First, a little about myself and why I find this topic interesting. I was raised a christian and used to believe that since Jesus was a Jew, That the Old Testament or Talmud had great significance to my religion. I love history and have always been interested in biblical figures and the accounts surrounding them. For me it all started with Abraham, leading to the slavery of Isrealitesby the Egyptians, then came Moses who led these people to freedom and bringing them to a new land they called Isreal. Many prophets came and went until Jesus landed on the scene giving us christianity.

Well Ive learned a very different history recently that is really fascinating and may explain some things concerning freemasonry, Zionism, and who Jesus might have really been.

1) Abraham was a Hyskos(semetic) King. The Hyskos Kings ruled Egypt for a time until Egyptians revolted and made them leave.
2)the Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt but co-rulers until thier expulsion.
3) the land of Palastine was an Egyptian provence that the Egyptian rulers gave to the Hebrews if they left Egypt peacfully.
4) the tribe of Dan were the same MAcedonians that conquered Greece.
5) Alexander the great came from the tribe of Dan making him Semetic
6)the Ptolemies like Cleopatra were semetic/greek
7)when cleopatra mated with Ceasar they produced a son 'little ceasar' semetic/greek/roman who stood to inherit rulership of rome
8)jealousy from Octavian prevented this and the little ceasar had to take flight and hide from Rome because they saught to kill him and prevent him from ruling in his fathers footsteps. This little Ceasar was nicknamed the King of Kings.
9)These Semetic/egyptian/roman/greek royal bloodlines , families of conquerers, leaders of empires would eventually become the ruling families of Europe by right of birth.
10) The Jesus of the Bible was Ceasars son from Cleopatra who started a revolution against the exising Roman empire at the time . He was a king in hiding essentially that had a huge underground support group of family and friends in the semetic/egyptian world. Since he was in hiding from Rome he had to appear poor.
11)The symbolism of the Queen of Englands regalia like the queen bee, and the rod and whip she carries are the same ones that egyptian rulers used, the queen bee was indicative of the queen of the hive. Thus of the royal bloodline.
12) Little Ceasar produced offspring and his offspring and the ruling families of romes offspring, both of noble blood, were the foundation for Europes ruling families right up to the House Of Windsor.
13) That Jesus never started Christianity, being the son of Ceasar on the run he visited Kashmir while in hiding, his philosophy and kingship had influenced the people of Isreal and he was seen as a revolutionary of the people.
14) Eventually Jesus was put to death because of Octavians jealousy.
15)By the time of Constantine that whole area had bec=ome religiously divided so he brought all religions into one Jesus christ would simply mean Hesu the druidic god and Krishna the indian god both godswould represent the values we see in christianity today...peace and love.

So my take on why zionism, freemasonry use egyptian symbolism is to track and represent the continued royal semetic bloodline since Abraham, a Hyskos king of Egypt whose bloodline would intermingle with powerful empires right up to the present.
As you might of guessed Im not a Christian or a Jew just a lover of history who believes that religion was created by rulers to keep its populations in check. Ceasar was a man-god. The holy roman empire was a political and a religious force. The whole King/God plan of ruling was perfected by Egyptians. Interesting eh? By the way im not going to get involved in any religious debates. However Id love to discuss any of this with other like minded people.

Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 BCE therefore could not have fathered Jesus, who was crucified upon request of the Jewish high priests who had him arrested for blasphemy (if he ever existed at all), not only this but Jesus was crucified around 26-36 AD outliving Octavian who died 14 AD.

Octavian also was made benefactor of Julius Caesar's will, who he interred with the Vestal Virgins upon return from fighting the forces of Pompey. So Caesar's bast-ard offspring would never have seen power of the Roman Empire. Caesarion, child of Caesar and Cleopatra, became Pharaoh Ptolemy Caesar but was killed at the age of 17 by orders of Octavian, along with the message 'two Caesars, is one too many'

My only Question at this point is... If Jesus was the son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, then how was he a Jew? Semitic by your logic, perhaps... But, how could he be a Jew? He would have been born and raised in Egypt long after the Israelites left. And if he was not a Jew then why worry about Judaism or Christianity? Also, I believe the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians were Polytheistic at that time.

A couple of things I see some people have a problem with is the exact time...what was considered BC and AD. As far as I know there is dispute about this and the only way for scholars to date anything around this period is to counter reference with other rulers who lived around the same time period. So basically as far as time is concerned there is only an approximation. Not an exact date that is solid as stone.

As to 'Little Ceasars' bloodline, not only was he Roman thrugh his father Ceasar, but he was also Semetic(Jew) and Greek through his mother Cleopatara. Jewish and Greek because of ALexander the Great who was related to the Ptolemic Kings through blood. Macedonians were partly Semetic through the tribe of Dan...or Macedanians.

What I present here is another way of looking at who Jesus really could have been and I find the similarities striking. Little Ceasar died at the hands of the Romans at an early age too just like Jesus. Little Ceasar was nicknamed 'King of Kings'. What an uproar this caused in the middle east because not only did Octavian murder a Roman man-gods son but he also mudered a queen-gods son as well. Both Cleopatra and Ceasar were proclaimed god rulers. She was the emodyment of ISIS, the virgin mother.

Whatever underground movement this Little CEasar was part of it must have been big. He was in hiding for a while just like the Jesus of the bible was. How did this underground noble live, what was his support group? History is somewhat lacking on this guys background which is incredible in itself.

Could it be that this little known son of 2 rulers that were considered as gods that seems to have no history at all be the one and only Jesus of the bible? Watch this : It is history but also intermingles present day history in it too...this is not a 9-11 video!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82...h&plindex=0


http://www.tribwatch.com/kassite.htm

Rector, I think you're trying to insert logic and actual history where it's just not wanted.

--Jaylemurph

Rector is offering the Wikipidia account which is in itself not accuratre all the time especially with a hot issue dealing with christianity/judaism. I sense the sarcasm from the last poster and ask if you watched the video before you posted. Probably not. Let me ask you all this...how is it easier to believe what churches and synagogues tell you than to simply do a little historical research into it? Is it just easier to believe that this one guy in history worked miracles and walked on water was born of a real virgin or does it make more sense to put it into historical context and assume he is just a man with noble background? Little Ceasar lived around the same time as historical Jesus. Remember that his date of birth is an approximation. Also remeber this....no writer of history at the time ever made any mention of the Churches Jesus not even Josephus. So if there was a guy walking on water and raising dead people then no one seemed to notice...isn't that odd?

Okay...in that case, none of them noticed Cesarion being a man-god either. If he was really the historical origin of the Jesus stories, then there's no contemporary evidence for that.

Alexander the Great also had absolutely no blood link to the Ptolemaic Bloodline, Ptolemy was one of Alexanders Generals who took control of Egypt after Alexanders death, (see Seleucid Empire too)
also i would rather use wikipedia to get some 'knowledge' than rely on a book edited and censored so much that half its content will perhaps never see the light of day.

dmgspycat,

This is an interesting take on the whole matter. Perhaps mostly true in my opinion and based on the things I am reading and watching lately. Its so amazing to me that the ineternet which is a tool developed by the 'controllers' (whom ever they may be) is being used to expose them. Its probably by 'their' own design - how arrogant of them!

At rthe end of the day people are becoming aware of the conspiracies of the millenia. My interest is in whats at the end of the rope for the average man.

What baffles me is not really who is in controll of this scenario from a worldly point of view (as I believe renditions like yours are probably accurate for the most part) but who controlls and built the whole thing - our universe. It is almost absurd to believe that something as complicated as the mind and intellect and emotions are a product of 'chance'. So then who is the master architect behind the whole scheme and are we really the evolution of altered DNA from another master race long gone? ANd more importantly do these people who we both agree are probably in controll of us all (the 'controllers') know who and what we are subject to from an esoteric (as in none physical) point of view?

Rector --

There is no historical record of Ptolemy Soter's father, so there's a persistent rumour it was Phillip II, making him Alexander half-brother. But you're right, there's nothing more than a rumour to point to it. And lots -- lots -- of circumstantial evidence to point against it. You'd be better off asking why exactly the OP seems to think the Greeks are Jews, other than the obvious fact that it is necessary for his cobbled-together pseudo-history.

dmgspycat --

Wikipedia -- like any other book or reference source -- is a tool. And no tool is better or worse than its user. Especially when you have a... unique... theory that hinges (basically) on every single mainstream account being wrong, it's up to you to prove your case. And you're pretty far from doing so. Your dates are wrong, you have people being born 40 years too early and your theory about a cover-up belies your basic ignorance of historians and the field of history itself (indeed every historical cover-up conspiracy does so). So far, your attack on history is no better than "they're wrong cause they don't like my theory." Get some facts. Use them.

--Jaylemurph

Facts huh. Thats what this is all about....trying to get to the bottom of history using new evidence, new archeological records. Often Wikipidia is only regurgitating history thats already been approved by the establishment.

Another thing about the dates...didnt you scroll up to read what I said about dates? The transition from BC to AD is not written in stone. There are some years missing. If I asked you when was Jesus born you would probably tell me December 25 0001 AD. LOL

That movie link I posted is really informative but appearantly no one watched it. If you do bother to watch it start it at 45 minutes into it. Its 2 hours long and the 1st 45 minutes is about another topic.

Once again:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82...h&plindex=0


Remember, start this movie 45 minutes ahead. Its 2 hours long and the 1st 45 minutes isnt that relevent to what we are discussing here.

Auranius said:

"Okay...in that case, none of them noticed Cesarion being a man-god either. If he was really the historical origin of the Jesus stories, then there's no contemporary evidence for that. "

Yes Auranius, that's really odd I agree. Why isnt there a more accurate account of Ceasars son with Cleopatra? I havent checked historians such as Josephus, I wonder if there would be any mention there. Ill get back to you all on that point.

Jaylemurph, no one is attacking history which the establishment historians and churches have neatly packaged for us all. Im offering not my own veiwpoint here. I offering up other researchers works that they pieced together. If you want to check thier facts then just check out that video. Skip the 1st 45 minutes and keep an open mind. Then let me know what you think.

Two things I need to do is check out Alexanders bloodline which was supposedly linked to the Macedonians and the tribe of Dan. Ill also look for a more complete history surrounding 'Little' Ceasar.

Using similar research methods, assumptions and allowances, you could develop just about any theory about any people in the world that you want.

You could say for example that the Slavs are decended from the Huns, who were related to the Mongols, who were lead by Gengis Khan. The Huns pushed into Germany and some settled there presumably. These people were pushed around in the middle ages and ended up in Austria. A degraded form of the name of the obscure ancestor of Gengis, Hitle, was Hitler. So Hitler was a Mongol and the Mongols hate the Jews!

I totally made that up, but with enough cobbled together evidence it just might be made to fly.

History is written the way it is based on the most objective and verifiable facts. Now obviously there is going to be some interpretation, but you don't need to go re-inventing the entire history of western civilization.

The transition from BCE to CE was not formed until the 5th Century CE, no one knows for sure when 'Jesus' was born. Even within the many gospels there are contradictions stating the birth from anywhere between 18 BCE and 7 CE, i made no statement on the date of his birth, if you scrolled up and looked at what I said about dates then you will see that. Personally i am not religious so i do not try to state where/when/how 'Jesus' was born, nor have much reason too. What establishment are you thinking off ? last i checked the conspiracy room was further down the list...

I think you'd have a better discussion with this with Crystal Sage. I stand by my statement that you can't knock history till you've actually learnt it.



You might say that; I certainly wouldn't. But then, I know what I'm talking about.

What you apparently don't know is that there were several other dating systems used in the Levant at the time of Jesus' birth, most notably the system abbreviated by AUC (ab urbe condita, or from the founding of Rome) and the Olympic dating system. It was until centuries after Christ that the Anno Domini system was developed, and not until another 300 years after that it was widely used. Which is to say there were multiple dating systems to compare and contrast relative dates, and we can be reasonably certain that our BC/AD scale reflects ancient dates effectively. There are no "missing years" except for people with un-researched theories they're trying to foist.




Fine, then. Throw down some names and credentials, then, 'cause you haven't so far, and I'm not not watching some poorly-made youtube/google video because you're unable or too lazy to construct a workable argument here yourself.

--Jaylemurph

Since you like Wiki Ill post the page here :

http://mk.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_th...donian_Monarchs


Ceasar was deified after his death, this pleased Cleopatra because that meant her son was a son of god.
If anything it bolsters the idea that this Ptolemy Ceasarion was a " King of Kings",a title given to him by Marc Antony . His mother Cleopatra later Became the New Isis and Marc Antony became the new Dionysus. Marc Antony controlled the eastern provinces like Judea which he later gave to Cleopatra . I read everything on this page and what I find interesting is that history is lacking during this Ceasarions reign in Egypt and over its territories like Judea from 36-30 BC. During this time his mother and father were dead and so was Marc Antony. Since he ruled Judea for a short time, what was it like I wonder, how was he recieved?

Another thing is that this Ceasarion lived from 47-30 bc according to this Wiki page. This guy was a Macedonian King of Kings about ready to inherit the Egyptian / macedonian empire. They traded as far away as India and China. He was supposed to be emporer of Rome but Octavian put an end to that.

So far Ive found nothing written about Ceasarions works in the history books of Josephus, but Ill keep trying.

Also Ill look for evidence linking the tribe of dan to the Ptolemic King blood lines.

Jaylemurph I think you need to tone down your insulting demeanor a bit. You insinuate that Im lazy and stupid. I resent that. This is a forum to put out new ideas about things and events which we always took for granted as the gospel. If you have nothing to offer and you dont want to watch any of the video then simply move along.
Im not a scholar and Im sure none of you are either. I think we can all agree that even scholars themselves have disputes.

This topic is about the hebrew bloodline from Abraham through the Hyksos kings of Egypt to the reign of Cleopatra even to the Queen of England to this day. Marc Antonys son and daughter with Cleopatra were brought back to Rome and raised by Marc 1st wife Octavia. So if Cleopatra had hebrew blood in her it was passed through to her children with Marc Antony. This would be a kingly bloodline to say the least.

Its a possibility that Ceasars son with Cleopatra was the Jesus figure of the bible. After all isnt this merely a story of a man that had been embellished with miracles?

Another thing Jaylemurph...you havent proved when Jesus was born either. All you can say is you have a working calender. Even if theres no missing time between transition you still do not know when Jesus was born, what year?

See this is open to speculation....however fascinating it is not nearly as outlandish as believing the stories in the New Testament. At least I have some working history to go on!

Also to quote Wiki about the tribe of Dan:

" Some believe the Tribe of Dan later became the Macedonians, a people who later assimilated with their neighbors the Greeks. They named the river they settled on the "Dan"ube, similarly the name Macedonian can be linked by translation to the tribe which was lost."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Dan

Another quote :

" The most famous ancient Jewish historian Josef Flavij, who lived in I century after Christ has emphasized the Macedonian ethnic origin of the Ptolemaists.

The kings from the Ptolemaic dynasty are named "Macedonians" (Flavius Against Apion ... II,5).

http://my.opera.com/ancientmacedonia/blog/show.dml/1562599

So here I tie together how the Jews/ Hebrews through the tribe of Dan become the Macedonians and Ptolemic kings. Hope these links worked for you Jaylemurph.

Could you post the family tree then please from Abraham to the Queen of England, it would be a big help for this page. I'm sure it would support you too well done in re-telling the story pretty much already posted about Caesar/Octavian/Cesarian. I still don't see how you came up with the entire there all Greek, Roman, Egyptian Jews, British Monarch, Jesus though... anyone else or just me ? Diechecker's post makes more believable and he even said it was made up

No, if I wanted to insinuate you were lazy or stupid, I'd /say/ you're lazy and stupid. I will say that you, among a number of people here, aren't just uninformed, you're militantly uninformed.




So let's discuss this "Abraham was a Hyksos king" -- what makes you think that, when every extant text on the man claims he was from much further East (and please don't refer me to some youtube video again)? Why think the Macedonians were Jewish -- and don't bother with misguided theories that the Danube was named after the tribe of Dan. A little knowledge of actual linguistics throws that right out the window. Or that the rest of the Ptolemys were Jewish?

And while we're at it... Octavia in no record was Marc Antony's first wife. She was his third (or fourth, if you believe Cicero.) If you can't get your basic facts right...



I suppose it's a possibility, but it's a highly unlikely one.



The standard date is 4 or 6 BCE, the uncertainty of which is based on poor mathematics of the Creator of the Anno Domini system in reckoning the length of Jesus' life, not any failure of the correlating systems of dating.



No, you've cobbled together a few facts you like without regard to source or context; this is not "working history" it is "abusing history to make it conform to your pet theory".



Yes, remember when I said Wikipedia was a tool? I think you'll find this little tit-bit is unsourced and unreferenced. It's not worth the paper it's not written on.

And just so you know -- the Danube was in the heart of the Celtic territories, and it was named from a word that came from their verb *dnu to flow -- just like the Dnieper, the Dniester and the Don. In fact, in practically every other language /but/ English (Slovak Dunaj, Hungarian Duna, Romanian Dunăre, Old Norse Duná, Turkish Tuna, Croatian Dunav, Serbian Dunav) the vowel isn't even the same. Your "named after the tribe of Dan" just doesn't hold up.



I take it you mean Josephus, known to the Romans as Titus Flavius Josephus? (Again with the "if you can't get basic facts right...")

Besides, I'm not arguing that the Ptolemys weren't Macedonians. They were. I'm just curious what makes you think they're Jewish, especially when Roman records show that the first Jews in the area didn't appear until the first Century BCE.



No, you don't. You show that some Macedonians came from Macedonia, which is hardly a feat.

--Jaylemurph

For a time, however, the center for all "Jewish-Christians"(Nasarenes) and all gentile Christians remained in Jerusalem where they had their Nasarene Temple in the Essene Quarter of the city. This is referred to as the golden, or virginal, age of the church by some early authors. Jerusalem, and the Aramaic speaking Nasarenes, remained the controlling center of the movement until the year 135 C.E.. By this 135 C.E. date the gentile Christians had gained enough power and numbers to oust the true Essene successors to Yeshua out of Jerusalem and appoint their own anti-Essene leadership in Rome and elsewhere. Eusebius, in his History of the Church, says that the 15th N'tzari Paqid (pope, lit. "Overseer" of the Nasarenes and all followers of Yeshua, both Jew and Gentile) was exiled with the other Jews from Jerusalem in 135 C.E. source

This can also be found in numerous other sources.

The Nasim of the Nazarene Sanhedrin (32 C.E. - 132 C.E.)

Ya'akov (James) (32 C.E.- 63 C.E.), 2. Shim'on (Simeon) (63 C.E. - 110 C.E.), 3. Justus ( 110 C.E. -?), 4. Zakkai (Zaccheus), 5. Toviyah (Tobias), 6. Benyamin (Benjamin), 7. Yochanan (John), 8. Mattityahu (Matthew), 9. Philip (?-?), 10. Seneca, 11. Justus, 12. Levi, 13. Efrayim (Ephres), 14. Yosef (Joseph), 15. Y'hudah (Judas) (?-132 C.E.)

(Source: Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 4:5)


(trivia - the Justus family left Palestine and moved to Wales)

Well speaking of how the Macedonians are related to Dan which would make the related to Jewish/Hebrew blood, I gave you a website link to Wiki. Appearantly some scholars believe this to be so. You say the Roman show no record but thats not authoritative either. If the Romans were right then why do these other scholars disagrea.

Quoting from site:


2. Hyksos Leaders
Breasted in "A History of the Ancient Egyptians" section 175 argues for the city of Kadesh in Syria as the center of the Hyksos power. George A. Barton, PH D. in Archeology and the Bible, Published by ASSU, Philadelphia PA, USA, IVth Edition, 1952, pp 28-29 notes the drift of opinion toward the Hittites as either the Hyksos or the leading faction in the Hyksos hordes.

Encyclopedia Americana, Canadian Edition, Article Egypt, says "The Hyksos.... in addition to unidentifiable people, included a fair proportion of those speaking Hurrian and Semetic." The mention of "Hurrian" (Horite) is important. See also Prof. J. H. Breasted in "The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, Oriental Institute Publications, Voll III, Chicago, 1930

http://www.nabataea.net/edomap1.html

Hmmm, spoke Semetic eh? Semetic/Jewish/Hebrew?

Also,

"THE HYKOS (AMU) - Shepherd Kings

The origin of these kings, whom Manetho named Hyksos, has been somewhat contested. What is certain is that they were clearly not of Egyptian origin, as their names and the origin of the word Hyksos (rulers of the foreign lands) clearly show.

What is also certain is that they came from the Near East, but when studying their names and culture(s), it becomes clear that these Hyksos were not a homogenous group. Some names are Semitic in origin, while others appear to have Hurritic roots."

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/moses.html

So some of the Hyksos rulers of Egypt that intermarried with Egyptian royalty were Semitic.

Heres a site with references about the tribe of Dan and why some scholars believe that the Macedonians were related to the tribe of Dan.

Remember, the object here is to share information, I presented a topic, gave links to sites and a movie, and have some history to wrk with. Im not here to tell you yes it has to be this way and it can be no other...im simply saying its plausible under normal circumstances.

Also keep in mind there are three different things we are talking about here.
1) Little Ceasar could have been the mythological Jesus
2)Hyksos Kings were semitic
3)that the tribe of Dan is related to the Macedonians making them Semitic

Which brings us back to the point of the topic which was to say that the Queen of Englands blood ties were not just Semitic but of Kingly origen. Going back to the Hyksos. Amazing stuff.

History is never set in stone. It conveniently forgets as the necessity arises. Often revised by rulers or churches. What Im presenting here is not far fetched at all.

Im off to eat , be back later.

You know, I'm fully willing to believe the Hyksos were Semetic.

You seem to be a little unclear in what your terminology actually means. "Semetic" isn't code for "Jewish"; it refers to a large language family, that besides including the Hebrew language, includes Arabic, Aramaic, Phoenician, and Maltese. It's a linguistic term, not a cultural or societal one. By your logic, then, the Arabs are Jews. See the problem with that? By the same token, since some Jews speak Yiddish, a Germanic language, you might suggest they're Germans. (Some are, but that's not where they originated from...)

I don't actually think you make this mistake; I'm willing to bet you've read it somewhere (like the whole "the Danube is named for the tribe of Dan") and are repeating it without bothering to check your facts. It fits in with a theory you like, so you're willing to buy it, and the cad who wrote first wrote it was smart enough to cloak in a an array of facts that sound reasonable, if not compelling, to you. But when you look at them, you see how poorly they hang together in the light of actual historical fact.

--Jaylemurph

So its safe to assume that Queen Elizabeth II is definitely related to the Hyksos Rulers just because you say so, a period of 2386 years roughly separates the end of the Hyksos dynasty to the birth of Queen Elizabeth. something seems to be missing ??? could you explain this please, seeing as you have stated it

http://www.kingdavid.org/genealogy.html

This is a geneology from the official website of the royal family.

I have never seen it until today. I was puzzled at something. The jump from the kings of Judah to the Queen Tea Tephi of Ireland. Enter Jeremiah. Check this site out...

http://www.asis.com/users/stag/jerrytea.html

So I see that the Queen herself is claiming direct relationship through the tribe of Judah and not Dan. Interesting because if either are true it still means that the original post is on the mark. Somewhat.

I took a different approach and have learned a little more history along the way.

Where do we stand on these 3 issues now?


Was Jesus of Nazareth really an embellished story of Ptolemy Ceasar XV? Im saying still plausible.

Next, were the Hyksos kings hebrews? At this point we can say some were. The Hyksos tribes seem to have been a mix of nomadic tribes , the semites being a part of that group.

Is the Queen of England related to any of the tribes of Isreal? Yes. Not only did I think so but she thinks so too on her website.

They say truth is stranger than fiction. Guys, I can't make this stuff up if I tried.

Below is another site describing the Hyksos rulers and thier timelines and how the rulers bore Semitic names. So if the Hyksos were multi cultural there seems to be alot of power in the Semitic faction.
http://www.agt.net/public/dgarneau/euro14.htm

I hope this next site isnt too confusing, it deals with DNA studies of Jews, somewhat technical:

http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=72990...&FORM=CVRE3

I've held back from actually saying you're none too bright, but if you think www.KingDavid.org speaks in /any/ capacity for HRM Elizabeth II or her lineage, you're far more simple than I imagined. I mean, I can link to www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho but that doesn't let me be Chief Terran Spokesman for Doctor Who.

--Jaylemurph

Bella that is interesting, I do not know much about the essene community.

Once again Jaylemurph, your disrespect for anyone that disagrees with you proceeds you.

I will let it go again for the sake of keeping on topic, which I find interesting.

You fail to see the point, that this is not the only site that seems to think her majesty the queen is related to the tribe of Judah. Im of the opinion that it is the tribe of Dan.

Here is another site describing how it is possible:

http://hope-of-israel.org/i000109a.htm


.....but do me a favor this time. Talk about the EVIDENCE presented. You did not stay on point by attacking the website when you should of followed the lineages presented to you and discussed those instead. You must do your own research too. An old high school debate trick is to not win the debate by arguing the evidence but by demoralising, demonizing or debasing your oponenet or website. Next time you post try talking about the evidence. Paste the quote, or evidence you disagree with and why and we can continue to discuss.

so if i said my son was the son of god would u belive it? cliopatera (cants spell sorry) was pegan she belived in many gods so son of ra wasnt jesus

On the contrary: I have a great deal of respect for people I disagree with: feel free to ask Crystal Sage or bee. It's /ideas/ I have disrespect for, not people. Usually.



You have lots of people saying that /for/ her, but you've yet to make any link between her actual person and these ideas.



Any link between the ancient Jews or the Trojans and the royal houses -- remember there are several, some of which with only the vaguest connexion to each other -- is fictional, created by medieval writers like Geoffrey of Monmouth. And usually willfully created to cement current political power with ancient authority.



You seem to be asking me to forgo the obvious problems with the data you're using.

You may need to brace yourself for this:

The Bible is not a document of historical record. You cannot trust any lineages you get out of it. No real historian would do so because the purpose of the Bible was never to be an accurate record of historico-political events in the way the people you cite routinely use it. It's propaganda for a very specific version of the Judeo-Christian god, and is no more a reliable source of accurate information than is, say, WWII Looney Tunes that feature Bugs Bunny fighting the Japanese.

Now, the reason to point this out is simple: any website that quotes Biblical lineage for their argument is getting the very first premise of their argument wrong. If you can't get that right, your conclusion is never going to be right. It's exactly parallel with the times you get your basic facts wrong. Apparently, the gross errors you and your sourced make don't bother you. Apparently their faulty and suspect methodologies don't phase you.

So I'll again make my point: you simply don't have the historical knowledge it takes to make your claims be taken seriously. You get your facts wrong, and you don't even know it. You arguments don't hold up, and you refuse to acknowledge it.

The bottom line is that you don't understand history better than the people you're trying to replace and it shows.

--Jaylemurph

I have no knowledge of the lineage of the Wettin dynasty.
I suppose I just never thought to look before.
Maybe someone has already made a study of it?

* Sighs *

If you look long enough, I'm sure that you'll be able to connect the Royal bloodline to just about anywhere.

For example, here's evidence that the Queen is descended from a Vampire.

KIng Dracula? Who actually was a real historical figure. Or a blood sucking vampire? Which is ridiculous. I tell you the same thing I told Jaylemurph. Get off your butt and do some research yourself before condemning the website, dispute its evidence.

Just a reminder to those watching this unfold. Im staying true to course and not yet has anyone who disagrees with me give any evidence opposing mine or even disputed the evidence I put forth on educational grounds. Those who disagree have reduced this opportunity to trade information and learn from one another to ridiculing either me or the links I give.

Tiggs Ill tell you the same thing I told Jaylmurph, dispute the evidence, dont give me some jibberish about vampires. Thats what you are saying to ridicule this topic. Give me evidence to why you disagree and give me and the others a link. Or quit asserting yourself like your some kind of scholar which you are not.

Here are a couple more sites for looking into why some believe the Queen is related to the tribe of Dan or Judah:

http://www.freedomdomain.com/racism/brit_israel2.html

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/me...003/throne.html

Another interesting story is about the Stone of Scone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone

I find the story of the Stone relevant because if true it proves one thing, the Jewish bloodline in contact with the early Irish kings/queens . So the Queen Tea Tephi of Irland relation to the Queen of England becomes more relevant. That there is a connection.

Well, I don't know about that, but if it were true, I'd expect to be able to feed a multitude with only one or two of his pizzas.

(I noticed that nobody was going to go there - apparently- so I had to. )



Isn't anyone going to mention that as Monarchs, these people had to claim a "divine right" to rule?

I mean, is anyone surprised that somebody in that time might create a "lineage" putting their family in the Bible?

Harte

I think most interested parties are waiting for you to give us some evidence, any evidence.

Kind of hard to dispute evidence that has not been given.

Harte

Prince Vlad II Dracul, the Dragon, as it happens.

Simple maths - over 25 generations, the number of links in a family tree, given two parents, leads to a backline of 2²⁶ possible starting points - 67,108,864 ancestors.

The odds are that one of those is probably Jewish.

For goodness sake - According to my family tree, even I'm (distantly) related to the Queen. That would make me direct line of David, too, right?

Getting the point yet?

Harte Ive provided links for people interested to read and make thier own decision. Have you read any of them? If you dispute them, which ones and why?

Tiggs, your 1st post was a mockery as you suggested vampires, which has nothing to do with what this topic is about. Your second post was more civil and to the point. Yes I see what you are saying. Ill top you even. That since we may be all related to Adam and Eve that we are all the same relation.

Now lets see if you get my point, which is more specific. That the Queen of Englands blood ties to either the tribe of Dan or the tribe of Judah are of a kingly succession. A bloodline of rulers of empires and kingdoms. Not a line of scruffs or mutts like you and me. You and I do not come from a long line of kings that trace thier blood roots back to either the Macedonian Kings through the tribe of Dan or to King David through the tribe of Judah.

If you think you do then post your family tree and show me.

As for people still waiting for "evidence", after Ive already posted numerous links for you to research, I can do no more for you.

Let me help you help me....when I post a site that claims to have the Queens geneology tree, look at the names on the tree and look them up on your own. If you are in disagreement with any of the connections tell me which ones and why. This is a topic on 'alternative' history. Ive provided my information. Time for the naysayers and critics to ante up and produce thiers. So ante up or be silent.

dmgspycat get off your self created pedestal and don't be such a hypocrite. You say Jaylemurph is being rude and offensive to you, yet you call every person who doesn't whole hearted agree with your drivel a liar. Actually do some work for yourself and at least try to support some of your ideas instead of merely stating that you speak the truth. Also im pretty sure Tiggs has contributed more to the website than just about everyone else on this forum being a moderator ? or maybe thats just me...

Okay - Here you go - The Patriarchal Line Of Queen Elizabeth - The house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha from the house of Wettin.

You'll notice that it has very few English kings or Queens within it. Three, to be exact. That's because the Patriarchal Line of Queen Elizabeth only joined English royalty with the marriage of Prince Albert to Queen Victoria.

Good job Tiggs, whether or not we agrea I sure dont mind looking at what you have to offer. I checked out your site and it is precisly Victoria that has the bloodline not Albert.


"Rev. A. B. Grimaldi says:� "The descent of our Royal Family from the royal line of Judah is, however, no new discovery. The Saxon kings traced themselves back to Odin, who traced back his descent to David, as may be seen in a very ancient MS. in the Heralds' Col�lege, London, and in Sharon Turner.� ('History of the Anglo-Saxons', Vol. I.)� The full and complete gene�alogy of Victoria from David does not appear ever to have been printed; and it has, therefore, been thought that it would be useful, as well as interesting, to put it on record, both for reference and testimony.� In its compilation reliable works of reference have been used such as Anderson ('Royal Genealogies,' London, 1732), Keating ('History or Ireland,' Dublin, 1733), Lavoisne ('Genealogical and Historical Atlas.' London, 1814), and others.� Perfect accuracy is hardly to be expected in such an attempt; but it is believed that the genealogy is as correct as our present knowledge of this obscure and intricate subject will permit."

Another worker in this cause, says:����� "From the tables we are able to furnish a complete list of the royal line from David and Zedekiah to Queen Victoria. We believe the account here given is very nearly cor�rect. If any error he detected we should be happy to be informed.� Dates after private names refer to births and deaths; those after sovereigns' to their accession, and death: and b and d stand for born and died (vide, Talmud, London, 1887)."


http://www.giveshare.org/israel/judah/appendix.html


You said "...patriarchical"....I never said it had to be patriarchal.

Hey Rector Id appreciate it if you dont put words in my mouth. I never called anyone here anything. Ive repremanded Jaylemurph twice for crossing the line for insinuating Im lazy and stupid . Ive looked beyond that because its childish and Ive stuck to the point. Appreciate it if you could too. If this subject is too hot for any of you just bow out. Enjoy the new link.

If I said I was a direct line descendant of Doctor Who, would you believe that, too? You do understand that people are not really descended from fictional characters, right? Because you're apparently arguing by comparison that that's a rational thing to do.



A mod has dropped in twice on this thread and not said boo about me. (And I will be suitably cowed should one choose to do so...) I leave the matter to their actual authority rather than your arrogated desire to it.



Tully speaks across the ages here and tells us exactly why you look childish: "Quid enim stultius quam incerta pro certis habere, falsa pro veris?"

...and I'm still waiting for you to respond to my questions, dmg...

--Jaylemurph

edit: grammar

Well at this point since you can learn nothing from the links I provided and you intend to keep flaming then why don't you move along. Or stick around. Either way you appear to be done in that you have nothing to offer other than what you have already stated. You have used your Dr Who analogy twice. You keep coming back full circle to what you have already stated. Nothing.

Furthermore this was supposed to be a topic exploring alternative history based on what we have read and so I provided links and a movie. You have a right to disagree.

Your display of latin is no big deal. I could read the pledge of allegiance memorised in latin in the 10th grade. Big whoop.

As for the moderator, yes I was wondering why you keep flaming and insulting and he does or says nothing.

I guess since both you disagree with me that you get to ruin a topic others might be interested in and share what they know. Have a nice day.

Moderator's that post within a thread, as a rule, don't moderate that thread, in order to be unbiased.

Feel free to use the report button if you believe that Jaylemurph's been flaming and insulting you.

Last i knew this wasn't the dmgspycat forum, i think anyone has the right to express their view on the matter. At least support yourself with dates and logic for your statement instead of the constant links to 'research', i use the term lightly. Everyone else here has produced a stronger case than you have. If you cant handle the heat, step out of the kitchen.

Off the top of my head here, I'll gladly dispute any info you link to at sites like Burlington News.

Pardon me if I find some high and mighty self-proclaimed "researcher" to be less than credible when he (and I do mean you) displays a complete and utter ignorance of what "Semitic" means.

Especially one that is trying to actually make a point about Semites while doing so.

Harte

I don't have a problem with anyone that disagrees. Ive listed more than one site for reference. Also, Ive stated Im no scholar on the matter but what I find interesting is that alot of royal biographers seem to think the Queen is related to the tribe of Judah or Dan. Her regalia she wears even suggests it and so does her coat of arms. The bee woven into her gown is indicative of the queen bee that the egyptian royalty revered and used in thier symbology. The whip she carries and the rod were both used in egyptian ceremonies too.

I dont necessarily agree with everything these sites I linked say, its that its interesting to find more than enough alternative researchers and scholars who support the notion that the Queen is related to a kingly line of Hebrews. I seem to think it is Dan but the royal biographers seem to think Judah.

Another thing is we all here seem to have agreed on one thing. That the Hyksos kings were Semitic, or at least some of them. Another thing that is interesting to note about the Hyksos is that the time they were expelled from Egypt seems to coincide with the Exodus of the biblical patriarch Moses.

Theres nothing wrong with believing that Moses was part of that Hyksos lineage because scholars note that some of the Hyksos kings had Semitic surnames.

Theres nothing out of the ordinary with believing that the Hyksos settled in present day Isreal either. There is evidence of that as well. I think what I believe is alot more credible and less provacative than what the bible projects. Miracles, the burning bush,God writing the 10 commandments , the parting of the sea on demand. Come on. Im taking a historic approach. You yourselves can do your own research on Hyksos kings and moses and find better sites yourselves.

I think some of us got on the wrong side of this so let me ask you, is it not ok to post an alternative history topic in the alternative history section of the forum without people getting personal and inferring im militantly stupid or self righteous for doing so?
I think at least 3 of you can lighten up a little bit and quit being so serious.

No one has blasted my theory out of the water. There is not one of you that disagrees that has given proof to the contrary either except Tiggs but Ill say that Tiggs source is not the bottom line either.

Heres a site that notes discrepancies in the bible compared to historical letters concerning the tribe of Dan:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho4.htm

Here is a site about an ongoing battle over DNA testing of Egypts mummies:

http://www.mummytombs.com/news/2003/6.egyp...ertiti.duel.htm

They say they are fearful that if tested they might reveal that they had semitic blood which would give Isreal some kind of say. This is perhaps some of the best evidence yet. Egypt authorities fearful of the truth, that these important mummies that were once rulers in Egypt were also hebrew/Semitic!!

So check it out and tell me what you think about this aspect.
Ill be re installing my DOS so my computer will be down for a bit. Hope to come back to some kind of real dialogue posted by the naysayers lol.

I do not believe I've ever seen the Queen carrying a whip and a rod. I always thought she had an orb and a scepter. I'll google for queens with whips.

Here is a pic of her regalia. And there is no whip.

Here she is with the orb and scepter.

The only Queen that I know that uses a whip is the one from the Chronicles of Narnia.

I assume you are talking about the egyptian whip/flail and rod/crook like what is seen on the walls in tombs.

But, I have never seen those with a European Monarch.

Her coat of arms? Yes, there are lions on it, but I'd like to see some evidence that they were ever linked to Jewish tribes. And it's hardly a symbol unique to the Jews. (As I've mentioned before, the English kings used to claim descent from the Trojans, not the Jews, but they haven't seriously claimed decent from Brutus in centuries...) Again with the bee, it has a long history as a symbol, and it was never exclusive in any way to the Egyptians.



Again, maybe you could show us a source (not a video) that actually says this? A reputable one, mind, that doesn't use the Bible as a source, and doesn't say that gods, elfs, unicorns or errant time travellers were her ancestors.



But there's no evidence, anywhere, that the Exodus actually happened. There's no mention of it anywhere besides the Bible. I mean, you'd think someone, somewhere in Lower or Upper Egypt might have mentioned "We were attacked by ten plagues, all our slaves ran off, and the entirety of the pharaoh's army was killed when the Red Sea split apart..." Maybe even an enemy of the Egyptians gloating about the Egyptians' bad luck. But no. No mention.

So how it could be contemporaneous with something that we have no record for?



This really is a childish attempt at logic. Just because some had semitic names (and I wasn't aware there even /were/ surnames at this point in history...) doesn't in any way imply some random semite was Jewish...



You are not taking an historic approach. You are cherry-picking facts you like without regard to source or context. You are virtually ignorant of the background of the period(s) you're discussing. You refuse to acknowledge the errors in fact or discuss errors in your argument. So far, you come across (as you yourself have admited) like a child sticking your fingers in your ears when people counter you and pretending like they mean nothing and that no-one knows more than your flawed conception of fact.



Yes, they have. You just seem blissfully unwilling to notice.

--Jaylemurph

Ummm. Googling for Queens and Whips - make sure you have your Family Filter firmly set to on.

As a Brit - I've never heard of the Queen having a whip before.

lmao ah I needed that laugh. thanks.

I would be very interested in where you got all your information from, what documentation you used etc. some of it sounds very plausible but I have never come across these statements before in any of my researches into ancient Judeo/Christian histories. More and more evidence is emerging that suggests similar theories.

Ok here is a pretty good link to sum up why certain historians think this all to be so.

http://www.british-israel-world-fed.ca/BIThesis.html

If you look at this site it will explain a lot of things.
Here is another dealing with Jewish DNA, doesnt really make my point but interesting reading anyway:

http://www.dhushara.com/book/torah/tribes/itb/tribes.htm

For those of you looking for more links there is a movie link I posted on page 1 3rd post down.
The movie is called Ring of Power. Skip the 1st 45 minutes. The historical references are pretty much in the last hour of the movie.

My topic is just an echoe of existing theories on the subject. Alot of the noble families of England subscribe to the notion that they can trace thier royal roots back to some kind of royal tribe of Isreal. Through historical records, family trees, and also from religious tradition and sometimes legend.

Its not as if its all made up on a whim, theres some interesting ties made in all of the things Ive seen.

By the way, it appears from an establishment history point of view, not all of the children of Cleopatra ended up dead. Four she had from 2 roman emperors. One presumably with Ceasar and three with Marc Antony. Of all the children, one lived to become married to King Juba of Numidia and later moved to Mauretania(where present day morocco is today) because the people of Numidia didnt approve of Jubas wife and said he was too romanized. There are no surviving records of her after this period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_Selene_II

Actually its not known whatever became of Alexander Helios,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Helios
As for the other son of Marc Antony "...According to Plutarch and Suetonius, Antyllus was the only child of Mark Antony to be executed by Octavian. His remaining siblings (Alexander Helios, Cleopatra Selene II, and Ptolemy Philadelphus (Cleopatra) were spared by Octavian and were raised by his former step mother and Antony‘s former wife, Octavia Minor, in Rome."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Antonius_Antyllus

Interesting to note how we can know this much of royalty from this time period yet there vitually is nothing on one of the most controversial figures of all time...Jesus. This anomaly ties right in to this topic. Certainly someone would have noticed and written of this man and for sure the sensation would have reache dOctavians ears after all it was his territory. This is why I believe the story was made up much later and although attributed to this time period its hard to say what historical figure this story was applied to. Im merely saying its possible that it could have been one of Cleopatras sons. I thought Marc Antonys name for Ceasarion, "King of Kings", was a clue as to who it could have been.

Just to point another basic mistake you make: neither G. Julius Caesar nor Mark Antony were emperors. The first emperor was Augustus.

--Jaylemurph

Something else Ive been looking into, Ive stated before that I believed the Macedonians were originally one of the ten lost tribes of isreal, probably Dan. Someone earlier mentioned that the Ptolemic Kings werent affiliated with Phillip II of Macedon but from his bodygaurd Lagus.

This isnt necessarilly true though. Even historians seem to think that PhillipII's concubine , to whom was married to Lagus and fathered the 1st Ptolemic King was Phillips son. She was pregnant when they were married. Thus making Ptolemy I the brother of Alexander the great and Phillip II as his father.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagus