the Romans began to build Capitoliums in many colonies from the time of the early empire. And, in theory, temple complexes with this name should numerous. In practice, however, things are not quite as traditionalists try to imagine. It is possible, of course, that there were several dozen or even hundreds of temples with capitolium-like functionality in the Roman world, but the automatic transfer of the name of the Capitolium almost never happened.

And only once the urbanonym Capitolium was successfully grafted on non-Roman soil. It happened in Gaul, in the city of Toulouse (or Tolos, as this settlement was previously called). But Toulouse is not Sotinen, Sotrina, or even Sohinen. So the Toulouse Capitolium does not meet the search terms.

It’s really not satisfying... until we remember how often Toulouse was called in ancient times and with the name of which saint the birth of Christianity in these places is associated. And the saint who brought the good news to the south of Gaul was called Saturninus (Sarnin in Occitan, Sernin in French, Sadurni in Catalan, Satordi in Basque, Serenin in Spanish, etc.). Accordingly, when Christians spoke of Toulouse, they had in mind the city of St. Saturninus/Sernin/Sarnin/Sadurni. And then the pseudo-Matthew’s Sotinen/Sotrina/Sohinen/Siren with idols in the Capitolium is just the city of Saturninus, Toulouse. By the way, it was for the refusal to bow to those Capitolium idols that St. Saturninus suffered. This is reported by Jacobus de Voragine in the "Golden Legend" and Gregory of Tours in the "History of the Franks":

Anticipating his martyrdom, Saturninus said to one of his two priests: "Now I am going to be sacrificed, the moment of sacrifice is near. Stay by my side, please, until I meet my end." He was captured and taken to the Capitolium, but only him, both of his priests left him.

Seeing that they had escaped, Saturninus is said to have prayed and uttered the following words: "Lord Jesus Christ, hear me from where You are in heaven: may this church remain without a bishop chosen from among its own citizens for the rest of its existence”.

We know that up to this day it still is true. Saturninus was tied to the feet of a wild bull and chased from the Capitolium, so he ended his days. Gatian, Trofim, Paul, Strembonius, and Martial spent their days in extraordinary holiness, and they were able to bring many people into the church and spread faith in Christ among all those they met. Then they died in joy, knowing that they believed. They ended earthly existence through martyrdom, others through full recognition, but all united in heaven.

Naturally, at the time of the infant Christ, the city could not yet be associated with Saturninus, but the author of pseudo-Matthew could be well aware of the story of the Toulouse saint, hence the obvious anachronism in the text.

By the way, Toulouse is located less than 200 km from Béziers, and this is a very curious touch for our story.

After all, the name Afrodisio from the above quote of pseudo-Matthew is known much better than the toponym Sotin(en). Because it is rare and memorable. So, a man with this name appears as bishop of the Diocess of Béziers in Languedoc. All in the same Southern Gaul. To which, whatever one may say, all Christian roads lead. Because all the others, as they say in folklore, leads to Rome, or Roma. Oh, the Romanis! Oh, the Egyptians!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Gladius said:


> In regards to the word "Cnaan" (Canan, כנען). French names such as Cannes were suggested.
> I found a rererence to another town, not a Cnaan candidate, that follows a similar etymology path, that can give validity to the process itself.
> 
> The name seems to originate from the Hebrew spelling of Cnaan, at least thats what is considered the "base" word.
> ...


There's also an interesting thread about Austrian legends, giants being one of them.


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 14, 2021)

The last chapter of the first part. This one may have big implications on the biblical research as a whole:

*Chapter 18. The* *Muscle of the Lord*​_The best-laid schemes o’ mice an men Gang aft agley..._

Robert Burns. To a Mouse​

I'll start from afar. From such a distance that it may seem completely irrelevant and even confusing. However, the distance in this case is absolutely necessary, because face to face you can not notice such an elephant. Then you will only sigh and throw up your hands confusedly, because it was so obvious, so mockingly close and in the open.

So, from afar. In the beginning was the word. And if someone already, turning his jaw, yawned, anticipating another philological analysis of biblical flights, I hasten to add: it was "The Word about Igor's Regiment".

How many copies were broken because of this text, how many interpretations and explanations were presented to the general public - can not be counted. For someone, "Word" is a unique monument of Old Russian literature, for someone - a literary hoax of noble myth-builders of the Russian state. This work excites the minds of researchers of Russian antiquity for more than two centuries. And both the text as a whole and its individual fragments.

And here is one of these fragments I would like to recall in particular. It's about the phrase that eventually became winged and began to live its own life in the language _растекаться мыслию по древу_ (literally: to spread by thought on the tree).

Around this expression serious passions boiled for many decades. And all due to the fact that many (and quite reasonably) think that on the tree spread not a _мысль_ (thought), but a _мысь_ (that is, a small animal). However, than to retell everything in my own words, I will refer to the researcher and translator of the "Word", who has long recorded everything and explained it in the best way.

From the commentary of A.K. Yugov to the translation of the poem "The Word about Igor's Regiment"
(M., 1970):

РАСТЕКАШЕТСЯ МЫСЛИЮ ПО ДРЕВУ. I translate "Мыслию по древу", taking the explanation of E.V. Barsov: мыслью-белкою (a thought-squirrel) on the tree. The named researcher, relying on Karelkin's indication that "мысь" meant squirrel, believes that the copyists or the first publishers had before them two words written in a continuous way, without separation: " мыс- лиюмысию", and the letters "л","i" ("и" with a dot) and "ю" in the first word were, written "under the titlo", on top of the line. The presence of two very similar words next to each other seemed to be an error, unnecessary repetition of the same word, and only one word "мыслию" (thought) was left. Such cases, indeed, have happened. Barsov gives convincing examples (E.V. Barsov. "The Word about Igor's Regiment" as an artistic monument of the Kievan Druzhina Rus. M., 1885).

So, I also accept that in the original there was: мыслию - мысъю, that is, a thought-squirrel. In recent years, however, there is a competition between the "squirrel" ... and a mouse (a special, tree mouse and, as the author of such speculation assures, the one that is very "cute"). "Мысь" is, you see, a мышь (mouse)! I think that seriously it is hardly necessary to refute such a guess. Russian people‘s disgust of mice since ancient times completely excludes this. The creator of "The Word about Igor's Regiment" is so reverent to his predecessor, the prophetic Boyan, that he could not humiliate his inspired thought with such a likening: it would be blasphemy! The squirrel is another thing altogether! Folk poetry and aesthetics since ancient times accept this image. And it, indeed, is called мысь from the very start, and not only in the Pskov region, but also in the Novgorod Territory. This was reported to Barsov by P.I. Savvaitov. And it seems to me that Barsov rightly concludes: "In view of the extraordinary proximity of the Novgorod dialect to the ancient language of South Russia, there is no reason to reject that in Kievan Rus this word existed in the era of the Igor‘s singer" (vol. II, p. 128). Along the way, we note that more than a hundred years ago, Vladimir Dahl in his "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" did not miss to indicate: "Белка (squirrel) ... Pskovian Мысь". In the light of the indisputable linguistic unity of Novgorod and Kiev in the XI-XII centuries, that is, in the time of Boyan and the "Word about Igor's Regiment", the arguments of the supporters of the "mouse" seem to be a simple vulgarization: southern Ancient Russia, they say, did not know such an animal - squirrel, because it lived ... in the northern forests! They could recognise at least the historical fact that Novgorod and Kiev are both on the Great Way from the Varangians to the Greeks; that in Novgorod Kievan dukes reigned; that for centuries both Kiev and Novgorod were a united Rus’!

In general, I do not need to attach so much importance to the comments of zoologists in the interpretations of the poems of the XII century, as has become fashionable in recent years. The acceptance of these conclusions should be with a choice! So, for example, the zoologist-phenologist N.V. Charlemagne reported a very valuable observation that the banks of the Donets River, the shoals of the Donets, are indeed "silver", as it is said in the "Word". This is observed there, where the river cuts through the cretaceous rocks. What, the reader will ask, is the value of such a message? It’s the fact that the author of "The Word", obviously, personally passed this way, if he puts into Igor's mouth the praise of this river for giving him "green grass on its silver shores". This fact serves as one of the arguments that the author of "The Word" was a participant in Igor's campaign. But very unconvincing and downright belittling of the formidable and majestic place where the Russians enter the Polovtsian field, the explanation of the named zoologist that the "whistle of the beast" that rose towards the Russian warriors is, you see, a whistle ... of the gophers! Растекашется - literally: растекался (spread). But it comes from the word течь (flow), and it meant in Old Russian language to move, to run fast. The messenger was called "теча". More examples: "Седьм конёв текущих скоро" (Seven horses that were running fast); "конь текый" (a running horse). In the "Life of Alexander Nevsky" it is said that the enemies "втекоша" on horseback on descents to the Swedish ship, persecuted by Gavrila Oleksich. Finally, even about birds instead of "летают" (fly) in ancient times текут (flow) was written: “А сами окрест ловящих летают... а мало вытекут и паки притекут“ (They were flying in the vicinity of catchers... if they will fly a little it will be the end of their flight), - it is said in the collection "Bee" (1598). That is why in this case the translation is quite justified: “разлетался” (scattered, flew away). To leave the word "растекался" should not be, because it leads to convergence with the spread of liquids. Because of this convergence, in the (almost all) translations a clumsy absurdity crept in: "печаль жирно тече" - this is supposedly "a flood of sadness leaks", or: "Maiden-Offense splashes fatty water with her wings" [S: The actual translation should probably be “Sorrow is abundantly/boldly/strongly flying/running through”]. Meanwhile, if in the annals, in the historical ancient work about wars, battles, we encounter «тече», «втече», «утече», then it has nothing to do with the flow of liquids, water. There are many examples!

To this it remains only to add that the analysis of the "dark place" in the "Word" was engaged by dozens (if not hundreds) of researchers who convincingly proved that any version has the right to exist. But what the prophetic Boyan really spread by there - by thought, by a mouse, or both at the same time - we obviously will never know. Everyone who had a hand in finding the "Word" in Russian literature is not yet available for interview. Unfortunately, or fortunately, this is a separate and controversial issue.

The intermediate result of our intervention in the affairs of bygone days is this: in Russian language, sometimes from a thought to a mouse - one step. And often you do not need to go anywhere at all. Everything is available in one semantic bottle. And even people who are well versed in the semantics of the text and knowing Russian perfectly, can’t distinguish мысль from мысь in a particular piquant context.

And the only thing I would like to draw attention to again (because in the references it slipped through fluently): мысь is not only a squirrel, but also мышь (a mouse). Most likely, the first meaning of the word would be mouse, and the second - squirrel.

With that, let me finish the prelude "from afar" and move on to the second part. The one where the big will be seen at a distance.
But fig (sorry, mouse) in your pocket I advise you to save for now. For it can be useful for deciphering a much more curious text than the “Word”.

And here is an excerpt from it (John 12:38):
«... may the word of Isaiah the prophet come true: Lord! who believed what he heard from us? and to whom the muscle of the Lord was revealed?"

What is this мышца (muscle) of the Lord that opened up to the glorious prophet Isaiah that so impressed him, and then the evangelist John? And why the muscle? Not a face, not a voice, not a plan, but an organ of the body?
Somehow this, to put it mildly, sounds strange and does not fit at all with what John wrote before, nor with what he stated after.

Okay, let's try to take a step back and go directly to the fragment of the book of Isaiah in which the proverbial muscle surfaced. Here it is (Isa. 53:1):
[Lord!] who believed what he heard from us? and to whom the muscle of the Lord was revealed?

John, as we see, did not change anything and did not confuse anything. The quote is given word for word.
Let's take it a step back. We’ll look at the Church Slavonic, Latin and Greek texts of Isaiah.
Господи, кто вѣрова слуху нашему, и мышца Господня кому открыся?
Quis credidit auditui nostro, et brachium Domini cui revelatum est?
In the Greek version we have βραχίων (_forearm, arm_), in Latin - brachium (the same meanings as in Greek, plus _shoulder_). Along the way, we note that the Old Russian мъшьца would mean both an arm and a muscle in translation into modern Russian. The only thing that confuses is the frank clumsiness of the phrase. And it is noticeable not only to the laity, but also to the people of the Church. Which is clearly seen in the Explanatory Bible of Lopukhin:

The expression muscle of the Lord has a technical meaning in the Holy Scriptures - it is used to express the idea of Divine Omnipotence (Isa. 40:10; 51:5-9; 52:10; Ezek. 4:7 [2], etc.). Hence, in a general sense, it can be understood as all the Deities, signs and wonders given for the enlightenment of Israel. In particular, here by the "revealing of the muscle of the Lord", judging by the context (52:10), one should understand the miraculous revelation of the power and glory of God in the church of Christ. If the prophet says that this muscle has already been "revealed" to some, then, of course, not in the sense of the actual onset of this era, but in the sense of faith in it, subjective inner conviction in its future onset...

Not bad, right? To express the idea of *Divine Omnipotence* (!!!) an expression with a* technical meaning* is used! And what else remains to be said by the biblical scholar Lopukhin? How else do you order to interpret the "technical" muscle of the Lord, that was revealed in the most miraculous way? After all, in the Greek and Latin texts, the same deeply mundane meaning is visible. Did Isaiah (and after him the evangelist John, who quotes the prophet) mean exactly this? How the muscle inspired the thought of revelation? There is no intelligible answer. It remains to consider the muscle of the Lord as a technical expression and calm down on this. Because there are still no other explanations for the readers. At least if we assume that the Bible was originally heard or recorded in Greek (Latin, Aramaic, devil-knows-whatever) language.

But there is an opinion (of course, ugly nationalistic, disgustingly pseudo-patriotic, purely pseudoscientific, extremely neo-khrenological and generally sparsely ignorant) that the language spoken by the people of scripture, according to the current strictly scientific classification, would be attributed to the Slavic language family. And if so, then some traces of the Slavic picture of the world could remain in the texts of the Covenants, despite numerous successful attempts to erase these very traces at any cost.

Hence the simple and uncomplicated question: what if _the muscle of the Lord_ is one of these beacons of the original language of the Bible? After all, the meaning of the Isaiah’s phrase does not become more transparent in either Greek or Latin, and this means that for these languages the fragment with the muscle was already dark. That is, there is a _misunderstanding by the translators of the original text_, where the muscle was mixed with something else. With what could it be confused and under what circumstances?

And here we return to the entry, undertaken "from afar". If even in the text of the native language not all researchers manage to separate мысь (mouse-squirrel) and мысль (thought), then for translators and other retellers this burden is unbearable. And what does it have to do with мысь or мысль? - you ask a legitimate question. After all, we are talking here about muscle, not mice! Were they also confused?

No, they certainly weren't confused. But the thing is that the word "мышца" (muscle) directly goes back to the word "мышь" (mouse). That‘s the case in most European languages. Slavic is no exception.
Let’s see Fasmer's dictionary, *mouse* article:
usually: _под мышкой_ (underarm), etc.; _мышца _(literally - muscle), Ukrainian _мишця_, Old Russian, Old Slavonic _мъιшьца_ (Bulgarian _мишка_, Serbo-Croatian. _мшпка_ "muscle, arm", Slovenian _miska_, _misca_, Czech _myska_ "meniscus", (anat.), Polish _myzska_ - the same, Upper-Sorbian _myska_. Derivative of the мышь (see), Middle Old Indian _musika_ "mouse"; see Meye-Vayan 90, 363. As for the transfer of the name of the animal to a part of the body, Middle Latin _musculuc_ "muscle", Greek _μύς_ - the same, _μυών_ "muscle knot", Old High German _шиз_ "shoulder muscle". This is due to some similarities between the contracting muscle, especially under the skin of the shoulder, and the running mouse; see Falk - Thorpe 741 et seq.; Bulat,.; Gun-tert, 45, 196 et se.; Walde - Hofm. 2, 132 et se.; Niederman, BB 25, 293,

Мысль и мышление (thought and thinking) are pure Slavic. Which can be confused with мышь/мысь (mouse) only in Slavic languages.
Now let's do a tiny experiment. Replace in Isaiah's phrase a _muscle_ (that is, a relative of the notorious mouse) with a _thought_. What do we get?

[Lord!] who believed what he heard from us? and to whom the *thought* of the Lord was revealed?

And immediately the "technical meaning" is lost somewhere. And the Lord appears not as a bodybuilder, demonstrating the biceps and triceps, but as the Eternal and Primordial, who revealed to the glorious prophet part of his grandiose plan (that is, thought) of the salvation of the world. That's why Isaiah came into ecstasy and hurried to fix it into the prediction. He partook of the Divine Omnipotence, he learned about the coming Savior. And most importantly, Isaiah was given to comprehend the Thought of the Lord. That is why the evangelist John quotes the Old Testament prophet with such reverence and trepidation. And not at all because he used "an expression with a technical meaning", how they try to present it to us.

Well, then it's simple. Translators of the Bible into Greek and Latin, not having understood the subtleties of Slavic word and meaning formation, squeezed into the text what seemed to them more suitable. But is it worth blaming them, if even after many centuries, people for whom the Slavic language is not a stranger, can not finally decide whether Boyan spread through the tree by a mouse, squirrel or a thought?

As is known from the work of Karl Marx, every history in this world repeats itself twice: once as a tragedy, but the second ...
So, with thought-mice everything is exactly as predicted in the imperishable classics.

Those who read the ill-translated Isaiah _technically_ waited for the mighty, muscular muscle of the Lord to show them the way, and didn’t see the God's providence revealed in the Savior.
But the interpreters of the “The Word about Igor’s Regiment” for more than 200 years, no less technically, spreading by a variety of thoughts on the tree, sell the anecdote about Boyan and his mouse fuss. And there is no end in sight to this vaudeville.

* * *​
To summarize and draw any conclusions, probably, is no longer necessary. The Bible and ancient Christian literature themselves answer all questions, unless it is tried to interpret them in favor of the currently accepted version of history. Perhaps the view I have outlined on the subject will seem strange, incorrect or absurd. It is likely that some important words or details were missed in the heat of the study. But the integrity of the Gospel picture of the world has not disintegrated. On the contrary, for me it has become a hundred times more real, clearer and closer. Which I wish to all who accept and do not accept what I have seen.


----------



## yoxdo (Oct 15, 2021)

Blackdiamond said:


> I think christinsanity is from the top to the bottom. Weather or not it used to be some obscure cult in the levant mountains, or if that is a made up story as well, i have no idea what to believe.
> All the main storys, jesus virgin mother etc and architecture of the romans / vaticans. Nothing is original. It is all older storys, pushed on a new public in the form of a or more bible/'s. This is why it is very interesting and a good read.


 I was trying to come across as an outsider and wanted to hear other’s responses and I probably looked more like a deterrent which was not my intention since they still a subject I constantly study myself.


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 20, 2021)

Because 16th chapter was moved, I'll repost it. I'll also add an interesting excerpt from chapter 6:

For those who are willing to consider different sources, I suggest one of the most curious. The text is called Dittamondo, the author is Fazio degli Uberti, a Florentine poet of the XIV century. Here's this piece:

Entrati ne la Marca, com’io conto, io vidi Scariotto, onde fu Giuda, secondo
il dir d’alcun, di cui fui conto. La fama qui non vo’ rimanga nuda del monte di Pilato, dove il lago che si guarda la state a muda a muda, pero che qual s’intende in Simon mago per sagrare il suo libro la su monta, onde tempesta poi con grande smago, secondo che per quei di la si conta.

What does Dante's follower write about? Given the fact that we have a 700-year-old dialect, to decipher all the subtleties of Florentine eloquence will not be quite easy (Italians, for example, do not understand Dante in the original, so his "Comedy" at school is studied in translation into modern Italian). But in general, the canvas can be traced quite clearly. So, this poet arrived in the Italian region of Marche, where he visited the city of Scariotto, the birthplace of Judas. Next - a couple of words about Mount Pilate, which can not be deprived of glory, about the lake (obviously, the same name) and Simon the Mage, who, as they say, climbed the specified mountain...

Well, we have already heard and even read about Mount Pilate, but about the village of Scariotto, from which the good man Judas (I)scariot came, the information is rare, almost exclusive. So, the notorious Judas, who sold his Lord for 30 coins, for some reason was associated with this Italian city by the people of the Middle Ages. Locals, of course, were not delighted with the presence of such a "countryman". And urgently took all measures to make this shameful name a thing of the past, so it never re-emerges. And now, to see behind the plaster of the ordinary-dull Montecarotto the name of Scariotto, you need to have excellent vision (and better - smell). They just hung at the beginning of the toponym *monte *(that is, the mountain) and removed the letter S. Sleight of Italian hands - and *no* *cheating*. Yes, the Italians are great masters in terms of proper restoration of the past. Although in rare books and on Italian websites you can still encounter the former name. You can’t strangle, can’t kill this song. As well as you can’t uproot the legend that Judas hanged himself on a fig tree (and not on an aspen), part of which is preserved in Montecarotto to this day. By the way, in one of the cities of the province of Le Marche (the same one where Monte-сarotto is located) there is an ancient coin, completely "unreasonably" considered one of the very 30 that the money-loving Judas was flattered by. How it fell into the tenacious Italian hands, history is silent: not otherwise the Sanhedrin sat somewhere nearby, or the potter, whose dirt was bought with the money of betrayal, immediately grabbed a hot tour to the Apennines, where he parted with a certain amount of argentum. However, perhaps the first assumption does not strongly contradict the second, because in inscrutable ways almost all the cursed Judas’ silver turned out to be near Scariotto.

The fate of these coins was taken care of by a solid English sir named George Francis Hill, who released in 1920 a detailed work called “The Medallic Portraits of Christ. The False Shekels. The Thirty Pieces of Silver”. If anyone is interested, Sir George's entire opus can be read online.

Sifting through a huge amount of information (huge respect to the British for this), Hill found 32 coins, which with varying degrees of approximation can be considered the very coins of Judas the traitor. At the same time, 2 coins (as it were) either were lost sight of, or never existed at all, the Englishman could not determine their places of residence. As a result, exactly 30 coins received geographical references, and one of them was considered a fake (but we remember that another coin was somewhere in the Ancona area, so as a result, we still get to the number 30). So, what is the geography of the scatter? You probably won't be surprised. 15 out of 30 are in Italy (9 - in Bologna, 3 - in Florence, one each - in Milan, Rome and La Spezia), 7 pieces live in France (2 in Paris, one each in Saint-Denis, Vincennes, Puy, Aix, Saëns), 3 are found in Spain (Montserrat, Rosas, Oviedo), one coin each for Belgium (Anghien), Poland (Bialystok), Greece (Rhodes), Palestine (Bethlehem) and Russia (Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius). If you approach this list from the point of view of ancient geography, then everything will turn out even more fun: 22 coins fall on the territory of different Gauls (all French, 14 out of 15 Italian, 1 Belgian). Given that the city of Scariotto was also in the Gallic region (there is even a point nearby with the talking name of Semigallia), the current location of the silver is quite natural. As they say, where they were needed (alas!), there they came in handy. No wonder the Italians renamed Judas' hometown, oh not for nothing.

By the way, the efforts expended on squeezing out of history the toponym Scariotto contrast strikingly with the tolerant attitude towards Pilate toponyms. No, of course, Judas is a traitor and all that stuff, but Pilate, to put it mildly, did not suffer from the mania of pleasing God and also turned away from Christ. However, the name of the procurator for some reason did not cause such an allergy as the name of Judas. Why so, now it is no longer possible to find out for sure, one can only assume. Perhaps what German scholars today call the "inverted pilgrimage" was not so. That is, it was a pilgrimage by definition, only not inverted, but the most ordinary. For it was directly related to the Gospel routes and this was person mentioned not somewhere, but in the Creed, and everything happened in the real Holy Land. Which even now, if you look closely, is full of wonderful evidence of ancient history. But almost no one is eyeing. Tranquility is more expensive than sleep.

*Chapter 16. Old Testament Writings (Part One)*​
Here I am talking all about the Gospel events. And I did not climb in the Old Testament (OT). I did not climb there intentionally, of course, because I suspected what was waiting for me there. But, having touched upon the history of the Gospel, it is impossible to pass by the history of the Old Testament, and the constantly arising discussions about the antiquity of this document still made me deal with the comparison of what was written in different versions of the books of the OT with reality. Of course, it has not yet been possible to embrace all the immensity and only a few fragments of ancient text fell under the magnifying glass, but they also showed that someone managed to appropriate someone else's story with such an innocent look, as if nothing had happened at all, and this is a completely mundane matter.

Of course, the agile hands and impunity are striking, but we, the people of the XXI century, are accustomed to large-scale fraud, and we will not be surprised by a "billion to the left or a billion to the right", and it does not matter of what the account is kept: people, money or likes on Facebook (sorry for the vulgarism).

A grandiose scam to transfer to the Middle East all the best that was in the relationship between God and man was undertaken not yesterday or even the day before yesterday. Why these movements were needed and what consequences they led to, we will leave it out of the discussion for now. With a little mind and imagination attached to the facts in their hands, any sane person will answer these questions on their own. And perhaps someone does not want to dig deep at all, because knowledge multiplies sorrows and worsens the quality of sleep.

So, focusing so far exclusively on the everyday context, let's see how the existing country turns into a mythical one, and European realities become oriental fairy tales.

Take, for example, the Old Testament text of Deuteronomy, chapter 3. And carefully read how the cities are divided among monstrously ancient lords. To be honest, it gets funny right away, so - right in the quarry:

(3:4) and we took all his cities at that time; there was no city that we did not take from them: sixty cities...

So, they took 60 cities. Well done, eh?! And not just cities, but:

(3:5) all these cities were fortified with high walls, gates, and locks, except for the unfortified cities, which were many...

The case takes place, I recall, somewhere in 1200 BC. Farmers left their steads and started to besiege fortified cities. And unfortified, quite many, too. Yes, they were so passionate that 60 fortresses were all taken. And the rest, which are without walls, gates and locks were just eviscerated.

I would be glad to believe in such a miraculous transformation of a hoe into a sword, but the debit with the credit does not converge. Where in the territory of the current Golan Heights and Mount Hermon you can find so many ancient settlements with high walls and without them? And the war, according to Deuteronomy, is going on there in the area of Vasan. Once again, slowly: it's not even about the whole of Israel, but just About Vasan:

(3:1) And we turned from there, and went to Vasan, and Og, the king of Vasan, went against us to war, with all his people, under Edrei.

Interesing! There was also a king. The king who gathered his people, led them to a clear field near the village of Edrei and rebuffed the Judean collective farmers. From the gate turn, so to speak. But they didn't fade. And they weren't afraid. And jumped on the walls of cities and onward! And repeated 60 times.

Well, to speak about the wonders of ancient demography is already somehow shameful. If on a hilly patch they managed to place 60 (sixty!) cities with high walls, then, probably, they settled them in a decent way. And these fortresses, obviously, were stormed not by one and a half Jewish commandos, trained according to ancient Shaolin methods. Yes, the wrong country was called China, the wrong one. How many people gathered on a small Middle Eastern piece of land hardly suitable for anything worthy. And what, let me ask, is it for? Did they have the Olympics? What other misfortune of an unsportsmanlike nature? Aaaah, war... I understand, I understand. One hundred thousand army on the one hand, five hundred thousand - on the other ...

So, we continue the journey through ancient China-Israel. Appetite comes, as you know, during meals, and the Judeans are not limited to some pathetic 60 cities. And they took the Amorrean land and the whole Gilead (Galaad). So that it would not be excruciatingly painful that life passed without battles and feats. It is terrible to think how many cities fell under the onslaught of former farmers and what untold treasures fell into their calloused hands.

However, let's take a break from the sagas of great deeds and carefully ask: where were these glorious Amorrea, Vasan and Gilead purely geographically? Well, at least to imagine the scale of the disaster that happened in the old world. By the way, the authors of the notes about the Gilead war did not skimp on the details and brought to us a fair number of proper names, thanks to which, obviously, it is easy to restore who, where and how.

(3:8) And we took at that time from the hand of the two Amorrean kings this land, which is on this side of the Jordan, from the stream of Arnon to Mount Hermon.

(3:10) all the cities on the plain, all Gilead and all Vasan to Salhi and Edreya, the cities of the kingdom of the Og of Vasan

(3:17) and Arava’s and Jordan’s reach from Maheneryoa and even to the Arav Sea, the salty sea, under Asidbey of Fasga from the east...

(3:25) I arrived because I will see the good land, which is by the country of Jordan, the good mountain and the Antilivan.

(3:29) And staying in the *valley* near the house of Fogbrov

I deliberately quote some excerpts from the Church Slavonic Bible, coupled with the Greek original, because in the Synodal translation we have false proper names and toponyms based on the King James Bible and the Vulgate, which frankly and carelessly falsify the reality given in the Septuagint. Thus, "Arava and Jordan" of the Church Slavonic, Greek and Latin texts suddenly turn into "plain and Jordan" (feel the difference!), Church Slavonic and the Greek Maheneryoa suddenly becomes the Kinneref and Сhenereth of the Synodal and Latin variants respectively. And these are not childish pranks, but the creation of the right entourage, as in the case of the evangelical Akeldama.

However, we will not yet talk about the frank cheating of some interested translators, let's return to the geographical realities of Deuteronomy.

Theoretically, these realities more or less correspond to what has been drawn on the map of the Middle East for many centuries. That is, it will not be possible to find material traces of Amorrea or Vasan even with a very great desire, but for such a case, the apologetics of the ancient kingdom of Moses always have magical reconstructions at hand, thanks to which any suffering person who is imbued with the non-obvious gets an incredible opportunity to plunge into the Old Testament world fully. According to the restored picture of antiquity, Amorrea was somewhere in the area of present-day Syria and even Iraq with an entrance to the ports of greater Israel, and Vasan was first on his own, but then drowned in Gilead, although the text of Deuteronomy did not predict such a tragic epilogue. Salhi and Edreya were also somewhere, but today their location is difficult to establish. There are a lot of candidates. Although the Arav Sea is now not at all close to Palestinian Syria, but this is all the machinations of anti-semites and other enemies of the human race. Because every cultural goy should understand that earlier the farmers of Greater Israel washed sandal boots in the waters of the Indian Ocean after battles and did not see anything ecologically obscene and ideologically unacceptable in this.

And the slopes-rivers-mountains all remained in place from time immemorial. You can even admire them. Wonderful views, beautiful nature. For example, the stream of Arnon or the eternal Jordan. And nothing that Arnon restored his long-forgotten name only with immigrants, and all the local Arabs are still sure that this is Wadi Mujib. The mistaken can be sent to the Gaza Strip, literally. And if anyone says that there are numerous Jordans in the ancient world, everyone should know that all these Greeks, Romans, Gauls and other barbarians blindly copied the best examples of the Jerusalem linguistic school, that is all. Imitators and plagiarists - that's who they are. They knew how to build nothing but stupid future ruins and wave their swords. As for Mount Hermon mentioned in Deuteronomy, it still stands in its rightful place. True, stubborn Arabs believe that this is not Hermon, but Jebel al-Sheikh, but is it worth relying on their opinion?! What can they even know about history?

Fasga? And what about Fasga? This is the famous Mount Nevo, and didn't you know? From this mountain the Lord showed Moses the whole Promised Land. In Deuteronomy this is all wonderfully described. Stick to the primary sources, so to speak, and memorize the material:

(V. 34:1) And came Moses from Aravian Moab to Mount Navav, to the peak of Fasga, which is directly to Jericho: and the Lord showed him the whole land of Gilead even to Dan...

Here's Mount Navav (Nevo) with the top of Fasga. Right up against Jericho. From there, the whole Gilead is visible. Right up to Dan.

By the way, for those who still dare to doubt something, the Deuteronomists deliberately left two untillable marks: Antilivan (Lebanon) and Arava. They certainly haven't gone away. The Arabs persistently continue to hold on to their seats, and the Lebanese (also, by the way, having some relation to the Arabs) – on to their own. And so they live, tormented. True, the name Lebanon was for obscure reasons withdrawn from circulation for a couple of thousand years in order to miraculously self-heal from oblivion in modern times, but these are all trifles that do not affect the overall true picture. Also, does Lebanon exist today? It does. What else do you need, cowards?

But we need little: to understand why, on the basis of the text of Deuteronomy quoted above, the Promised Land apperead in the Middle East.

Yes, of course, today there are both Hermon and Lebanon and even Jericho excavated in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But this set of names exists on the local soil only for about 150-200 years. But before the remakes of the XIX century on these lands were solid Arabic and Greek names, slightly phonetically hewn by the passage of time. And the same hydronymy and oronymy, according to researchers of the names, are almost the most conservative areas of toponymy, because the names of rivers and mountains almost always significantly outlive everyone who lives next to them. Take, say, Europe. There were no Celts in their pure form for a long time, but Celtic toponymy blooms. Or Russia. Ugric-Finnish toponyms are so woven into our lives that we do not even notice their linguistic alienity. Italy and Germany are teeming with Slavic toponymy, despite endless, centuries-long renewable attempts to clean up the language landscape. That is, it is not so easy to uproot a toponym, even if it is inconvenient or alien to the ear of the conqueror/immigrant/assimilator. Adapting a name to the background structure of another language is much easier than inventing and hammering a new name into the heads of aborigines. Especially if the old name does not carry any ideological load. Yes, even if it does, then what? Why rename the countless Caesareas and Alexandrias just because the time of Caesars and Alexander the Great has passed.

But the naive explanation that all biblical place names disappeared without a trace in the pool of time, let's leave to those who are not aware of research on toponymy and etymology. And it would be nice to remember that the Arabic language is not at all alien to Aramaic and Hebrew. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Arabs would change the ancient names, understandable and transparent to them. The most that Old Testament toponyms could endure is some minor phonetic adjustment. Well, as Vratislav became Wroclaw. Against this background, the transformation of Arnon into Wadi Mujid or Hermon into Ash-Sheikh looks, to put it mildly, unconvincing. Well, about "there was a great past in the face of the Amorreans, then there was nothing at all" is not even worth talking about. To write down for someone correct, unverifiably ancient and without a trace disappeared land - this is from the diet of medieval rulers, who claimed everything that was cute to the eye, regardless of how it looked from the outside and correlated with reality.

But with the Middle Eastern reality described in Deuteronomy, campaigns, battles and divisions of property correlate poorly. First, the desired number of fortified points (not to mention unfortified) is and was not there. Secondly, what will be eaten and where will the right amount of drinking water in this mountainous region be collected by residents of 60 cities - a question for experts from "What? Where is? When?". And if we add to the locals the combat units of the Judean collective farmers? And the highlanders from the adjacent slopes?

Among other things, we learn from the same Deuteronomy that:

(1:1) Moses spoke to all Israel, which is by the land of the Jordan, in the desert to the west, near the black sea, between Faran and Tofol, and Lovon and Avlon and golden ores

Why am I talking about this? Because it’s about the division of property. In the passage quoted above, it is stated in plain text why the guys stormed the cities. The source of gold - that's what Moses needed. And in this country there were golden ores. That is, there was the extraction of the despicable metal.

Now let at least one of them tell me where there are gold ores in Israel near the Jordan???

There is no such place in this blessed country, there is not and was not! Never was: not in the time of Moses, not under Solomon with his mythical mines, not in the Roman period, not later. There is no gold in Israel, even if you cry!

Gold of the ancient world was mined in Africa (Egypt, Sudan) and in the Pyrenees. In other places - artisanally and in minimal quantities. Basically – by being washed (remember the legend of the golden fleece). That is, we are not talking about ore exactly.

The people who translated the Bible into Latin were also well educated and noticed the "golden error" of Moses. It was decided to correct the patriarch, but not just like that, but with meaning. So that not even in a single leper’s head flashed the thought that the matter is unclean. As a result, citizens of Latin appearance received instead of authentic "golden ores" quite a semitic Dizigav. In addition, the city mentioned before "golden ores", the city of Avlon turned into Asyrof (apparently, in honor of the future leader of Palestine Yasser Arafat). Is it worth writing once again that the authors of the Synodal Translation followed in the footsteps of the Latin falsifiers? Obviously it is. I state: let's go. Without a twinge of conscience.

However, such wills are not a sin to refuse. Because they will not bring any income, except for expense, neither to the mind nor to the heart. Replacing the originals with a copy in the sacred field does not lead to good at all. And many generations have already felt it on their own skins.

So, let's make an intermediate summary. 60 fortified cities on a mountain slope in Israel - nonsense. The gold ores around the Jordan are from the same song of the absurd. Farmers, clapping one fortress after another, are a mediocre agitation of some ancient political strategist. Mount Nevo, which becomes Fasga and Wadi Mujid at the behest of the pike, who overnight turns into Arnon, are good for use in children's performances: up to six years old, many still believe in Santa Claus. The _Amorrean land_ sounds good, even romantic, however, all the romance disappears when you understand where this land was put, thanks to the interpretation of Scripture. Well, other geographical units are not at all lucky: they seem to have existed, but are perceived exclusively as legendary. However, the status of the legend is not so bad: you do not need to verify anything, but row curtseys with a shovel. The only settlement, having received a certificate from the historical mental hospital about its continuous existitance since the time of Noah, is Jericho. Today's Ariha (not Jericho, although phonetically such a transition is quite acceptable) does not seem to be the oldest city in the world. But after all, tourists and other interested people must see at least something from old antiquity, in the end! Well, at least from afar, at least only in the photos, even two and a half bricks, but it is necessary. And the archaeolotards dug up the rocks they themselves predicted. And they called them "the very walls of Jericho that..." Let's note that the learned people, who called themselves discoverers, organized the discovery of the city only at the beginning of the XX century. Before that, no one was interested in the fate of the fallen walls with a dark Jewish past. Obviously, the theme of the Bible in these places forgotten by God seemed undisclosed. But come on, the Germans came, and then so much began...

In short, anyone today can google "Jericho" and see what is passed off as the oldest city on earth. While the best concrete in the world based on donkey urine still fastens the stones piled up somehow.

So, it turns out, it seems, that everything described in the OT is a fairy tale. Fantasy, fiction, hyperbolization of reality, in extreme cases, transfusion from empty to even more empty. However, one has only to abandon the conventional view that the action of the biblical books takes place in the Middle East, when suddenly it turns out that there is no factual catastrophe in the text of Scripture. And the events covered could well have happened in fact. Where there are fortified cities and gold ores. Where Arnon exists to this day under his own name. Where Lebanon is not 150 years old, but at least 1000. Where there is still Jericho, and Fasga, and Avlon, and other biblical places. Where even Arava is, and with its maiden name. And the Amorreans left such traces that it is shameful to pretend that this tribe perished at one moment, leaving nothing behind itself, except for the flood.

No, I'm not saying that the Old Testament has ceased to be a historical and literary source with all the attendant nuances. It never ceased to be one. Even if we take the extreme point of view that the text of the OT is inspired by God. It was still recorded and translated by his people. With one or another breadth of outlook, ideas about the beautiful and other swirls of thought. And that's in the most innocent cases. And more often it was different: managers, arbitrarily endowed themselves with the right to speak on behalf of Heavenly Office, allowed themselves to determine which books should be included in the canon and which should not, how the principal fragments of the biblical books should be presented and translated, how it is necessary (and whether it is necessary at all) to interpret certain episodes of the Bible, etc. That is, if inspiration was present initially, it's not a fact that tens of thousands of adjustments didn't affect it in any way. These corrections changed the context and the perception of Scripture dramatically!

But a literary work that claims to be historic, no matter what era it belongs to and no matter how much truthfulness it has, still bears the imprints of the context of the era. They can be masked, embellished or obscured. They can even be meaningfully overlooked. And this will be a certain signal for an attentive researcher, having received which, you can move on. But it is impossible to do without the context of the era, talking about the fate of a real, not fabulous people.

Armed with this approach, it is possible to estimate what era and what piece of civilizational space is discussed in the Bible. The crazy idea of Israel and the surrounding areas retaining the status of the Promised Land can be swept away from the doorstep. And not because the Middle East is bad at all or didn't please me personally. Here, as they say, nothing personal. Just the presence of notes, basses, violas and violins on the lawn under the trees does not always end with the benefis of "Virtuosos of Moscow". And when it turns out that the notes are unreadable, the instruments are lost, and there were no trees and meadows in the local Palestines, the claims to start a concert cause a non-malicious giggle even without the didactic hints of grandfather Krylov.

So where was the land that Moses and Co. fought for? And what era are we talking about?

At the risk of incurring a benevolent "stop annoying us with the same revelations", I will not hurry to carry the lie to the masses and temporarily move off topic. To cede the podium first to one Renaissance author, and then to "myself, the beloved", five years of fermenting.

So, Jean Boden, already quoted above. From Chapter IX of the "Method of Easy Knowledge of History":

"The Canaanites, ousted by the Jews from abundant Palestine, withdrew to Illyria and Pannonia", rabbi Kimhi wrote at the end of his commentary.

In my opinion, this is an excellent epigraph to any treatise on biblical studies. Don't you think so? And Boden quotes a comment by a famous rabbi.

Judging by this miraculously surviving passage, either Illyria and Pannonia temporarily became residents of the Middle East, or "abundant Palestine" was not at all where the grief-stricken substate of the same name is now located. In my opinion, the latter is much more likely. And then we look at Europe, approaching the Balkans, part of Austria and Hungary, where citizen Pannonia and citizen Illyria lived.

This is indirectly confirmed in the Life of protopope Avvakum, where there are the following lines:

«I'll talk to you about my red tape. As they brought me from the Pafnutiev Monastery to Moscow, and put me on the courtyard, and, dragging me many times to Chudov, put me before the ecumenical patriarchs, and all our‘s were right there, like foxes, sat – from the writing spoke a lot with the patriarchs; God has uncovered my sinful mouth, and Christ has shamed it! The last word to me was said: "Are you stubborn? all our Palestine, - and the Serbs, and the Albanians, and the Volokhs, and the Romans, and the Lyakhs, - all cross themselves with three fingers, but you, in your stubbornness, cross yourself with five! - It is not appropriate!" And I told them about Christ: "Ecumenical teachers! Rome fell long ago and lies without standing up, and the Lyakhs with died with it, to the end the enemies were Christian."

It is curious that even in the XVII century "our Palestine" consists for Avvakum of Serbs, Albanians, Wallachians, Romans and Lyakhs. Defenders of the Middle Eastern version of the origin of Christianity can only say that the disgraced opponent of Nikon spoke metaphorically or was mentally damaged, fighting against the Grecophilizing reformers of the Church. (By the way, supporters of the traditional version of history would do well to explain why Avvakum was crossing himself "with five fingers," as he himself writes. Of course, the easiest thing to do is to "correct" the text of the Protopopes and replace "five" with "two," which is what traditionalists almost always do, but is this not an "easy method of cognizing history"?)

Now for the high. That is, about the meanings of words in different languages and eras. At the piano - all the same:

_A.S.H. "Historical and linguistic comedy in three inactions with epilogue and takeaway". M., 2007.

*Inaction One 
Hosanna*

What is the meaning of the word "hosanna" and where did it come from to Christians around the world? They say that the ancient Jews are "to blame" for everything, in whose language there was a word (h)osanna (help, save, protect). Okay, let's assume that this was the case. Not really is clear why this "Hebrew" word remained in the Greek version of the Gospels and why the Greeks found it difficult to translate it. Was there really no Greek equivalent to the word "protect, save, preserve"? I don't really believe it. In the absence of qualifications of Bible translators is also hard to believe. However, the Hebrew texts of the Gospel, it seems, have not survived, so it seems difficult to check the version about the Semitic origin of "hosanna". However, the light in the wedge in the Hebrew language did not converge. There are other interesting languages. Which, allegedly, are not relatives of Hebrew (although there are people who believe otherwise, for example, the same N.N. Vashkevich).

And now let at least one of the linguists (not followers of Vashkevich) explain how it happened that the ancient Semitic (H)OSANNA and Russian ОСЕНЯТЬ (OSENYAT‘), separated in traditional history not only for centuries, but for millennia, have virtually the same meaning. Russian осенять (according to Dahl) is to protect, to cover. Moreover, this word is most often used in the church-liturgical context. They say, for example, «осенять крестом», «осенять крестным знамением» (to protect/to enlighten with a cross/vision of a cross), etc. At the same time, it is obvious that in Russian it is very easy to distinguish the root of SEN and the prefix O. That is, to do something that cannot be done in the "Hebrew" hosanna.

And it would be very interesting to listen to those who could explain a purely semantic somersault. After all, initially, hosanna is "save, protect". Where did the "Greek" interpretation come from, that the hosanna is a joyful cry?! What's so joyful about it? People, as usual, expect from the Messiah a miracle of intercession and protection from misfortunes and, of course, say: "Protect, intercess!". Nothing joyful, just regular life. "Hosanna in the highest!" is, in fact, a call to deal at the highest level with the injustices done by the earthly authorities. But this moan they (Greeks?) call a song. So who, when and why replaced "protection" with a "joyful exclamation"?

In connection with all of the above, I would like to ask affectionately:_


_why does the ancient Jewish HOSANNA so suspiciously resembles the Russian OSENYaT’ and converge with it in meaning?_
_why and on what basis is HOSANNA considered a "joyful exclamation" rather than a request for intercession?_
_who are the ancient Jews to the Russians, if we "quite accidentally" coincide in canonical liturgical terms?_
_do such "accidents" even happen?_

_And one more thing. In modern European languages, this word is written and read in the same way as in Hebrew, that is, with the initial H. However, the ancient English, for example, for some reason did not like this initial H, and the word "hosanna" was written and pronounced by them in the same way as in Russian - osanna. And then (suddenly) the initial H reappeared from somewhere. Of course, you can once again nod to other European languages and say that the English just restored historical justice in relation to this liturgical word. However, immediately another question arises: where did the ancient Englishmen get this word without the initial H? From what such language? And in what era?

*Inaction Two
Messiah*

Also a curious Hebrew word (however, it can be called Aramaic). So, the messiah is the anointed one. So, at least, this word is interpreted everywhere and always. At the same time, the Aramaic MESHIHA, Hebrew MASHIAH, which is from the verb MASHAH, is very reminiscent of... oh, again Russian – МАЗАТЬ (to smear, to anoint). Again, you say, coincidence? Well-well. Isn't there too much "coincidences"? So in what era and where did the word "messiah" come from? And who were the "ancient" Arameans (Jews) to Slavs?

*Inaction Three
Moses and Uriah*

Let's talk about these valiant Old Testament characters. Only one thing is known about the name Moses (Hebrew MOSHEH): it existed. Some philologists suggest paying close attention to the ancient Egyptian MES, MESU (child, son). I have nothing against it. Let's pay attention. But not only to the Egyptian son, but also to the Russian МУЖ (man, husband). Why, in fact, is this not an etymology? After all, who was Moses in fact? Right, a real MAN. Led the squad out of captivity. Hero! MAN with a capital letter MO!

And Uriah? What is known from an etymological point of view about this name? Actually, only that Uriah is not a Hebrew name. Everything else is from the realm of conjecture and folk etymology. However, among the Slavs, the name YURI is one of the most common. But with the Old Testament URIA Slavic YURI has, of course, nothing in common. The snout probably didn't come out right. Where does he go with the pork and in the kosher heaven?! The funny thing is that Uriah and Yuri are not even considered as distant relatives. Ivan and John - yes, Teodoro and Fedor - indeed, Egor and George – of course. But Yuri and Uriah - no. Of course, recognizing Yuri and Uriah as relatives, you will have to strongly chronologically move the Old Testament and everything that is associated with it. After all, words with the initial "yu" can not be too ancient, and secondly, Yuri is already a derivative of George. And what kind of George can there be in the Old Testament?! It's a provocation and almost anti-semitism.

*Epilogue*

Where am I going with this? No, not to the fact that first there were Slavs, and then all the others. And not to the fact that while the pharaohs multiplied by budding, the ancient Rus already "ploughed the expanses of the universe”. But to the fact that it would be nice to deal with the linguistic situation in the ancient world and its surroundings. And to explain how languages that have not historically intersected have so many "common places", and in precedent texts.

Curtain. You can take it out..._

Today I would add here a dozen or two more inactions, but even without them everything is obvious. The Middle East region did not become the birthplace of elephants. And it was never the birthplace of Scripture. Elementary, even without references to Holmes and Watson.

And now to the point, gentlemen regulars of our tavern! We pick up the cards (not playing cards, of course) and see what edges the Moseses and other Navins walked on.

Everything is simpler than steamed turnips. Map No 1.

From left to right, as in normal reading. In the upper corner we have: Montagnes Basques. And right under this inscription - in yellow-green Latin: Alava.

Well, let's say the Alava region is only Alava in Spanish. But in Basque it is *Araba*. There was, is and probably will be. And aren’t the *Basque *Mountains the Mountains of *Fasga*, per chance? Especially since the reading of "Basque" varies greatly depending on the era and transitions of the word from language to language: boscus, buscus, *vasco*... And then the *Pyrenees *begin... or *Faran*? After all, in Indo-European languages, f and p change a lot. And the gold ores here in ancient times were rich. And most remarkably, the highest peak of the Pyrenees is a mountain that Gallic cartographers called *Nethou*. Does it remind you anything? What about "And came Moses from Aravian Moab to Mount Navav..."? Look, Moses came out of Araba-Álava, ascended to *Nefov*-*Navav* (everything so far coincides) and "to the peak of Fasga, which is directly to Jericho: and the Lord showed him the whole land of Gilead even to Dan...".




*Pyrenees (map No1)*​
The *top of the Fasga* is, as it turned out, the *peaks of the Basques*, the land of Gilead (Galaad) is the land of the Gauls, that is, the Galatians, as they were called by the Greeks. Simply: the land of the *Galatians (Gilead)*. That's what Moses saw when he climbed to the highest point of the Pyrenees. And what else could he see?! Not the Chinese Riviera, after all! And why "directly to Jericho"? And again we look at the map. What will there be if you go down from Mount Aneto (former *Nethou*)? Right, Aragon. Given that the sound of G here is gutty, we have something like *Arachon*. And how is this different from *Erichon* (Russian Иерихон (Jericho) is transliterated to Ierichon)? And in conjunction with the rest of the toponymic joys available nearby? By the way, if you slightly ignore the main topic, you can pay attention to another lingua -political prank: what on the western side of the Pyrenees is called Aragon, from the east is called in the French manner - Ariëge (in Occitan Arieha). But the citizens philolotards do not see any parallels point-blank.

All other "ancient" biblical toponyms are just as easily found. *Lovon *is the current *Liebana, Avlon - Avila, Siir - Suria, Lebanon - Levante*, etc. And I note: gold ores are present nearby, and of the fortified cities in the vicinity, there are clearly more than the required 60. And the territory is decent enough to accommodate in addition to 60 cities the unfortified points and plains for battles.

And what about the Amorrea and Vasan, who were sausaged by brave farmers up to Salhi and Edreya, as well as all the cities on the plain and all of Gilead?

See map Number 2.




*Armorica (map No2)*​
Let's take it one step at a time. So, the hooligan citizens crossed the Pyrenees (Faran) and realized that they hurried to rejoice. Because if before the Pyrenees everything is lubricated with oil (mainly olive), then after – clearly with honey. And this honey must somehow be taken away from the local bees, because they themselves clearly do not want to give away the fruits of labor. And so it begins...

First, they began to clear up from the *Amorreans*. Who lived... that's right, in *A(r)morica*. And this country was called so, because it went to the sea (ar mor in Celtic). Then, obviously, it was the turn of the Phoenicians (Venets on the map, compare: Phoenicia - Venezia), and then they got to the Gauls-Galatians (Gilead).

But immediately after the Galatians - Vasan. What kind of Vasan is that? This one (as per wiki):

Bessen (Fr. Bessin) - A historical area in the central part of Lower Normandy with the center in the city of Bayeux. Initially, Bessin represented the area of residence of the Celtic tribe of the Bayokassas, in the X century the Scandinavian Vikings settled here, and after joining the Duchy of Normandy in the territory of Bessin, the Viscountcy of Bayeux was established, adjacent to Armorica. The ancient territory, which was attractive to everyone. And the fortified cities there are numerous. And next to it there is the city of Évreux (formerly Ebrocas, Ebroas, *Ebroys* or Ebroicum), somewhat strangely reminiscent of the biblical *Edrei*. And a little further we find the city of *Salhi*: today it is Sailly sur la Lys, but earlier the spelling varied. Year 878: Saltiacum ou Sallciacum, year 1024: Saliacum, year 1053: Salli, year 1098: (Salegium) *Salgi*, year 1157: Sailli. Note the spelling of 1098.

Note that the cities with the name Sailly in France are now a good dozen, and even earlier, probably, it was generally one of the most used place names. In Périgord in the XIII century there was even a famous troubadour named Salh, Sail or Saill d'Escola. Obviously, in the south there was a settlement called Salh (i).

And what do we have with King Vasan, who will be remembered as defeated? There were such rulers in the territory of Gaul, there were.




*King Boson (fresco from a French monastery)*​
They were called *Bosonids* (allegedly by the name of the first known representative of the family - Bozo). The scoundrel Boson in the conditional VI century is mentioned by the notorious Gregory of Tours. Representatives of the dynasty ruled almost all regions of Gaul: from the very north to Aquitaine, Provence and Italy. Obviously, King Vasan was one of them. Until the brave men of Moses came. And began in the village of Gadyukino Bessenovka a completely different life.

And the old days have been forgotten by everyone. Nothing in them, if you look, was good. Only Egyptian darkness...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting thread about Basques: A Celtic/Basque Civilization Erased from History?


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 27, 2021)

TuranSilvanus said:


> Here is the English translation of full video of Hrusztaljov; the Engl. translation was made automaticaly by YT from original Hungarian trans;lation; so you who know better english check out if is good [as i see is some kinf of good]
> 
> Alexey Hrustaljov - The decoding of the Bible - France the cradle of Christanity (2008)


I didn't see it before, but at the start of the video it is said that they could not find any "Lem" people, therefore, they don't exist. Well, here they are:
Lemkos - Wikipedia
Лемки — Википедия
Łemkowie – Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
Лемки — Вікіпедія
(there are more languages, if you want)

Or as my Boyko grandmother once called them - "these damn Poles". They speak what is apparently called the Rusyn language, their particular dialect is closer to Polish. As a side note, in Lithuanian, Poland is called Lenkija and Poles are called Lenkai.

Meanwhile, here's the 15th chapter of A. Khrustalyov's book:

Chapter 15 Biblical Archaeology​
There are many books about the early history of the Church. But almost all the authors who write about the first Christian communities, biblical archaeology, the fathers of the Church and other things close to the topic agree on one thing: there are no material traces of early Christianity either in Palestine or in other parts of the ancient world. Does this mean that the history of the formation of the Church is wholly invented? Not at all! Acknowledging the absence of Christianity in the archaeological layer of research, scientists tell the most interesting stories about the conflicts of the Church Fathers, their most fundamental literary heritage, the Jewish component of early Christianity, etc., etc. It is most convincingly assumed that the father of the church X was personally acquainted with the daughter/son/brother/secretary of the First Apostle Y and from him he received the information about the Gospel or near-gospel events. In short, there are no traces, but there are. And it should be very clear to everyone. How can this be? Very simple. You don't have to look far for examples.

Here are typical quotes from a very well-written book: _Belyaev PL., Merpert N.Ya._ From biblical values to Christian. Essays on archeology of the era of the formation of Judaism and Christianity. M., 2007.

Quote #1:

During the first 200 years of AD, we have no material trace of Christianity, either in Palestine or abroad. Small islands of Christian communities may have existed in the cities, but completely drowned in the sea of paganism: communities recorded in the early Byzantine period arose in places that do not give any traces of Christianity for the II-III centuries. The places of Palestine revered by Christians within the I century BC - I-IV centuries AD usually reveal three stages during archaeological research: early structures, associated with the Jewish tradition; their transformation for two or three centuries into pagan sanctuaries; followed by the Christianization of the Byzantine period. Attempts to prove that their traditional veneration dates back to the period of original Christianity, that is, to the apostolic era, have not yet been successful, despite the persistent attempts of a number of scholars (mainly Franciscan scholars from among the Guardians of the Holy Land) to identify the layers and monuments of the so-called "Judeo-Christian" period, and even to determine their symbolism (final work: Bagatti 1971/84; review and criticism: Taylor 1993; discussion: Manns 1993) (pp. 191, 192).

The authors say absolutely right things. It would seem that everything is definite. However, no conclusions are drawn. And honest confession hangs in the air. That is, the absence of Christianity is obvious, but in principle it exists! And Irenaeus of Lyon already exists, and he not only denounces numerous heresies (where would they come from?), but he also names (for the first time in history) all four canonical Gospels. But the most surprising thing is that the opuses of this father of the Church spread with amazing speed for the ancient world and in an unimaginable area. So, I want to ask: for whom did Irenaeus write? For those from whom there are zero material traces? If nothing from that era has survived, how did the manuscripts of the Bishop of Lugdunum survive this time? But in addition to Irenaeus, there were also Papias of Hierapolis, Origen, Markyon, Polycarp, and other authors. For whom they spoke and on whose behalf? How did their texts come to us, if they were actually not needed by anyone? Do not forget that before the industrial revolution in Europe, when there was a need for competent specialists, the vast majority of the population could neither read nor write. (Touching tales about the universal literacy of individual enclaves on the territory of Ancient Russia can be left on the conscience of those who tell these pseudo-patriotic tales). In the ancient world, only a few could afford to engage in literature. And exactly the same few had time to meaningfully read something. So where did in the first centuries of Christianity so many writers and readers of Christian and near-Christian opuses come from? Why such a violent reaction of the Church Fathers to heretical works that could be read by only 1.5 people? Where did such beauty of style come from, if to appreciate the depth of the differences between heretical and orthodox, could be only done by the mentioned fathers? Meanwhile, as we remember, archaeologists can not find any material traces of Christianity. More to come. After sublime and sophisticated antiquity comes the semi-wild Middle Ages, when, it would seem, there is no one to support literary traditions at all and there is no need. And this is true of any written sources other than... right, except for the Bible. That is, in the first centuries of our era, a huge number of authors write as if to a void, creating a future church Tradition, and then the huge communities of Christians that arose from nothing multiply what was written at a time when all other literature simply disappears. At the same time, no one is confused that for the elementary preservation of sources it was necessary to find not just competent copyists, but competent Christian scribes who spoke Greek and Latin and had enough free time to copy the Scriptures and the works of the Church Fathers.

Quote #2:

No matter how you say it, the monuments of ancient, pre-Constantinian, Christianity, of course, exist. Only they are found mostly outside of Palestine and are also immersed in a "non-Christian" context from which they are often not easily isolated (p. 195).

That is, to put it in Russian [S: English], it is not possible to separate the Christian from everything else, and if it is, then with three thousand clarifications, intuitively and not always. Moreover, the ritual dances performed at the time of discussion of these finds do not make it possible to understand at all why, in fact, such joy came to everyone. Well, to speak about "outside Palestine" is strange: Christianity in Palestine did not spend a night. But monuments outside it, “of course, exist”. By the way, have you forgotten that there were no material traces in quote #1 yet? So now they are being found "mostly outside of Palestine". We were born to make a fairy tale come to life...

Quote #3:

Most of the Jewish inscriptions of Rome (there are about 600 of them) were written in the III-IV centuries, and 79% (470) in Greek and 21% in Latin. Their usual formulas are "lies here" and "he/she rests in peace". Semitic do not make up even one percent, and only 2 are entirely Semitic among them (the total number is 12, together with unreadable fragments and additions such as "Shalom" to foreign language texts). Full: "Annya, adopted son of Bar Calabria", others are fragmentary; "Isidora, daughter ... Jews", etc. See also Bengtsson 2001 (p. 188).

In this short passage - the whole traditional history. With its right hand, not knowing what the left hand is composing, and linguistic porridge in its head. With mythologemes, once firmly memorized and permanently demonstrated on occasion and without it, not allowing to look at the world at least somewhat objectively. In short, here it is, a story written on the principle of "believe it or not, there will be no other".

Well, it would seem, if all the inscriptions are in Greek and Latin, why are they Jewish? Because there are names like Isaac or Jacob? So, take the lists with the names of Russian Orthodox peasants of the XIX century, there will be Joseph Abramov, and Moses Yakovlev, and Simon Matveev. They had nothing to do with the Jews, and anyone can have any name, especially since no one in Russia canceled the Holy Scriptures. The idea that Latins with non-Latin names lived in Rome (or Latins who professed Judaism) does not occur to the authors of the opus. Just as science fiction historians do not doubt the proposed dating of "Jewish inscriptions". But for medieval Rome, kosher names, apparently, were no longer uncommon?! By the way, what were these non-Latin (Jewish) names? As examples, the authors cite epitaphs with the following nicknames: Julian, Anastasia (male name), Domna, Celius Quintus, etc. Well, typical Jewish names, it does not happen more typically. And even recorded in Greek and Latin! It certainly smells of a synagogue.

Perhaps the Semitic character of the epitaphs was determined in some other way? Well, by the menorah or by other religious symbolism. So the authors immediately confidentially report that "in most cases, fragments of sarcophagi from the Jewish catacombs do not carry any Jewish symbolism at all", and if they do, then the sarcophagi themselves are still ordinary, pagan. Bang, missed again.

What's left? _Shalom_ and _Bar Calabria_? Well, okay. _Shalom_ fits, although the word is, as the authors of the book politely explain, "added in Hebrew letters" (that is, apparently, it was not originally on the sarcophagus).

But the "son of Bar Calabria" is good! Very good! You just immediately want to demand the execution of something similar to an encore! This looks especially wonderful in combination with the III-IV centuries AD!

Obviously, according to the authors, the name Calabria itself is typically Jewish. And it sounds as proud as Moisha, Yitzhak or Yeshua. Why this name is consonant with the Italian toponym, experts modestly keep silent, but, probably, for them everything is clear. So, Calabria. When could this name appear in the historical sky?

According to traditional history, the toponym Calabria appears only in the Byzantine period, and not earlier than the IX century (which, frankly, is also doubtful), and the principality with this name exists only from the XI-XII centuries.

And it turns out... it turns out that the mentioned "son of the son of Calabria" (whoever he was) is unlikely to have appeared in the Roman catacombs before the IX century of our strange era. Even if he did, he would not have been recorded as the son of a Calabrian, but as the son of bruttus, because, as the traditional historical truth says, the proud inhabitants of Lazio called the inhabitants of the future Calabria with this unflattering name. (Brutti is from a Latin word meaning “rude, uncivilized”.)

Of course, we could cite more, but I think these three fragments are enough. In the complete absence of any presence, the biblical values of Judaism turn into the history of the early Church. And everyone is happy. The Jews are satisfied with their involvement in the history of the great Rome and the ability to remain Jewish even in the catacomb mode. The Church is also glad: after all, the continuity of its recorded history is so obvious! Scientists are satisfied with the work done and the fundamentality of their research. The book publisher is satisfied that his books are bought...

Here it is - the pleasure of a job well done. Here it is!


----------



## sahm48 (Oct 31, 2021)

what about?

1. the 2 temple was destroyed and a temple to jupiter built on it.


2. notre dame was built over the ruins of a pagan temple to Jupiter


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 31, 2021)

sahm48 said:


> 1. the 2 temple was destroyed and a temple to jupiter built on it.
> 
> 
> 2. notre dame was built over the ruins of a pagan temple to Jupiter


Interesting. Source?


----------



## sahm48 (Nov 1, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Interesting. Source?


I'm sorry, I don't have time to look for primary sources, but here's a start?
The History of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris
Something called the pillar of the boatment? but it also looks like it was moved at one time? I realize it's a catholic source, so it doesn't prove anything, except that it proves that is what they claim is the true history of Notre Dame.

Here's a site that mentions a temple to jupiter being built by the romans on the temple site:
Jerusalem 70 AD: Not One Stone Left upon Another - Hope for Israel

The history of the Notre Dame: From a Pagan Temple to Gothic Cathedral


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 1, 2021)

A lot of research into the cathedral here Notre Dame Cathedral is on fire


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 2, 2021)

sahm48 said:


> Jerusalem 70 AD: Not One Stone Left upon Another - Hope for Israel


I'm not sure about this site, it seems like one of them self-victimising yet simultaneously "we were kings" type of places.

The first one is interesting:


> Notre-Dame was built on the ruins of two earlier churches which were themselves built over a temple dedicated to the Roman God Jupiter. Pope Alexander III laid the foundation stone for the cathedral in 1163, and the high altar was consecrated 26 years later.
> 
> The 223 foot-high towers were built between 1210 and 1250, and *the church was officially completed in 1345*.
> The central spire— the epicenter of the April 15 fire— was added during a 19th century renovation.



I don't know if it really took 200 years to build it, but the 14th century shows itself again. As for the Jupiter thing, here's my speculation:
Jupiter, the king of the gods, is equated to Zeus. And once I heard a very succinct phrase: "Zeus is Olympus". That is, if you would worship an Olympian deity, you automatically would worship their leader. Wouldn't it mean that a temple dedicated to Jupiter is a temple for all gods? Which is the definition of a catholic temple, afaik. So was there really a different place of Jupiter worship in Notre-Dame, or did they just rename a catholic temple to a Roman Catholic one, while taking their money-bags from the temple street? I don't know, but here's a quote from the above text from the book:​


> None of the historians are touched by the phrase of the Italian humanist Leon Battista Alberti: "undoubtedly, the temple is the abode of the gods" (just in case, a reminder that this is not written by an ancient pagan writer, but by an adviser on architecture to Pope Nicholas V at the end of the XV century).


​And then this: Pillar of the Boatmen - Wikipedia



> The *Pillar of the Boatmen* (French: _Pilier des nautes_) is a monumental Roman column erected in Lutetia (modern Paris) in honour of Jupiter by the guild of boatmen in the 1st century AD. It is the oldest monument in Paris and is one of the earliest pieces of representational Gallo-Roman art to carry a written inscription (Hatt 1952).
> 
> The Roman name for the monument is _Nautae Parisiaci_ (the sailors of the Parisii, who were a tribe of Gauls). It was found re-used in the 4th century city wall on the Île de la Cité and is now displayed in the frigidarium of the Thermes de Cluny.
> 
> ...



Found in 18th century, situated in the same museum as the heads of the Judean kings. Some strange deities too - Esus, Smertrios, Cernunnos, Tarvos Trigaranos. Assuming those inscriptions weren't added later, would Smertrios and Cernunnos have anything to do with Slavic Smert' (death) and Chernobog/Chort respectively?

Anyway, here's a translation of another interesting article made by Alexey Khrustalyov: Путти неисповедимые (по мотивам творчества Жана Фуке)

*Unknown putti (based on the work of Jean Fouquet)*​
It all began with the paintings of Jean Fouquet. The same Fouquet who created the miniatures for the famous Etienne Chevalier's Book of Hours and the Grand French Chronicles. The one who illustrated Bocaccio and Joseph Flavius. And, finally, the one who vividly immortalized many of the greats of this fifteenth century, entrusting their faces on canvases with a truth of life that would have seemed unnecessarily bitter even to the Socialist realist Alexei Peshkov.

One word: genius. Alone in his homeland, unlike any contemporary artist who had neither forerunners nor followers. A block. The man. Titan of the French Renaissance.

Fouquet's works are so different from one another and so masterly and heterogeneous that one cannot help but have a small thought of doubt that the entire magnificent legacy belongs to one master. And there is a reason for this vile doubt: Fouquet was "rediscovered" only in the 19th century, a significant number of works was attributed to him after the fact. With the attribution of the masterpieces specially trained people also had problems. History of subtle and deep, but unknown to the general public paintings was weak. There were no threads capable of connecting Fouquet's name from ancient documents with the author of the newly acquired masterpieces. And God had not sent his own Vasari to the French. So it turned out that between the name of the artist and the paintings that brought him fame, there was not just a gap, but an unpleasant emptiness, which could only be filled by a private opinion, which of course could be worth a lot, but only in the absence of corroborating facts, such as records of sales and purchases, mentions in various ancient collections, donations to museums, etc.

However, the pleasure of enjoying high art (and the collection, which today is united by the Fouquet brand, is undoubtedly high art) discourages us from thinking about such base things as authenticity, the work's real age or historical accuracy. That is why filigree miniatures, as it usually happens, "took their rightful place in the treasury...," portraits "adorned the best museums in the world", and Hebrew antiquities "became closer and clearer to the reader". But the milking cow is a milking cow for a reason, for that she gives milk every day, not only on major holidays. And there is always plenty of people who want to indulge in the steamed product. And the Fouquet Project began a completely different life. Not at all like it was before the 19th century. Inertia was replaced by universal attention and respectful "this is the one...". In short, exhibitions, fancy albums, reproductions, dissertations, interpretations, insinuations, newspaper and magazine articles, monographs, auctions and well-deserved posthumous fame.

So it all started with the paintings of Jean Fouquet.

Of course, not all at once. But a few of them separately. This one, for example:



​And this one:



​This one too:




Attention on all three is attracted by the unusual appearance of the columns. In the scientific literature they are called twisted or solomonic columns. The second name arose as a result of an unclear notion, it is not clear how and when it appeared, that in the Temple of Solomon (i.e. the First Temple) the columns had exactly this twisted shape. Naturally, no architectural delights of the legendary Jewish king's times have survived, but the most persistent enthusiasts of speculations about the grandiose technology of ancient nomadic tribes are still sure that they know for sure what Solomon's Temple looked like outside and, the main thing, inside. Of course, no one cancelled the biblical description with the number of cubits in length and width, but, knowing only these parameters, to recreate the Temple in any form is a bit difficult, and to speak definitely about the interior decoration is quite strange. Nevertheless, "there is an opinion" that the twisted columns were present there. So for the architectural workshop this type of columns became solomonic forever.

And then I became curious where else, except for the monument of ancient Hebrew architecture described in the literature, were solomonic-like columns used. And what is the tradition of the erection of this type of columns from antiquity to at least the time of Jean Fouquet. Deciding to understand this simple, at first glance, question, I could not imagine where the crooked architectural path will lead me.

But first things first. Being sure that the twisted columns of the King Solomon have a vivid and milestone-laden biography, I began looking for references to buildings with this architectural element. It turned out that the solomonics, as the Spaniards call them, are indeed a stunningly sought-after detail. And untold numbers of these columns have survived to this day. Except that almost all of them come from the 17th-19th centuries.

Not believing the happiness of my eyes at first, I delved deeper and found out the following:

"When addressing the topic of "solomonic columns", adherents of the strict classical architectural ideal were not limited to criticism of twisted columns based on aesthetic notions about the order and on doubts about the reliability of this archaeological source. Many theorists-especially those who were theologically educated-should certainly have been concerned about the discrepancy between the appearance of the twisted columns and the texts of Scripture and the literary accounts of the architecture of the last temple in Jerusalem, built by Herod. Hence, apparently, the stubborn denial by the classicists of the authenticity of the antique origin of the twisted columns.
In the architectural theory of the New Age a special interest to the Solomon Temple order emerges at the end of the 16th century. At that time, the contradiction between the Vitruvian idea of the natural origin of classical orders from wooden structures and natural plant forms and the awareness of the divine origin of the world order was palpable."
Cited from: Putyatin I.E., "Russian Church Architecture of the Classical Era. Ideas and Images". Author's abstract of his thesis for the degree of Doctor of Art.

And more from the same work:

"In the statements of the adherents of the "strict" classics we find mainly negative assessments. For them it seems as if there are no archaeological arguments about the antiquity of the twisted columns and their Jerusalem origin. Less strict, by virtue of his greater experience of direct contact with ancient monuments, was Abbé B. De Montfaucon. At the same time, theorists influenced by Italian treatises and buildings (late Renaissance and Baroque) extolled the aesthetic virtues of the twisted columns and were not at all embarrassed by their placement in a classicist context. The use of twisted columns in altarpieces is even desirable and should not only indicate a connection with the center of the Western Christian world, but also remind us of the Old Testament prototypes of the Christian temple. At the same time, the understanding of the altar and its architectural design as an image of the Sky City (see, for example, J.-L. de Cordemois) makes twisted columns an expressive and symbolic architectural element in the decoration not only of the Baroque, but also of the Classicist temple".

All this polite jibber-jabber could be stopped by stating a primitive simple fact that the interest to twisted columns appeared in the late Renaissance times and flourished in Baroque times. It is also obvious that people who understand architecture do not see the antique roots of the phenomenon, hence the "negative evaluation".

This is stated even more clearly in an article by Richard Durman, Spiral Columns in Salisbury Cathedral, published in 2002 in Ecclesiology Today:

"Thus it is apparent that the spiral column, whatever its origin, became a feature of the Baroque style in the catholic regions of mainland Europe and its colonies."

By and large, twisted columns really fit perfectly into the architectural philosophy of the Baroque, as it is usually described:

"The characteristic features of Baroque architecture are curvilinear plan outlines, intricate spatial structures and effects, creating the illusion of movement of architectural masses, frequent use of oval forms, paired columns and pilasters, opulent decorative details that mask the structure, and spatial effects."
Taken from here: [arkhi.net].

Twisted columns are exactly what creates the curvature of the plan, the intricacy of constructions, and the illusion of movement. They are in their place in the Baroque period, it is almost pointless to argue with this.

But still, returning to the historical search, I would like to know if these baroque dandies had predecessors and which of them the Tours painter Jean Fouquet was familiar with. That's a summary for starters. But in general I would like, of course, to look at the ancient ancestor of the Baroque solomonic column and clarify what it looked like.

So what ancient artifacts do we have?

So, artifact #1: several columns in what is now St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome. It is believed that these columns were brought to Rome by Emperor Constantine himself. What century they are from is not specified, but antiquity-in-full-height is implied. One of the columns stands alone. This is the so-called Colonna Santa. According to tradition, Christ himself leaned on it during a sermon in the Temple of Jerusalem (that is, it is presumed that this is an architectural relic from the Second Temple).

Under #2 must be mentioned a box from Pola (Pula), now in Venice, either from the 4th, 5th, or even the 11th century. It depicts a baldachin (ciborium) from St. Peter's Cathedral.

№3. Lateran Basilica in Rome. 13th century. Decorated with twisted columns.

And, finally, #4: Basilica of San Paolo fuori le Mura in Rome. Founded by Constantine, it has several columns of the form we are interested in.

Perhaps there are other examples of ancient twisted columns, but I did not manage to find them, although I searched thoroughly and dug deep with attention.

All other solomonic columns are from the 16th century and younger. From images by Raphael and Penny to examples of 18th and 19th century English church architecture.

But before we start parsing where what came from, I'd like to mention another architectural group with twisted columns that stands apart. Probably it is not necessary to explain why it stands apart. We are talking about the most famous object (after the mythical Temple of Solomon) related to the columns of Solomon: the baldachin (ciborium) of St. Peter in the Vatican cathedral of the same name. What a marvel of sculptural and architectural thought:




The author of the idea and the inspiration for the realization was Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini, one of the greatest figures of Italian and European architecture. It was thanks to the success of this project by Bernini that the solomonic columns became widespread in Baroque architecture. The time of creation of the baldachin is 1625-1627. Let's remember these dates and take a half step back. Let's return to the mentioned ancient artifacts.

So, the first contender for the title of forerunner of the Baroque hit: the columns from the old St. Peter's Cathedral.

Here they are, by the way:




It is believed that the columns come from the 4th century and were brought to Rome by Constantine himself. He had previously seized property in Jerusalem. Of course, Constantine had better things to do than drive some stone blocks back and forth across the belligerent empire, but let's imagine that's how it was. So, having pried these accessories from afar, the noble Roman hands them over to the future St. Peter's Cathedral for the construction of an altar. There the columns would stand until the beginning of the 16th century, and then the building was severely dilapidated, orphaned and turned into a not-so-great ruin. Stones were dragged from it by everyone who was not lazy. In short, the little goat has no more than a leg to stand on. However, as we are fondly hinted to, part of the columns survived. And they were brought to the new St. Peter's cathedral, where they took their proper place. And so they stand on the columns, which were given to them by Bernini or one of the builders of the new cathedral.

But not only a musty-smelling heap of memories is left of the old cathedral. Ironically, several images of the old St. Peter's have survived.

Here is Grimaldi's legacy (shame that it's from 1619) with a drawing of the interior of the old cathedral:




Surprisingly, no twisted columns disfigure the altar part.

And here is a similar picture (the source must be the same), a fresco from the Roman Cappella S. Maria in Portico:



​Again, there are no solomonic columns close to the altar.

Let us go on. Here is another sketch by Grimaldi from the time of the reconstruction of the cathedral. You can see the columns very well. Only they are ordinary, not twisted:



​And on the plan of 1590, one column from the Temple of Solomon is listed at this location (under #25):



​Comparison of what Grimaldi captures with what is recorded in the plan of Tiberio Alfarano leads to a simple and uncomplicated conclusion: some columns, legendarily tied to the Temple of Solomon, were in the old St. Peter's Cathedral, but they were not twisted, alas. So what is passed off today as columns from the altar part of the Constantine Basilica is anything but columns from the altar part of the Constantine Basilica.

By the way, if you look at the current state of these columns, somehow I can hardly believe that they are much older than the current Renaissance-Baroque cathedral. The same shade of marble, beautiful condition, and compositionally these columns fit well with Bernini's St. Peter's canopy. So, most likely, this "ancient artifact" is the same age as the new cathedral. And certainly not a relic of the 4th century.

Well, and for dessert - an artistic anecdote. In the Grand French Chronicles, illustrated by none other than Fouquet, there is a miniature entitled "Crowning of Charlemagne". The lord is being crowned in St. Peter's Basilica:




It is clear that Fouquet recorded the present state of the cathedral. And no solomonic columns are observed in the interior. That is, Fouquet himself seems to reject the idea that the image of the twisted columns could have been inspired by some pillars from the old St. Peter's cathedral.

Moving on. Artifact #2. A box from Pola. Let's look closely at the image:



​This chest is usually dated to be of old age. It is either a 4th century object, a 5th century object, or even an 11th century object. I have encountered different datings. Which one is closer to the museum one, I don't know, I haven't personally checked in Venice. In any case, it seems that there is not a single date younger than the 11th century.

However, the box depicts a baldachin of St. Peter's. It is written that it is from the old cathedral. And what else is there to write, if one really wants to age the furniture for 1000 years? But the old cathedral did not have such a baldachin. Anyone interested can easily ascertain this by looking at the sketches by Grimaldi and Van Heemskerck. And even if there had been such a ciborium, it would surely have stood on Constantine columns. But we know what these columns look like (even if they turned out to be fake), and we can say with certainty that the box depicts pillars of an entirely different shape. Exactly the shape that Bernini created in the 17th century. The funny thing is that even the ciborium is Bernini's. It was different from the original design, which was proposed back under Paul V by the architect Alessandro Specchi:



​And it was different from Bernini's own first project:




Both images are from here:
Вызов-Ответ.  Артем Дежурко. Ватиканский изворот. Балдахин собора святого Петра в Риме

How a ciborium from the 17th century ended up on a 4th (5th...11th...) century box is now for Venetian museum workers to explain. They'll probably come up with something. Italians in general are great masters of coming up with things. If I don't have enough imagination (which I highly doubt, but still), I could throw in the idea of a non-artistic twist. Suppose, a long time ago, at the time of Constantine (I must mention it, it's a sign of the quality of the product), there was the very first baldachin, and this is what served as a prototype for Bernini, and for the manufacturers of the box. It is impossible to neither confirm nor deny this version, but, in the absence of a better one, it can be creatively developed by unexpectedly discovering some ancient graffiti in an abandoned Roman cellar, and thus putting the slanderers of Italy to shame.

Artifact #3. Columns from the 13th century Lateran Basilica in Rome. Here everything is as it should be. At least the history of the place is continuous and clear. And there are twisted columns. Here they are:



​Really twisted. In the truest sense of the word. Not broken twisted like Bernini's or Fouquet's. Even if the French master saw these columns, he painted something completely different in his paintings. Excellent temple architecture, but not the original source for Fouquet or Bernini.

Artifact #4. Basilica of San Paolo-fuori le Mura in Rome, cloister:




One of those columns sure could have inspired Fouquet. It could. If it wasn't made in the 19th century. Yes, yes, yes. Exactly in the 19th century. When they refer to these columns as an example of monstrously ancient twisted columns, they somehow forget to add that the Basilica of San Paolo was completely destroyed by fire on July 15, 1823. Completely. And what we see today is a mid-19th century remodel. It's beautiful, it's dignified, it's inspired. But it's not the original. And certainly the columns were restored according to the principle "it should be like...". And successfully restored. It looks like. With what we congratulate the Italian architects from the bottom of our hearts. Well done!

By the way, in the same church, under the altar, some time ago the remains of the Apostle Paul were miraculously found. They must have forgotten that in the 19th century everything here was burned down and the site was cleared for new construction: they dug a pit and threw out the trash... Or they had not forgotten, but simply decided that the public, as usual, would eat it up. And the people did not let us down.

Anyway, let's not talk about the wonders of Benedict XVI.

Let's get back to the columns at Fouquet.

Somehow it turns out that the glorious master of Tours had nowhere to draw the twisted solomonic columns from, except... no, no, this version we will mark with anger as heretical and new-chrenological (© real friends of Ak. Fomenko)! Fouquet can't be a fake!

Fouquet, of course, is not a fake. He's real. Well, or not Fouquet, but the one who drew the columns, and then, after the fact, was called Fouquet.

What's in a name, though? Weren't Solomon's columns painted in the 15th century?
They were.

Turned out to be out of their era?
The artist is a genius, ahead of his time.

Fouquet reproduced what he saw with amazing accuracy?
So he's also a genius at inventing, it's just that it wasn't written about before.

What else did he invent?
Uh...

And that's the right answer.

And now the second part of the amazing adventures of solomonic columns a la Fouquet in time and space.

With the historical prototype of such columns nothing has turned out yet. We could breathe a sigh of relief and conclude that the French artist came up with his own idea of what should be the columns in the Temple of Solomon. But two important circumstances prevent such a conclusion.

The first is that almost everything (including architecture) in Fouquet's paintings is easily recognizable, and for specialists it is not difficult to indicate what the artist was inspired by, drawing these or those buildings, interiors, closet items or landscapes. In this sense, it is interesting that almost all of Fouquet's Old Testament and Gospel history is juxtaposed with the real French landscape. For example, Job rests on a pus in front of the castle of Vincennes, Christ is mourned not far from Notre Dame in Paris, the siege of Jericho takes place in Touraine, etc. Well, the most flagrant outrage, in terms of common sense, chronological order and traditional values, is embodied by Fouquet in a miniature with the conventional title "Construction of the Temple in Jerusalem". It turns out that when the Jews begin to build Solomon's Temple, nothing better than Notre Dame comes out anyway:




But I will not saddle my favorite horse and once again prove that evangelical history is a purely European theme. The important thing for us now is something else: Fouquet meticulously reproduced the places he knew, and virtually all of the architectural objects in his paintings had French prototypes. With one small but important exception. Columns like the ones Fouquet painted did not exist in France (or Gaul). That is circumstance number one.

And the second circumstance is this drawing by Raphael (circa 1515). Look at the columns:



​Now let's remember what kind of columns Fouquet had:



​Surprisingly, the buildings depicted are different, but the columns and even the drawings on them are very similar.

And here it's time to wonder how this is possible. Raphael never left Italy and certainly would not have copied some unknown Frenchman. Fouquet might have copied the great Raphael, if he hadn't... if he hadn't lived half a century before him. So that option is also out of the question. That leaves one last assumption: both artists had the same source of citation. But which one? St. Peter's Cathedral doesn't fit, there were no such columns. Notre Dame, which Fouquet called the Temple of Salomon (exactly like that, with an A, it is not an oversight)? It doesn't work either: Raphael had never been to France, and there's not even a hint of solomonic columns in Notre Dame, everything is arranged somewhat differently there. Perhaps somewhere in Italy there was a temple with such columns, and both artists painted from a known in those days scene?

And here we must finally make a confession. There was, there was a column in Italy that could serve as a prototype for both Fouquet and Raphael. Here it is:



​This is the stand-alone Colonna Santa on my #1 artifact list. The one that I overlooked for a second and... lost it! I repent, I repent, I repent! After all, comparing it with the Fouquet and Raphael columns, we can say with confidence that the famous relic was reproduced by ancient masters with stunning verisimilitude. If I would forget about this column, the study could have turned into a farce. And supporters of everything established and unchanging would have dipped me, with indisputable reason, up to my head in their own handwritten list and with a feeling of the deepest satisfaction would have drowned in a question: why is it that the Holy Column was lost or was under restoration in the time of Fouquet? And I would have had to confess my poor knowledge of the subject and my ignorance, and, with my tail between my legs, would have rolled back to the babble of excuses.

Yes, never in my life has Stirlitz ASK been so close to total failure.

But I remembered the Colonna Santa. And, having thoroughly researched it, I realized that it really could have been the prototype for the paintings of Fouquet and Raphael.

That would seem to be it. The festivities and fireworks at the triumph of New-chrenologism (© real friends of Ak. Fomenko) are canceled. All the dots are crossed, Akela has missed, and the gallerist-auctionist-artist community can sleep well.

But then first I came across a book by James Lees-Milne from 1967 called Saint Peter's. There was a very detailed description of the cathedral, its history and architectural ideas behind it.

There was also a discussion of Bernini's famous baldachin, the solomonic columns that support it, and the differences between the drawings on the original columns from the Temple of Jerusalem and the baroque columns by Bernini. A difference which, at first glance, is insignificant, but in this case it turns everything upside down. I will explain why.

So, on the classical solomonic column, the pattern consists of curly grape vines. It's hard to expect more from temple architecture and sculpture. Bernini's columns are decorated differently. First, they do not have vines on them, but olive leaves. And secondly, and most importantly, there are *putti playing with bees* between the leaves and branches.

What kind of animal is a putti, and what does it do? The BSE answers:

"Putti (Italian: putti, plural from putto, literally: baby), images of little boys (sometimes winged), a favorite decorative motif in Renaissance art (as well as in the 17th and 18th centuries). The P., which combined the features of ancient erots and Christian angels, indicated the assertion of a sensual secular principle in art."

The name of the author of the cupids from Bernini's columns is well known: they were invented and sculpted by the sculptor François Ducenoy (1597-1643). He also wove bees into the plot for a reason: it was the symbol of the Barberini family, to which Pope Urban VIII belonged at the time.

And now, armed with this knowledge, we look with wide-open eyes at the Fouquet and Raphael masterpieces. And - oh, my goodness! - on works of art from the 15th and 16th centuries, we see... Putti! The drawings are magnificent, and there is no doubt that the columns depict winged babies.

And we remember that on the classical Colonna Santa there were no putti and bees and could not be in principle. This is not the Baroque period, but the Jewish temple antiquities, for which the human face is forbidden.

So both Fouquet and Raphael managed to reproduce Bernini's columns with putti 100-150 years before their appearance. What inappropriate, defiant haste. What intemperance. No, well, geniuses, of course. It is clear that they can get away with anything, but why make Bernini and Duquesnoy plagiarists!

Yes, gentlemen art connoisseurs and guardians of historical knowledge. Raphael's paintings, you say? A 15th-century master of Tours? So you have a box from the 4th century? And the basilica is antique, right?

What are you saying? I shouldn't be posting, but writing books?

You're thinking right. And as an epigraph I would put the words spoken by the inimitable voice of Zheglov-Vysotsky:

"Thus, a criminal community arose, called in common parlance 'the gang', which began with great success to bombard the fraers in various cultural institutions...
But today, citizens, you have made a terrible mistake. And it's not even that we caught you".

It's not even that...


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 2, 2021)

I'm sure this is all very interesting, highly commendable and represents a great deal of time and effort, but have you ever considered summarising? I'm getting old and sometimes I worry that I might not make it to the end of your posts.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 2, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> I worry that I might not make it to the end of your posts.


Don't underestimate yourself! 

But in all seriousness, I want to relay as much information as possible, because it didn't exist in English. I'll leave summarising and re-compiling it to order for someone else.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Nov 2, 2021)

sahm48 said:


> what about?
> 
> 1. the 2 temple was destroyed and a temple to jupiter built on it.
> 
> ...


This is how the church establed themselves and their false teachings after they slaughtered the resistence. Building on top of the original site. Happened from norway to mexico, probably in aussie land too. If your church is older then 1899 for example, you will find an other story further back in history from that very place you now see a church.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 4, 2021)

*Chapter 17.* *Old Testament Writings (Part **Two)*​
*Nicolas Flamel*​Jacques Sadoul in the book "Treasure of the Alchemists" among the greatest representatives of this closed community mentions Nicolas Flamel:

There have always been many alchemists in France, and there are many of them today. But no one - not even the modern adept Fulcanelli - has achieved such fame as Nicolas Flamel. In the crowded block surrounding the church of Saint-Jacques-la-Bouchéry, until the beginning of the XIX century, vivid memories of this small artisan were preserved; tradition even preserved the name of his wife, Mrs. Perenella. And today in Paris you can find visible traces of his unheard-of generosity and fabulous state imprinted in stone.

What was Flamel like? It is believed that he was born around 1330, near Pontoise, in a rather poor family, but he nevertheless managed to get a good education. Already at a young age, he allegedly went to Paris to become a clerk. His workshop was located first near the cemetery of Innocent babies; a few years later, he, along with his fellow craftsmen, moved under the arches of the church of Saint-Jacques-la-Bouchéry.

Sadoul goes on to quote Flamel himself (or the one who wrote the Flamel story):

Then I, Nicolas Flamel, a clerk, after the death of my parents earning a living by my skillful handwriting, as well as by compiling inventories and bills between guardians and minors, for two florins acquired a book very ancient and fairly large. It was not made of paper or parchment, like others, but of the bark (as it seemed to me) of young trees. Its cover was made of smooth copper, decorated with all sorts of symbols, letters and strange figures, and I decided that these must be greek letters or some other ancient language. I couldn't read them, but I'm sure they weren't Latin or Gallic, of which we know something. Inside, the pages of the bark were with great care inscribed with the tip of an iron feather; they were beautiful, very clear, brightly colored Latin letters.

It had three times seven sheets: so they were indicated by numbers in the upper corner, and the seventh was always not with letters, but with a picture. Each first page depicted a whip and snakes swallowing each other; on the second - a cross with a snake crucified on it; on the last, seventh - the desert, in the middle of which there were several beautiful springs, from where snakes spread in different directions. On the first page was written in capital gold letters:"ABRAHAM THE JEW, DUKE, PRIEST, LEVIT, ASTROLOGER AND PHILOSOPHER, GREETS THE JEWISH PEOPLE, SCATTERED AMONG THE GAULS WITH GOD'S WRATH.

It doesn't matter who, when, or under what circumstances created a character named Nicolas Flamel or a book about him. It doesn't matter in what century it happened. Maybe in XIV. Or maybe in XVIII. It doesn't matter if there was a real Flamel or not. And the question of whether he wrote something about himself or not, seems petty and unworthy of attention.

But what really matters is the greeting, protruded with capital letters (and not by me or Jacques Sadoul). A greeting from which it is clear that the Jewish people were scattered by God's wrath not somewhere in the sands of Arabia, the deserts of Africa, or the forests of Siberia. But among the Gauls.

And for readers of Flamel's or Flamel's, it obviously wasn't a revelation.

*Leviticus*​There is a book of Leviticus in the Old Testament and the Torah. Instructing the people of Israel how to live and what to do.

And there is one curious word in this very book, about which all translators and interpreters stumble. It is in leviticus chapters 13-14 and is transcribed in Latin like this: tzaraath. Or like this: tzaraas. And like this: tsaraath, tzaraat, tsaraat.

It's about something that _smites _(поражает) (the exact meaning of the root) people, homes, clothes.

The first, according to traditional chronology, who faced the problematic word were the fixators of the Septuagint. And they relayed it into the Greek language, as _leprosy _(проказа). There are no obvious indications of this disease in the texts of the Torah and the Bible, but it seemed to the translators that everything was very adequate in meaning.

Tzaraath is a punishment for sins. Like any other disease.

Like any disease. Illness. In Russian – just ЗАРАЗА (ZARAZA). From the root of raz/razh. That is, what strikes/smites/kills (поражает, разит).

The funny thing is that in Spanish there used to be the word zarazas (poison), about which Fasmer writes that it has nothing to do with the Russian зараза. We must think that the Spanish word is not involved in tsaraas, tsaraat, tzaraat. Indeed: what Jews can be there in Spain? Or Arabs? Yes, they were there, a long time ago ... but the Jews, oh, yes, someone was expelled there, but they did not leave any _poisons _in Spanish.

I wonder when the Old Testament was written? And the Torah? What a poison...

*Elizabeth*​Ελισαβετ, Elizabeth, Елизавета. A very ancient name. As if Hebrew. Translated as follows: vow to God, oath to God, honoring God, etc. Well, with the first part of this name etymologically everything is clear. Eli, El, Eloi, Ilya, Lel is a god. Most likely, we need to take a closer look at the Greek _ήελίος _(sun), from which all the other "solar gods" came from. However, for us this is not essential right now.

It is much more interesting to look at the second part of the name. In which a simple word is clearly read: завет/zavet (covenant). Which is synonymous with the words "обет/abet" (vow), "oath", etc. And in Russian language, for example, this word is easily decomposed: the prefix за-, the root of the вет*. And this word-formation model is very common: завет (covenant), навет (slander), ответ (answer), привет (hello), совет (advice), etc., where вет* means _contract, council_.

But commentators can't explain the _завет _through Hebrew. They say it's _shivah _(seven), what _nishba _(swore), or something else, but nobody knows for sure.

But Ilya (Allah, El, Lel...) + the covenant gives the exact meaning of the name. In what such unknown language did the people of the Bible originally speak?

*Judith *​Book of Judith. Judith of Betulia/Vetulya. This city has never been in Israel. There wasn't even a name like that. At the same time, there were indications that the city was between Samaria and Jerusalem. If the Gallic version is correct, then everything is very simple: the city of Vetheuil still exists. It is a suburb of Paris (Jerusalem). It is located in the north, just in the direction of Amiens (Samaria). Its Latin name is Vetolium. At the same time, all the other cities mentioned in Judith's book also exist in France: Сianon is Chinon, etc.

Another Vetulia is described by Ptolemy in his famous "Geography", it was located in Spain, near Barcelona, and was called in Greek as follows:* Βαίτουλών. *And in Latin it was the city of _Baetulo_, aka modern Badalona. It is quite possible that by the time the stories of the Old Testament were tied together, some geographical "bindings" had floated away or were deliberately shifted in one direction or another. (There is another Vetulia/Betulia in Central France, closer to the south of the country: the modern town of Le Puy-en-Velais, in Roman times called Vetulia)

The notorious Voltaire wrote:

"It would be very difficult for a geographer to put this Vetilia somewhere. Some point out that it was forty miles north of Jerusalem, others say it was located a few miles south of it. But any decent woman would be even more challenged if she had to justify the behavior of the beautiful Judith. Going to bed with an army commander to cut off his head is, after all, not entirely modest. And to put this bloodied head with your own bloody hands in a bag and calmly pass with your maid through the location of the hundred thousand army, without being stopped by any sentry, is not quite easy.”

That's for sure: there is no prophet in his homeland. If Voltaire had known how close he himself was to the legendary Vetilua...

Now about the name Judith. It is, as you might guess, means _Jewish_. It is interesting that a good half of all European queens and princesses bore this talking name, such as: Judith of Brittany, two Judiths of Bavaria, Judith of Bohemia (Přemysl), Judith of Flanders, Judith Habsburg, etc. This knowledge is especially funny against the background of stories about the eternal deportations of Jews from these countries and the persecution of Judaism as a religion.

In the ruling dynasties of the Middle Ages (especially those that dominated the territory of Gaul and the surrounding lands) in general there were a lot of so-called Jewish names. This was once pointed out by the authors of the sensational "Sacred Riddle", based on which the skillful compiler Dan Brown wrote "The Da Vinci Code":

In the Merovingian royal family and among its relatives, there are also a certain number of purely Jewish names. In 577, King Hlothar's brother was named Samson; Myron "Leviticus" - Count of Bezalou and Bishop of Jeron; one of the Roussillon counts was called Solomon, and another Solomon becomes King of Brittany. As for the name of the Merovingian abbot Elizahar, is it not a distorted name "Eleazar", or "Lazarus"? Even the name "Merovey" is of Middle Eastern origin. (Bygent M., Ley R., Lincoln G. The Sacred Mystery. St. Petersburg, 1993.)

Well, you can argue about Merovey (in my opinion, it is hard to think of a more Slavic name), but there are indeed plenty of Jewish names among the so-called Frankish and Gallic rulers, and this series can easily be continued. One of the first rulers of Brittany was Solomon (Selif). This is supposedly the fifth century. In the IX century, Judicae1 was the Count of Rennes. Another Judicael was Count of Nantes in the X-XI centuries, and his heiress bore the same speaking name Judith (of Nantes). And in another branch of this dynasty, in the same XI century, there were Judith of Brittany and another Judicael. In the amazing XI century, among the highest Breton nobility, a couple of Avdeys (translated from Hebrew this name means "priest") and Matthew appear. By the way, the name Judicael in Breton sounds generally wonderful: Yezecael. I think there's a lot to think about. What kind of Ezekiel ruled Brittany? And in the Latin version, they turned it into Judicael...

This begs a few questions. Whose religion was Judaism before the adoption of Christianity in Europe? Jews or Europeans? If only Jews, why are there so many Jewish names in the ruling dynasties? If Europeans, why is the history of Judaism actually privatized by Jews? Who was interested in squeezing Judaism out of Europe and for what purpose?

The answers to these questions seem to lie on the surface. But no one has the courage to call a spade a spade. The phrase "and the king is naked" has no right to exist today, because it is politically incorrect and does not meet the standards of so-called tolerance. Well, obviously, the truth of any statement now needs to be verified not by practice, but by ideas about practice. And the ideas of not the majority, but the overwhelming minority, who imposed their ideas about the world on everyone.

*Aendor*​It's a lot of fun with him too. To begin with, read the Bible Dictionary:

"Aendor, otherwise Endor (the source of Dora, or the source of the house, dwelling) (Nav. XVII, 11, I Tsar. XXVIII, 7) - a city or village in the tribe of Issacharo, between mount Favor and Little Ermon, with the flow of Kisson. At this place suffered a great defeat, in the days of Devora and Barak, Iavin, King of Asor (Court. IV and V). King Saul came here at night to the famous Aendor sorceress and asked her to summon him the prophet Samuel (I Sam. XXVIII, 11). Until now, travelers are still shown a cave a few miles south of Nazareth, in which this sorceress allegedly lived. Now in place of Aendor stands a small poor village called Endur. In the rocks there is indeed a cave, and perhaps the one in which the shadow of the prophet Samuel appeared to Saul."

Needless to say, the "poor village of Endur" in today's Israel did not exist, probably, even 100 years ago, not to mention the Old Testament times. And there is nothing magical about it. But today's Andorra as a contender for biblical glory is much more promising for consideration. At least, Andorra is really a city, not two and a half houses, and it is located just in the mountains. And the Pyrenean Favor/Tabor (is there another?) is really nearby, and not in the far far away.

*Sefarad*​Scripture. Obadiah (1:20):

And those who have been resettled from the army of the children of Israel will take possession of the land of Canaan to Sarepta, and those who have moved from Jerusalem, who are in Sefarad, will receive the possession of the southern cities.

And translation into Latin:

et transmigratio prima filiorum Israelpossidebit terram Chananaeorum usque ad Sareptam; et transmigratio Ierusalem, quae in Sapharad est, possidebit civitates austri.

I don't understand how generations of proofreaders and purgerers of Scripture blinked through these words. I just don't understand. Either the most obvious is always left for later and safely forgotten, or for the persistent and curious hints are left on purpose ...

And it's just that Ierusalem, quae in Sapharad est, which in Russian translation was slightly softened and rounded to: "resettled from Jerusalem, who are in Sefarad”. But not "resettled and are" is said here, but "resettled from Jerusalem, which is in Sefarad". Period.

And where do we have Sefarad? Where the Sephardim live. And Sephardim live, as you know, in Spain.

For those who still doubt, I suggest you pay attention to the word _Sarepta _in the same quote. Translated from the language of the so-called diaspora, this means _France_. Or the territory that is now called France.

But Jean Boden hinted in the "Method of Easy Knowledge of History", hinted: "The Canaanites, ousted by the Jews from a blessed Palestine, went to Illyria and Pannonia, as Rabbi Kimhi wrote at the end of his commentary".


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 5, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> "ABRAHAM THE JEW, DUKE, PRIEST, LEVIT, ASTROLOGER AND PHILOSOPHER, GREETS THE JEWISH PEOPLE, SCATTERED AMONG THE GAULS WITH GOD'S WRATH.



I read this differently; Greets the Jewish people (description of them) *with *the wrath of God. Otherwise, they would have been scattered among the Gauls *BY *God's wrath, or better  'by the wrath of God'.

Also, the title 'Duke' was commonly used by the Normans.

Recently the 'Flemings' have come to my attention. It may be worth you checking them out regarding your French Israel fetish .  I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on them.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 5, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> I read this differently; Greets the Jewish people (description of them) *with *the wrath of God. Otherwise, they would have been scattered among the Gauls *BY *God's wrath, or better 'by the wrath of God'.


Good call

Here's the original:
"АВРААМ ЕВРЕЙ, КНЯЗЬ, СВЯЩЕННИК, ЛЕВИТ, АСТРОЛОГ И ФИЛОСОФ, ПРИВЕТСТВУЕТ ЕВРЕЙСКИЙ НАРОД, БОЖЬИМ ГНЕВОМ РАССЕЯННЫЙ СРЕДИ ГАЛЛОВ."

More accurate translation:
HEBREW ABRAHAM, A DUKE/KING, PRIEST, LEVITICUS, ASTROLOGER AND PHILOSOPHER, GREETS THE HEBREW PEOPLE, WHO WERE SCATTERED BY GOD'S WRATH AMONG THE GAULS



Will Scarlet said:


> Also, the title 'Duke' was commonly used by the Normans.


It's not necessarily a 'duke', the word that was used is князь. It's etymologically related to the word 'king'. I separate them because, for example, The Grand *Duchy *of Lithuania is supposed to be Великое *Княжество* Литовское/Lietuvos Didžioji *Kunigaikštystė.* An important clarification because it is always said that there was only one king (*karalius*, the word that is supposed to be related to Charlemagne) in Lithuania. The rest of the leaders were kunigaikščiai, or, I guess, dukes. Interesting thing is that kunigas, while can be used the same way as kunigaikštis, usually means 'priest'. Machine translation usually translates князь to prince, which is right when used as "the leader" or "the first one", but can be mistaken for "the son of the king", that's why I substitute it with duke.



Will Scarlet said:


> Recently the 'Flemings' have come to my attention. It may be worth you checking them out regarding your French Israel fetish . I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on them.


I don't know much about them the right now, apart from etymological similarity of _Vlamingen _to the words _Welsh_ or _Wallachian_. Maybe its related to the word _flame_ or _will. _Maybe even the Russian _власть_/_владеть _(the authority/to rule). Did you find anything particularly interesting about them?


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 6, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Did you find anything particularly interesting about them?



I'm still digging, but they were part of the Norman mafiosi, employed as mercenaries in the conquest of England and later used as shock troops in areas of rebellion. They were particularly viscous. They were supposedly Catholics from Flanders, but there's a very strange incident during the early 12th century when they were sent by Henry I to the Pembroke Peninsula of Wales to take it over and colonise it. They butchered most of the Welsh and built 'garden towns' i.e. towns that weren't naturally developed but consisted of houses along a straight road. There's something odd about the chimneys as well, but I'm not sure what.

Anyway, they indulged in divination by animal bones and were gifted weavers and tailors. They had to be forced to pay any taxes, but probably the biggest clue to who they really were is that they were prolific coin-clippers. That was precisely the crime that was used as the excuse to expel the Jews from England not long after.


----------



## Seeker (Nov 8, 2021)

Hello there!

I have found this topic to be absolutely fascinating. I always wondered if 'Israel' in the Bible was referring to some other place. I always found it strange that the Israel we know was only founded relatively recently, and the Bible was written long, long ago. How long, who can be sure.

I also found it odd that all of the disciples in the New Testament have names that sound distinctly British to me.

I wanted to make two small contributions to the thread. I dont know if they will be of help or of any interest. One of them may be a little frivolous.

The first is in regards to your mentions of the Gauls, and its connections with the Rooster.

I was reviewing another thread about lost technology - The Lost Key: Part 1

In particular I saw this image:






This is 'The Tollbooth' in Scotland. As you can see, it has a golden Rooster on top. It immediately occurred to me that many Churches in the UK have a weather vane with a Rooster on top. I do not know if this feature appears only in the UK, or if it is prevalent elsewhere.

It may also be worth pointing out that this is actually a government building of some sort, and not a Church - I believe its function was a courthouse and jail, or similar.

I wonder if this has any connection with your topic, in general.

The second thing I was going to mention - and this is the slightly more frivolous one - is with regards to the name Jesus Christ. Naturally this topic suggests a connection with France. I also realize that the name 'Jesus' is very similar to the phrase 'Je suis' meaning 'I am'.

I recall a famous phrase in the Bible where 'God' refers to himself as 'I am that I am' - I am not fluent in French, but tried a few translations, such as Je suis qu c'est..... it sounds somewhat similar... I guess it's flimsy at best, and perhaps it doesnt mean a thing.

Equally, Jesus Christ is very similar to Je suis Christ, or Je suis Christophe. Like I said, this may be just frivolous thinking.

Anyway, if there is nothing to this - I hope the connection with the weather vanes was at least of some interest.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 8, 2021)

Seeker said:


> The second thing I was going to mention - and this is the slightly more frivolous one - is with regards to the name Jesus Christ. Naturally this topic suggests a connection with France. I also realize that the name 'Jesus' is very similar to the phrase 'Je suis' meaning 'I am'.
> 
> I recall a famous phrase in the Bible where 'God' refers to himself as 'I am that I am' - I am not fluent in French, but tried a few translations, such as Je suis qu c'est..... it sounds somewhat similar... I guess it's flimsy at best, and perhaps it doesnt mean a thing.


I think it's a really good observation. Is it true? Don't know. But it's good


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 8, 2021)

Seeker said:


> I do not know if this feature appears only in the UK, or if it is prevalent elsewhere.



The rooster is the national symbol of Portugal.



Seeker said:


> tried a few translations, such as Je suis qu c'est.....



I think it's actually 'je suis ce que je suis', like the song from the Popeye movie. The problem is 'je suis' can also mean 'I follow'. It's actually considered a tongue-twister in French. So, unless Jesus sneezed every time he said his own name, I think it's doubtful, personally,,. strangely enough when people in Spain sneeze someone always says "Jesus!"


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 8, 2021)

Seeker said:


> Hello there!
> 
> I have found this topic to be absolutely fascinating. I always wondered if 'Israel' in the Bible was referring to some other place. I always found it strange that the Israel we know was only founded relatively recently, and the Bible was written long, long ago. How long, who can be sure.
> 
> ...


Imo the weathervanes could be more mythologically related to the stories of roosters signifying great danger, like in The Tale of the Golden Cockerel or Gullinkambi. But anything is possible.

Meanwhile, here's some more text from the book:

*Chapter 10. Nuances of entourage*​
If lapti, sauerkraut, samovar and bird-troika are woven into the narrative, then it is clear that we are not talking about Vietnam or Indonesia. If in the story someone drinks sake, professes Shintoism, rejoices for matsuri and is proud of Fujiyama, the action definitely does not happen in Lapland. If the Chukcha is waiting for the dawn (waits for six months), this is clearly not the lyrics of Ancient Egypt.

The context matters. And is defining. After all, if you are politely told that, according to the most reliable historical sources, courtly knights, wearing a kimono, devoured sauerkraut and raced to the top of the pyramid of Cheops to get acquainted with Santa Claus, you laugh, and for some reason you do not believe it. Here it is, the context.

But for some reason, serious people, having heard about the herds of pigs in evangelical Israel, about the cuckooing of a rooster in Jerusalem, about the storm in the Genisaret puddle, about coins with the image of Caesar, about the presence of several high priests in a place where there can be only one, do not smile at all. And they even believe it and in all seriousness explain how sauerkraut ended up at the top of the pyramid on top of Santa's torn beard.

What confuses them? That's right, context. Entourage. Especially the abundance of Aramaic words and toponymy. After all, if you remove this colorful part of the New Testament discourse, today's Israel would be the last place to be pointed to as the land of the Gospels. For the customs described in the Gospels are anything but Jewish, the parables of Jesus are addressed to people clearly not of the level of shepherds, the abundance of wine and pork do not indicate the kosher places, and the geography of the travels of Christ and the apostles clearly does not imply that everything happened in the Syrian Palestine. Adding to this that all the primary sources on the topic are not written in Aramaic, we get very far from the Middle Eastern landscape.

But you can't throw the words out of the song, serious people say. Now, if there were no heaps of Semitisms and Hebrew names of cities and towns, then there would be something to talk about. But as of now – it’s an empty matter.

That’s reasonable, of course. But there is a caveat. The fact is that many so-called Aramaic words are not at all such. Moreover, some of them were introduced into the text of Scripture after the fact on the basis of the opinion of "learned men" that it would be more correct in this way. That is, speaking in Russian [English], pieces of middle Eastern entourage were simply falsified.

Don't believe me? Just look like everything unpretentiously blurs.

Anyone interested in the history of Scripture knows a place called Akeldama.

Here's what Wiki tells us:
"Akeldama, Land of Blood or Land of the Potter (Field of Blood, Village of Blood, Haceldama, Aceldama or Akeldama, modern name Hakl-ed-damm, from Aramaic *արյան դաշտը* - 'blood field' or 'village of blood'; Greek: πεδίο αίματος αίμα χωριό, Potter’s field) - according to the New Testament, a plot of land in Jerusalem bought for the burial of wanderers with money received by Judas Iscariot from the high priests for the betrayal of Jesus Christ".

Here is the Encyclopedia of Archimandrite Nicephorus:
"Akeldama (Acts. 1:19) (The Syriac word meaning: field or village of blood) appears only in this quotation, as the name of the part of the land bought for 30 pieces of silver received by Judah for the betrayal of the Savior and which were returned by him again to the Jewish high priests, who, however, considering it impermissible to invest them in the treasury of the Church, because this is a price of blood, bought on them the land of a potter for the burial of wanderers (Matt. 27:6, 8). Hence the name of it: Akeldama. The specified place was on the southeast of Gion valley, south of Zion and was originally called, as mentioned above, the land of the potter, as it delivered a known kind of clay suitable for pot production. Akeldama continued to serve as a burial place until relatively modern times. Back in the VII century, Armenian Christians who lived in Jerusalem were buried here. In the Middle Ages, it was generally believed that the land taken from this field had a special property of decomposing the bodies of the dead in a few days; that is why at the specified time whole ships of the Akeldam land were brought for the cemeteries of Pisa in Italy. In Akeldama, there is still a stone, now dilapidated building with an arched roof, deep into the ground, but without any exit. According to D. Stanley, it in ancient times served as a tomb for the burial of wanderers. This monument of antiquity is visible from afar, and, as it seems, is a part of the ancient, and a part of the new building".

Here is Eric Nyustrem's Bible Dictionary:
"Akeldama (land of blood), the land of the potter, which the high priests bought for 30 silver coins of Judas Iscariot (Matt. 27:7, 8). Under the pretext that it was not permissible to contribute this money to the treasury of the temple, since it was the price of blood, they bought a field for the burial of wanderers. In Acts. 1:18, 19 it is said that Judas Iscariot acquired the land because it was bought with his money. According to legend, this field is located on the steep slope of the Evil Conference Mountain, near Jerusalem, to the south of it.

Among the many strange tombs on the southern slope of this mountain are ruins called Hakl Dama or El Ferdus with stone walls and columns lying deep in the ground, and with roofs above the ground, having 3 or 4 holes for lowering the dead. Probably, these are the remains of a Jewish grave building. On this place the Greek monastery of St. Onuphry was built".

And for the sake of completeness, The Brockhaus Bible Encyclopedia:
"Akeldama ("land of blood"), a piece of land also called "potter's land". The high priests bought A. for the same 30 silvers that Judas received for betraying the Lord (Matt. 27:3-10; Acts 1:19). A. was probably located in the south of the valley of Yennom, south-east. Jerusalem, and was intended for the burial of wanderers, i.e. foreign Jews who came to worship in Jerusalem and died there. See city plan on page 377".

It would seem that everything is orderly, noble and called by its own names. And Semitic.

That's just for some reason in the Slavic version of the Gospel of Matthew there is no Akeldama, but there is the village of Skudelniche [translates to Potter’s land]. And in Luther's 1522 version there is no Akeldama. And even in the Greek source is Άγρόç, Аϊματόҫ and Άγρôν τόύ Kéραμέωҫ. That is, the potter is mentioned, no Akeldama here. That's marvelous!

And where does the colorful translation with an untranslatable Aramaic (Syriac?) word appear. It turns out that from the gentlemen Latins, in the Vulgate. That is, in the Greek original there is no Aramaic word left untranslated and no Middle Eastern toponym is present, this is a medical fact. And what, then, is the name of the Latin "translation" of the Greek expression "land of the potter" or "land of blood"? In my opinion, this is a forgery. What do you think?

Along the way, we note that the village of Skudelniche does not necessarily have to be located in Israeli lands. There is nothing typically Jewish (Arabic, Aramaic...) in the craft of a potter. But the land from this New Testament "Potter‘s village", according to legends, was in the cemeteries of Pisa, Paris and Rome. Wasn't it far from Palestine?

And if someone thinks that this is an isolated case, this someone is greatly mistaken. A creatively reimagined translation in Scripture is enough. It's just that time and unwillingness to dig deep do the trick. Much can no longer be restored with accuracy, but something else lies on the surface, for it is impossible to hide and cover everything.

Here, for example, it is impossible to translate from Greek the name of Mary's hometown "Magdalene". After all, in the most ancient copies of the Gospels there is no Magdala, but there is Magadan. Moreover, in a parallel place Mark has no Magadan, but there is Dalmanufa. And there is not a single settlement with similar parameters on the territory of modern Israel, and the names, frankly, are not at all Semitic. Reluctantly, even the Orthodox Encyclopedia admits the corruption of the text:

"According to other theories, this name appeared as a result of damage to the text, in which initially there could be a fairly well-known name of the area or settlement, which is confirmed by the variability of the manuscript tradition. The expression "within the Dalmanufian limits" (εіς τα μέρη Ϫαλμανουθά is "reading of the majority" (in the Vatican Codex - Ϫαλμανουθά, but there are other variants: εіς το όρος Ϫαλμουναι (in the Washington Codex, V century); εіς τα μέρη ΜαΥαλά (in the Greek codex Korideti (Georgia), IX century; in a number of minuscules, in some Syrian and Georgian versions, in Gothic translation); εіς τα μέρη ΜαΥεδά (RNB Greek 53, IX century; in old Latin versions); εіς τα ȍρια ΜελεΥȁδα (in the original reading of the Beza codex), etc.; in the papyrus fragment P45 (III century), the name of the area is restored as ΜαΥεδȁν (Metzger. 1994. P. 32-33, 83). In parallel text from Matt. 15:39 The area where the dispute with the Pharisees took place is also called "Magadan" (ΜαΥαδάν or ΜαΥεδάν. In the present time the area with this name is unknown. Eusebius of Caesarea believed that the ΜαΥεδάν mentioned by the evangelists Matthew and Mark is a village near Gerasa (Euseb. Onomast. 655). Perhaps the evangelists were referring to Magdala (otherwise called Tarihea), and ΜαΥαδάν is a distorted form of the accusative case from ΜαΥδαλά (compare ΜαΥαδαΥαδ and ΜαΥδαλΥαδ in Joshua 15:37 [LXX]). Given the lack of a definitive solution to the synoptic problem, the question of the exact identification of Dalmanufa in the Gospel of Mark remains open".

That is, what today is considered to be the Middle Eastern Magdala could be Dalmanufa, Magadan or something else at the behest of the interpreters (or proofreaders in the sutans) of the biblical text. And it also could be not the first, nor the second, nor the third variant. And the topic of Israel here, to put it mildly, is not disclosed.

Nor is it revealed in the case of the famous Jerusalem bath of Bethesda, which was located next to the Sheep's Gate. It is believed that in this place the Savior healed a weakened person (the episode is described in John, 5:1-16). And here is how Eusebius of Caesarea saw this place: "Bethesda is a bath in Jerusalem, it is also called Sheep’s, which in ancient times had five narthexes; and is now shown in the two pools there, of which one is filled with annual rains, the other has miraculously painted red water, showing, as they say, the trace of the sacrifices who were washed in it, which is why it is called Sheep’s, because of the sacrifices".

But from the modern critical bell tower, everything is seen not so rosy and symbolic. Here is an excerpt from Mark Abramovich's “Jesus, the Jew from Galilee”:
... at the Sheep's Gate there was a market for the sale of sacrificial animals: it was called the "Sheep Market". The people here really crowded, but they did not wait for healing in the waters of the pool, but for the levites, who washed future sacrifices from the dirt, for a dirty animal could not be led to the Temple. People never plunged into the pool, because for people it was unclean! Indeed, many sacrifices were made in the Jerusalem Temple. Every day hundreds of animals were washed from the mud in this pool. You can imagine what kind of water there was in it! This pool has never been a bath. As for the legend of the "disturbance of the waters by the Angel of the Lord", it was in a completely different place, in the south-western part of the city, and this legend is connected with the source of Tikhon. The Jewish king Hizkiahu (Hezekiah), fearing an Invasion by the Assyrians, took a number of steps to prepare the city for a long siege. Among other measures, he decided to divert the spring water through an underground tunnel to the city. The tunnel was built from two sides. Both groups of workers met at a point that can be identified today. The total length of the tunnel is 533 meters, and it ends with the Schilloach basin (the famous Siloam bath). This significant event is mentioned in the Bible. In the Second Book of Kings it is written: "... He made a pond and a conduit and led the water into the city". The water in the tunnel seemed to pulsate - first arrived, then decreased. At the right time for the townspeople, it rose, as if facilitating access to water for those in need. People said that it was the angel of the Lord who raised the water. These two pools are located at different ends of the city and were intended for different purposes, but neither of them served as a bath."

So, people in the pool at the Sheep Market never plunged, and this reservoir served only for the washing of sacrificial animals. A compelling statement. At least for Middle Eastern Jerusalem. Perhaps the evangelist John once again mixed everything up? Strange: he was confused, but gave the exact name of the place? And even reported a large number of weak people lying around the bath, where only sheep were washed?

Is Abramovich right when he insists on the fictionality of evangelical Palestine?

If we mindlessly put the text of the Gospel on the contemporary realities of the Middle East, this is the conclusion that arises. But if you do not identify the current Jerusalem with the epoymous biblical city, there are nuances. And the most curious nuances, I dare say.

And everything lies on the surface, written in the text itself, it is only necessary not to read like the Pharisees and scribes, but to understand the essence of what is written. And not to invent what this Bethesda could mean in dead Aramaic. Because no ancient Gospels in this language exist and, most likely, never existed in nature! After all, what is Bethesda according to the Scriptures? That's right, the bath. And John clearly notes that this is not just a bath, but a place next to which lay many suffering people waiting for healing. So what smart person and when did he decide that Bethesda is a proper name and not a lowercase word? After all, if you take a dozen ancient manuscripts and compare them, it turns out that there are no capital letters in them (once), the text is written down in a merged way (two), and the desired word "Bethesda" is transliterated in a variety of ways (three). And since the purpose of the early disseminators of the good news was not to care about spelling and punctuation, but to evangelize, some poorly understood, incorrectly written or unclear words of the original text remained dark for generations of readers of the Bible, and only much later, under the supervision of authoritative figures of the Church, were explained in one way or another, and the spelling of these words was unified. Most likely, this is the path that Bethesda passed, which began to be tied to the terrain at a time when the interpretation of the Gospels and their reference to the Middle Eastern landscape began.

But the meaning of the word is transparent in both Greek and Latin. But just with the recording the word was not so lucky, so the Greco-Roman bath-baptistery (βαπτίζω (that is, initially the bath, the place of dipping, and then, in Christianity, the baptismal church) turned into an obscure Bethesda. Although, it would seem, Bethesda and βαπτίζω (they sound similarly, and reflect exactly the same concept (about the Latin "baptista" in general I am silent)). It is next to such "baths" the weak could lie, waiting for the miracle of God. And John the Evangelist did not confuse anything, he described everything quite correctly, only baptistery existed not in the land of ancient Israel, but in Europe. And even specially built baths were either at the temples, or separately from them. You can see beautiful examples of baptistery in Florence, Poitiers, Fréjus, Aix, Rome, Parma and other places much closer to the Gospel events than desert Palestine.

Oh well. After all, not only proper names are in the evangelical text. There are many simple words in it, which, according to experts, give out the Aramaic ancestor written in Greek Gospels. And what are these words? - We ask. The experts will answer gladly. The first thing that comes to mind is that the word "amen" clearly refers to the ancient Hebrews. Or the name of the treasury of the Jewish temple: corvan (Mark 7:11). Or, for example, the word "raka" from the Savior's speech (Matt. 5:22) is a typical Semitism left untranslated. Enough?

Well, well, for the first time - enough. If typical - then typical. If Semitism - then Semitism. I just want details, they are usually the most juicy.

Let's start with amen. Quite often used in Scripture.

John (6:26):
"Jesus answered and told them, amen, amen I say to you, seek me, not as a sign, but as if I am the bread, and be satiated".

And John (1:51):
“And says to him: amen, amen I say to you, see the sky and the Angels of God ascending and descending over the Son of Man”.

Usually these passages are explained from an etymological point of view as follows: "The word "amin’" (more precisely "amen", Hebrew “true, exactly, correctly”) left in Greek without translation. Usually, Jews would say the word at the end of a prayer read by someone else as a sign of agreement with his words..." (quoted: *Kuznetsova V.N.* Gospel of John. Commentary. M., 2010).

And now a little experiment. Replace the "Jewish" word "amen" with the Slavic "именно/imenno" [means “true, exactly, correctly”]. What will change? Exactly, I tell you, nothing will change in meaning or sound. And why then is "amen" a translation from Hebrew and not from Slavic? In addition, it would be nice to explain the metamorphosis with the transfer of stress. After all, in Latin, for example, the stressed syllable is the first syllable: Amen, and not the second, as in the Hebrew amEn. From what language did Latin draw this word?

There is another metamorphosis with the word "amen". Compare the "Jewish" root with the Egyptian Amon (Amen/Ammon/Amun) and with the Slavic имя/имени [name/of the name]. So isn't the Egyptian god Amun the "god of the word (i.e., name)" referred to in the Bible? By the way, in all other Indo-European languages we do not have an imya, but an onoma, or a noma, or name, or a neym, that is, a reading backwards. Such miracles! And then clever zalizniaks tell about amateur linguistics and the absolute randomness of coincidences.

Semitism, you say? Well-well.

Let's move on. Corvan (In Greek - korbonas). For example, Matthew 27:6:
"Archpriest, while taking the silvers, says: they are not worthy of being put to korvana, because this is a price of blood"

Or Mark (7:11):
"you say: if a person speaks to the father or mother: korvan, which is a treasure, you can use it".

It is usually explained as follows:
"Corvan (Hebrew Korban, "sacrificed", "sacrificial gift" (Lev. 1:2; Num. 5:15; in the Synod, trans. - "sacrifice"). In the Greek text of NT, this word came from Hebrew. Language. In Matt. 27:6 K. denotes temple treasures (in the Synod, trans. - "treasury of the church"), to which the high priests did not want to add the silver of Judas, considering them "the price of blood." In Mk. 7:11 The word "K." is explained as "a gift to God". According to the teachings of the scribes, any Jew could claim that his property became a "sacrificial gift" to God. Such a statement was made in the form of a vow. The person who made such a promise withdrew from himself all obligations to continue to help others. What his loved ones could get from him was henceforth dedicated to God. Such a statement was considered binding, although in practice it was not always followed by factual transfer of property to the temple" (_*Rieneker F., Mayer G.*_ Brockhaus Bible Encyclopedia. 1994).

Finding it difficult to explain how the Hebrew word "sacrifice" turned into Greek _*temple treasures*_, I note that in the Gospels the word is used in the latter sense, that is, *treasures*, and not *sacrifice*. That’s firstly. But secondly needs to be expanded. To ask an unflattering question.

And what, the word _*korbonas *_exists only by itself, in an airless and wordless space? And the German-Slavic karbovans did not exist in the world? And the authors of countless dictionaries do not know from what root, which is related to coinage, these words grow?

Okay, but the Old Russian _*skarb *_in the sense of the *treasury *etymologists also missed? Is this also an ancient Aramaic or Syriac word? Questions, of course, close to rhetorical, but still I would like to hear at least some answer.

And finally, the proverbial *raka*. A fairly famous word due to the personality of the pronouncer:
"And I say to you, anyone who is angry with his brother is guilty to the court: if he utters to his brother: raka, he is guilty to the court: and if he also says: urode [freak, bastard], he is guilty to the Gehenna of fire".

It is translated and explained as follows: "Raka (Matt. V, 22) (a Syriac word meaning: empty, unfit man) - this swear word seems to have been in great use among Jews in the time of Jesus Christ and was considered very offensive. For naming the closest ones with the word _*raka*_, there is a greater punishment than for one vain anger against him in the heart, because here anger is not hidden in one’s heart, but breaks out in words offensive to the name and honor of the closest one. The guilty is subject to the Sanhedrin, i.e. the supreme Jewish court" (Bible Encyclopedia).

Yeah, empty man. "Apparently, it was in great use". Science, however, does not know, but there is hope that it will. And how do you, good people, translate this word, if only "apparently" it was in use? On the basis of what sources did you determine the frequency of use? How did you figure out what the Word was Syriac if you can't say exactly what it meant or what its nature was? Eh...

It's not a Syrian word! And not an *empty man*! And it is still used in half of the countries of Europe. True, you won’t be called to the court now, but it is very possible to get slapped in face. French racaille (pronounced: rakay) is *scum, riffraff, bastard*, English rascal (with the same meaning), German Rekel (*rude one*), etc. come from an ancient root, denoting a dog (obsolete English rack, German Rekel, etc.). That is, in the Gospels we are talking about the fact that you should not call your brother a dog (or, as the Latins would say, the canalya - from the Latin canis). Just like that. And no incomprehensible Syrian words with unclear meanings. Call a relative a dog, get public shaming from the elders (court, also the Sanhedrin).

And now there is no Middle Eastern context in sight. And there are the usual Mediterranean landscapes that can be seen from Portugal to Turkey. And there are words and names familiar to a European, but not very clear to Semites. There is a winemaking culture that permeates the gospels but is alien to Israeli history. There are Roman and Greek monetary units of Scripture in the total absence of local (despite the fact that other people's money could not fill the treasury of the Temple!). There are members of the Sanhedrin with Greek names (an unreal fact from the point of view of Judaism), a noble member of this very Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea, who for some reason has a coffin next to the place of executions (did not find a better place?). There is Simon the Cyrenean walking on a festive day for Jews from the field (sic!) and carrying then the cross of Christ, there are the Pharisees who found themselves on the Sabbath (sic!) in the field and condemning Christ and his companions for tearing off wheat. yes, many other interesting things, completely denying the Middle Eastern context of the Gospels.

But if someone still believes that Jesus entered through the city gates into the Arab village of Nain, let him continue to think so. Courtly knights in kimonos have not yet been canceled.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few thoughts that recently visited me:

Among the quotes provided by A. Khrustalyov there was one that talked about Poland and its periphery being Palestine (just compare Polska and Palestine or, even better, Polish + Lithuanian = Palestinian). Now, how does that change the context of crusades against Poland and the Baltic? Is Battle of Grunwald a testament to a failed attempt to move the narrative a bit eastward, so they decided to choose Middle East instead? Is that why right now history of Lithuania is limited to start at the 13th century? The time, around which the Gospel events have taken place (in the framework of this theory of course). 

Also, could the first and only king (karalius) of Lithuania Mindaugas/Mindowg have any relation to Merovech/Merowig?

And the curious fact that Lithuania is supposed to be the last European country that was christianised (14th century).

And another thing - crusaders are called крестоносцы in Russian, which means cross-bearers, but there were knights who were called меченосцы, meaning sword-bearers. They were situated in Livonia and were supposed to conquer Lithuania, but the local swamp-dwellers disintegrated the knights. This kind of mirrors the story of August's legions in Germania. But that's besides the point. See this:



Could it be related to this:



​Connection to the Arthurian legend?


----------



## Seeker (Nov 9, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> *Nor is it revealed in the case of the famous Jerusalem bath of Bethesda, which was located next to the Sheep's Gate. It is believed that in this place the Savior healed a weakened person (the episode is described in John, 5:1-16). And here is how Eusebius of Caesarea saw this place: "Bethesda is a bath in Jerusalem, it is also called Sheep’s, which in ancient times had five narthexes; and is now shown in the two pools there, of which one is filled with annual rains, the other has miraculously painted red water, showing, as they say, the trace of the sacrifices who were washed in it, which is why it is called Sheep’s, because of the sacrifices*".
> 
> But from the modern critical bell tower, everything is seen not so rosy and symbolic. Here is an excerpt from Mark Abramovich's “Jesus, the Jew from Galilee”:
> ... at the Sheep's Gate there was a market for the sale of sacrificial animals: it was called the "Sheep Market". The people here really crowded, but they did not wait for healing in the waters of the pool, but for the levites, who washed future sacrifices from the dirt, for a dirty animal could not be led to the Temple. People never plunged into the pool, because for people it was unclean! Indeed, many sacrifices were made in the Jerusalem Temple. Every day hundreds of animals were washed from the mud in this pool. You can imagine what kind of water there was in it! This pool has never been a bath. As for the legend of the "disturbance of the waters by the Angel of the Lord", it was in a completely different place, in the south-western part of the city, and this legend is connected with the source of Tikhon. The Jewish king Hizkiahu (Hezekiah), fearing an Invasion by the Assyrians, took a number of steps to prepare the city for a long siege. Among other measures, he decided to divert the spring water through an underground tunnel to the city. The tunnel was built from two sides. Both groups of workers met at a point that can be identified today. The total length of the tunnel is 533 meters, and it ends with the Schilloach basin (the famous Siloam bath). This significant event is mentioned in the Bible. In the Second Book of Kings it is written: "... He made a pond and a conduit and led the water into the city". The water in the tunnel seemed to pulsate - first arrived, then decreased. At the right time for the townspeople, it rose, as if facilitating access to water for those in need. People said that it was the angel of the Lord who raised the water. These two pools are located at different ends of the city and were intended for different purposes, but neither of them served as a bath."
> ...



So, some of these comments about Bethesda and baths and so on got me thinking....

Here in the UK, we have a place literally called Bath. So named because of the famous and ancient Roman baths that were built here. I decided to jump on Google maps and have a look around.

I started between the Roman baths and Bath Abbey, I had my eyes open for any architecture that might have some relevance to sheep or a gate... anything interesting at all really.

As I came around to the back of the Baths on York Street, I saw this:













So.... Roman Baths. A large arch - it is not too much of a stretch to imagine this would have held a large gate. And carvings... at least two of those are definitely Rams or Sheep. There are carvings bordering (closest to) the arch, left and right, front and back. Those are also definitely Rams or Sheep.
So.... Sheeps gate?

Bath Abbey is literally just around the corner. The Temple?

Edit - Also, just beyond the archway, and behind the wall on the left, is a large basin/bath, it is outdoor and therefore could be considered to be filled by 'annual rains'.

I dont know much else about the history - I do believe they were said to be good for you or have some legend about healing power. Im not sure about anything along the lines of red water, or sheep sacrifices, and I dont know enough about architecture in terms of 'Narthexes' to draw any conclusions about that. But I wonder if it merits any further digging by someone with more knowledge of such things?

Further edit - some interesting info on this page - Roman Baths (Bath) - Wikipedia - Also, this page claims that the baths themselves were a temple, or housed a temple.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 9, 2021)

Seeker said:


> View attachment 13603


Interesting find. This picture is strange though, first century Romans in Britain? The closest thing I can think of is Julius Caesar's campaign, maybe its tourist bait? I wonder if there is anything like this in Paris


----------



## Seeker (Nov 9, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Interesting find. This picture is strange though, first century Romans in Britain? The closest thing I can think of is Julius Caesar's campaign, maybe its tourist bait? I wonder if there is anything like this in Paris


I'm quite sure the baths themselves, and the architecture are genuine. The inscription itself may of course be tourist bait, as you say.

However, I am no expert - I just had a look around out of curiosity, and was surprised to see something that fit the Bethesda description, and thought I would share it.

Also, I attempted to translate the roman/greek (whatever it is), and came up with Ariston Men Udor.... This was a first for me, I've never tried to decipher ancient languages before, and was pleasantly surprised to discover that I was actually very close to being correct.

It is actually _Áriston mèn hýdōr_. - meaning 'Greatest however is water'.

One other thing, on the subject of Jerusalem - The following poem by William Blake (and did those feet, in ancient time), which later became a Hymn (Jerusalem):

And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?


And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire.

I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

Blake refers to Jeruslam as something that can be built, rather than a geographical place or location.

No idea if it is relevant, but it is interesting.

I noticed in one of your earlier posts, the suggestion was made that Jerusalem might be Paris. Due to my post above about Bethesda/Bath, I wondered if Jerusalem might be something to do with Britain instead. Or perhaps the entire Roman Empire.

Based on the Blake poem, perhaps it is something else entirely.

Edit - I would like to add that the correlation between Israel and France is very compelling, and what was said about possible locations and events in Paris are very compelling too. I'm not trying to distract from that. Those ideas make much more sense to me than things taking place in the middle east. I am just throwing some ideas and possible connections around.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 9, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Connection to the Arthurian legend?



I don't think so. The sword was in a stone or in an anvil on top of a stone depending upon which version of the legend you come across. Swords were often used to mark the graves of fallen soldiers.



Sasyexa said:


> This picture is strange though, first century Romans in Britain?



According to the mainstream:

"Britain was part of the Roman empire from AD 43 to 410." _Source_


----------



## Seeker (Nov 9, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Interesting find. This picture is strange though, first century Romans in Britain? The closest thing I can think of is Julius Caesar's campaign, maybe its tourist bait? I wonder if there is anything like this in Paris


There are Roman Baths in Paris too.... apparently called 'Thermes de Cluny' - I am having a wander round on google maps right now. Will report back if I see anything that might indicate a 'Sheepgate'

Edit - so far, nothing that really caught my eye.... there was an arched gateway to the Cluny museum near the back of the baths, but I couldnt see anything sheep related on or around it.

I did some searches online, and all I could really find was the Paschal Lamb in St Francis Xavier church, but this is an interior dome, and I'm not sure if it really fits the description. It is somewhat local to the baths though.

Interestingly, Notre Dame is actually quite a bit closer.

Overall, I'd say the one in Bath UK fits the description much better.... but it doesnt necessarily mean a thing. It could just be coincidental. Maybe the Thermes de Cluny is a fit, but I just couldnt find the 'Sheepsgate', or maybe that architecture doesnt exist anymore. 

Maybe the texts refer to a different place entirely.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 9, 2021)

Seeker said:


> Blake refers to Jerusalem as something that can be built, rather than a geographical place or location


I've seen an interesting suggestion here in the comments that 'Jerusalem' may be related to 'Ярмарка' which means a fair or a festival. In English it would be Year-sale.
For example, Kaunas has an annual fair called "Hanzos dienos" (Days of Hansa), which celebrates the city's connection to Hanseatic league. Perhaps wherever the traders would go, they would found these Jerusalem cities? Could be, perhaps there is another explanation for the name.



Will Scarlet said:


> According to the mainstream:
> 
> "Britain was part of the Roman empire from AD 43 to 410." _Source_


My bad, I forgot about this. However, the new question arises - how long does it take to build something like this?



Will Scarlet said:


> I don't think so. The sword was in a stone or in an anvil on top of a stone depending upon which version of the legend you come across. Swords were often used to mark the graves of fallen soldiers.


Still, there's something unclear about those symbols. Are they just reappearances of something geometrically simple, yet fundamental. Or do they point to a single event?




The ones who lived in the territory of modern Egypt are said to have been Christian (I think it was here). It may also relate to a tradition of bending the swords of your fallen comrades.




Related to the excerpt about Nicolas Flamel?






Cross of Saint Peter and coat of arms of Zdehovice​Honourable mention - swastika.



Seeker said:


> Thermes de Cluny


It's in ruins, but, it seems to me, it could have had five narthexes. The arch shouldn't necessarily be with sheep symbolism. But yes, it could be anywhere.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 10, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> However, the new question arises - how long does it take to build something like this?



"Archaeological evidence indicates that the site of the baths may have been a centre of worship used by Celts; the springs were dedicated to the goddess Sulis, whom the Romans identified with Minerva. Geoffrey of Monmouth in his largely fictional Historia Regum Britanniae describes how the spring was discovered by the pre-Roman British king Bladud who built the baths there."

"may have been a centre of worship used by Celts" = not Roman at all.

"largely fictional" is typical of the mainstream Geoffrey bashing that goes on when what's in his book doesn't fit with their narrative.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 10, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Sulis


Maybe it's related to the Lithuanian word "_šulinys_" (a well)? There's quite a few related words as well - "_šaltinis_" (source/spring), "_sultys_" (juice), "_šaltas_" (cold (adj.)), "_šalis_" (country), "_šilas_" (pine forest). Maybe even "_saulė_" (sun).


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 11, 2021)

Another excerpt from chapter 6 and the chapter 9:

*Herod the Great*

Herod the Ascalonite. This is how the same villain who is notable for the massacre of babies is sometimes called (not to be confused with Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great). Because this character was born, it is believed, in Ascalon. Only here it is curious in which of the two. Middle Eastern, which existed until the XIII century, and then - chyu-chyu, evaporated? Maybe, maybe. Only the existence of this Ascalon is a big question. After all, since time immemorial, until 1948, this Arab city was called El Majdal. And it is only possible to establish an approximate connection between it and the ancient Ascalon, given the gaping absence of documents of the vague Middle Ages.

The Spanish city of Escalona, located near Toledo, has always bore this name. It is believed that the Spaniards either transferred the biblical name to themselves, or simply used the Latin word scala. Given the geographical location of the settlement and its rich history, both explanations are digestible.

But the Italian city of Ascoli (not Ascalona, of course, but after all, Ascalonite can be a name for a resident of this city) did not change its name, and as Ascoli was, so it remained. By the way, it is located in the very province of Marche, where Scariotto, the hometown of Judas, is located. And surround the ancient Ascoli three mountains with wonderful names: Mount of Ascension, Mount of St. Mark and Flower Mountain. For the completeness of the picture, only the Mount of Olives is missing. Though... why missing?! In Italy and France, there are enough toponyms of this kind. And Montolivo, and Montoliva, and Olive are quite common placenames in the territory of the former Gauls. Who knows if these exact places were meant in the Gospels. Because the Israeli "Mount of Olives" is more like a cemetery than an olive-teeming hill. And, it seems, the burial place there was from the ancient times.


[understand pascha as easter]
*Chapter 9. The Three Measurements of Pascha*​
There are some strange verses in the Gospel of John. Those, where the evangelist reports the approach of the Judean Pascha (for example, John 2:13, 6:4, 11:55). It would seem, what Pascha could there be in those days? A Christian holiday with this name did not yet exist, and could not exist, and there is no other Pascha in the official history of civilization. Then how do we understand John's clarification that the Pascha was Judean?

Theoretically, there can be two explanations. The first and simplest: the Gospel of John was creatively corrected by later scribes who lived at a time when there were already two (three, four) Paschas. And the second, less obvious: in the time of Christ there was already more than one holiday with the name "Pascha".

With the first explanation, everything is more or less clear. Let's try to figure out whether the second one has any grounds.

Let's start with the name of the holiday. If we are talking about the Jewish celebration that the Almighty passed the Jewish firstborns, destroying all the other firstborns of Egypt, then it is called Pesah. Which in translation from Hebrew into modern languages means "bypassed, passed, passed by". Leaving out the strangeness of the name (have you ever heard of a holiday that is described by a verb?), we note that the Hebrew verb of many thousands of years ago somehow strikingly resembles the modern English _pass_ with exactly the same meaning, the French _passer_ (with the same meaning), the Italian _passo_ (step, passage), and the Russian _пеший/пешком_ (on foot). Well, come on, let's not get into the linguistic jungle. Let’s note only that the ancient Hebrew word could theoretically turn out to be not so ancient and, to put it mildly, not necessarily Semitic (Latin with its cheerful _passus_ has not yet been canceled). So, the Jews seemed to be celebrating an amazing holiday called Passed. And as if about this feast the evangelist John tells us, telling about the last earthly days of Christ.

But now the bloody Pesah ended, Christ was resurrected after three days, as promised, and the apostles went through the world to carry the good news of the death and resurrection of the Son of God. And they established a holiday in honor of this significant event and called it ... called it... Pascha Passed?! Is it how it’s supposed to be understood? That is, the Jews crucified Christ, and His followers decided to call the bright feast of the Resurrection with the Hebrew word, which was associated with the execution and suffering of the Son of Man? Well, everything, of course, happens, and perverted logic also has the right to exist, but not to the same wild degree. This is akin to calling a boy in May 1945, born in the USSR, Adolf, maybe even worse than that. And the followers of Jesus kind of took it and swallowed it. And rubbed themselves with it, and rejoiced, and to the delight of Anna, Caiaphas, Herod and other kind and sympathetic people, they assigned their holiday the memorable name of Pesah. And since it is not necessary to suspect the first apostles of subtle sarcasm or a sense of humor permeating their entire being, we must admit that the feast Passed in honor of the resurrection of Christ looks somehow unconvincing, especially after this fate has not passed Him.

And in the Acts of the Apostles we find direct confirmation that the true name of the Christian holiday was somewhat different, not corresponding in meaning to the Jewish Pesah-passed. The Apostle Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians declares: " Пасха наша за ны пожрен бысть Христос" (In the modern translation, as is usually the case, something has been lost, and the meaning has changed somewhat, but the identification of Christ with Pascha remains: "Our Pascha, Christ, is slain for us".) And is anyone now ready, without batting an eyelid, to claim that the Apostle Paul calls Christ by the name of Passed?

If you think about the meaning of Paul's phrase, it becomes clear that we are talking about something completely incomparable with the town showdown in which the Jewish firstborns survived. And the fathers-interpreters of the Gospel texts realized this no worse than you and me. Having understood that it would not be possible to pass Christ from this phrase as the one who passed the Egyptian execution, the translators of the Bible from the apostolic language into the human language proposed to assume that we are talking here about a lamb who was slain for the sins of people. That is, the Jewish tradition of eating lamb on Pesah was neatly woven into the fabric of the Christian narrative, although Christ was far from being a bleating lamb, no matter how much one would like to present the case in this way. So, the most banal falsification occurred: the word pascha was attributed to a completely unusual meaning and with this meaning was launched into a semantic voyage.

And what about Paul and his phrase about Pascha-Christ? Is it the apostle's fault that his words have to be interpreted all the time? Oh, hardly, oh, hardly. In addition, Paul, as a Jew by birth and upbringing, understood the meaning of the word "Pesah" well. It is unlikely that he could have given Christ the name of the day in which he was ridiculed, spat upon, slandered, betrayed, undeservedly condemned and shamefully crucified. Paul's words about Christ are sublime, not lowly humiliation. So what is Pascha in the context of Pavloapostol discourse? I suspect that Paul did not create his epistles in Hebrew, the very existence of which in ancient times is extremely doubtful. But Greek, Latin, or Slavic may well have been the languages in which Paul preached. However, which of these three languages the apostle used is not essential, for in all three we can easily find the answer to the question of what exactly Paul wanted to say, equating Christ with Pascha. For the purity of the experiment, let us turn first to Latin and Greek, so that evil critics do not say that we seek to see the Slavic trace in everything and neglect classical knowledge. So what do we have in Latin? And in Latin we have an absolutely clear picture. If this language was used in the original Corinthians, Paul's phrase takes on a deep and clear meaning. For the Latin *pascua* means nothing more than *pasture*. And the word pascalis means grazing (hello to all paschalia counters!). Pascuum is just *food, (and all the same) pasture*. And finally, pastor is a *shepherd*. And then it is clear what Paul is talking about to the slow in thought and heart, which did not realize that instead of the lamb, the good shepherd Christ was eaten. And the metaphor becomes logical and complete. It turns out that the spiritual shepherd (or spiritual food) Christ was slain for our sins. Not even slain, but *devoured*, as was murderously accurately translated in the Gospel in Old Church Slavonic. Period. That’s all there is to it. And we do not need to reinvent the wheel to weave in some payoted lamb, the eating of which, by the way, was not a sin, but on the contrary: strictly prescribed on the night of Pesah.

But if Paul wrote in Greek, the meaning of the word *pascha *becomes even more obvious. For the Greek *paschein* simply means *suffering*. And it is in this vein that most of the early Christians seem to have understood this. Origen writes about this directly, reporting on the disagreements over the word *pascha *between Jews and Christians: "If one of us says hastily that Pascha is called so because of the suffering of the Savior, as they begin to laugh at this person, as someone who does not understand the meaning of this word, while they themselves are convinced that, as Jews, they interpret the name correctly". But it is hardly possible to catch Origen in a misunderstanding, and he obviously fully shared the point of view that Pascha was so named because of the sufferings of Christ.

So, the Christian Pascha is so named either because of the direct association of Christ with suffering (the Greek-speaking part of the faithful), or with his pastoralism (latin version). Now it's time to go back to John's words about the Judean Pascha. The Christian understanding of the pascha does not yet exist, but John still clarifies that the feast was Jewish, and not some other. So maybe John still knows that some other Pascha is being celebrated, with which the Jewish one is mixed?

And here again the Latin version can help us. After all, if you think about it, both in terms of the time of celebrations and in its meaning, the Jewish Pesah is a normal agricultural holiday that opens, as they say, the season of field work. Hence the tradition of sacrificing the lamb, and the countdown of Omer (49 days from the sacrifice of barley omer to the sacrifice of wheat omer), which begins exactly in Pesah, and so on. Therefore, most likely, the usual agricultural holiday, called in Latin the Pasture Festival (Raesia), was first creatively reinterpreted by the great and undefeatable (and who needed to defeat them?) Jewish people as Pesah (true, it sounded crooked and unnatural, but its a holiday, homespun and "kinda historical"). And the celebrations continued almost in parallel. Well, just like us: to whom the day of the Great October Socialist Revolution, to whom - People's Accord and Reconciliation. And so, the Latin feast of pastures was RaBsia (раб/rab means slave) No. 1 (something like Roman cereals, celebrated just in mid-April the same eight days as Pesah in the Jewish diaspora), and the Jewish Pesah - Pascha No. 2. Obviously, this is what John meant when he spoke of the approach of the Jewish Pascha, which differed in detail from the Latin pagan festival in honor of the goddess of fertility Ceres. And since the true gospel events unfolded anywhere, but not in today's Palestine, this clarification was by no means superfluous for readers.

And here we have all the same two paths. The first, banal: to agree that the Gospels were written when there was really more than one pascha, and not to look for a black cat in a dark room. The second, more complex, is to imagine that the Christian Pascha has nothing to do with the holiday of Pesah and in no way follows from it. Neither the first nor the second option is unconditional, but the first gives a simple and clear solution, and the second leads to new questions. The answers to which can lead so far that it is scary to imagine.

And what if it turns out that the pagan Pilate was really a man with a subtle spiritual organization, who did not want the death of Christ?

What if it turns out that Toldot Yeshu is not lying when he says that the first Pope Peter (the same one who renounced three times) was a secret supporter of the Jews?

And suddenly the coincidences are not accidental and... the color of the caps doesn't matter?


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 11, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Maybe it's related to the Lithuanian word "_šulinys_"



I suppose pre-Noroman Britain was awash with Lithuanians at that time.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 11, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> I suppose pre-Noroman Britain was awash with Lithuanians at that time.


Could be, Lithuanian origin is ambiguous at best. I'm suggesting a Celtic connection.

I haven't explored it in detail, but, apparently, there's a lot of research saying that the original population of the Baltic was Eesti: The Estonian (Aestii) Continuity through Millennia. Эстонский язык и культура неотъемлемы от Аэстиев


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 11, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> I'm suggesting a Celtic connection.



What does 'Celtic' mean and where does the term come from? Don't worry, that was a rhetorical question only, meant to suggest that the whole 'Celtic' identity thing is no more certain than anything else.

Does it mean people who play bagpipes? People who eat with spoons? People who can whistle backwards? Etc...


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 11, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> What does 'Celtic' mean and where does the term come from?


Maybe from the word Galatian?

_P.S._ Very much related: France - Biblical Israel


----------



## usselo (Nov 11, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> What does 'Celtic' mean and where does the term come from? Don't worry, that was a rhetorical question only, meant to suggest that the whole 'Celtic' identity thing is no more certain than anything else.
> 
> Does it mean people who play bagpipes? People who eat with spoons? People who can whistle backwards? Etc...


Does its root 'Celt' even refer to people?

Does 'Celt' mean 'killed'?

Does 'Celt' mean 'A quarrying, construction and military wrecking tool'?

Perhaps the legendary 'Shamir':


> ...which was said to have been able to cut and shape stone with ease.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 11, 2021)

usselo said:


> Does 'Celt' mean 'A military wrecking tool'?


Interesting suggestion. In Russian there is a word колоть/kolot' which means to stab/to kill. In Lithuanian there is a word kalavijas (sword), which is related to the word kalvis (a smith). The Celts are supposed to be famous for their metallurgy skills. 

Speaking of excellent metallurgists: Scythians allegedly called themselves _Skolotoi, _which is associated with the word сокол/sokol (falcon).
People of the word, cross, sun, sword and birds, all throughout Eurasia? What's the etymology of the word Mu*ghal*?


----------



## usselo (Nov 11, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Interesting suggestion. In Russian there is a word колоть/kolot' which means to stab/to kill. In Lithuanian there is a word kalavijas (sword), which is related to the word kalvis (a smith). The Celts are supposed to be famous for their metallurgy skills.


Interesting connections. Iron-bearing chalybeate  springs are associated in England with old locations and medicinal spa-baths.

From that _On the Use of Bronze Celts_ PDF:



_Blade? Or beam? __Image source_


_"Its use is entirely a matter of conjecture." __Source_​



Your browser is not able to display this video.



_"Anything about these images that jumps out to you?" Source: __Westworld S01 Ep07_


----------



## matematik (Nov 11, 2021)

In the UK the term "Celt" seems to mean "not Anglo-Saxon". It's quite common to hear historians use the term "Romano-Celt", implying that even the Romans were "basically Celts". A way of saying "Well the Romans weren't Anglo-Saxon, so who's splitting hairs right?".

In fact even the French are basically considered "Celts", which is why they're often referred to as "Gallic".


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 12, 2021)

matematik said:


> It's quite common to hear historians use the term "Romano-Celt", implying that even the Romans were "basically Celts"



Yes, twaddle like that is on the increase lately. We also have 'Indo-European', which began as a language group, but now refers to a racial type. Soon it will be Indo-Eurasian or something equally daft to conform with the 'melting-pot' agenda.

I have heard it said the 'Celt' was a term used by those within the Noroman Empire to refer to those who were not. Like 'Sassenach' means outsider in Scots, but has now come to mean English.

Too late! Indo Eurasian


----------



## Safranek (Nov 16, 2021)

usselo said:


> Does its root 'Celt' even refer to people?


I'll offer a another alternative meaning to Celt, occasionally written as Kelt or Kelti.

In Old Hungarian Script only the first vowel is written if subsequent vowels are the same. I'll give two examples to the possible meaning from that possible origin;

Kelt - risen (but unlikely as this is the past tense of the word Kel - rise)
Kelet - East
Keleti - Eastern

So according to Hungarian etymology, the Celts were Easterners = Scythians.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 16, 2021)

Safranek said:


> occasionally written as Kelt or Kelti



Never seen it written like that ever in my life.

Do you have an example of Celts being spoken about as 'Kelts' in Old Hungarian script?


----------



## usselo (Nov 16, 2021)

Safranek said:


> I'll offer a another alternative meaning to Celt, occasionally written as Kelt or Kelti.
> 
> In Old Hungarian Script only the first vowel is written if subsequent vowels are the same. I'll give two examples to the possible meaning from that possible origin;
> 
> ...


OK, throwing in another...

In Britain, the place names "Cold Harbour" and "Coldharbour" are quite common. There are "hundreds" according to W Smythe below. The "Harbour" is easy to derive but the "Cold" is not. There are also place names like "Cold Kitchen Hill", "Cold this..." and "Cold that...".

Some examples of "Cold+Harbour":
Cold Harbour Gate in London
Mag's Well, Coldharbour Wood, Surrey

Explanations:

'On the Designation of Cold Harbour' - W Smythe. Comments on how Cold+Harbours may occur where Roman routes meet rivers and/or native settlements. To save you the download and scrolling, Smythe's chapter is attached to this post. It is taken from the long PDF at: Archaeologia, Or, Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity
The meaning of 'Coldharbour' - Vincent Rendel
The Place Name 'Coldharbour' - Tim Healey (and attached)
Cold Harbour - Some Views on its Derivation - Various
Notices of Cold Harbour, Croydon - CW Johnson
Based on the most common features of "Cold Harbour" noted by these writers, they seem associated with known or suitable collection, watering and resting places for farm animals during animal transportation. What we call "lairage" today. Or, in US English, a 'lay-up'.

If you accept that 'celt' is related to - or derived from - the same root as 'kalt' and 'cold', then it is feasible that our word 'celt' once had a meaning that hovered around 'killed' or 'culled'. Not definite but feasible.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 16, 2021)

A few more - the word Chaldean (pronounced Kaldean). There was a link somewhere, where Sumerians were identified with Chaldeans, which makes them contemporary to Greeks (Hellenes?).

Speaking of Hellenes - the Tartarus is hell. Could the word Tartaria be just a code word for the Asian extension of the Gallic (Hellenic, Galatian, Celtic etc) Belt:
SH Archive - Tartaria: formerly known as Scythia
SH Archive - Tartar or Tatar?

P.S.
And even more of a stretch - (h)Alaska?
SH Archive - 16th century Tartarian King Tartarrax ruled Quivira Regnum in North America


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 16, 2021)

I'm not on par with the thread, but since we are talking about Celts I would like to understand why we use this word, first and foremost. As far as I know this is a Greek word (_Keltoi_) and its Latin equivalent was _Gauls_. There was apparently no doubt about it.
Fun fact is that Greeks (aka Byzantines aka Romans/Romaioi) actually called the French with that same term Keltoi during the 'middle-ages'. It seems to me that France took its name from the Ile-de-France and not the other way around. There are multiple maps and king titles referring to that country as Gaul, not France.
So I would say that the word Celt is a late addition to the vocabolary, unless someone can prove me wrong, and I bet some coins on the introduction of this word via the Greek 'revival' happening during the Renaissance and the beginning of the so-called 'modern era'.
Therefore I would be much more interested in understanding the origin of the word Gaul, which I think is more 'true' to the real identity of modern French people.
I would also be particularly interested in how/when/who the word _Celtic _was introduced in the English vocabolary. Are the Irish manuscripts talking of Celts? Of Gauls? Or they talk about Irish? Or maybe they were written in Latin and so they talk about Hibernians... is it right? And the Welsh? What was their name? In any case I suspect that the word _Celtic _was a late addition. But maybe I'm wrong and some of you can tell me how things really are... possibly with some documentation from some _*primary sources*_


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 16, 2021)

Wish I could remember where I read the article or who the author was but nevertheless the author argued for Celts being a product of Victorian historical revisions used to support colonisation narratives for the British Isles. Wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if he is on the money.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 16, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Wish I could remember where I read the article or who the author was but nevertheless the author argued for Celts being a product of Victorian historical revisions used to support colonisation narratives for the British Isles. Wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if he is on the money.


I partially agree with you. I agree that it was some sort of late add to the vocabolary, but I don't know anything about local Irish/Welsh/British traditions, language and books, so maybe I'm wrong. But if you say so than I'm probably right.
What I don't understand/agree is the colonisation part, since it's obvious that the word _Celt _was just a synonym for _Gaul,_ so why not talking about Gaulish Britain and Ireland? Why using a Greek word instead of the word actually used by French to describe themselves during the middle-ages/antiquity? I'm not pretending an impossible answer!


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 16, 2021)

Thought I'd posted it here but no. SH Archive - History of Britain as told in the British Records

Sorry I know not the motives of the revisionists but would guess that is a burying of truth akin to abandoning Khumry as a label for a people and inventing or adopting a new one in this case Welsh. I often wonder what language Gauls spoke though never figured it out. I also wonder if there was a universal language back in the day that acted in the same way English does today and its abandonment is what led to this threads and others in that the bibles locations could be applied to many places. Wilson and Blackett make a very convincing argument that the star map of the holy land is encoded geograhically in features on the land of Wales and phonetically in place and site names.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 16, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> I often wonder what language Gauls spoke though never figured it out


The second part in the OP, chapter 13 and chapter 18 might give some clue into that


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 16, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> And during the Renaissance, the strange Franks for some reason began to associate the word "Gaul" with the word "rooster" and even made the latter a symbol of Gaul, not realizing that this is just an homonymy of gallus (in Latin means both a Gaul and a rooster).





Sasyexa said:


> To begin with, let's turn to Fasmer's dictionary and find in it the Old Russian word *гологолить* (gologolit‘): "to talk", Old Slavonic глаголъ (glagol) "word", глаголати "to speak", Czech hlahol "talk, speech", hlaholiti "to sound, to proclaim".
> 
> The double root seems to be related to the word голос (voice) and Middle Irish gall "glory; swan", Cymraeg galw "to call", Old Icelandic kalia "to call, to sing", Upper-Middle German kaizen, kelzen "to talk, to boast"; see Thorpe 41; Elquist 1, 435; Holthausen, Awn. Wb. 148; Berneker 1, 323; Meye - Vayan 31. A comparison with the Old Indian gargaras "type of a musical instrument" or Old Indian ghargharas "thundering, gurgling, noise" (see Berneker 1, 320; Meyer, Et. 229) is doubtful, because here “g” is of Indo-European origin, as in the Greek γαργαρίζω "gurgle". Hardly a better comparison with the Old Icelandic gala "to sing" (see галдётъ и галитъся), as well as with Armenian gai. galium "strepito, susurro" (from *ghl-ghl-); see Petersson, ArArmSt. 99.





Sasyexa said:


> Ukrainian голос, Belarusian голас, Old Slavonic гласъ φωνη, Bulgarian гласът, Serbo-Croatian niâc, Slovenian glâs, Czech. hlas, Polish glos, Upper-Sorbian hiös, Lower-Sorbian gîos. || Formation of -so is similar to Lithuanian garsas "sound", Old Indian bhäsä "speech, language", Lithuanian balsas "voice": bilti "to speak|| Middle Ossetian yalas "voice" (Hubschman, Osset. Et. 33), further, Old Icelandic kalia "to shout, to speak", Irish gall (*galno-) "famous", Cymraeg galw "to call, to summon"; see Fortunatov, AfslPh 4, 578; Berneker 1, 323; Trautman, BSW 77; Thorpe 42; Meyer, MSL 14, 373; Persson 852 (according to which, correlation to Latin gallus "rooster"; against see Walde - Hofm. 1, 580 and pp.); Stokes 107. Next, here is нагал "password".
> 
> Fasmer was unable not to point out the kinship of the Russian golos and the Latin gallus (rooster). This was above his Germanophilia and Russophobia.
> 
> Let's remember this magnificent passage and open the dictionary of Dahl, who wrote that the голосовик (golosovik) is "a bird with a good, loud voice; vocal."


I have to say that this is an _extremely _good explanation.
Today I'm not going further with the reading though. There are some things I don't necessarily agree upon but this explanation above made my day.


----------



## Safranek (Nov 16, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Never seen it written like that ever in my life.
> 
> Do you have an example of Celts being spoken about as 'Kelts' in Old Hungarian script?



It was over a decade ago since I read that quote and I can try and find it again, but the one mentioned by Silveryou comes very close below:



Silveryou said:


> As far as I know this is a Greek word (_Keltoi_) and its Latin equivalent was _Gauls_. There was apparently no doubt about it.



Its difficult to pinpoint where and how words were actually originated as we can see that many languages share much etymology. Personally, I don't accept the current academically accepted language groupings as many linguists have mixed opinions on the matter outside of the mainstream (and even inside). 

As I previously mentioned, the Scythians were probably of one language with various dialects and I suspect that the many so-called loan words were not loan-words at all but were the remnants of the original language.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 17, 2021)

Safranek said:


> the one mentioned by Silveryou comes very close



Except it meant 'Gauls' not 'Eastern'.



Safranek said:


> Its difficult to pinpoint where and how words were actually originated



These days most people seem to be using a new version of The Name Game to make words fit with their particular agenda.



Silveryou said:


> I don't know anything about local Irish/Welsh/British traditions, language and books, so maybe I'm wrong.





Will Scarlet said:


> Cymru is the name of Wales in the Welsh language. In Latin it was Cambria - almost Sicambria.



The Irish spoke Old Irish which became Scottish, Irish and Manx Gaelic in the 13th century. Presumably the Gaels of Scotland just didn't speak to each other at all before that. The pre-Noroman British spoke Brythonic/Brittonic with regional dialects, such as Welsh and Cornish. The Brythonic language was also spoken in Brittany (France) and Northern Spain. The Welsh spoke Brythonic until it evolved into Old Welsh. The few texts and manuscripts that weren't transcribed by the Christian monks from oral sources were mostly in Old Welsh, or Gaelic in the case of Ireland. I don't think anything survives written in Brythonic, but I'd like to be wrong about that. Pre-Christianity, everything was oral, if you'll pardon the expression, meaning the bards would remember and recite all the events pertaining to their particular locale. That's the official line on it all anyway.


----------



## Safranek (Nov 17, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Except it meant 'Gauls' not 'Eastern'.



I don't think any of us can say for certain what it 'meant', hence this discussion. But if you consider what else Silveryou stated here;



Silveryou said:


> Fun fact is that Greeks (aka Byzantines aka Romans/Romaioi) actually called the French with that same term Keltoi during the 'middle-ages'.



then the 'meaning' Eastern would equally apply to both as they were all considered to be Scythians.

This is from an earlier post of mine;

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 3rd Edition, Volume 8, Pg. 713

















Which is partly true, but not entirely, as there was nothing to subdue because its a fact that the 'tribes' who came from the east were NOT coming to subdue Pannonia, but to protect it from the increasing invasion of the 'Romans'. Of course, this is not the version being taught in history class. 

Source: 

Tartary is Memory-Holed Because it is Key to Understanding the Bible, End Times


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 17, 2021)

The modern translation seems to match too:
Google Переводчик


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 18, 2021)

Safranek said:


> Which is partly true,



Partly true? This is all attributed to "*The compilers of the Universal Hiftory*" and these are exactly the people we have to thank for the complete and utter mess we have now. It exhibits exactly the same traits as have been discussed in this thread and the Arch of Glory one - the necessity to justify and validate their agenda and authority by demonstrating lineages from fictional, imaginary or non-human characters, which is hardly surprising as most of that edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica was edited and written by Christian priests.


----------



## Safranek (Nov 18, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> which is hardly surprising as most of that edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica was edited and written by Christian priests.



I think it should be obvious by now that none of the posters in this forum accept academic sources to be accurate, though we all agree on the fact that certain truths have remained in some of them.

There are two points worthy of considering regarding this matter;

1.  The censorship was not as thorough and perfected as it is in today's academia and thereby more of the true research slipped into the mainstream.

2.  It was harder to lie about the times which for the people of the 18th century was much more in the recent past than for us, since they've had an extra 200+ years since then to muddy the waters.

Considering these, I find those older sources reveal much more accurate information than recent ones. I took the time to go through some of the different versions of said encyclopaedia all of which I downloaded from archive.org and compared them. Upon doing this tedious task for many entries, one can get a grasp on the amount of editing, obscuring and falsifying that had occurred.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 18, 2021)

Safranek said:


> though we all agree on the fact that certain truths have remained in some of them.


No I don't. It's just as likely it's all invented.
Speaking or in this case writing for others as though there is a collective consensus is not what this site is about.
The academic populace thrive in collective consensus.

What is crystal to me is there is no repeatable tried and tested markers or method that can be used to determine firstly the authenticity of the document or artefact nor its content. Until such a thing is developed and tested beyond reasonable doubt its just endless speculation and opinion.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 18, 2021)

Safranek said:


> There are two points worthy of considering regarding this matter;



I strongly disagree with both of them.

Consider the name of Galicia, another allegedly Indo-European Celtic settlement in the furthest *Westerly* point of Europe or Finisterre - the end of the earth. Allegedly derives from the Latin toponym Callaecia, later Gallaecia, which is claimed to relate to the name of an ancient tribe that resided north of the Douro river, the Gallaeci or Callaeci in Latin, or *Kallaikói* (καλλαικoι) in Greek. The Douro or Duero river doesn't go through Galicia though, so that sounds like cobblers. And, yes, there were Greeks in the Iberian peninsula.

In the 6th century, Isidore of Seville related the name of the Galicians and of the Gauls to the Greek word γάλα, *milk*, 'they are called Galicians because of their fair skin, as the Gauls. For they are fairer than the rest of the peoples of Spain.' By your reckoning he should be telling the God's honest truth because he was much closer to the actual events.

However, today's Wikipedian 'scholars'

"relate the name of the ancient Callaeci either to the Proto-Indo-European *kal-n-H2 'hill', derived through a local relational suffix -aik-, so meaning 'the hill (people)'; or either to Proto-Celtic *kallī- 'forest', so meaning 'the forest (people)'. In either case, Galicia would mean "land of the Kallaikoi", and be unrelated to the Insular Celtic word Gael, which derives from the root *weydʰ- 'wilderness', or to Gallia, which derives from Celtic *galn- 'power, might'. 

"Update It comes from the ancient name of the city of Porto Kala/kale/Cale meaning port/harbour. Also the city its in the origin of the country’s name Portugal. After the Romans toke over they called the city Portus-Cale/Portucale/Portugal which means Port Port in latin and Celtic. Kalã/kale/cale = what is nowadays Porto Kallaikoi/Calaeci/Galicia= people from Kalã/kale/Cale" Source

In other words, they are making it up as they go along on, but making sure it doesn't upset their Indo-European mantra. No mention of 'east' or 'eastern', which is hardly surprising given its location which is, or was, as far west as you could get.

Greek mythology features *Gal*atea, a milky white daughter of the sea, also the word 'galaxy' derives from the same root, i.e. the Milky Way or Via Láctica.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 18, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> I strongly disagree with both of them.
> 
> Consider the name of Galicia, another allegedly Indo-European Celtic settlement in the furthest *Westerly* point of Europe or Finisterre - the end of the earth. Allegedly derives from the Latin toponym Callaecia, later Gallaecia, which is claimed to relate to the name of an ancient tribe that resided north of the Douro river, the Gallaeci or Callaeci in Latin, or *Kallaikói* (καλλαικoι) in Greek. The Douro or Duero river doesn't go through Galicia though, so that sounds like cobblers. And, yes, there were Greeks in the Iberian peninsula.
> 
> ...


I have a slight feeling of deja vu - chapter 13

Have I already mentioned to read it?

_P.S._ It's also a good opportunity to mention the thread From Scythia to Maghreb: Beyond the Phantom Middle Ages especially the thoughts about Cyril


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 18, 2021)

Just doing a "stream of consciousness" thing here, from skimming this thread for the first time, and wondering aloud if any of these associations add up -  Julius Caesar/Jesus Christ, in Gaul/Galilee, Mary Magdalene in Provence, descendants of Jesus/Mary become/marry into the Merovingians with King Clovis, Clovis the first named ancestor of Habsburg Emperor Maximilian I on his Arch of Glory, DNA testing shows the early Habsburgs may be descended from "Celtic" (Gaulish?) warriors.


----------



## Safranek (Nov 18, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> No I don't. It's just as likely it's all invented.
> Speaking or in this case writing for others as though there is a collective consensus is not what this site is about.
> The academic populace thrive in collective consensus.
> 
> What is crystal to me is there is no repeatable tried and tested markers or method that can be used to determine firstly the authenticity of the document or artefact nor its content. Until such a thing is developed and tested beyond reasonable doubt its just endless speculation and opinion.


Ok. You don't.

Many others do think that truths are to be found in many sources, the bible, the vedas (particularly the oldest versions), certain historical records not fitting into the mainstream and 'censored' by them, not to mention information based on archeological excavation with an immense body of documented records that at those times some conscientious scientists had access to before they were removed from the public, and as of recent, the genetic information that is available (but is also being misused to confuse), some of which can shed a light on certain facts when in the right hands.

I am not going through all the quotes in the forum to give such references as if they did not exist, we'd all have given up long ago, instead, I'll only state that I respect that you're entitled to your opinion on this, and we can agree to disagree.



Will Scarlet said:


> By your reckoning he should be telling the God's honest truth because he was much closer to the actual events.



You're taking a general statement and applying it to specifics. I can not comment on that specific example as I haven't studied the sources. I was instead speaking of the WHOLE body of available information.

however, I can offer an alternative possibility for this naming involving milk;



Will Scarlet said:


> In the 6th century, Isidore of Seville related the name of the Galicians and of the Gauls to the Greek word γάλα, *milk*, 'they are called Galicians because of their fair skin, as the Gauls. For they are fairer than the rest of the peoples of Spain.'





Will Scarlet said:


> Greek mythology features *Gal*atea, a milky white daughter of the sea, also the word 'galaxy' derives from the same root, i.e. the Milky Way or Via Láctica.



In the Gesta Hungarorum it is symbolically mentioned that the originators of the Magyars came across the 'trail of the stars' (milky way) and were the descendants of Nimrud (the great hunter, possibly a reference to Orion). This is just one more interpretation available. The Greeks are also likely descendants of the Scythians and hence may have shared in the origin story which probably predates even them along with many other nations formed out of them (the Scythians).

Nothing is written in stone (escept all the ancient stories left to us written in various types of old scripts on 'temple' walls and clay tablets - now mostly unavailable for investigation)  , and we are free to hypothesize based on the available information to each of us.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 19, 2021)

Safranek said:


> In the Gesta Hungarorum it is symbolically mentioned that the originators of the Magyars came across the 'trail of the stars' (milky way) and were the descendants of Nimrud (the great hunter, possibly a reference to Orion). This is just one more interpretation available. The Greeks are also likely descendants of the Scythians and hence may have shared in the origin story which probably predates even them along with many other nations formed out of them (the Scythians).



I must apologise, I thought we were discussing the origins of the words 'celt' and 'gaul'. My mistake.



Sasyexa said:


> I have a slight feeling of deja vu - chapter 13



I must apologise again, I haven't read it. My eyesight has a useful daily limit and your posts usually excede it. Sorry.



Fawkes said:


> DNA testing shows the early Habsburgs may be descended from "Celtic" (Gaulish?) warriors.



I'm not going to apologise for not having any faith whatsoever in DNA testing. Since about 2010ish it has just become another method of manipulating data to fit with agendas, imo.


So then, what if Gaul, Gales, Gallic, Celt, and Kelt all mean White? That won't be allowed, I.m sure.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 19, 2021)

Safranek said:


> then the 'meaning' Eastern would equally apply to both as they were all considered to be Scythians.


I have a hard time thinking it meant Eastern though. I can see how Keltoi and Scythians could be related, but Greek-Roman sources make perfectly clear that Scythians were Slavs, while they talked about Celts as a different people, otherwise they would have simply called them Scythians. Same with Latin where the Celts become Gauls and Scythians are Sclavones.
Now if chronology is incorrect, then the famous 'descent' of Gauls and Galatians into Italy and Greece could just be the arrival of the Franks on the scene. It seems that Celts/Gauls were the French/Western part of the story, and equating them to 'pure' Slavs would be very difficult.
The only possible 'bridge' that comes to my mind is the story told on the _Arch of Maximilian_ and sources like the _Liber Historiae Francorum, _where the Franks/Sicambrians/Cimmerians/Troyans apparently made their way through Pannonia/Austria and finally arrived in France. IF Achilles was a Scythian, then the Franks/Sicambrians/Cimmerians/Troyans would be related to them in some way, even though I think that in that time period the Scythians were not already descended into the Balkans. In any case I totally see a common '''''''Indo-European'''''''' origin

MAAAAAAYBE!!!



Safranek said:


> there was nothing to subdue because its a fact that the 'tribes' who came from the east were NOT coming to subdue Pannonia, but to protect it from the increasing invasion of the 'Romans'.


I don't know about this one. It seems to me that before the insitution of modern history everyone was well acquainted with the arrival of Scythians/Slavs after a Greek-Roman period. Anna Komnene in her _Alexiad_ makes an incredible remark about the Pannonian territory (I'm reporting here from another thread):


> But the Emperor, hitting upon the right plan, abandoned the siege of the citadels (for it was an arduous and lengthy task), left the town and entrenched himself near a stream, *not far from the Ister*, and deliberated whether it would be wise to attack the Scythians. Palæologus and Gregorius Mavrocatacalon were for deferring war with the Patzinaks and advised taking an army and capturing *the large town Pristhlava*. “For,” said they, “if the Scythians see us marching in good order fully accoutred, they will certainly not dare to attack us. And should perchance a few horsemen without chariots risk an engagement, you may be sure they will be worsted, and then in future we shall have *the large town of Pristhlava* as our well-fortified stronghold.” *This important town, which is situated on the Ister, did not always bear this barbaric name, but a Greek one, for it both was, and was called, a great city, namely, Megalopolis.* But from the time that Mocrus, King of the Bulgarians, and his descendants, and finally Samuel, the last of the Bulgarian dynasty (as Zedekiah of the Jewish) overran the West, the town acquired a double name, retaining ‘great’ from the Greek language and adding a Slavic word, and was universally spoken of as “Great Pristhlava.”


In another passage she says (book VII, paragraph II - http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/alexiad_dawes.pdf):


> It has not only one name, for in its upper reaches and near its source it is called the ‘*Danube*,’ whilst in the lower and at its mouths, the ‘*Ister*.’


I wondered for a long time where this Pristhlava was located but I have not reached a conclusion. My first hint was that it is the modern Bratislava, but it apparently took its name only recently (Bratislava - Wikipedia). Historians have recently identified that city with Pereyaslavets (Pereyaslavets - Wikipedia), possibly modern Nufaru (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nufăru). I don't trust historians' perception!
Anna clearly says that Pristhlava was previously a huge city called Megalopolis (meaning in fact 'huge city'). It is entirely possible that the city took another name in the course of time and in that case it could be a well known modern city. In any case Anna tells us that it was located on the Ister: the second lower part of modern Danube. This places ancient Megalopolis on the territory of modern Romania/Bulgaria.
Why am I talking about this? A quick research shows that 'ancient' Megalopolis can ultimately refer only to the Greek Arcadian Megalopolis, the most important of the Greek cities with that name. Fun fact is that modern Megalopolis received its name only in 1836 by Royal decree, its previous (and original) name being *Sinan *(from the greek wiki - https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Μεγαλόπολη#Νεότερα_χρόνια).
But if the true Arcadian Megalopolis was on the Danube, this means that 'ancient'* Arcadia was the Danubian plane*. The Serbian part of this plane is called Pannonian basin (Pannonian Basin - Wikipedia). I find interesting that ancient Arcadia was said to be the home of the god Pan (Arcadia (region) - Wikipedia).
If all of this is true than Italian Rome was founded by Greeks (Hellenes) coming from Arcadia/Pannonia, and more precisely from the city of Pallantium (Pallantium (Arcadia) - Wikipedia):


> It was from this town that Evander of Pallene was said to have led colonists to the banks of the Tiber, and from it the Palatino or Palatine Hill in Rome was reputed to have derived its name.


So I would say that Slavs definitively arrived in a second moment in time, even though thy were distatntly related to Greeks/Romans/Gauls and all the other populations which in my opinion arrived there before.



Safranek said:


> There are two points worthy of considering regarding this matter;
> 
> 1. The censorship was not as thorough and perfected as it is in today's academia and thereby more of the true research slipped into the mainstream.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I almost agree on this one. It seems to me that the oldest verifiable change in the narrative started in Italy during the 14th-15th century through the so-called _humanism _and its 'son', the Renaissance. About the monks transcribing and changing the ancient books I have many doubts. First of all those books were in any case revised and re-published by humanists (who were also men of the Church) and filtered by the invention of movable type. A great number of authentic historical works were probably abandoned and 'lost' in that time period, following which there were burinings of books... probably the same same un-published manuscripts, IMO.
And it is a fact that those christian monks apparently copied pagan works of literature and they also _CARVED THEIR FIGURES IN CHURCHES!!! _Pagan philosophers, emperors, kings and gods were depicted in various forms and talked about in books.
I persoanlly think that proper Christianity resembling the one we are used to began later in time and probably around the time in which humanism made its appearance, double-IMO.

Think about it.



Will Scarlet said:


> "Update It comes from the ancient name of the city of Porto Kala/kale/Cale meaning port/harbour. Also the city its in the origin of the country’s name Portugal. After the Romans toke over they called the city Portus-Cale/Portucale/Portugal which means Port Port in latin and Celtic. Kalã/kale/cale = what is nowadays Porto Kallaikoi/Calaeci/Galicia= people from Kalã/kale/Cale" Source


This is a good one.



Sasyexa said:


> I have a slight feeling of deja vu - chapter 13


Yeah, the Gaul definition there remains undefeated for me.



Fawkes said:


> Just doing a "stream of consciousness" thing here, from skimming this thread for the first time, and wondering aloud if any of these associations add up - Julius Caesar/Jesus Christ, in Gaul/Galilee, Mary Magdalene in Provence, descendants of Jesus/Mary become/marry into the Merovingians with King Clovis, Clovis the first named ancestor of Habsburg Emperor Maximilian I on his Arch of Glory, DNA testing shows the early Habsburgs may be descended from "Celtic" (Gaulish?) warriors.


I see what you are saying. Caesar apparently met the Salian Franks (aka Sicambrians) during his Gallic campaign. acording to his _Commentarii de Bello Gallico. _Should we consider this text the real report of the events written by Caesar in the third person? Many doubts I have. But in any case there's something about it, imo.



Safranek said:


> The Greeks are also likely descendants of the Scythians and hence may have shared in the origin story which probably predates even them along with many other nations formed out of them (the Scythians).


I think the Greeks and the Sctyhians had a common (northern) origin but the Greeks descended to the Mediterranean during the first wave of colonisation, and the Scythians 'followed' them initially inhabiting the regions north of the Black Sea, imo.



Will Scarlet said:


> not having any faith whatsoever in DNA testing. Since about 2010ish it has just become another method of manipulating data to fit with agendas, imo.


Yes 100%



Will Scarlet said:


> So then, what if Gaul, Gales, Gallic, Celt, and Kelt all mean White? That won't be allowed, I.m sure.


The milk-origin is interesting for sure, but I think that the meaning 'white' as much as 'eastern' is just not something in the minds of ancient people. Why? Because they were all white!
It's our modern era and the forced 'partnership' of various races and ethnicities in the national enclosure that has created the need to be specific about colours. With the blind angry foolish reaction of the colour-blind-inducted-brainwashed people, IMHO.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 19, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Since about 2010ish it has just become another method of manipulating data to fit with agendas, imo.


I would be very interested to hear what you think happened to manipulate DNA testing around that time, seriously.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I see what you are saying. Caesar apparently met the Salian Franks (aka Sicambrians) during his Gallic campaign. acording to his _Commentarii de Bello Gallico. _Should we consider this text the real report of the events written by Caesar in the third person? Many doubts I have. But in any case there's something about it, imo.


Yes, you nailed it, we are on the same wavelength here. I too have my doubts about whether Caesar really wrote those commentaries. I know this is a stretch, but Caesar may have had a great-grandson in Gaul, Julius Sabinus, who briefly became Emperor there, and his descendants could have later wound up marrying into the Merovingian royal house of Clovis, the Habsburg ancestor. You may find this account intriguing, if nothing else- Julius Sabinus - Livius This would also go along with the possible "Celtic warrior" Habsburg DNA.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 20, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> I too have my doubts about whether Caesar really wrote those commentaries.


The 'third person style' (don't know how it's called) seems to me just an 'explanation'. I would say that these commentaries were wrote by some historian/humanist and then proclaimed the original 'diary' written by Caesar 1500 years before. And we believe these stories without even asking a question!!!


Fawkes said:


> I know this is a stretch, but Caesar may have had a great-grandson in Gaul, Julius Sabinus, who briefly became Emperor there, and his descendants could have later wound up marrying into the Merovingian royal house of Clovis, the Habsburg ancestor.


Even better, as I said to you in the other thread, it is said on the Arch that Caesar and Nero gave Austria its name, therefore implicitely stating they lived to the West of it... Gaul! And if Caesar and Christ were the same (something in which I believe, even if it doesn't necessarily be true, here the thread Was Jesus Christ Julius Caesar?), then we should reconsider what the Roman Empire was and its relation to the Holy Land. In any case the name 'Austria' reminds me of Austrasia (Austrasia - Wikipedia), presumably attested for the first time by Gregory of Tours, the same guy who talks about Clovis. I personally think that Austria and Austrasia are the same.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> The 'third person style' (don't know how it's called) seems to me just an 'explanation'. I would say that these commentaries were wrote by some historian/humanist and then proclaimed the original 'diary' written by Caesar 1500 years before. And we believe these stories without even asking a question!!!


Just an interlude to say this is the clearest description of how things are actually done I have ever seen. Many thanks.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> if Caesar and Christ were the same (something in which I believe, even if it doesn't necessarily be true, here the thread Was Jesus Christ Julius Caesar?),


Yes,  I was really into Carlotta years ago, and then I drifted into Joseph Atwill/Roman Piso/Ralph Ellis/Charles N. Pope, the last two of whom claim, somewhat more "realistically" timewise, that "Jesus" was either the great-grandson or grandson of Julius Caesar, but using other identities. 


Silveryou said:


> then we should reconsider what the Roman Empire was and its relation to the Holy Land.


Charles N. Pope believes that Britain was a training ground for certain Roman Emperors, which in turn was actually a "consolation prize", subordinate to the throne in the Far East, of the "Great King".  For instance, I could apply this to Julius Caesar, who fought in both Gaul and Britain before ruling Rome, and then intended to defeat Parthia, and thereby become King through the "back door". He made the Herodians rulers of Judea, and of course his relationship with Cleopatra is well known. Ironically, Pope did not trace the Caesar/"Jesus" genealogy through the "Dark Ages", because of the lack of clues there (I don't think he subscribes to any faked centuries, like Fomenko), but he did propose that a much later Roman Emperor (from memory, Valentinian III [419-455]) could have actually been an alternate identity of his contemporary, King Merovee (c411-458), of the Salian Franks. He never developed that idea beyond just mentioning it in passing, though.


Silveryou said:


> In any case the name 'Austria' reminds me of Austrasia


Me too, years ago I read about an association of those names, and it stuck with me.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> . About the monks transcribing and changing the ancient books I have many doubts.



They wrote the ancient books, before that it was all passed on by Bards and the like. It's evident in the ancient 'texts' of Ireland and Britain, the majority of them were transcribed from traditional oral sources and refer to pre-Christian times. However, Jesus and Mary are substituted for 'the Young God, son of the Great Goddess' for example. The Otherworld is renamed Hell, pre-Christian deities are either turned into demons, mortal men or given the name of a Christian saint. This is another reason why chronology is all screwed up because most of these Christianised elements were pre-Christian and some of the semi-divine deities lived for hundreds of years. Not only that, but information that may come to light later from un-Christianised sources always conflicts with the earlier 'glossed' versions and usually gets dismissed as 'myth' or 'legend'.



Fawkes said:


> I would be very interested to hear what you think happened to manipulate DNA testing around that time, seriously.



OK, well I can give you an example. Back in about 2008-ish, there was a DNA survey conducted by a big University, Oxford I think. It concluded that the Scottish; Irish; Welsh; English; people of Brittany in France; people of Cantabria, Asturias and Galicla in northern Spain all shared the same uniquely identifiable DNA. Furthermore, this DNA was 75%-80% Basque. (Don't quote me on the exact figures.) This was pretty controversial as it knocked the whole mainstream Celtic Central European dogma on its arse. More than that, it also demonstrated that the Norse, Anglo-Saxon and even Norman invasions of the British Isles left no mark in the DNA, just as they left no mark in its archaeology.

Right, so then along comes the 'Indo-European' mantra, but there's a huge 'fly-in-the-ointment' or rather a 'Spainish-fly-in-the-ointment' - The Basques. Due to the uniqueness of their language, they simply don't fit into the new scheme of things. In order to circumvent this problem there have been many attempts to discredit the exclusivity of their language and also culture. But, what complicates this even more is that their culture isn't exclusive, their mythology, customs, traditions and folklore are very closely related to those of the Scottish; Irish; Welsh; English; people of Brittany in France; people of Cantabria, Asturias and Galicla in Spain- What a coincidence!

The biggest and perhaps the only difference between Basque mythology and the rest is that for them the Underworld is subterranean. They emerged from caves in the Pyrenees, their gods reside there and they will return there.

More recently further DNA tests have been appearing to 'demonstrate' that the Basques have identical DNA to the people throughout the rest of Spain and that the supposed exclusivity of their origins must be completely revised - in order to fit in with the Indo-European mantra.

I'd like to say, I'm no British 'nationalist', I don't have an axe to grind about being English. I just don't want to be railroaded into a politically manufactured category. Furthermore, considering the amount of effort that's been put into obscuring the real origins of the Basques, British and Irish, I want to know what's being covered-up.

The greatest area of controversy in the DNA field is related to Jewishness, but I don'r want to get into all of that.

So, to answer you question, finally, I think it was the same kind of 'medical tyranny' we are witnessing now (if you can categorise DNA testing as a medical thing) whereby scientific procedures are deliberately manipulated for the purpose of furthering a political or rather terrorist agenda. In the example above it's the Indo-European melting-pot.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 20, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> They wrote the ancient books, before that it was all passed on by Bards and the like. It's evident in the ancient 'texts' of Ireland and Britain, the majority of them were transcribed from traditional oral sources and refer to pre-Christian times. However, Jesus and Mary are substituted for 'the Young God, son of the Great Goddess' for example. The Otherworld is renamed Hell, pre-Christian deities are either turned into demons, mortal men or given the name of a Christian saint. This is another reason why chronology is all screwed up because most of these Christianised elements were pre-Christian and some of the semi-divine deities lived for hundreds of years. Not only that, but information that may come to light later from un-Christianised sources always conflicts with the earlier 'glossed' versions and usually gets dismissed as 'myth' or 'legend'.


Yes I know how the story goes and I'm certainly not a Judeo-Christian to oppose what you are saying, but I'm just considering the whole thing from a recentist point of view, as always. In this case I think, and maybe I'm wrong, that medieval monks where not entirely christians as we think nowadays, but they were followers of the 'imperial' religion which venerated the emperors as living gods. Christianity would have spawned from this original imperial cult. Not sure about it though.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 20, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> considering the amount of effort that's been put into obscuring the real origins of the Basques, British and Irish, I want to know what's being covered-up.


"9.  The LINGUISTIC ATLANTIS

Berbo-Ibero-Basque
It has been suggested by linguistics that a nomadic Cro-Magnon society existed all the way from Morocco to the British Isles (which explains Stone Henge, similar sites in France, the caves near Basque, and Lixus). Both anthropologists and linguists agree that _Basque is descended from a Cro-Magnon language_.

Interesting notes: The *Basque* word for _knife_ means “_stone that cuts_” and the word for _ceiling_ means “_top of cavern_”. Basque is also a mystery in terms of its alien styles of vocabulary, syntax and grammatical structure. While the meanings and definitions of words are considered to be primitive, the actual syntax is extremely complex and orderly.

Both the _Romans_ and _Carthaginians_ recorded that *Basque* was originally very widespread.




_Berber_ left behind the Guanches of the Canary Islands, and *Basque* their unique European language. Prof. Johannes Friedrich, the leading linguist and expert on Berber claims the language has not changed in almost 2000 years. Its complexity assures that.

The extinct _Iberian language_ (found only on tablets) is related to modern *Basque*, and is suggested to be either an earlier version of Basque, or a language spoken by one of the earlier stages of Cro-Magnon man.

Welsh, Erse and Gaelic use the same complicated syntax that *Basque* does. The people living in the British Isles used that language long before the _Kelts_ arrived in 1800 BC. _Welsh_ is peculiar in that it adopted Keltic words into its vocabulary, but maintained the syntax. It is suggested that _Pre-Keltic Welsh_ was identical to *Basque*.

The _Mayas_ continue to this day to speak their language, and to the surprise of a *Basque missionary* during the 1500s come to convert them, found that they spoke almost exactly the same language, with a slight difference in pronunciation.

*from 'Atlantis Forgotten'"*

Notes About The Basque People




Will Scarlet said:


> the same kind of 'medical tyranny' we are witnessing now (if you can categorise DNA testing as a medical thing) whereby scientific procedures are deliberately manipulated for the purpose of furthering a political or rather terrorist agenda.


There is also much contentiousness among DNA testers with ancient Berber (Amazigh) ancestry, as to whether they were originally indigenous North African, Carthaginian (Phoenician), or Jewish in origin. Thus, there is a very nationalistic element involved here, besides the big business aspect of DNA company testing. Perhaps a coincidence, but I have noticed that since the pandemic started, big business is more openly buying in and taking over DNA testing companies and sites. Also, they have a public promotion tactic, consisting of leading people to believe that they will find long lost unknown ancestors easily, if they purchase a test, which is hardly the case in reality.

Finally, to tie this in with the thread topic, author Ralph Ellis at one time proposed that "Pantera", who was named in the Talmud by Jewish sages as being the real hidden father of "Jesus", could actually be King Ptolemy of Mauretania, who was of male line royal Berber descent (supposedly leading back to Hercules marrying a daughter of Atlas, the King of Atlantis and Mauretania). In conjunction with this, the "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" hypothesis has the alleged wife and children of Jesus settling in Gaul, with their descendants intermarrying and becoming Merovingians, who carry on ancient Jewish kingship rituals.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 20, 2021)

Recently @Safranek put my attention to an interesting quote by Benjamin of Tudela, who was featured in this thread a few times:


> “Thence extends the land of Bohemia, called Prague.  This is the commencement of the land of Slavonia, _and the Jews who dwell there call it Canaan, because the men of that land [the Slavs] sell their sons and their daughters to the other nations_.”



I'll also include the one that I posted in the Roman Antiquity thread, just in case:


> Another Gospel area is Idumea. We learn about it from Mark (3:7,8): "But Jesus and His disciples went away to the sea, and a great multitude followed Him from Galilee, from Judea, from Jerusalem, from Idumea, and from beyond the Jordan. And those who lived in the neighborhood of Tyre and Sidon, when they heard what He was doing, came to Him in great multitude."
> 
> The question of where the real Idumea was is best answered by the medieval author Benjamin of Tudela in "The Book of Wanderings":
> From Lucca at a distance of six days' walk is the great city of Rome, capital of the kingdom of Edom. There are about two hundred Jews, all very honorable people, they do not pay taxes to anyone and some of them are in the service of Pope Alexander, who is the chief and representative of religion in Edom.
> ...



Anyway, that first quote got me thinking. And while doing some semi-related research, I stumbled upon this nuclear warhead of an article - *Это обязан знать каждый славянин! - AntonBlagin — КОНТ*

It heavily relates to this whole theory and especially to the chapters which correctly identify Celts as Slavs in the framework of European Biblical Israel.

Again, I'll translate it in its entirety. The only thing I ask is to actually read it. 

Also, a key to some words in the article, because English doesn't use the same pallet of descriptions:
a judean - the one who practices Judaism
a jew - an insulting name towards those specific people
a hebrew - a regular, "politically correct" name for the same people

translation:
*Every Slav must know that!*​Before I get killed for telling the truth, I have an obligation to get this information out to as many people as possible! 

It does not matter what your profession is: whether you are a teacher, a worker or a soldier, it does not matter what your education is: elementary, secondary or the highest, it does not matter what your worldview is: you can be an atheist or a believer, what matters is this: if you do not possess *this knowledge*, you will still be, together with your other "brothers in understanding", nothing more than a *flock of sheep*, the so-called "goyim", controlled by "shepherds" and their "dogs".

Yes, yes! You will represent yourselves together with the other "brothers in the mind" as nothing more than a *flock of sheep*, literally like in this satirical picture (on the left), which mocks those who claim that "all conspiracy theories are paranoia". By the way, Pope Francis' cross (right) with the same image of a flock of sheep instead of people is a clear indication that some people think of all of you that way!




Left: - "Hey, the human and the dog are definitely working together" - "Bor'ka, stop bothering us with your conspiracy theory"
Right - "Symbol of papal authority "THE SHEPERD AND THE FLOCK" - distinctive sign of the head of Roman Catholic church"​
Below I will give you three facts which not only prove that the "conspiracy theory" should not be treated as some nonsense or "schizophrenic delusion", these three facts prove and simultaneously explain that *Russia* and its people have been purposefully *destroyed from outside and inside* (from both sides at once!) for at least *400 years straight*!

It will continue to be sought to destroy it!

This aspiration, in fact, we see now thanks to the position that has been taken against Russia, especially by the European Union, Ukraine, the U.S. and England.

We see this striving with our own eyes! But the overwhelming majority of people do not understand due to the absence of an important layer of information in their minds, why in the mouths of Western politicians Russia is always and in everything is "guilty". Why do they want to destroy us?!

So, below are *three facts* that today every Slav must know and always remember! They are related to each other by the strict cause-and-effect relations and they explain why Russia and its people are like a bone in the throat for someone who wants to bite it in half.

*Fact 1.*

Did you know that the Slavs once inhabited Palestine long ago? 

Once I did not know this either, however, a fact is a fact: below is a fragment of the book "*About the language of the hebrews who lived in ancient times in Russia and the Slavic words encountered in hebrew writings*" (St. Petersburg, 1866). This book was written in the Russian Empire more than 150 years ago by Abraham Yakovlevich Garkavi, a Russian Orientalist and Hebraist, full State Councilor of the Russian Empire, author of articles in the Hebrew Encyclopedia and the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary.




In medieval henrew writings the Slavic language is called the Canaan language, the Slavs are called like this as well, excluding some exceptions, they are known by the name of Canaanites. We will elaborate on the attitudes of hebrew writers to Slavs and stories about them, where Slavs are the descendants of the people that lived in Palestine (Canaan in Hebrew) in a special article.​From this literary monument, the publication of which was exactly 150 years old this year, we should take in the mind, literally take it in the nose that the *judeans* from ancient times call us Slavs - *Canaanites*, and our Slavic language - *Canaanite language*!  

This is the *key *to understanding our history over the last 400 years!!!

The text of another old book "*Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela*", published in London in 1841, confirms the truth of this information. It also says that the *Slavs to the judeans are* *Canaanites*.



The sentence with the underlined text: "But soon Cunc, in the notes to the English edition of the travels of Benjamin of Tudela, comparing other places in hebrew writings, came to a conclusion, that the words "Canaan" and "Canaanite language" mean Slavs and their language.

*Fact 2.

A simple question from a hebrew and the answer from a rabbi: "how do you justify the extermination, of women, children, and old people in the conquest of Canaan?"*

Below, in the form of screen copy [S: translation], I will present a literally killer piece of information spread by the rabbis among the hebrews in recent years. Apparently, this is a *very important information for the present day*!

*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
How can we justify the extermination of women, children, and the elderly in the conquest of Canaan?

Dear Rabbi, while reading the Tanakh, I came across some confusing points. Can you please explain if we should take literally that the L-rd commanded the hebrews to exterminate the inhabitants of ancient Canaan?

I can still understand that it is forbidden to marry Gentiles, I can even explain that they had to be expelled from the territories inhabited by the hebrews, so that they would not seduce the henrews with their cults.

But how can one explain the extermination of women, children, the elderly? How can this be justified? When anti-Semites ask me these questions, I do not know what to say.

I hope that at least you can help me understand. Maybe I read something wrong? Maybe they should not have exterminated all the inhabitants, but only the warriors?
*Oleg
Russia*​
_*Answer:*_

The hebrew people came to the Land of Israel 40 years after the Exodus from Egypt. The Land of Israel is everywhere in the Torah called the land of _Kenaan_, in the Russian version - _Canaan_, from the word _ahnaa _- "bowing", "submission" (to the Lord). This is in the actual translation.

"Technically", this was the name of the strongest tribe of all the tribes that inhabited the area.

The seven nations that lived in this land before the hebrews came were very "active" idolaters. They differed from many other idolatrous nations (all nations were idolatrous at that time) by their particular zeal in serving idols.

We learn from the Tanakh (beginning of the Book of the Prophet *Yehoshua*) that the tribes that lived in _Kenaan_ knew about the Exodus of the hebrews from Egypt, their coming to the Land of Israel and that Highest One had given this land to the hebrew people.

Before the outbreak of military actions, the hebrews, under the leadership of Jehoshua ibn-Nun (the disciple and successor of Moshe Rabeinu) offered these tribes two options for "peaceful settlement" of the problem: to voluntarily leave the territory or - to stay, but on condition that they completely renounce any form of idolatry (mind you, they were not required to become hebrews).

Note, by the way, that the _Givonim_ (one of the tribes inhabiting _Ken_aan, named after the city of Givon, in the Russian transcription - Gavaon), agreed to stay, promising to fulfill the condition set by the hebrews.

I would like to draw your readers' attention - despite the fact that they did not fulfill the promise and continued to worship idols, they, since there was an agreement with them, still - not touched. They lived in _Eretz Israel_ (north of Jerusalem). Later, by the way, their presence caused a lot of trouble.

The Land of Israel was allocated by Highest One to the hebrew people for spiritual work - to correct the world and bring all mankind to the One G-d. This work was *voluntarily* undertaken by Abraham, and the hebrew people, Abraham's descendants, carried it on. The rest of humanity refused to do this work.

At Mount Sinai, the henrews received the Torah, in which G-d gave instructions on how to fix the world. And it is only natural that worshipping idols in a place specifically designated to carry out G-d's "task" would "attract" the Wrath of Heaven. That is why the presence of idolaters on the territory of the Land of Israel is absolutely unacceptable. For more details, see the response to "How does Judaism deal with emigration from Israel?" on the site.

If one assumes that the world is exclusively - material, and that man consists only of flesh and blood, then only warriors can pose a danger (as you wrote in your letter), mostly. However, in reality this is not the case. The main component of man is the soul, placed in a corporeal shell. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the danger not only for the body, but also - for the soul. The threat to physical existence is visible "with the naked eye"; even a child has a sense of danger and the instinct of self-preservation. The threat to the soul is not immediately visible. It may take time for a person to realize that he has turned from the right path, and going back is an extremely difficult process

So the threat to the hebrew people's mission to the Land of Israel can come from anyone, young, middle-aged or elderly - whether male or female - who worships any "powers" other than G-d. After all, spiritual harm is done not by the sword, but - by behavior, by words, by a kind of "radiation" that affects those around them. For example, these days Christian missionaries, men and women, kill hebrew souls without any physical violence - only by persuading them to abandon their faith in the One Creator. Therefore, the mere presence of idolatry in the Land of Israel is enough to provoke the wrath of Heaven. For such a presence creates, in a sense, a "poisonous" atmosphere.

The Torah tells how the women of _Moab_ seduced the hebrews to force them to worship idols. And 24,000 people died as a result. For more on this, see the website for a review of the weekly chapter of _Balak_, the first annual cycle of discussion.

As for the children of the idolaters-they grow up and become adults. Therefore, one could say that in this context such a child is a "time bomb". Of course, the question arises: isn't it possible to remedy the situation by taking an infant and raising him with faith in the One Creator? Then, should we not kill him?

The Oral Torah states that in Egypt, Moshe Rabbeinu, seeing *hebrew children* being walled up, called upon the Mercy of the Most High in prayer. The Almighty answered - it is necessary, but if Moshe wants, he can choose any child and He will save it. Moshe did so - the child that Moshe pointed to survived. He later became an idolater and took a very active part in the creation of the golden calf (see the website, for example, for a review of the weekly chapter of _*Ki Tisa*_, the fourth year's discussion cycle).

Only G-d knows what each individual child will become when he grows up. Therefore, if you act on His command, you can't go wrong. And if Creator of the world told to destroy all, including even infants, it means He saw that they will follow their fathers' steps in future.

Of course, we ourselves have no right to make decisions about killing children (we do not know what will happen to them even in the next moment, much less in five, ten or twenty years). Only the Creator of the world can give such an indication, for He is not limited by time and "sees" the picture of the world as a whole, which for Him is not divided into past, present and future, He knows what will happen to His creatures, even if in a thousand years or more.

Upon entering the Land of Israel, the hebrew people should have quickly settled all of its territory. However, this did not happen-there was pity and indecision *where it had no place*.

Mercy is a manifestation of the greatness of the human soul. But not when it directly contradicts the clearly expressed Will of Heaven. Because of this misplaced "mercy" the process of taking possession of the Land of Israel was then delayed for about 500 years.

Here is another famous historical example of misplaced mercy. The hebrew king Shaul took pity on Agag, a descendant of Amalek, the king of the Amalekites, whose hatred for the hebrews was the meaning of their lives. He took pity and did not execute him at once, contrary to the command of the Creator. And this had grave consequences for our people.  

You write that anti-Semites ask you questions about the extermination of women, children and the elderly when the hebrews conquered the Kenaan lands. Do they have any moral right to ask about that? For thousands of years the innocent blood of women, children and old people has been shed in the world. Not for the sake of high ideals - for the sake of booty, power, honor, right and left, without any pity, people cut each other's heads off. Suffice it to recall that during the 20th century alone, tens of millions of innocent people were murdered in Europe in general and in the Soviet Union in particular, including, of course, women, children, the elderly. I repeat, not in some distant, "dark" times - in the 20th century, in the lifetime of modern generations.

Today, terrorist attacks carried out under the banner of Islam in Israel, the United States and Europe claim the lives of innocent women, children and old people. At the same time, Russia supplies arms to the Muslim countries that patronize the terrorist gangs.

Your opponents may not have anything to do with the arms shipments, but they may realize that this is evil. Until they realize it, they are passive accomplices of murderers in the eyes of Heaven. So, before they reproach someone for brutalizing innocent victims, let them first think about what their people and their allies are doing.

In conclusion, I stress that the Torah cannot be "tried on" to a material view of the world. The Torah is the Wisdom of the Creator, which gives us a "tool" for correcting the world and eradicating evil from it.

If we look at the Torah texts from this perspective, everything falls into place. If one considers that the world is only a spiritless matter, the system of its Management, indeed it may seem strange, illogical and - unethical...

_*Written by Haim Ackerman
*_
*08.07.13*​*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*Source*

Indeed, looking at the judean Torah from this perspective not only makes everything "fall into place", but it also makes you understand why, for example, the famous Austrian musician Franz Liszt, who had Slavic roots, once drew the following conclusion:




"The day will come when for all the peoples among whom the jews live, the question of their universal exile will become a matter of life or death, health or chronic illness, peaceful living or eternal social fever."​
What made the greatest musician and composer of the 19th century to come to this conclusion!?

Only one thing! Careful, thoughtful and conscious reading of the Christian Bible, which is constituted of two-thirds of the judean Torah, and was helped by the knowledge, available to everyone in the 19th century, that in the judean writings "*the words 'Canaan' and 'Canaanite language' refer to the Slavs and their language*".

How the judeans destroyed the "predominant tribe" in the land of Canaan is eloquently told in the Bible. 

"_And David took the crown of their king from his head,-and in it was a talent of gold and a precious stone,-and David laid it on his head, and brought forth much booty from the city_."

_"And the people that were in it, he brought them out and put them under saws, under iron threshers, under iron axes, and threw them into the fiery furnaces. So he did with all the cities of the Ammonites. And David and all the people returned after that to Jerusalem.._." (2 Samuel 12:30-31).

Ask yourself, "*saws and iron threshers*" - what kind of monstrous way to execute a peaceful, captured urban population? 

And the "*firing furnaces*"? 

Isn't that why the judeans have been imagining the HOLOCAUST ever since, because they themselves burned people alive by the thousands, and the fear of retribution for what they did has been keeping them awake ever since? 

*And how many peoples (!) they wiped off the face of the earth, carrying out the covenants of their "divine" Torah with Jehovah the god at the head!!!*

Here are just some of the "divine commandments" that were given to the judeans, as Rabbi Chaim Ackerman says, "*to mend the world*".



Text from image:
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
"These are the commandments, decrees, and laws which the Lord your God has commanded, to teach you to do these things in the land into which you are going, that you may to take possession of it." (Bible. Deuteronomy 6: 1).

"And no fierce diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, shall bring upon you, but will bring them upon all who hate you. And thou shalt destroy all the nations, which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Let not thy eye spare them..." (Bible. Deuteronomy 7:15-16).

"And the Lord your God will drive out these peoples before you little by little. You cannot destroy them soon, so that wild animals do not multiply against you. But the Lord your God will give them over to you, and will bring them to great confusion so that they will perish. And he will deliver their kings into your hand, and you will destroy their name from the face of the earth: no one can stand against you until you eradicate them. Burn the idols of their gods with fire..." (Deuteronomy 7:22-25).

"If a prophet or an oneiromancer rises up among you, and presents you a sign or a miracle, and the sign of which he spoke to you comes true, and and he will say: "Let us follow the other gods, which you do not know, and let us and serve them"... That prophet or that oneiromancer must be put to death... for making you apostatize from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt..." (The Bible. The Fifth Book of Moses. Deuteronomy 13:1-5).

The written Torah is the Constitution of the hebrew people,
but declared not by men, but by G-d.
(Rabbi Chaim Donin)​*----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*

If anyone is still naively convinced that Adolf Hitler was "anti-Semitic", I recommend that you read my separate work: *"The Devil's Lair: The Truth about Switzerland, Zionism and the hebrews."* Everything will immediately fall into place and the misconceptions will be dispelled!

*Fact 3. *

Finally, there is one more fact that influenced me to become a well-known writer not only in Russia, but also far beyond its borders.

I hope that everyone has heard about this pro-judean sect "Jehovah's Witnesses", which is headquartered in the United States, in Brooklyn!

This sect, now banned in Russia, by the way, had hundreds of thousands of adepts in Russia during Gorbachev's "perestroika" era, who went to all Russian cities, to the homes and apartments of Russians and distributed propaganda literature in the form of "Watchtower" and "Awaken!" magazines.




These "Jehovah's Witnesses" caught my eye more than once, and even handed me their magazines. One issue of Watchtower shocked me so much with its content that I became a writer myself, a warrior writer, a fighter on the information front.

In the April 1997 issue of Watchtower, published with a circulation of over 20 million copies, the question was posed to me and all Russians right from the cover: "*Are these really the last days*?" 

There, on the cover, was the answer: "*True! Only those who wholeheartedly devote themselves to Jehovah God will remain alive!*"

This way of putting the question and answering it naturally angered me to my core. I opened this magazine to see a commentary on such a shocking statement. I wanted to know why people who do not believe in the judean god Jehovah should be destroyed. 

And this is what I read there: "_Jehovah told Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land of *Canaan*, but not until *four centuries later*, "for the measure of the iniquities of the *Amorites* has not yet been filled. Here, the word "Amorites", which translates to "*prevailing tribe*", refers to the *Canaanite people* as a whole. So Jehovah was not going to give his people the opportunity to *conquer Canaan* until four centuries later. This period Jehovah let go so that the Canaanites could develop civilization. What did the Canaanites come to_?"

Just imagine the situation! In Russia at that time, there was an army of sectarians who didn't explain who the "Canaanites" were, and they didn't say a word about what "Canaan" they were talking about, but they told everyone that hebrews or judeans who worship Jehovah (Yahweh) must very soon, in the near future (!) "conquer Canaan" and win against "the prevailing tribe"!

* * *

By the way, about the hint of the "Jehovah's Witnesses" that the judeans "_will have the opportunity to conquer Canaan only after 4 centuries_"... It appears that the counting of time goes not from some "prehistoric times" and not from the moment of "Baptism of Russia", but from 1613, when the Romanov (Roman) dynasty came to power in Russia. I shared my thoughts on this subject in my article "*Confessions of a "clairvoyant", what was and what will be..."*. 

To make a reference to 1613, the "_four hundred years of the conquest of Canaan_", I was prompted by a painting by Peter Lastman, "*Abraham on the Road to the Land of Canaan*", painted in 1614. Well, the idea to paint this painting did not come to the painter Lastman out of the blue! Most likely, the idea was discussed in the judean community at the time!




Also in this chronology, like a ball in a billiard pocket, are the prophecies "about the jewish revolution" of Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky, which he published in the Diary of a Writer in 1877:

"_...The jewish revolution must begin with atheism, for the hebrews must overthrow that faith, that religion, out of which came the moral foundations that made Russia both holy and great!" "Godless anarchism is near: our children will see it... The International has decreed that the henrew revolution begins in Russia... It is beginning, because we have no reliable resistance against it - neither in government, nor in society. Revolt will begin with atheism and plundering of all the wealth, they will begin to decay religion, destroy temples and turn them into barracks, in the stalls, will flood the world with blood, and then they themselves will get scared. The henrews will ruin Russia and become the leader of anarchy. The Jew and co are conspiring against the Russians. There will be a terrible, colossal, spontaneous revolution that will shake all the kingdoms of the world with a change in the face of this world. But it will take a hundred million heads. The whole world will be flooded with rivers of blood"._ *Source*. (Dostoevsky F.M. Diary of a Writer. / (Dostoevsky F.M. Dostoevsky F.M. The Writer's Diary. Ed. by O.A.Platonov. - M.: Institute of Russian Civilization, 2010. - 880 с.).

All that Dostoevsky described 138 years ago, was fulfilled exactly a few decades later. Dostoevsky did not even get the figure wrong - during the transformation of the "*face of this world*" by the jews the Russian people lost exactly "*100 million heads*", according to historians' calculations.

Today there is no reason to doubt that the so-called "Great October Socialist Revolution", the course of which was directed by Trotsky and Lenin, was conceived and carried out exclusively for the jews to become the leader of the Russian and other peoples living in Russia!

In confirmation of these thoughts and this historical vision, Russian President Vladimir Putin recently said that "the first Soviet government was 80-85% hebrew". By the way, this is also a historical fact!

Well, after this chain of facts, who can say that the revolution of 1917 was not an attempt at the final conquest of Canaan by the jews-judeans?

The dream of the jews was not allowed to come true by Joseph Stalin. But that is a separate story.

* * *

Brothers and sisters! If we are not yet quite sheep, we should all now connect the facts given here together, including the revelations of "Jehovah's witnesses", and conclude that the jewish tribe with the god Jehovah at the head now wishes to conquer finally not some abstract Canaan, but Russia, Rus'! And this tribe calls us, the Slavs, the Russian people who are the constituent people of Russia, the "prevailing tribe", because we really are the "prevailing tribe" in relation to them.

*And they are not going to spare any of us in the future battle "for Canaan"! *

Recall the words of Chaim Ackerman, who answered the question of a hebrew from Russia who asked, "*How can we justify the extermination, of women, children, the elderly in the conquest of Canaan?*"

The rabbi's answer is unprecedented: "_Only G-d knows what each particular child will become when he grows up. Therefore, if you act on His command, you will not make a mistake. And if the Creator of the world said that all must be destroyed, including even infants, it means that He saw that they would later follow in the footsteps of their fathers_." (Haim Ackerman)

Here is the goal to which this "God-chosen tribe" is still striving today, regarding which the legendary Christ said: "_*your father is the devil, and you want to accomplish the lusts of your father*_..." (John 8:44)! 

This goal defines the entire policy of the current leaders of the European Union, the U.S., England and several other countries, which all naturally belong to the number of "God's Chosen".   



​And let me tell you something else, just to make you understand that *World War II* was prepared and carried out for the same purpose - *to conquer "Canaan", which the Russians call Russia, and to exterminate the "prevailing tribe of Canaanites" by the hands of the duped Germans.*

Here is the *fourth fact*, in addition to the three above.

It turns out that just two days after the attack of Hitler's Germany on the USSR, June 24, 1941, U.S. Senator Harry Truman (the representative of the highest caste of human murderers, later the 33rd President of the United States) told the New York Times correspondent the position of the ruling circles of America in this war: "*If we see that Germany wins, we should help Russia, and if Russia wins, we should help Germany, and THAT way, let them KILL as much as possible.*..".

I personally learned about this fact thanks to a rare book published in the USSR, "THE SOVIET-AMERICAN RELATIONS BETWEEN THE GREAT WORLD WAR 1941-1945" (Foreign Ministry, Volume 2, Moscow, Political Literature Publishers, 1984). 




This photo of Harry Truman's speech note published in the New York Times was published in the same book, "SOVIET-AMERICAN RELATIONS BETWEEN THE GREAT WORLD WAR, 1941-1945". 

Such were "*Soviet-American relations*" at that time. 

Such they remain to this day!

Without knowledge of this strategic information, of course, it is impossible to understand what is happening in the world today.

To conclude this article, I would like to say this.

In the last three days, I have already been warned from three different sides that the judean mafia would destroy me. There have also been threats from the "judean mafia" itself.  

During the last 20 years, I was only afraid of one thing, not having enough time to tell people the truth that Heaven was revealing to me. Now it seems to me that I have fulfilled my mission completely... or nearly so...

So, fellow jews, enemies of the human race, now you can do with me what you want! As the Russian warriors say in such cases, "_I call the fire on myself!_"

April 10, 2016. Murmansk. *Anton Blagin*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A quite interesting accidentally encountered article. Especially mentions of chronology, which could be applied to the chronology of this theory, with placement of Gospel events and 15th century catastrophism. On the other hand, it can hint that the OT was written quite recently.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 21, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> On the other hand, it can hint that the OT was written quite recently.



I don't know about the rest of it, but I would certainly go along with that on the basis of other evidence.



Silveryou said:


> they were followers of the 'imperial' religion which venerated the emperors as living gods. Christianity would have spawned from this original imperial cult.



Bear in mind that the early Christian monks, saints or whatever they were, were fighting against belief systems full of "living gods". The 'Divine Right of Kings' stems from this, because the ancient kings were divine. The technique the Christians used was to promote their own "living god"/king - Jesus - and they used the methods of those very belief systems to infiltrate them - including exorcism, the conjuring of spirits, communion with the dead, etc., so yes, they were very different to the current concept of 'Christian'. But if you're talking about 'recentism' then I'll shut up about all this ancient crap.



Silveryou said:


> Yeah, the Gaul definition there remains undefeated for me.



Yeah, it's all Slavic, everything is, was and always will be Slavic.

[Exit - Stage Left.]


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 22, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> But if you're talking about 'recentism' then I'll shut up about all this ancient crap.


Yes I'm always talking about recentism. In any case what you say doesn't contradict what I've said before.


Will Scarlet said:


> Yeah, it's all Slavic, everything is, was and always will be Slavic.


Never said that. But the definition of Gaul provided in Chapter 13 seems in any case more grounded than saying 'gaul' meant 'milk' or 'eastern' or 'port', IF we have to give that name an origin in the first place. I remain deeply convinced there is a common origin for European languages (I've removed 'Indo' for you)


----------



## Oracle (Dec 8, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Well, that's about it.


Lol. Well not quite. 
As I've  said to you privately I didn't  realize that you were going to do us english speakers the great honour of taking the time to translate so many chapters of the book so I am at too early a stage of reading to give a relevant comment, other than to say in response to reading the OP, fascinating new information and theory! Thank you for your time and effort to bring this  information to us here in an english translation. I feel like I've  said this  before in other threads also during my  brief time spent here at sh recently, but I will be back once I work my way through  your thread  to comment  in the  future as you have raised  a few questions and thoughts in my head.

Edit: I didn't  mean my " smiley" to look so scary and sarcastic, but it seems the  emoto icons  have changed since I was here last. It was meant to represent a humourous grin.


----------



## Scythian (Dec 13, 2021)

Of course the Franks came from Troy via Budahely the Scythian capital, were they were guests for a few hundred years. The Franks took the lead in Kaltia or as it is known Gallia. Trojan prince Paris gave the name of the capital city. There is a city in the present  called Troyes and the name 'franks' was given after their leader Franco who brought them in actual France. So...
Jerusalem - Heru Solyom the falcon or Horus. Nazaret -Nazir Ret the field of the God invoker. Observe that many leaders of the time had the termination 'nosor' in their names, like Nabucodo-nozor. Nozor-Nazir - God invoker. Old Sumerian-Scythian language.


----------



## programador.dias (Dec 14, 2021)

Wonderful Thread, OP.

If France is Israel, I'll bet the Paris catacombs are Hamon-GOG.

The Gogs (the ancestors of false modern Jews) along with the scythians (Magog, which can mean 'servants of gog', or 'people living in a land dominated by gogs') invaded Europe (Israel's territory) and God promised Ezekiel that he would blast Gog and the crowd that followed him and after that the Israelites were to bury them all inside a place in the territory of Israel.
But God promised that he would leave a sixth part of them. (Read Ezekiel 27, 30-40)

And it's funny how all the references to the Paris catacombs always have that zog-loved number ("Muh six million")

On 14-15th century maps of Catalan the territory of the Scythians is shown to be close to "Gog-Magog Territory".
And there is also a whole historical context that shows that the Gogs have always exercised dominance in the Scythian economy.

There is nothing new under the sun.
The Gogs (khazars) along with the Scythians tried to invade Europe, and centuries later the Gogs again (now disguised as Jews) used the Russian communists to invade Europe.

_______________________
There is a lot of confusion about the "history of Israel", but...
I believe that the key to understand the history of the biblical Israelites is first to understand that when the Bible refers to Israel it is referring to the people (race) descended from Israel. So if the Israelites were living in Antarctica, that would be the territory of Israel.
Europeans are the true descendants of biblical Israelites, so Europe is Israel.

Also many times when the bible refers to "Egypt", actually in the original text it was referring to Mizraim.
So, if for example the descendants of Mizraim were living in Asia Minor, the bible would be referring to that territory.
And much of what we know today as "Egyptian artifacts found in the territory of Cario and Memphis" are actually from the Babylonian culture, as we can see from ancient maps.

And another point is to understand that these modern "Jews" are culture-appropriated Khazars, they are false Jews (Synagogue of satan) who have no blood relationship with the descendants of Jacob.


----------



## Safranek (Dec 27, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Except it meant 'Gauls' not 'Eastern'.


It didn't 'mean' Gauls, it was only supposed to mean Gauls as they used both terms freely to refer to 'tribes/factions' of Scythians. For instance, the word Scythian or Scythia or Scithia itself is likely only a reference used by foreigners to name them as is the case with the Etruscans, currently there's no evidence they ever called themselves that. Similarly, as the maps we reference today were made not by Scythians but by the Western European mapmakers who were by then a conquered people alienated from their past.

This is affirmed by genetic studies which show all Europeans having common ancestry, as well as by archeological finds of the earlier cultures. Yes I know they give these cultures different names, but the objects found in the same strata having similar and in some cases identical artwork goes against them being named as different cultural groups.



Will Scarlet said:


> These days most people seem to be using a new version of The Name Game to make words fit with their particular agenda.


I agree with you completely regarding this issue, and this plays well into the hands of those who want to obscure the path to the truth, confusing the matter even more. As I mentioned, we find common etymology in all languages so the possibility of a root language is very likely, the only question being which language(s) hold the highest percentage of the original root language today.



Will Scarlet said:


> The Irish spoke Old Irish which became Scottish, Irish and Manx Gaelic in the 13th century. Presumably the Gaels of Scotland just didn't speak to each other at all before that. The pre-Noroman British spoke Brythonic/Brittonic with regional dialects, such as Welsh and Cornish. The Brythonic language was also spoken in Brittany (France) and Northern Spain. The Welsh spoke Brythonic until it evolved into Old Welsh. The few texts and manuscripts that weren't transcribed by the Christian monks from oral sources were mostly in Old Welsh, or Gaelic in the case of Ireland. I don't think anything survives written in Brythonic, but I'd like to be wrong about that. Pre-Christianity, everything was oral, if you'll pardon the expression, meaning the bards would remember and recite all the events pertaining to their particular locale. That's the official line on it all anyway.


The last common thread I find regarding this is in the old runic alphabets. Those are the key to tying all these languages to a common origin. But again, I find the same issue there, they divide all the alphabets into separate classifications (as they do in archeology and in linguistic groups) even though they obviously share a large number of common elements.



Silveryou said:


> I have a hard time thinking it meant Eastern though. I can see how Keltoi and Scythians could be related, but Greek-Roman sources make perfectly clear that Scythians were Slavs, while they talked about Celts as a different people, otherwise they would have simply called them Scythians. Same with Latin where the Celts become Gauls and Scythians are Sclavones.
> Now if chronology is incorrect, then the famous 'descent' of Gauls and Galatians into Italy and Greece could just be the arrival of the Franks on the scene. It seems that Celts/Gauls were the French/Western part of the story, and equating them to 'pure' Slavs would be very difficult.


As you can see from what you wrote, it is a highly obfuscated mess and I don't think the statement "Now if chronology is incorrect" is even necessary, as it is becoming more and more evident that this is the case. Its also evident that many sources must be referencing the same 'people' under different names to confuse the matter further. As Formenko even stated, there was a political purging of the true historical narrative upon the so-called Roman Empire arriving in Europe.



Silveryou said:


> The only possible 'bridge' that comes to my mind is the story told on the _Arch of Maximilian_ and sources like the _Liber Historiae Francorum, _where the Franks/Sicambrians/Cimmerians/Troyans apparently made their way through Pannonia/Austria and finally arrived in France. IF Achilles was a Scythian, then the Franks/Sicambrians/Cimmerians/Troyans would be related to them in some way, even though I think that in that time period the Scythians were not already descended into the Balkans. In any case I totally see a common '''''''Indo-European'''''''' origin
> 
> MAAAAAAYBE!!!


I will dare say MOST LIKELYYY. 

Whatever story we end up leaning towards, we must agree that it has to make sense. There must be beginning, a sequence of events, a conclusion and reasoning that explains what occurred.

For instance I don't like the terms Indo-European and Finno-Ugric. There's no sense in it from a linguistic perspective except to obscure commonalities, induce separation where there should not be any. And this is consistent and also applies to divisions in history and archeology.



Will Scarlet said:


> So then, what if Gaul, Gales, Gallic, Celt, and Kelt all mean White? That won't be allowed, I.m sure.


I'm pretty certain that all those people were/are white but I don't think that those were words for white unless we can find some linguistic proof to confirm that.



Silveryou said:


> I wondered for a long time where this Pristhlava was located but I have not reached a conclusion.


Strangely, I found this village by the Danube called Pristava, Croatia. It fits location-wise as its just about 2-3 kms. from the Danube, but there's no huge city there. A flyover using LIDAR would help.

There's also the fact that key places have been either completely destroyed and overgrown with vegetation through the centuries or renamed with another place being given their names.


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 28, 2021)

Safranek said:


> I don't think the statement "Now if chronology is incorrect" is even necessary


I was trying to be polite towards those who still don't get it... and it's not their fault, obviously.


Safranek said:


> Its also evident that many sources must be referencing the same 'people' under different names to confuse the matter further.


This is just one scenario. I've made several different incredible 'discoveries' this year. I just need time and concentration to deliver it in a proper way, otherwise everything will be dispersed in a hundred comments.


Safranek said:


> There must be beginning, a sequence of events, a conclusion and reasoning that explains what occurred.


Easy to say, difficult to deliver. The beginning is 'personal', meaning that an authentic beginning of history simply dosen't exist, onless we start talking about religion. Sequence of events and conclusion, I'm all for it:it's the core of what I'm interested in. Explanatory reasonings? Naaaah, I don't believe even if I see it with my own eyes. Division is the rule, since everything is personal or becomes personal. I stick with events and conclusion.


Safranek said:


> For instance I don't like the terms Indo-European and Finno-Ugric.


Me neither, but language is imperfect and there's a tendency to add new terminology to describe old things which had already a name. This is how long history is done.


Safranek said:


> Strangely, I found this village by the Danube called Pristava, Croatia. It fits location-wise as its just about 2-3 kms. from the Danube, but there's no huge city there.


Tschurilow managed to find the true Teutoburg in the same region. Some things are now clear in my mind but there is also a sort of geographical mirroring south-north and west-east added to the chrono problem, so the search never ends...


----------



## Safranek (Dec 28, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> This is just one scenario. I've made several different incredible 'discoveries' this year. I just need time and concentration to deliver it in a proper way, otherwise everything will be dispersed in a hundred comments.


Looking forward to your findings when they're ready for posting.


----------



## Sasyexa (Dec 28, 2021)

Interesting article mentioning Merovingians:
https://zhemchuzhina.yolasite.com/resources/Pearl_73_for_Web/P-73 body pages 18 -22.pdf
Похороны "норманнской теории", или Потомки Меровингов

*Funeral of the "Norman Theory" or... The Descendants of the Merovingians*​Norman theory specifies that Slavs before coming Rurik to Russia were backward tribes, in all senses of the word, not capable of self-organization. The so-called "scholarly Normanists", in their arguments refer to some ancient chronicles, one of which is Radzivill Chronicle.

Allegedly it says that uncivilized Slavs, calling the great Norman to Russia, said:
"Rurik, come to us and own us. Because the Russian land is great and plentiful, but there's no order in it..."

... At that the Slavs fall on their knees and certainly shed tears. And this theory is presented with such persistence that many Russian people
start to believe in it. However, if one carefully reads the original of the ancient manuscript and understands the essence of some ancient words, then the meaning of what is written is not at all what they present to us.

Moreover, the majority of researchers of the Russian antiquity about the Normanists had a conviction that within two centuries, these people, calling themselves scientists, in general did NOT READ THE CHRONICLES' ORIGINAL TEXT , and used later, rewritten and corrected copies, or just repeated the words of their teachers. So what does the Radzivill Chronicle tell us about? Let's read the same passage from the original, which is constantly referred to by all Russophobes.

This is told in the Radzivill Chronicle:
"Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no NARYAD in it. Let you go *by* us (not just "us" - auth.) to reign and rule...
And cut down the city of Ladoga... From those "vyaryags" (they traded salt - auth.) the Russ land was called (by the name of Prus-Russ - auth.). Novgorod is solyued [something to do with salt]. Novgorodians (on the Volkhov - auth.) were named after a vArensk [related to boiling] kin".





A naryad in Russia was a small squad guarding one of the borders the state. In the modern view, this will be a border guard.

Until now, the concept of going into a naryad has been preserved in the army. That is, a small group to carry out some official business or to take over the protection of an object. Normanists did not serve in the army, so they do not know anything about it.

From the chronicle it follows that in order to serve as a commander of a border detachment, it was ordered to arrive to the Russian knyaz' Rurik - a descendant of Prus, Tsar of the Second Rome. Therefore, he settled not in the capital of a huge state, but on its outskirts - in a new city Ladoga. The Varangians themselves called themselves Varyags, since they were associated with boiling salt, and with it's protection during transportation. And since the etymology of the words VARYAG and VARNA is Russian, then the Varangians themselves are one of the Russian, Slavic tribes. Rus - in Old Slavonic means bright place. And the word PRUS is a Russian name or the name of a person from a certain place on the border of Russia: that is, PoRussia or P'Russia...

In modern Russian, there are names like this: Pomors, Pogranychie, Povolzhie, Polesie. Or words with an abbreviated prefix по: Proseka, Prazdnik, Pravda, PRAV' ...It is not surprising that in modern Prussia, there are a lot of genetic Slavic roots and archaeological artifacts, because this is one of the parts of ancient Russia. The situation is similar in German Pomerania, that is, Pomorie, and in Scandinavia.

Again, the author of the Chronicle indicated that Rurik would reign and own

*'BY US', NOT JUST 'US'*​When they hire you, they say, "You're going to clean OUR yard". That does not mean that the person hired will be the boss for his employers [I won't translate the wordplay, but you get the idea]. Further, there is no mention in the text of the annals that the three brothers came "from the Nemets", "from the Nemets land" [Nemets meaning German/mute]. This will be added much later, in the annals of the eighteenth century.

Now there is no doubt that the Varangian Slavs, the descendants of the fair-haired [rusyh, rusyi means fair-haired] Aryans, of the Arenian clans, under the descendants of the Roman kings, also sailed to the shores of America.

At the time of Rurik's calling, the coast of the Baltic Sea was Slavic. It was not until the 16th century that noble families began to move to Russia from there, - "from the German land", "from the Prussians" under the Germanic aggression.

In fact, both the Ipatiev and Laurentian Chronicles are only copies of the RL, made in the 18th century with corrections, distorting the image of Russia's past.
(Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI-XVII centuries. - Moscow, Nauka, 1975. - P. 548).​
Thus, the "Norman theory" is burst like a soap bubble. As mentioned above, the reason for its emergence is associated with either a misreading of the text of the original source, or with a deliberate desire to distort everything Russian.

In many ways, the cause of the NT is a misreading of the source text. I repeat, for 2 centuries, Russian scholars did NOT READ THE TEXT ON THIS LIST (Ill. 1).

Russians in the Middle Ages were called Normans (See: V.I. Karpets. "Rus' Miroveeva". - M .: OLMA-PRESS, 2005. - P.24). It was these Normans, the descendants of the fair-haired Aryans, who sailed to America. Rurik was the grandson of the Obdorite king Vitislav. At Annales regni Francorum it is mentioned that in 789 Charles made an expedition to protect the Mecklenburg Obdorites from the Slavic tribe of the Wilts. The Franks built two bridges over the Elbe, crossed the river and with the support of the allies (the Saxons, the Obdorites themselves and the Lusatian Serbs) inflicted a terrible blow to Wilts. According to the annals, they fought hard, but they could not resist the enormous forces of the allies. Karl drove the Wilts to the Pena River, destroying everything in his path. Their capital surrendered, and knyaz' Dragovit submitted and gave hostages. As an ally of Charlemagne the King of the Obdorites Vitsin (Vitislav) is mentioned. Protecting him and his land, Charlemagne decided to go on a campaign against the Wilts.

The Obdorite lands are extremely small in comparison with the lands of the vast empire, which was led by Charlemagne. How the ruler of several settlements could be an ally of the ruler throughout Western Europe? Who could this ally be, if not a relative? Charlemagne was related to the Merovingians: his great-grandmother was Bertrada - the daughter of King Theodoric III (See V. I. Karpets. Rus Miroveyev). Undoubtedly, Vitislav was one of the Merovingians. He was not a descendant of the Vandal kings, etc., in which case, he would not be related with Charlemagne. It turns out that the name RURIK was worn by the Roman generals. There were several, but we will consider two.

1. Almost a hundred years before the fall of Roman rule in the Apennines, Ruric or Ruricius is mentioned, ruler of the African Roman province of Tripolis. This is the territory of present Libya. In the second half of the 4th century, he was executed on false charges in the city Citifis.

2. Early 4th century. It is about the capture of the Apennines by the future Constantine the Great. One of the warlords who then tried to fight back against Constantine was a certain Ruricius, also known as Ruricius Pompeianus, prefect of Verona, loyal to Maxentius - enemy of the Christians. This Ruric led the defense of Verona and died in a bloody battle with the armies of the Christian king in August 312.

The Obdorite lands were the outskirts of the Roman-Frankish world, so the name Rurik could come to Obdorites from the Frankish kings. One of the Obdorite kings crowned himself in the presence of Charlemagne. Why couldn't this Obdorite king be of the Carolingian lineage? The fact is that the Carolingians are not Slavs. Obdorites could summon to rule ONLY a SLAV - a knyaz' for whom the Slavic language would be native... It is known that they were at enmity with non-Slavic neighbors who wanted to turn them into slaves. And why was it a descendant of Frankish kings who was crowned, and not an ordinary Obdorite? Tradition in the Middle ages was such that the descendants of the non-monarchs did NOT get crowned. They became either elders or warlords! Gostomysl, for example, was an elder. It would not have occurred to him to lay a crown on his head, because no one wants to be ridiculed at an old age. Perhaps some Frankish Rurik from the Merovingian clan was the husband of an Obdorite princess - mother, grandmother, great-grandmother or great-great-grandmother of the Obdorite king, who, according to this reason could be called Rurik.

There are two Byzantine sources claiming that the Russians are, in fact, subjects of the Frankish emperors. According to the medieval international classification, peoples adopted the nationality (!) of their rulers. So, for example, in the "Biography of tsars" under the authorship of the Theophanes the Continuer, it is reported:  "The eleventh of June of the fourteenth indict (941) on ten thousand ships the Ros sailed to Constantinople, they are also called Dromites, but they occur from the tribe of the Franks". But the Frankish rulers are the Merovingians! When the Carolingians came to power, there was almost no Franks in Western Europe. The warlords of the Rosians were relatives of Rurik, so it should be confidently said: Rurik is a descendant of the Merovingians.

The idea of the Romeans about the Rus as Franks dates back to a long and close alliance between the Obdorite Rus and the Frankish emperors (or their descendants). The Frankish crowned heads for a long time kept in touch with Romean emperors - their relatives, and in
Rome on the Bosphorus it was known perfectly well in which of the monarchs of Europe, the blood of the Kings of Rome flows.

In Western Europe, they preferred to call Merovingians "Vandal kings". It was safer this way, since the Merovingians were Orthodox emperors, and in Western Europe the Latin heresy reigned. In the 16th century Lutheranism spread in the northern Germany. Nobody wanted to hear about Orthodox Merovingians!...

The only objective information about the Merovingians, the orthodox rulers of the Franks, was left to us by Empress Catherine the Great.

Catherine the Great corresponded with F. Grimm. Grimm was a German scholar, writer, and diplomat who lived in France. He was well known at the courts of Europe, and with his help, Catherine was able to learn about what was going on in European intellectual circles. Following Grimm's recommendations, she bought books and works of art, and also commissioned the architects he found.

Catherine the Great asserted in one of her letters to Grimm: "I have collected a great deal of information about the ancient Slavs and will soon be able to prove that they gave names to most rivers, mountains, valleys, districts and regions in France, Spain, Scotland and other places" (Letter of 9.09. 1784). And a week later She wrote to him, "I tell you this alone, because it is insufficiently researched: the fact is that the Salicans of Salic law, the Frankish kings Hilderic I, Claudwig, and the whole Merovingian kin were Slavs, as were the Vandal kings of Spain. Their names as well as their actions give them away. Marvel no more that French kings take an oath on the Slavic Gospel at their coronation in Reims" (referring to the famous Gospel of Reims). (Letter of 14.09.1784). For example, the name. Ludwig, according to Her interpretation, consisted of two Slavic roots: "lud" from "people," and "dvig" from "to move": "This name, as it were, means to govern men, to set them in motion". Hilderick I was dethroned because he wanted the Gauls, who had received the Latin alphabet from the Romans, to add to it three Slavic letters, namely Ч, Ш, Щ. She knew very well, that war had been and was still being waged against the Slavs:

"Do not show these notes to Baillieu or Buffon, it is not for them, although they were the first to point out the existence of a people they may not have intended to discover". (Letter to Grimm 24.12.1788 / Letters of Catherine II to Grimm. - SPb., TIAN, 1878. - 478 с.).

Franks came to the territory of modern France from Pannonia (Gregory of Tours. History of the Franks; transl. V.D. Savukova. - Moscow: Nauka, 1987. - С. 39). Thus we see that the Franks came to Western Europe from the Western Slavic lands. That is they came, in fact, from Moravia. "Mur" is a STONE, a TEMPLE. The closest word to it is ZA*MUR*OVAT'. That is why their dynasty came to be called the Merovingians. The ancestor of the Merovingians was Markomir according to the Liber Historiae Francorum. His father was the Pontic King Paris. You guess after whom the capital of France was named? When Knyazhna Olga and her son Svyatoslav arrived at the palace to the emperor, they bowed to no one, it was bowed down to Them. There was no violation of court ceremonial: They were descendants of the Kings of Rome.

It is possible to read about it in the Stepennaya Book as well [PSRL. XXI. Part I - Book Stepennaya. Of tsar genealogy // Full Collection of Russian annals. Т. 21. Ч. 1. SPb: Edition. SPb: Publication of the Imperial Archaeographical Commission, 1908. - С. 7]:

The same is said in the Tale of the Vladimir Knyazs: "At that time a warlord of Novgorod by the name of Gostomysl, while dying, summoned all the rulers of Novgorod, and said to them: "_O men of Novgorod! I give you advice: send to the Prussian land a wise man and invite the noble families there to govern for you_". They went to the land of Prussia and found a certain knyaz named Rurik of the family of the Roman emperor Augustus. Envoys from the Novgorodians asked to go to them to reign. Knyaz Rurik came to Novgorod with two brothers, one was Sineus and the other was Truvor. The third was his nephew, named Oleg. And from that time the Novgorod was called Great, and great knyaz' Rurik was the first to reign in it in the year 6375".

And here is what it says in the book Russian chronicle from the Voskresensk copy presented to the of the Resurrection Monastery presented by Patriarch Nikon in 1658 - St. Petersburg: at the Imperial Academy of Sciences. Academy of Sciences, 1793-1794. This is essentially the same Tale of Bygone Years, only in another copy. I remind you that the originals do not and did not exist in principle.

 The Polish Professor Urbanczyk states:
"From the very beginning, in our research in Iceland, a Slavic trace was discovered. We discovered already the third Slavic dwelling in this region - a square half-dugout. Such dwellings like this in the ninth or tenth century were common in the areas along the Elbe, Oder, and Vistula, and also in Rus. They have no analogy with Scandinavian buildings. Exactly the same Slavic dwellings, different from those of the Scandinavians, I found earlier in Norway".

- It was the Rus who discovered America, not the Scandinavians.
Here are some quotes from a Polish article on Slavic piracy in Baltic: (Mariusz Zulawnik, PIRACTWO SLOWIANSKIE NA BALTYKU DO 1184 ROKU, 1999 TEKA HISTORYKA, 1999.- zeszyt 16. -S.5-18.): “Pirates organized expeditions for the capture of prey or slaves. The rich were valuable prey, for them these sea robbers could get a large ransom. The rest of the prisoners were sold at auction. A large number of prisoners after each expedition led to the fact that the prices for slaves in the Slavic markets declined sharply. Things were different, for example, in Denmark, where prices skyrocketed immediately. The reason for this was the shortage of slaves after the Slavic attacks. The prisoners captured in clashes with the Poles were sold either to Denmark or to Ruyan, and prisoners from the North (Danes) - mainly to the West and South of Europe. The more valuable slaves, such as the rich, were treated better than others who were used for heavy work, among others, such as shipbuilding. They were often mocked. In Titmar we can read how we dealt with some of the hostages: “their anger passed on to the rest of the corsairs. In the morning they cut off the nose, ears and hands of the priest (Latin - auth.) (...) and the rest of the hostages; then they threw them overboard into the bay ..." "The Saga of Hakone the Good" reports on the attacks of the Vikings-Wends on the Scandinavian lands (together with the Danes). We quote: “Then Hakon the king sailed to the east along the banks of the Scania and ravaged the country, took ransoms and taxes and killed VIKINGS, where he only found them, both Danes and VENDS (RUS)" (swinow).

The vast majority of the Romean kings and the monarchs of Europe in the early Middle Ages were Slavs.

At the Merovingian court, the Greek, and not the Latin, liturgy was served, and the spiritual care was carried out by the Irish monasteries, whose charter was precisely Eastern Orthodox, and not Latin. The English medievalist J.-M. Wallace-Hadrill pays special attention to this in his book "The Long-Haired Kings". He also points out that the language of the court was somehow special, incomprehensible to both the Romans and the Gauls. Which one - he does not say (it would be too dangerous for the career of an Oxford professor!). Well, we will remember the remark of Egor Klassen. Let us also recall that when visiting France, Peter I was shown Reims Gospel (destroyed during the 1789 revolution) read at the coronation of ancient monarchs, whose language no one understood. The language turned out to be ... Slavic (See: V.I. Karpets. Rus Miroveeva. - M .: OLMA-PRESS, 2005 .-- S. 321. See: E. Klassen. The oldest history of the Slavs and Slavic-Russ. - M., 1854).

The Balkan Peninsula was colonized by the Slavs. This explains the predominance on the throne of Rome of the Basileus'-Slavs. German scientist J. F. Fallmerayer (1790-1861), following Roman Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, considered Romea "completely glorified" (See: Pichet V.I., Shuster U. A. Slavic studies in the USSR for 25 years // Twenty-five years historical science in the USSR / Ed. Volgin V.P. - M. - L .: Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1942. - P. 232.). Fallmerayer also claimed that the Hellenes were completely destroyed by the Slavs. By virtue of his insistence on the Slavic origin of the present Greeks, Fallmerayer for some reason was considered a Slavophile in Greece (Veloudis, "Fallmerayer", 65; Curta, "Dark-age Greece ”, 114).

*Evgeny Koparev*​


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 28, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Interesting article mentioning Merovingians


Hope I'll catch up in the next 1000 years


----------



## Megalonymous (Dec 28, 2021)

Scythian said:


> Of course the Franks came from Troy via Budahely the Scythian capital, were they were guests for a few hundred years. The Franks took the lead in Kaltia or as it is known Gallia. Trojan prince Paris gave the name of the capital city. There is a city in the present  called Troyes and the name 'franks' was given after their leader Franco who brought them in actual France. So...
> Jerusalem - Heru Solyom the falcon or Horus. Nazaret -Nazir Ret the field of the God invoker. Observe that many leaders of the time had the termination 'nosor' in their names, like Nabucodo-nozor. Nozor-Nazir - God invoker. Old Sumerian-Scythian language.


I think the tale is that Attila killed Buda because of that name budahely preferring hunnivar. 
I think hunnivar is the rebuilt sicambria which is itself the antenor rebuilt real city of troy [...not the greek fake in turkey].
here is troyes... Celtic original




here is "newly discovered" iarcuri




in its entirety iarcuri is 25% bigger than Rome at 1800hectares. this is the real troy I would bet. verified by the dates.
and this is Attilas city in priscus.

peace


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 28, 2021)

Scythian said:


> Jerusalem - Heru Solyom the falcon or Horus.


The Elite "Antichrist" Fawkes/Fulks family very anciently descends from "the falcon or Horus" Egyptian pharaohs, also known as the "Rose (Rosicrucian) Line", as the Rosicrucian Order was traditionally founded by the Pharaohs about 1500 BC. This royal Fawkes falcon/Horus line would lead down to the Flavian family of Roman Emperors Vespasian and Titus, who were responsible for the "Antichrist" fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Vespasian and Titus thus fulfilled "prophecy" by becoming the new "Messiahs" (Roman Emperors), from "their" falcon/Horus city of Jerusalem.


----------



## Sasyexa (Dec 30, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Hope I'll catch up in the next 1000 years


Spoiler: It mentions Salicans of Salic Law


----------



## Whitewave (Dec 30, 2021)

Fun factoid: the papacy wasn't always located in Rome. It was in Avignon France for about 70 years (official narrative) before moving "back" to Rome. Somewhere around 1309 (or thereabouts) to around 1377. Supposedly, the Vatican itself has always been in Rome cuz 1st century architects were just that talented to create the current iteration of that gauche monstrosity known as the vatican. Everyone else lived in thatched huts, wore rags, couldn't read, etc. blah, blah but the Vatican was an ostentatious edifice in a dingy little part of the world (at least it was in the 1300's). 
The story of how the Vatican allegedly moved from France (and why it did so) gives a good excuse to explain 1000 years of stolen history plus why there was a French pope in the first place.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Dec 30, 2021)

Whitewave said:


> Fun factoid: the papacy wasn't always located in Rome. It was in Avignon France for about 70 years (official narrative) before moving "back" to Rome. Somewhere around 1309 (or thereabouts) to around 1377. Supposedly, the Vatican itself has always been in Rome cuz 1st century architects were just that talented to create the current iteration of that gauche monstrosity known as the vatican. Everyone else lived in thatched huts, wore rags, couldn't read, etc. blah, blah but the Vatican was an ostentatious edifice in a dingy little part of the world (at least it was in the 1300's).
> The story of how the Vatican allegedly moved from France (and why it did so) gives a good excuse to explain 1000 years of stolen history plus why there was a French pope in the first place.



Learned from first SH that a few small towns outside of Lazio area also used to be the hand of god's home. Very interesting. Especially when you consider Romes well documented mudflood excavations under Mussolini no other. 

Im doing as the pisa tower, leaning, towards a flood followed by mudslides of biblical proportions somewhere year i+500. Reason is Madrid museum, see archive, said Rome mud-burrial, and Lion of juda taking over southern half of sweden, at the time around the 30 years war. Where the then state said they come there after the flood, and names it Sara Land, edited to Swea before printing. 
Going kind of ot, but it fits in as well.


----------



## trismegistus (Apr 15, 2022)

Ancient Sarcophagus Uncovered Beneath Notre Dame Cathedral

This is certainly an interesting wrinkle that could potentially bolster this theory…we can only speculate what kind of silly theories the French elite will use to explain this away…


----------



## sahm48 (Apr 21, 2022)

So does charlemagne's  crown have something to do with solomon. If you pronounce the names, they sound kind of similar?

I can't post the link, but if you look up an image of his crown, it says rex solomon on it.

shol * o * men

Do the blue and white stripes on eps. island have something to do with the blue and white stripes in charlemagne's palace? I don't have time to research this. I'm just an extremely visual learner and thought I'd throw it out there in case somebody else is interested.


----------



## OBRYprojekt (Jun 4, 2022)

One of the chief problems with France being a biblical location (other than norther Europe being the PRS “Persia” of the Bible: Prussia, Parzack, Frisia, Paris, Versailles.) Is that the Great Sea mentioned many times in the Old Testament (the great bulk of the fact/scientific: geographic and historical) is to the East, not West. This puts both Palestine and France out of the running: I outline this here and in Ep 13, and will be a chapter in my upcoming book, “The Bible vs The Middle East”. 
_View: https://youtu.be/WSE8VRUolZk_


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 7, 2022)

OBRYprojekt said:


> GL is found in many more forms than above. It can be used as "wave," with the implication of "carried away."


This is interesting, because in an Italian map from the 16th century I translated some time ago it is reported (Sixteenth century maps from Tuscany):
_"the Gauls (Galli) first inhabitants of that land, so called by the Arameans (Aramei) and the Hebrews (Ebrei), *because they ran into danger due to the waters of the flood*."_

These meaning(s) such as 'exile' and 'captivity' escaped the radar of the very prestigious Jew scholars throughout history, as Gladius reported in one of his posts (France - Biblical Israel):


> The Jewish book describes the results:
> "_Lothair I (806-876 A.D) inherited Italia, *and all of the GLILOT* from the North Sea, to the Rhine river, and he named that country Lotharingia, still called until this day"
> "And his brother Karlus, inherited all the country of *TSARFAT*" [France]_
> 
> ...





> The Jewish book then says, after his victory:
> _"He then built his great fortress by the Rhine,_ (Sélestat)_, which he had named after his son *- Gaal'ariom*, whom after him is named the country: *Gaal'er "געלר*", even to this day. And though, at first, the country was named Frankia, from there the French (Tsar'fatim) came *out*... ...
> .... but from that day, their names (Frankia, Tsarfat) _*were cancelled, and they were now Gaal'er."*
> 
> ...



And in addition to this, talking about "the first Jewish book to focus on the history of France, Sefer Divrei haYamim, written in late 16th century by Joseph haKohen, in Avignon", Gladius adds:


> The book proceeds to describe how Noah gave birth to Japeth, who birthed Gomer, and the Franks are his sons. He jumps instantly to the late Roman period, describing the rise of Gaul. The interesting part is that he, probably, identifies the French, Spanish or the Ottomans, as directly related to hardships made on the Jews that are attributed to either the old testament period, or the early Roman period, supposedly more than a thousand years before he lived. *He seems to have no knowledge of any chronology between the flood and the rise of Rome - that's when the Gauls appear, in his words.*


----------



## BusyBaci (Sep 7, 2022)

Gladius said:


> In Albanian there's another form (not sure how it's pronounced).


In Albanian language the Hebrews are called (Çifut) with the letter (ç) being read as (ch) in English as in (cheese), which is completely different from other countries. With the name (Evgjit) or (Jevg) is how the Albanians call the people from North Africa ascendance and the word (Arrixhinj) is meant for (gypsies) from India and various other central Asian migratory populations. 

Now, going a bit off topic, there was a small enclave of migrant Hebrews in Albania and they settled there in early 20-th century, and during the Albanian invasion by the German Army in mid WWII, the Albanian people were asked to reveal the location of the Jewish people which were hidden by the locals as a matter of cannon customs.

_"Respect the guest and protect him with your own life as if he is to be your own if he asked for shelter and you granted him that." _

That is the custom for every guest taking shelter in Albania. Off course, many Albanian villages and regions were burned down to the ground and men were executed as a result of not collaborating with the invading force.

There was a Jewish American ambassador in Albania, John Lovelle Withers, II which was always fair in politics and thanked the Albanian people for their sacrifice, a good man nonetheless. The rest of the Jewish diplomats or corporate men, were eager to exploit every single bit of natural resource in Albania and making the country poorer than it is.

The irony of doing good and expecting something similar from those that have no heart.


----------



## Gladius (Sep 7, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> In Albanian language the Hebrews are called (Çifut) with the letter (ç) being read as (ch) in English as in (cheese)


Any etymology for that word?



BusyBaci said:


> Now, going a bit off topic, there was a small enclave of migrant Hebrews in Albania and they settled there in early 20-th century, and during the Albanian invasion by the German Army in mid WWII, the Albanian people were asked to reveal the location of the Jewish people which were hidden by the locals as a matter of cannon customs.
> 
> _"Respect the guest and protect him with your own life as if he is to be your own if he asked for shelter and you granted him that." _


_Yes, it's a known story and also told about in Hebrew wiki._


BusyBaci said:


> The irony of doing good and expecting something similar from those that have no heart.


From what I know most Albanian Jews left after WW2. Those Jews who conduct business there aren't from that community. For all it's worth, they take financial advantage wherever they can, regardless who saved them or worked against them. Nobody gets a pass from their ways.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 20, 2022)

One of my favourite French recentists has touched the subject in this long article not for the faint-hearted. I hope he is not spreading French freemasonic disinformation, LOL. Here the translation otherwise you can read the article on his blog (Le Temple d’Isis):

The Temple of Isis​Researchers like Howdie Mickoski or Alexei Khrustalev claim that the Holy Land is 14th century France. The tradition or the "golden legend" of Jacques de Voragine generally speaks of a migration from Palestine of Joseph of Arimathea, or of Lazare, Marie de Béthany or Marie-Madeleine. Lazare then becomes the first bishop of Marseilles and is buried in Autun. Joseph of Arimathea is buried in the abbey of Moutiers, Pilate whose wife was from Narbonne is buried in Gaul. The relics of the Magi, who died in the east, have been brought to Cologne Cathedral. Hélène, the mother of Emperor Constantine, who is about 80 years old, is said to have brought relics from Palestine such as the crown of thorns to Notre-Dame de Paris. The Shroud was first seen in Metz and is now in Turin. Thus all the relics of Christianity are in Western Europe.

Sometimes tradition has not retained migration: Anne the mother of the Virgin was born in Morbihan. The Notre-Dame Church had on its facade the statues of the kings of Judea until 1789. Mickoski is favorable to the recentist point of view: the relics, pilgrimages and the churches seem to appear after the year 1000. He notes that Montreal, presented as a new Jerusalem and founded in the 17th century, is built according to the model of Paris. Montmartre or the mount of the martyrs and would make an acceptable Golgotha, and the Jesuits were founded precisely in Montmartre in 1534. Abbé Boudet's "La Vraie langue celtique" makes the Celtic language practiced in the south-west of France the Biblical Hebrew. Boudet is part of the band of priests who officiated in Aude at the time of Abbot Bérenger Saunière and the famous affair of Rennes-le-Château. Gérard de Sède's 1967 book "L'or de Rennes" claimed that Saunière had found the Templar treasure, then Henry Lincoln's books claimed he had proof that Jesus' family had carried his line to France through the Merovingian dynasty. A priori, the relationship between the two is not direct, and these works benefit from a halo effect, where a priori proven facts are supposed to prove unrelated conclusions.

Like Mickoski, I don't believe that Jesus' family would have taken the boat to Gaul. I add that the Merovingians are an invention hiding the Valois, and the Carolingians the Bourbons.

Gérard de Sède and his source Pierre Plantard is filled with false information. First of all, Sède and Plantard had collaborated together before and Sède acts as if he had just met him. The date of January 17 comes up regularly: it is the date of the death of Saunière, then that of his governess Marie Denarnaud (not the actress, another), and that of the death in 1781 of a certain Marie de Hautpoul having owned the presbytery and goddaughter of a certain "Montreal" (a code name). On January 17 Nicolas Flamel would have transformed gold into mercury, and on January 17, Robert Fludd, who would have visited Rennes-le-Château (?), made the philosopher's stone. All this tells us that Sède and Plantard want to talk to us about *alchemy*. What antics. My apologies to the legend experts if my details are a little off. I don't really want to devote myself to it.

The biography of this Hautpoul is partly modeled on that of Marie Denarnaud: she sells because she has no money but continues to live on the grounds of the presbytery. It was the priest Antoine Bigou who buried him in the church cemetery in 1781. On his instructions, he would have found three or four manuscripts in the Church of Saint-Pierre in Rennes-le-Château. which he would then have hidden in the Sainte Marie-Madeleine church during the revolution. In the 1880s, Saunière would have found them in a hollow column while doing work in the church. This copies the 17th century Rosicrucian account of three manuscripts, found in a church dedicated to Mary Magdalene which was being restored.

Then it is claimed that Saunière would have destroyed the tombs of the cemetery, but that then the tombs were redone, and in particular the inscription relating to the death of Marie de Hautpoul. Presumably Saunière never destroyed tombs, but he may have carved a bogus epitaph on the tomb of Marie de Hautpoul. This one is called there at the beginning “nobile” then at the end “catin”. She is called both de Negri and Blanchefort, in connection with two stages of alchemy, and her name Hautpoul suggests the "Great Prostitute" of the Apocalypse. This is Isis, the queen of heaven in the Egyptian religion. Howie Mickoski leans for Marie-Madeleine, Christianized version of Isis, companion of Osiris as Marie-Madeleine is that of Christ. So Saunière, if it is he who does this, simply draws attention to the *cult of Isis.*

The owner of the presbytery after Marie Denarnaud is from 1956 a certain Noël Corbu. It is he who tells the story to Gérard de Sède. Part of the falsifications are attributable to him as well as to Plantard and Sède. It is indeed impossible to prove the age of the documents provided by Plantard. The date of the Hautpoul tomb is curiously not 1781 but 1681, and the code 681 is found on one of Plantard's parchments. The drawing of the epitaph would have appeared on a 19th century work by a known author named Steblein , but the work is not part of the list attributed to this author, and the document is a reissue of 1964, few time before Gérard de Sède's book.

Saunière had a Villa Béthany and a Magdala Tower built, which obviously relates to the character of *Lazare* in the Gospel of John. The mummification of Lazarus and his resurrection at Jesus' command to "arise and walk" is clearly a mockery of the god Osiris. The original Gospel of John does not include an episode of the resurrection or the reception of the Holy Spirit. Thus the resurrection and the reception of the Holy Spirit are elements of the religion of the Egyptians, but not of the religion of John. An investigation carried out by an American suggests that mummification was practiced in the southwest of France.

Passing through the Louvre, Saunière would have bought reproductions of Poussin and a portrait of Clement V, but it seems that the Louvre was not selling them at that time. Then he would have found a treasure in a crypt. Sède then Lincoln thus take at face value the documents provided by Plantard which link Saunière to the *Grail* and the latter to an alleged lineage of Christ through the Merovingians.

Here is what we can sum up about the character of Saunière: he had an inexplicable source of income. He was interested *in the cult of Isis and Osiris, alchemy, the Grail and the Cathars*. We learn from a few sentences that Saunière is supported by generous patrons like Marie-Thérèse de Habsbourg or John D. Rockefeller. With such friends, there is no need to find treasure. And if such characters were interested in Saunière's research, it was because they belonged to the esoteric societies concerned. These societies at the end of the 19th century are powerful, one thinks first of all of Freemasonry. The connection between Grail literature and alchemy is well known. It is less obvious to link it to the Cathars, but it is already a commonplace. That all these elements are part of French history and culture is not in doubt.

It is generally accepted that alchemy developed in France and Italy from the 15th century, but was imported from Egypt. The presence of Temples of Isis in Gaul does not, however, lead historians to conclude that the Egyptian religion itself was present there. Without affirming it explicitly, the follower Fulcanelli in "The Mysteries of the Cathedrals" writes that the black virgins of the south of France are statues of Isis, generally accompanied by the child Horus. And – separately – points to the alchemical representations of Gothic cathedrals, where Christian symbolism is sometimes lacking. René Schwaller de Lubicz writes that the cathedrals are built on the model of the Temple of Luxor. Tournus Cathedral features an inscription in stone with the name of a 12th century bishop and suggests he was… a priest of Isis. In Arles or Chartres there was a Temple of Isis, on the site of Notre-Dame de Paris, a Temple of Jovis. Sebastian Munster's map of Paris from 1545 in its Latin version shows instead of Notre-Dame the mention "Summum Templum" and the drawing of a church which is not Notre-Dame. It is accepted that in Rome as in Paris, the basilica of Saint Peter and Notre-Dame are built on the very site of the former Temple of Jovis. Maps of Paris then call the old Church Notre-Dame, until the current Notre-Dame appears on maps around 1600. However, it seems that in many cases the Egyptian Temple was simply converted in a Christian church.

The supposed Egyptian religion is the superposition of several cults which do not mix. Ra, Ptah or Atum are not present in the story around Hermes, Isis, Osiris and Seth. Gaul knows only these figures. Hermes seems to be one of the forms of Mithras. Thus Hermes and Osiris represent the messiahs resulting from the reform of the Temple by King David in the First Book of Chronicles: to the line of Ithamar, David adds a line of Eleazar (falsely presented in the Book of Numbers as the sons of 'Aaron). These are Mithras and Osiris. Hermes is generally related to the Egyptian god Thôt, but Hermes corresponds to Mitra or Moses, also a magician. Thoth is David. Jewish tradition claims that there are two messiahs: a messiah of Joseph named Ephraim presented as the priestly messiah, and a messiah of David who is a warrior messiah. Ephraim is a deformation of Ithamar, also Mithra is the messiah of Joseph. If this Joseph is the Joseph of the Book of Genesis prime minister of Egypt, the local version of Mithras is the god Amun. David's messiah is therefore Eleazar. The Books of Numbers and Chronicles present Eleazar as more important than Ithamar, as Osiris is more important than Amun.

Mithras and Osiris have initiation rituals associated with their names in Masonry, which identifies Masonry as the continuation of the Temple of David. Masonry today claims Solomon's Temple, but this may be a distortion brought about by the 1723 Hanoverian Reform of English Masonry.

Were the Cathars then of Egyptian religion? If the name of Isis is known in Gaul, Osiris is not mentioned, but Jovis (Yahvé). In terms of doctrine, they are quite close to the Christian Gnostics of Alexandria. The 2nd century Gnostics of Alexandria follow the Gospel of *Mark* . Mark follows Paul's influence. The Gnostics of Alexandria are therefore probably identical with the Pauline sect of the 7th century in Eastern Europe. It is claimed that the Paulinians originated another sect in the 12th century: the Bogomils. Probably the three groups are identical and correspond to the 15th or 16th century.

Like the Gnostics and Muslims, the Cathars believe that the real Jesus is not of flesh and therefore did not die on the cross. The evil god - whom they call Rex Mundi (Ialdabaoth is a name used by the Gnostics of Egypt) - created the material world. He is the god of the Old Testament, which they reject, although they admit the ten commandments. They also do not admit the New Testament, but only certain unspecified texts. It is supposed to be the Gospel of John or a "secret" John, but this is unlikely, because the little Genesis at the beginning of the Gospel of John makes Jesus the logos, the verb creator of God, the role that the Cathars assign to the demiurge. The modern Johannite Church claims that the Cathars had their Gospel of John short, devoid of the resurrection and later episodes. But this gospel also has the little Genesis. Moreover, if the Cathars worshiped Lazarus (Osiris), the Gospel of John mocks him. As for Isis or Mary Magdalene, the Apocalypse of John makes her the Great Prostitute.

The Marcionites of Alexandria admit the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Mark, but the Cathars are unlikely to have admitted Mark. Indeed Mark presents the baptism of Jesus in the waters of the Jordan by John the Baptist. However, the Cathars reject this baptism in favor of the sole baptism of the Holy Spirit, which corresponds to the reception of the Spirit by the disciples in the form of tongues of fire in the episodes of the Gospels after the resurrection – precisely those that we do not admit the Johannite Church.

This baptism among the Cathars takes the form of a single sacrament, the Consolamentum, which is a simple prayer, and removes the person's sins. This consolamentum can only be taken once in a lifetime. So many only received it at the end of their life. This sacrament may have become extreme unction in Roman religion. Those who received it earlier in life became perfected and their obligations changed. It was no longer possible for them to touch a person of the opposite sex. The parfaits, however, went in pairs of a man and a woman, nomads.

As with the Gnostics of Alexandria, the soul for the Cathars is the divine part in man and is likened to a star. They call themselves the "poor of Christ", say they are wanderers. The beginning of the year is marked by a communal meal where bread is blessed and shared. They were vegan because animals were also given a soul, except for the fish they ate because they believed they did not reproduce through sexuality. Sexuality is allowed for those who are not perfect, but not for reproduction, which condemns a soul to incarnate.

For the Cathars, the Last Judgment has already taken place and we are in hell. Like the Buddhists, the Cathars want to break the cycle of reincarnations, but the number of reincarnations is limited to 7 or 9. The expression "cats have nine lives" may come from this. The cat has a reputation as an evil animal in the 17th century and the church burns them, like the Cathars will end up at the stake. The Gnostics of Alexandria and the Marcionites do not seem to have been so radical.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 20, 2022)

Second part.

The Cathars claim to be the first Christians, persecuted as were the apostles and martyrs. Their proximity to Egyptian doctrine apparently earned them the nickname Egyptians. Irenaeus of Lyons – Johannite – attacks the Gnostics, but it is probably a sect close to him geographically. His alter ego Giordano Bruno – from the Giovanni sect – denounces the Egyptians. Later, this nickname of Egyptians given to the Cathars will call them Gypsies. Likewise in the east, the Bogomiles will become the Bohemians. Like the Frankists a century later (18th century), the Gypsies ended up joining the Roman Catholic Church, and more recently the evangelical movements.

It is the modern Johannite Church which claims that the last High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem gave his title to the Christian Temple Order during the Crusades, and that the Temple Order had as its sacred text the Gospel of Jeans. The Order of the Temple and its Johannite Church would have secretly continued to exist after the destruction of the Order of the Temple in 1314 until today. Medieval history tells something else: the wealth and territories owned by the Order of the Temple were confiscated and given to the Order of the Hospitallers of Saint John. Some attribute this transfer of ownership to Philippe le Bel. Other sources say that it was Charles-Quint (1520-1566) who gave the possessions of the Templars, including Rhodes (Rome?), to the Hospitallers of Saint-Jean.

After the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar, the prophet *Jeremiah *visits Jewish refugees in Egypt. He reproaches them for worshiping the Queen of Heaven, which would be the cause of all their misfortunes. The queen of heaven is Isis, clearly identified with the planet Venus by Pliny the Elder. Ishtar being the Babylonian version of Isis, the tandem Ishtar and Marduk or the Esther and Mordecai of the Book of Esther are the Great Harlot and the Little Beast of the Apocalypse. Marduk is indeed depicted as a two-horned dragon. In the Christian version, Esther and Mordecai could be represented by Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Arimathea. In the Apocalypse of John, the author accuses the worshipers of the Great Harlot as "those who say they are Jews and who are not". Thus, where Jeremiah accuses the Jews of Egypt of deviation, John of Patmos claims that they are no longer Jews.

Thus the “City” of Jerusalem would have been the Ile de la Cité in Paris, aptly named “Island of the Jews”. This is where the last master of the Order of the Temple – Jacques de Molay – was condemned, supposedly to the stake. The story of the Epistles of the New Testament sheds light on this time: since it speaks of a Church of Jerusalem led by James the brother of the Lord, and that James was also assassinated by the Roman power. Flavius Josephus also speaks of the assassination of James, but presents him as the priest of the Temple: thus the Church of Jerusalem of the epistles and the Temple of Jerusalem are one. The Temple at this time is Christian, but only Paul calls the Lord “Jesus Christ”. The other epistles only name the Lord.

After the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (1550), the "Jews" obtained the right to continue worship in Avignon (the ancient Yavne). But the conversion of Henry IV in 1594 made them lose his protection and they were expelled in 1597. They then left France for Scotland where William Saint-Clair created the first Masonic lodge in Rosslyn in 1598. We speak of Jacobite Masonry , in relation to the Reformed Hanoverian Masonry of 1723. The Jacobite cause is claimed to denote the cause of James III Stuart of England. The level of Jacobite devotion rather suggests a reference to Jacques de Molay. Both ranks of Knight of St. John and Knight of the Temple exist in Freemasonry, but must be a syncretism of Hanoverian Freemasonry.

The Templars also reach the United States, where they are among the first immigrants. From this comes the notion that "Egyptians" or Templars once visited America. The former are undoubtedly true Templars and the latter Johannites. Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, Freemasons, also maintain this tradition.

Archeology attributes the remains of the Early Christians of Rome to the current of John, but the States of the Church do not appear on the maps before 1550. It therefore seems that the Jerusalem that was Paris has become a name for the city of Rome. But Charles-Quint was forced to abdicate in 1556. The Johannites would now also be in trouble with Rome, since Giordano Bruno died at the stake in 1600.

With regard to the stories of the Grail, before the more or less definitive version proposed by Thomas Mallory, four main versions have been proposed: the original Welsh or Breton, the story of Chrétien de Troyes which is inspired by it, the story of Robert de Boron and that of Wolfram von Eschenbach. The medieval versions are contemporary with the time of the Cathars, the 12th and 13th century. The Crusades against the Cathars actually dating from the 17th century, these stories are probably also from this period, and contemporary with the stories of the Rose-Croix.

The Knights of the Round Table are in the Welsh version the Knights of the Rotunda, i.e. a round church, or *cromlech*.

*Chrétien de Troyes *does not make a link between the Grail and Christ and does not even speak of the Grail but of a luminous sacred object. His biography says that his patron was Marie de Champagne, widow in 1181 of King Henry II of England, who died in the Crusades. His account is based on the Celtic version of Peredur. It evokes a procession to the fisher king with a spear, a candlestick, the sacred luminous object, and a silver platter. Further on, a woman cries because her husband has been beheaded. So the severed head is not here on the set. If we see the light of the object, then no sin can touch us. The objects of the procession can make think of the objects of the Temple of Jerusalem and the beheaded husband of Jacques de Molay, mourned by his church. Contemporary accounts claim it was simply burned, but it was common to hang or decapitate (in the case of important personages) the condemned person before the stake. Henry II of England is undoubtedly *Henri II of France (1547-1559)* , the last knight king, whose emblem is still the crescent moon.

*Robert de Boron's* "Merlin" around 1200 christianizes the story. Boron would have married the daughter of the king of Jerusalem and would have become a sort of king of Cyprus, which links him to the *Hospitallers of Saint John* . The Grail is the cup that contained the blood of Christ, recovered by Joseph of Arimathea. This cup would have been brought back during the fourth crusade in Great Britain, shortly before Boron wrote his text. He adds a man's head to the board. Perceval fails to cure the fisher king by forgetting to ask who this head belongs to. We are of course thinking of *Jean-Baptiste* , the patron saint of the Hospitallers. Otto Rahn, who investigates the Grail in southwestern France, says Boron lied.

*Wolfram von Eschenbach* – who is said to have written shortly afterwards – does not speak of Boron, but claims to correct the errors of Chrétien de Troyes. Wolfram explicitly links the quest for the Grail to the *Templars* , but also to alchemical and Egyptian motifs, which links him to the Gnostics of Alexandria and the *Hermetists*.

The Grail here is a stone called lapis exilis, the name of the philosopher's stone in alchemy. When she touches the phoenix, she consumes it and it rises from its ashes. The phoenix is linked to Egypt in Pliny the Elder. The similar stones are fragments of stars that Lucifer, falling to Earth, dragged with him. Here, the grail is clearly the divine part in the man of the Gnostics, represented by Venus in the symbolism. Wolfram says that the Grail is guarded by the “Templesians” at Montsalvat, whom Otto Rahn wanted to identify with Montségur. Wolfram also speaks of “Guardians of the Temple” and this expression comes from him. Here, women can seek the Grail, which recalls the equality of the sexes among the Cathars. In his version, the fisher king is a priest-king and the mass is close to the episode of the last meal.

Howie Mikovsky links the elements given by Wolfram to Hermeticism, and ultimately to Gaul. Hermes has a sky stone that launches sparks which he gives to Hercules. Hercules is buried with the stone in Montreal in the French southwest. Christian Rosencreutz, the Rosicrucian hero, is also said to have been buried in the Albigienses mountains. The stories of the Rose-Croix and those of the Grail being from the same period, and probably from the same groups, the parallels are not surprising.

The crusades would have been partly invented to explain the fact that the kings of Jerusalem are French. But Judea is a Roman province, while the only "Roman province" identifiable on the maps is Provence. Julius Caesar (Eleazar) has a military action in Judea, but also in Gaul. But Francesco Carotta in "Jesus was Caesar" showed the many parallels between the life of Julius Caesar and the Jesus of the Gospels.

A number of orders of chivalry were founded in the 12th century with the intention of protecting pilgrims to the Holy Land. One of them is called the Order of Saint-Lazare: it designates the cult of Osiris. The *Order of the Holy Sepulcher* was founded in 1099 at the same time as the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Its symbol is a Templar cross on a yellow background. It is a variant of the Order of the Hospitallers of Saint John.

The first King of Jerusalem was *Godfrey of Bouillon* , followed by his brother Baudouin of Flanders. The next king Baldwin II in 1118, although unrelated, called Godfrey and Baldwin I his brothers. It is false to claim that Godfrey is the first king of Jerusalem. Others carried this title before him.

In 1113, the Hospitallers of Saint-Jean were founded. Chaste, they obey only the pope. It is claimed that the cross of the Hospitallers is white on a red background: it is red on a white background, and falsely attributed to the Templars, who do not have the cross as a symbol. The eight-pointed cross is indeed called the Maltese cross and not the Templar cross.

Representations of Charles V or Caiaphas associate them with the crescent and an eight-pointed star – and not a cross. This is an archaic version of the Ottoman flag. The association of the crescent and the star could be an attempt at syncretism between the religion of Henry II (Osirism) and that of the Gospel of John. In the Koran, the author claims to create the perfect religion by the synthesis of the religion of the Jews, whose messiah is Usayr (Osiris) and that of the Nazarenes, whose messiah is Issa. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is called the Nazarene and not the Galilean as in the other Gospels.

In 1486, *Innocent VIII* merged the Order of the Holy Sepulcher and the Hospitallers. But in 1496 Alexander VI restores its independence. Innocent VIII therefore carries out the will of the author of the Quran, generally considered to be the Prophet *Muhammad* . Innocent VIII is Giovanni Batista Cybo, pope from 1484 to 1496, presented as inquisitor. But for the Cathars, the character of John the Baptist prefigures the Antichrist.

In 1119, Hugues de Payns founded the *Order of the Templars* . In 1129 he was recognized by the pope who entrusted them with the mission of protecting pilgrims to the Holy Land. Knights must remain chaste. In 1139, it is accepted that they report only to the pope and are exempt from tax. It is clear that this is the story about the Hospitallers of John, and not the Templars themselves. There is a female branch. This foreshadows Catholicism with its celibate monks and sisters.

In 1305, Pope Clement V of Avignon wanted to merge the Templar (Jacques de Molay) and Hospitalier (Fouque de Villerette) orders. In 1307 Molay was arrested because Philippe le Bel owed him money. The Hospitallers would then have replaced the Templars in their missions in the Holy Land against the Muslims. In reality, the crusade took place against the Templars. They are Philip the Handsome, his son *Charles-Quint (1530-1556 ) and Pope Clement VII* of Rome . Thus the Hospitallers did not settle in Malta until *1530 and until 1798*. It is claimed that they were fighting pirates and not fighting the Turks. How is this possible if the great naval battle of Lepanto against the Turks took place in 1571? In 1798, the Hospitallers would have settled in Rome and would have become the Order of Malta. But this makes little sense. The Hospitallers became the Order of Malta in 1530 and fought against the Turks. In 1798, at the time of Barbary piracy, they devoted themselves to the fight against this scourge.

The fourth order of the Crusades is that of the Teutonic Knights, yet another copy of the history of the Templars and Hospitallers in the Holy Land. The Teutonic Knights actually represent the resistance of German Jews – and non-Protestants – to Charles V's wars. In 1809, Napoleon dissolved the Teutonic Knights, then reinstated them as a non-military association. In 1938 the Nazis again banned the Teutonic Knights before their restoration in 1945.

In 1612, 1615 and 1616 the Rose-Croix texts were published. They are produced in Germany and are probably contemporaneous with the Grail stories. They take up the antiphon of the Jesuits to realize the universal Church, on the condition henceforth that it is not a question of the Church of Rome.

Howie Mikowski identifies in the *Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement (1630-1660)* and the *Compagnie de Saint-Sulpice (1641-1660)*a form of resurgence of Catharism. It is credible as far as the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement is concerned, but the Compagnie de Saint-Sulpice is Johannite. Mikowsky is misled by the links of Saint-Sulpice with the city of Montreal, which is also the name of a locality near Rennes-le-Château, and suggests an etymology linked to the Grail. Chronologically the Cathars are not yet defeated since their final defeat occurs during the reign of Louis XIV. Presumably 1660 is the cut-off date for all three entities. As Mikowski says, Poussin – the star painter of Rennes-le-Château – also stopped painting at this time. Between 1618 and 1648, the Germans were at war with Rome. In 1660, the Johannites like the Egyptians were defeated in France.

The Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement was founded by Saint Vincent Depaul. Born in 1576, he would have been a slave of the Turks and would have learned *alchemy there*. He claimed to make the heads of the dead speak. In 1609 he would have accepted a secret mission from Henri IV. In 1630 he founded the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement. Officially she devotes herself to evangelization, the management of hospitals, orphanages and prisons. But in its statutes, the first obligation is curiously secrecy. It will be added that the sacrament is in the singular, which effectively recalls the Cathars whose only sacrament is the Consolamentum. Before his conversion to Catholicism, Henri IV is presented as a “Calvinist”. But Calvin has practically no disagreement with the Roman church. Henri IV was undoubtedly a Cathar and he was king of Navarre, a very close territory. Apparently in 1609 he still maintained a connection with his old faith. The large Guise family would have owned land in Languedoc, in Couiza (Guise?) in particular. On his death in 1640, the wife of a Duke of Guise who had taken refuge in Italy was forced to return her land to the Archdiocese of Narbonne to return to France. Thus, the leader of the Catholic League who held Paris at the approach of the troops of Henry III and Henry of Navarre would have been a Cathar?

From 1641 to 1660, another organization, the *Compagnie de Saint-Sulpice*, headed by Jean-Jacques Ollier, is active. It is claimed that Jacques Cartier, depicted in crusader attire, founded Montreal in 1530. But the Compagnie Saint-Sulpice provides another story of its founding Ollier allegedly sent 50 people in 1642 to found a colony in New France which he named Villemarie. The four founders are one woman and three men – the same number as the Arcadian shepherds in Poussin's paintings. The members of the colony, renamed Montreal, would have been dubbed as Crusaders, that is to say they are Knights of Malta. Quebec's national holiday is June 24, the day of Saint John the Baptist, patron saint of the Knights of Malta. Notre-Dame Cathedral in Montreal is dedicated to Mary, Joseph and John the Baptist, and features many Johannite symbols.


----------



## trismegistus (Oct 1, 2022)

There was a discussion on the Hebrew language that was had in this thread that has veered far offtopic from the topic of the OP. Please continue that discussion here:

Off-topic etymological discussion from Biblical France thread

If anyone can think of a better name for that thread let me know.


----------



## OBRYprojekt (Oct 9, 2022)

trismegistus said:


> There was a discussion on the Hebrew language that was had in this thread that has veered far offtopic from the topic of the OP. Please continue that discussion here:
> 
> Off-topic etymological discussion from Biblical France thread
> 
> If anyone can think of a better name for that thread let me know.


I did not see this prior to my continuation of the topic. I'll check the other thread.
A thought for the alt. thread: "Assumptions regarding Hebrew and Biblical-Linguistics as relating to Modern Theories" ... off the top of my head


----------



## Bitbybit (Nov 27, 2022)

The arguments for the bibilical stories happening in Gaul is many
I will just highlight two.
The lake Galilee, and Lazarus.

As most people are taught, Jesus encountered a major storm while traveling in a boat across the Sea of Galilee. (In Israel)








But if you check this place, this is quite a small lake:











To solve this.
The Sea of Galilee = Sea of Gallia/Gaul =  Modern name: English channel

************************



The tomb of Lazarus in al Eizariya looks not that convincing to be honest.







Here we have a "confusion".
The year of 411 could of course be much later.

**********
EDIT:
What do you think of this bit.   (Queen Elisabeth had apostles as prisoners?)

_Charles Dickens (1812–1870),the famous English writer and novelist wrote a book with the title “ Child’s history of England”. in the chapter talking about the coronation of queen Elisabeth I (1533–1603) who reigned from *1558 *we read the following text:
“The coronation was a great success and the next day, one of the courtiers presented a petition to the new queen, praying that it was the custom to release some prisoners on such occasions, she would have the goodness to release the four evangelists, *Matthew, Mark, Luke and Jo**hn, and also the apostle saint Paul,* who had been for some time shut up in a strange language so that the people could not get at them“_


----------



## Seeker (Nov 29, 2022)

I'm sorry if this muddies the waters a bit for the previous post.... but....

Earlier in the topic, I posted some pictures from Bath in the UK. Here is another image from a few streets away, right next door to another 'natural bath'.





Google Maps

Inscription above the door reads 'Hospital of St John the Baptist', and above that, I believe it says 'Founded 1174'.

Wikipedia claims this is also correct - for what little that is worth.

St John's Hospital, Bath - Wikipedia

There certainly are some interesting things in this city.

Edit - Queen Elizabeth I get's a mention in the Wikipedia entry, if it's of any interest.


----------



## h4ste (Dec 1, 2022)

If Paris is Jerusalem, then what is London? 

Is the Rome of today the same Rome of the Bible?


----------



## Bitbybit (Dec 13, 2022)

For a simplistic summary, is this correct: (?)
Jesus was regim-critic in Gaul/Paris against the "Roman empire" around 1000AD.
He had a number of followers called Pharisians and Cathars.  (?)
They spoke hebrew or "Judeo-French".

Jesus "king of the jews" was killed by the romans. 
Jesus followers may have saved a lot of relics after his death.

Around 1200AD the myths and legend of Jesus had been absorbed by the rulers in Rome but they shifted the events back 1000 years back in time and changed the location to Israel.

?
Thanks


----------

