Before you turn Egyptology into science and Egyptologists into gods, I think it'll suffice for you to understand the following:
1. Egyptology's modern history begins with the invasion of Egypt by Napoleon and with the discovery of Rosetta Stone in Egypt.
2. In the late 1800s, Egyptology became an academic subject through the research of Hienrich Brugsch et al.
3. In the 1920s, Egyptology became a legitimate academic field when James Henry Breasted founded the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.
The question is, where did J.H Breasted get the funding for the establishment of the Oriental Institute from? The funds came from a wealthy Christian Evangelical, John D. Rockefeller (Rockefeller hereinafter). In other words, in an attempt to historicize the bible using a legitimate academic discipline (I.e. Archeology cum Egyptology), Rockefeller bankrolled the establishment of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.
What's the hidden agenda here?
To understand the hidden agenda behind the establishment of the Oriental Institute and Egyptology, as a legitimate academic discipline, one must first understand:
1. The ancient Egyptians did not write their own history nor did they write their own historical chronology.
2. The history and historical chronology of Ancient Egypt were developed, around 1800s-1900s, by the Scaligerites and Jesuit scholars using the 6000-year biblical timeline that Joseph Scalinger and Petavius created.
Well, it's one thing to fabricate a timeline, history and historical chronology; it's another thing to have archeological records to back them up. Consequently, to back up the fabricated biblical timeline and chronology with verifiable archeological records, in and around Egypt, the Oriental Institute and the academic field of Egyptology were created.
In conclusion, Egyptology is not science. It's an agenda based academic field that's developed to historicize the bible. So, I would advise you to take it with a grain of salt.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Hebrew is Greek
In his very rare book, " Hebrew is Greek," Joseph Yahuda proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the so-called Hebrew script is actually Greek. While we must commend Mr. Yahuda for his excellent research, I must say, Mr. Yahuda's thesis is nothing new. It's old and well-known among the new chronologists and other diligent students of history that, there was no ancient Hebrew civilization in North East Africa (now Palestine).
What else do we know?
We know that the first two Bibles: Codex SINAITICUS and the SEPTUAGINT were both written in Koine Greek and not in Hebrew as now implied. The question is: if Hebrew was indeed an ancient script, why then did the Hebrews write their "Holy" book in Greek and not in Hebrew? To answer this important question, I must first deconstruction the myth of Ancient Greece.
It suffices to know that neither Ancient Hebrew civilization nor Ancient Greek civilization ever existed. Don't get me wrong, there were Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations of Ancient Crete and Athens respectively, but there was no Ancient Greek civilization as implied in traditional history. In other words, Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek civilizations were both fabricated. In fact, Ancient Greek civilization was fabricated as an academic duplicate of the Biblical Hebrew civilization. Permit me to demystify this riddle of fabrication!
The first history book (not the first book), ever written, on this planet, was the Bible, and it was written in Greek. It was a book about a creature, IESUS XPICTOC or Jesus the Christ, and his line of descent - Note I = 1; X = 10, the beginning and the end or Alpha and the Omega! The book was formulated and chronicled in the third Rome (i.e. Vatican City) by Joseph Justus Scalinger (Aka PAUL, aka JOSEPHUS). And in fact, it was the Biblical chronology that Scalinger used to develop the history of all the Ancient civilizations, from Ancient Egypt to Ancient China.
So, back to my previous question: "if Hebrew was indeed an ancient script, why then did the Hebrew write their "Holy" book in Greek and not in Hebrew?" The answer is: there was no Ancient Hebrew civilization, nor was there an Ancient Hebrew tribe. It was Joseph Scalinger and other Jesuit scholars who wrote, in Greek, the Biblical history of the Hebrew. And it was they who created Ancient Greek civilization as an academic duplicate of Ancient Hebrew civilization, for it would be senseless to promote the pretended antiquity of the Hebrew tribe when their book was written in Greek. Consequently, Ancient Greece had to be created, as a B.C era civilization, to explain away the mystery of why the first Bible was written in Greek and not in Hebrew.
In conclusion, while Greek civilization did exist in the Middle Ages before it was swallowed up by the Ottoman Empire, there was never an Ancient Hebrew civilization. The so-called Hebrew language that's widely spoken by the Ashkenazis of Israel, today, is actually Yiddish (a Turkic language); a language that's transcribed with Greek script (misnomer Hebrew).
The world is a matrix of lies!!!
What else do we know?
We know that the first two Bibles: Codex SINAITICUS and the SEPTUAGINT were both written in Koine Greek and not in Hebrew as now implied. The question is: if Hebrew was indeed an ancient script, why then did the Hebrews write their "Holy" book in Greek and not in Hebrew? To answer this important question, I must first deconstruction the myth of Ancient Greece.
It suffices to know that neither Ancient Hebrew civilization nor Ancient Greek civilization ever existed. Don't get me wrong, there were Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations of Ancient Crete and Athens respectively, but there was no Ancient Greek civilization as implied in traditional history. In other words, Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek civilizations were both fabricated. In fact, Ancient Greek civilization was fabricated as an academic duplicate of the Biblical Hebrew civilization. Permit me to demystify this riddle of fabrication!
The first history book (not the first book), ever written, on this planet, was the Bible, and it was written in Greek. It was a book about a creature, IESUS XPICTOC or Jesus the Christ, and his line of descent - Note I = 1; X = 10, the beginning and the end or Alpha and the Omega! The book was formulated and chronicled in the third Rome (i.e. Vatican City) by Joseph Justus Scalinger (Aka PAUL, aka JOSEPHUS). And in fact, it was the Biblical chronology that Scalinger used to develop the history of all the Ancient civilizations, from Ancient Egypt to Ancient China.
So, back to my previous question: "if Hebrew was indeed an ancient script, why then did the Hebrew write their "Holy" book in Greek and not in Hebrew?" The answer is: there was no Ancient Hebrew civilization, nor was there an Ancient Hebrew tribe. It was Joseph Scalinger and other Jesuit scholars who wrote, in Greek, the Biblical history of the Hebrew. And it was they who created Ancient Greek civilization as an academic duplicate of Ancient Hebrew civilization, for it would be senseless to promote the pretended antiquity of the Hebrew tribe when their book was written in Greek. Consequently, Ancient Greece had to be created, as a B.C era civilization, to explain away the mystery of why the first Bible was written in Greek and not in Hebrew.
In conclusion, while Greek civilization did exist in the Middle Ages before it was swallowed up by the Ottoman Empire, there was never an Ancient Hebrew civilization. The so-called Hebrew language that's widely spoken by the Ashkenazis of Israel, today, is actually Yiddish (a Turkic language); a language that's transcribed with Greek script (misnomer Hebrew).
The world is a matrix of lies!!!
The Three Roman Civilizations
In his book, "Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended," Isaac Newton applied his unique knowledge of physics and astronomy to problems of history, theology and mythology. Newton's radical ideas generated an uproar that reverberated across Europe in the 18th century and beyond.
What can we deduce from Newton's research?
1. The Western civilization is a Christian civilization by all standards.
2. The star catalog of Ptolemy Almagest which Joseph Scalinger used to formulate the chronology of Ancient civilizations might have been altered, deliberately, by the Church of Rome.
3. The Greco-Roman history was backdated by at least 500 years.
Using modern knowledge of historical chronology combined with Newton's research, new historical chronologists were able to reach the following non-superficial conclusions:
There were three successive Roman civilizations. The first Roman civilization or the first Rome was established at the Delta region of Egypt, now Alexandria. This civilization lasted for nearly four centuries before it was forcefully usurped by the Mohammedan Saracens around 6th-7th century of the Common Era.
The second Roman civilization or the second Rome (I.e. Byzantine) was established in Constantinople, present day Turkey, where the Roman patriarchs built the first Christian church, the church of Hagia Sophia. The second Rome lasted for nearly seven centuries before it was forcefully usurped by the Ottoman Turks around 15th century of the Common Era.
The third Roman civilization or the third Rome was established in the Vatican City, present day Rome, where the Roman patriarchs rebuilt the church of Hagia Sophia and named it St. Peter's Basilica. The third Rome is the new Rome we're all familiar with today which has only been in existence for nearly five centuries.
Why is it imperative for a student of history to carefully study the three Roman civilizations above?
1. Such a student would understand why the world is the way it is today.
2. He/she would fully understand why the Pope issued an edict for the Saracens and the Africans to be reduced to servitude.
3. He/she would understand why Africa is in the shape it is today.
4. He/she would fully understand why Mohammedanism, now Islam, is a form of Nestorian or Monophysitic Christianity.
5. He/she would understand why the Wahhabists in the House Saud collude with the Zionists.
6. He/she would fully understand why the Hans of Asia patrolled their high and low seas for nearly three Centuries to keep the Christian missionaries away from their shores.
7. He/she would fully understand why Christianity is nothing but European cultural supremacy.
8. He/she would definitely understand why much of Western civilization developed in Africa (I.e.Egypt) and Constantinople, present day Turkey.
What can we deduce from Newton's research?
1. The Western civilization is a Christian civilization by all standards.
2. The star catalog of Ptolemy Almagest which Joseph Scalinger used to formulate the chronology of Ancient civilizations might have been altered, deliberately, by the Church of Rome.
3. The Greco-Roman history was backdated by at least 500 years.
Using modern knowledge of historical chronology combined with Newton's research, new historical chronologists were able to reach the following non-superficial conclusions:
There were three successive Roman civilizations. The first Roman civilization or the first Rome was established at the Delta region of Egypt, now Alexandria. This civilization lasted for nearly four centuries before it was forcefully usurped by the Mohammedan Saracens around 6th-7th century of the Common Era.
The second Roman civilization or the second Rome (I.e. Byzantine) was established in Constantinople, present day Turkey, where the Roman patriarchs built the first Christian church, the church of Hagia Sophia. The second Rome lasted for nearly seven centuries before it was forcefully usurped by the Ottoman Turks around 15th century of the Common Era.
The third Roman civilization or the third Rome was established in the Vatican City, present day Rome, where the Roman patriarchs rebuilt the church of Hagia Sophia and named it St. Peter's Basilica. The third Rome is the new Rome we're all familiar with today which has only been in existence for nearly five centuries.
Why is it imperative for a student of history to carefully study the three Roman civilizations above?
1. Such a student would understand why the world is the way it is today.
2. He/she would fully understand why the Pope issued an edict for the Saracens and the Africans to be reduced to servitude.
3. He/she would understand why Africa is in the shape it is today.
4. He/she would fully understand why Mohammedanism, now Islam, is a form of Nestorian or Monophysitic Christianity.
5. He/she would understand why the Wahhabists in the House Saud collude with the Zionists.
6. He/she would fully understand why the Hans of Asia patrolled their high and low seas for nearly three Centuries to keep the Christian missionaries away from their shores.
7. He/she would fully understand why Christianity is nothing but European cultural supremacy.
8. He/she would definitely understand why much of Western civilization developed in Africa (I.e.Egypt) and Constantinople, present day Turkey.
Socratic Question
In one of his many lectures, Christopher Hitchens said, even if Socrates never existed as a historical figure, whoever invented and advanced the socratic philosophical ideas and method was a genius. While I was pondering on why an intellectual heavyweight like Hitchens would doubt the existence of one of the most celebrated Western philosophers, it quickly dawned on me that he was simply thinking out loud the "Socratic question."
The Socratic question is simply the age-old question about the historical existence of Socrates and his writings. But this question is deemed unsolvable. In other words, it's seemingly impossible to truly ascertain if Socrates actually did live and develop the philosophical ideas attributed to him. Well, I'm not here to answer or solve the Socratic question. Rather, i'm only here to provoke your thought process!
In this provocation, I'll leave Socrates alone, at least for know, and move on to Plato. This is where it gets very interesting! Only a loony would doubt the existence of Plato; the B.C era, great Greek philosopher. Well, so I thought, until I discovered another Plato, Gemistus Pletho, in Constantinople, in the 15th Century of the common era.
According to the traditional history, Gemistus Pletho was a 15th Century Neoplatonist, from Constantinople, who reintroduced Platonic philosophical ideas and method into the West. Are you thinking what I was thinking: how on earth did a Neoplatonist (I.e. Gemistus Pletho), in 15th Century Constantinople, suddenly discover all the long-lost writings of Plato nearly 2 thousand years after Plato, decipher all the writings which were supposedly written in old Greek, and reintroduce them to the West? How did Gemistus Pletho even stumble upon Plato's materials in Constantinople?
As far as I'm concerned, traditional Plato was a phantom copy of Gemistus Pletho, who actually lived around 15th Century CE in Constantinople! Anyway, there's something I want the students of history to fully understand: nobody alive a thousand years ago or even in the Middle Ages could decipher the writings and the language of those who lived in the B.C era, nor is there anybody today who can possibly attempt that feat. In other words, the totality of B.C era history was created in the Middle Ages.
Question everything because the world is a matrix of lies!
The Socratic question is simply the age-old question about the historical existence of Socrates and his writings. But this question is deemed unsolvable. In other words, it's seemingly impossible to truly ascertain if Socrates actually did live and develop the philosophical ideas attributed to him. Well, I'm not here to answer or solve the Socratic question. Rather, i'm only here to provoke your thought process!
In this provocation, I'll leave Socrates alone, at least for know, and move on to Plato. This is where it gets very interesting! Only a loony would doubt the existence of Plato; the B.C era, great Greek philosopher. Well, so I thought, until I discovered another Plato, Gemistus Pletho, in Constantinople, in the 15th Century of the common era.
According to the traditional history, Gemistus Pletho was a 15th Century Neoplatonist, from Constantinople, who reintroduced Platonic philosophical ideas and method into the West. Are you thinking what I was thinking: how on earth did a Neoplatonist (I.e. Gemistus Pletho), in 15th Century Constantinople, suddenly discover all the long-lost writings of Plato nearly 2 thousand years after Plato, decipher all the writings which were supposedly written in old Greek, and reintroduce them to the West? How did Gemistus Pletho even stumble upon Plato's materials in Constantinople?
As far as I'm concerned, traditional Plato was a phantom copy of Gemistus Pletho, who actually lived around 15th Century CE in Constantinople! Anyway, there's something I want the students of history to fully understand: nobody alive a thousand years ago or even in the Middle Ages could decipher the writings and the language of those who lived in the B.C era, nor is there anybody today who can possibly attempt that feat. In other words, the totality of B.C era history was created in the Middle Ages.
Question everything because the world is a matrix of lies!
Phantom Doubling
In writing, it's called phantom doubling or an act of creating multiple copies of the same story. But, in acting, it's simply called doubling or an act of casting one actor for multiple roles in one movie scene. While I can't tell you where the concept of phantom doubling originated from, I can surely tell you that the concept was popularized by the Shakespearean writers, in the Middle Ages. There are tons of stories that are replete with phantom doubling, but time and space would only permit me to reveal a few.
Here we go: the story of Socrates in "Ancient Greece" is a phantom copy of the story of Socrates Scholasticus or Socrates of Constantinople. Similarly, the story of Plato in "Ancient Greece" is a phantom copy of the story of Gemistos Pletho in Constantinople. The story of Aristotle in "Ancient Greece" is a phantom copy of the story of Georgios Kourtesios Scholarios (aka Ariostesios) in Constantinople. And lastly, the story of Alexandria the Great or Iskandar the conqueror is a phantom copy of the story of Mehmed II the Great conqueror of Constantinople.
Now, let's juxtapose, piecemeal, the phantom copies and the originals: Aristole was said to be Plato's student in Ancient Greece. Similarly, Scholarios (aka Ariostesios) was said to be Gemistos Pletho's student in Constantinople. Plato and Aristotle both travelled to Egypt and studied there. Gemistos Pletho and Scholarios did same. Aristotle opposed some of Plato's teachings and may have challenged Plato openly. Scholarios did the same to Gemistos Pletho, in the Middle Ages. It gets very interesting! Aristotle was said to be Alexandria's tutor in Ancient Greece. Similarly, Scholarios or Ariostesiosi was Mehmed II mentor in Constantinople. And lastly, Alexandria supposedly conquered Persia at a young age of 21-22, his biggest conquest. Similarly, Mehmed II conquered Constantinople around the same age.
I maintain that, there's no Greek civilization in the Ancient times. The so-called Ancient Greek civilization, in traditional history, was a phantom copy of the Byzantine era, Aegean city state of Athens - Athens being the intellectual capital of Byzantine while Constantinople was its political capital. As evidenced by the phantom stories above, every major Greek celebrities, in the traditional history, was actually a phantom double of others in Constantinople, in the Middle Ages.
The question is: why the pretended antiquity of Greece? In other words, why did the Scaligerites or Jesuit scholars write Greece into ancient history? First off, it was the Jesuits scholars who created the discipline of history based on a Biblical chronology or timeline they, themselves, created. Consequently, it's expedient for the Jesuit scholars to backdate the history of Greece, into late antiquity, since the first known Bibles were written in Greek (I.e. The Septuagint and Codex SINAITICUS). In other words, Ancient Greece had to be created, as a B.C era civilization, to explain away the mystery of why the first Bible was written in Greek and not in Hebrew.
The world is a matrix of lies!
Here we go: the story of Socrates in "Ancient Greece" is a phantom copy of the story of Socrates Scholasticus or Socrates of Constantinople. Similarly, the story of Plato in "Ancient Greece" is a phantom copy of the story of Gemistos Pletho in Constantinople. The story of Aristotle in "Ancient Greece" is a phantom copy of the story of Georgios Kourtesios Scholarios (aka Ariostesios) in Constantinople. And lastly, the story of Alexandria the Great or Iskandar the conqueror is a phantom copy of the story of Mehmed II the Great conqueror of Constantinople.
Now, let's juxtapose, piecemeal, the phantom copies and the originals: Aristole was said to be Plato's student in Ancient Greece. Similarly, Scholarios (aka Ariostesios) was said to be Gemistos Pletho's student in Constantinople. Plato and Aristotle both travelled to Egypt and studied there. Gemistos Pletho and Scholarios did same. Aristotle opposed some of Plato's teachings and may have challenged Plato openly. Scholarios did the same to Gemistos Pletho, in the Middle Ages. It gets very interesting! Aristotle was said to be Alexandria's tutor in Ancient Greece. Similarly, Scholarios or Ariostesiosi was Mehmed II mentor in Constantinople. And lastly, Alexandria supposedly conquered Persia at a young age of 21-22, his biggest conquest. Similarly, Mehmed II conquered Constantinople around the same age.
I maintain that, there's no Greek civilization in the Ancient times. The so-called Ancient Greek civilization, in traditional history, was a phantom copy of the Byzantine era, Aegean city state of Athens - Athens being the intellectual capital of Byzantine while Constantinople was its political capital. As evidenced by the phantom stories above, every major Greek celebrities, in the traditional history, was actually a phantom double of others in Constantinople, in the Middle Ages.
The question is: why the pretended antiquity of Greece? In other words, why did the Scaligerites or Jesuit scholars write Greece into ancient history? First off, it was the Jesuits scholars who created the discipline of history based on a Biblical chronology or timeline they, themselves, created. Consequently, it's expedient for the Jesuit scholars to backdate the history of Greece, into late antiquity, since the first known Bibles were written in Greek (I.e. The Septuagint and Codex SINAITICUS). In other words, Ancient Greece had to be created, as a B.C era civilization, to explain away the mystery of why the first Bible was written in Greek and not in Hebrew.
The world is a matrix of lies!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)