Their Relationship Across Reincarnational Divides
By Christopher Fulkerson



In his historical novel KING JESUS, the celebrated Classicist Robert Graves portrays Jesus as a king indeed, but one with curious duties, one who must act out a complex public drama of ritual action, an important part of which seems to suggest Jesus was silently playing the Roman god Vulcan, called by the Greeks Hephaestus, or at least some divinity who must lame himself to play his dramatic role.

Graves was right. But the historical Jesus was acting more than one role at once, and there was no fiction about it. Jesus Christ was, or acted the role of, a reincarnation of Ptolemy XV Caesar, who was for the last seventeen days of his life the very last Egyptian Pharaoh, and who was the son of Gaius Julius Caesar and Cleopatra VII, known to history simply as Cleopatra. References to Cleopatra as "the last Pharaoah" are plainly inaccurate, since it is known that Ptolemy XV Caesar, nicknamed Caesarion, was already Pharaonic co-ruler with his mother at the time of her death, and that he outlived her by seventeen days.

It is a technicality important to this discussion that the actual end of the office of Pharaoh in Egypt ended with Caesarion's death on August 23, 30 B.C. On that day, all the ancient Egyptian dynasties came to an end, and Egypt became a Roman province.

Jesus was, or acted the role of, what the Buddhists today might call an "action emanation" of Julius Caesar and his entire career and also of those whose careers were in any way related with Julius's, that is to say, of all the things Julius did, and suffered, including those of his armies and collaborators. Jesus reincarnated not only Julius, but his generals, his men, all of them. This was possible because he was a Pharaoh; the Pharaoh was considered to be all of the people in Egypt, a kind of "Ark of the Covenant" of all the people of Egypt. (Nowadays people use the expression "an army of one," but really it would be more accurate to say he was a "nation of one." This kind of understanding of political rule was what Louis XV of France had in mind when he said "L'etat, c'est moi.") Some of Julius's men switched sides against him during the Civil War, and these changing allegiances are evident in what we are told about some of the persons in Jesus's life.

If you allow for this paradigm, and know the lives of both Julius and Jesus, it is very easy to discover that many figures in Julius's life reappear as persons in Jesus's life. So there is a whole group of reincarnations, or actors playing reincarnations, that all appeared together in Palestine a couple of generations after Julius Caesar's life. For the sake of simplicity, I will stop referring to "actors playing reincarnations;" though it sounds more portentious, pretentious if you like, it seems to have actually been what was going on.

For the Jew called Jesus Christ, Gaius Julius Caesar was God the Father, and Jesus was the conscious and willing agent of action of the whole of Julius's life and work. This culminated in Jesus's triumphal entry to great public acclaim into Jerusalem, during which time the last of his days corresponded to the last days of the lives both of Julius Caesar and of his incarnational predessessor Ptolemy XV Caesar, who though the rightful Pharaoh of Egypt was murdered by Caesar's heir Octavian as a threat to his, Octavian's, power as the future Augustus Caesar. Again, the last days of Jesus's life correspond simultaneously to the last days of his predessessor's life, as well as to Julius's.

The miracles Jesus accomplished were due to the engineering and civil works of Julius; for example, when Jesus walked on the water, this was probably due to Julius's army having walked over a temporary bridge into Germany, over which only his men walked, and which was then destroyed. In the scenario with Jesus, Germany would seem to correspond with a fishing boat. (If it were not this temporary bridge it may have been some other similar construction of Julius's; there were many.) The distress of Jesus's followers in the storm on that occasion corresponded to the conditions of Julius's army's retreat before a hostile force, and maybe actual storm. The fact that Peter with hesitation could follow Jesus into the water, but later betrayed Jesus (though he was not one of Jesus's murderers) suggests he might have corresponded to Titus Atius Labienus, one of Caesar's best-known collaborators, who was with Julius in Gaul, during which campaign the quickly created and destroyed bridge was built, but who was on the other side of the conflict in the Roman Civil War, fighting against Julius.

Though Labienus was on the wrong side from Julius in the Civil War, he had been with him in Gaul, and was not one of Julius's murderers. Perhaps knowing these correspondences was the reason the historical Peter went to Rome following Jesus's death. That is not a move that makes a lot of sense for a Jew, but it certainly makes sense for someone who believes himself to be the reincarnation of a famous Roman. Peter's realization of who exactly he was may have come as an epiphany only when he realized he denied the very man he had served so faithfully. According to this line of reasoning, only too late did Peter estimate the actions of his incarnational predessor as mistakenly betraying Julius, the man whose work Jesus was apparently attempting to recreate and complete, and regretted that he had followed his incarnational predecessor in this too. There is thus a possibility of concluding that the teaching was available that reincarnation does not require full repetition of the actions of one's incarnational predecessor.

Jesus seems to have realized all sorts of things to these effects, and this may account for his apparent ability to prophecy people's actions. According to this paradigm that I am offering here, Jesus didn't necessarily have "supernatural" predictive powers - he simply knew who he was in the story, and it was not difficult in those days to know a lot about Julius Caesar, and what he did, more than we know today, and who therefore the people around him may have been, or were, in the patterns of incarnation... and what they were likely to do. When Jesus predicted Peter's betrayal before the cock crew three times, he may have been speaking not fully in abstract "prophecy," but rather, we might say, "by the book," knowing the "book" was the facts of Julius Caesar's life... and perhaps also of his own actual predessessor, Ptolemy XV Caesar, about whom, and about whose religion, he could have learned quite a lot, especially in Alexandria, where Jesus certainly would have met many people who had known and could remember Julius, and his son Caesarion.

Julius's life ended amid public acclaim but due to the private jealousies of personal intimates, friends as well as enemies, who plotted his death secretly, believing that he had overstepped political propriety. o act this out was why Jesus entered Jerusalem to great pubic acclaim, riding on an ass as a traditional Jewish king would do.The idea was to suggest that the size of the ass's phallus suggested it's riders "greatness;" it was a solution as to how a Jew, who could not appear nude in public, could fulfill the Pharaonic duty of revealing his "greatness," a problem Jim Morrison solved less cleverly. Jesus's entry into Jerusalem was thus a blending of a Roman Triumph and an Egyptian "revealing" of the Pharaoh. By choosing this aspect of Jewish tradition, Jesus demonstrated a concern for Egyptian ritual, something that would seem strange to concern a Jew, but not at all strange for someone who knew he was the reincarnation of the last person to be an actual Pharaoh of Egypt.

Julius was killed at the Ides of March, which was the date that newly elected Roman political representatives began their offices. This did not affect Julius, since he was now Dictator for Life, and was now everybody else's boss, but it did mean that he had business going to meet the new crew of politicians at a meeting at the Ides of March. Julius was by this time essentially a king in all but name... but there had never before in Rome been a dictator appointed for life, there were laws against kingship, and, fearing Julius would try to become king, or interpreting the situation as essentially the same thing as Julius being king, his political adversaries killed him. They thought their action would be hailed by the public; they were actually surprised when it turned out that assassinating Julius was not popular.

In other words, Julius's murderers killed him for having in their eyes overstepped his political authority, just as Jesus's enemies accused him of having allegedly claimed he was king. When some Jews said "We have no King but Caesar," they were denying the inheritance of political power to Jesus on the basis of reincarnation; another way of saying that would have been "We deny that Ptolemy XV Caesar takes political precedense over Tiberius Caesar Augustus," which would have gotten them out of trouble with the Romans and would perhaps have sent running any Egyptian priests observing the situation.

The Ides of March were measured in Rome by the new Solar calendar Julius had recently created. Prior to that the Romans had used a lunar calendar, and the Ides of March fell at slightly different times of the year. Jesus's life ended at the "Ides of March" as measured in Jewish terms, that is according to a lunar calendar, as Passover always approximately does. So the two men's lives ended "on the same day of the year," but as measured according to different calendars. If Caesar had not changed the calendar they might even have been killed on the same day of the month. As the karmic embodiment of his successor's father's career, Jesus's fate followed Julius's fate as well at Ptolemy Caesar's. Part of the Roman message in crucifying Jesus may have been "At the intersection [cross] of Ptolemy Caesar and this man, this is what you get."

The Roman law that to vote you have to go to Rome corresponded to the Jewish law to be a practicing Jew you have to be in Jerusalem at the Passover. The more intelligent of the Jews, including his adversaries, knew about Jesus's correspondence to Ptolemy XV Caesar; this is proven by the incident of their testing him about the coin with Caesar's face on it.

Those Jews who opposed Jesus and probably any Egyptian priests around were trying to get him to say something that would be blasphemy according their law. Politically it was not convenient to have someone who was the apparent incarnation of a dead Caesar, and they were not obliged to believe in it according to their religion.

The story of the coin is another very clue to a correspondence between Julius and Jesus. The story is usually understood as Jesus's way of separating himself from Caesar. But his brilliant response means just the opposite, it was at once a way of begging the question and answering it through inference only, so as not to give away away his position. The whole situation really means this: Here is a coin with your "father" on it, we recognise this, are you going to claim some kind of power therefore? Because if you do, we or the Romans will kill you for claiming kingship, and if you don't, your inferences about being some kind of reincarnation will remain unsupported, will appear no more than games and play-acting, and you will lose credibility. Jesus may have acted like a king by having a cabinet of twelve, the magic number of the tribes of Israel - and of the Tables of the Roman Decemvirs - but he did not actually say he was king. He had often talked about his father, God. If Julius was God, Jesus could get into all kinds of trouble for talking about it. Jesus's answer means something like "Give my dad Julius, who is God, his due."

If you read Julius's books you will find that he thought of confrontations with the enemy in terms of confrontations with himself. He seems to have realized that his campaigns would eventually have a personal-presentation aspect. This line of thinking was what is taught by Homer, in which the Iliad, an actual war, is only a prelude to a more personal encounter with enemies after the war, but an encounter the outcome of which can render the winning of the war irrelevant. This is the meaning of his repeated remarks to the effect that he did not wish to "meet his enemies until he was fully ready to do so." Julius's elaborate engineering works were one of the ways that he prevented his adversaries from encountering him at times disadantageous to himself. Homer's example can be understood as the teachings of the Iliad, about how to win a war, and the teachings of the Odyssey, about how to win the peace.

Julius's life corresponds to an Iliad-like state of open conflict; Jesus's life corresponds to an Odyssey-type state of less violent but still very tricky sort of conflict, the goal of which is to win the peace at home. (The comparison is especially apt between Odysseus and Jesus, since both had aliens in their countries, and laws against their taking direct action in any way other than personally.) Julius and Jesus correspond as Julius, the winner of wars, and Jesus, the winner of the peace.

Jesus's sending forth of the apostles "To preach and to eat whatever they are offered," each of them represented entire military units - they were, or were chosen by Jesus to act as, entire militiary units of Julius's - corresponds to that particular winter of Julius's in Gaul, when provisions were low and the army was therefore, according to Julius, divided into many units, sent across the French countryside.

We have the medieval poet Dante Alighieri to thank for the biggest, clearest clue about the link between Julius and Jesus. Dante's guide through Hell and Purgatory was the Roman poet Virgil, who wrote the Aenead on an Imperial commission to act as the Roman equivalent of Homer. At the very lowest point in the hell which Dante depicts in the Divine Comedy, where the very most despicable sinners of all time are punished, Satan eternally gnaws on the bodies of three people: Judas, Brutus, and Cassius. It is time we notice that Dante appoints two of Julius's traitors to suffer to the one of Jesus - Julius is apparently twice as important to him as Jesus, and this makes sense, if you realize that Jesus's death would never have occured had not Julius's, and that Julius was the commanding individual in the whole sequence of lives and events. Dante certainly was a Christian - and a smart one. Who could be more important, twice as important even, as Jesus? God? Dante's choice of the evildoers punished by Satan is another suggestion that Julius outranks Jesus... Julius is God. Judas probably is a reincarnation of Brutus; Judas is "Jesus's Brutus."

The modern Catholic Church silently acknowledges this correspondence by naming the pope's jet the Dante Alighieri. In other words, "Air Force One of the Catholic Chuch" is named after the man who left us the clearest clue of a correspondence between the one J.C. and the other J.C.

It is not radical to believe that Jesus believed in reincarnation. Jesus's followers believed in reincarnation because at least some of his actual teachings were about these correspondences. This leaks to the surface of the Gospels in a conspicuous way at least once. It has often been remarked, including from the pulpit, that the Apostles had reincarnation in mind when they ask Jesus of the man born blind, "Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" If they thought he was born blind, and that he was blind due to his sin, they are obviously asking about sins he committed before he was born, that is, in a previous life. The Jewish belief that a person is punished for his ancestor's wrongdoing was not new. But the very idea of accusing someone of the conditions of his life being in punishment for a past sin indicates a belief in a previous life. When else might have he sinned if not in this life, but in a past life? The Apostles were asking a question that we would today express this way: "Is he being karmically punished for sins in a past life, or those of his parents?" It is the oldest mistake in the book about karma, and partly for that reason is clear to spot. This question may give a clue as to who it is in Julius's life that the man born blind may be. It would be interesting to learn of any blind persons in Julius's life, and what story there may be about his parents.

Jesus was the reincarnation of Ptolemy XV Philopater Philometor Caesar, nicknamed Caesarion, Julius's son begotten on Cleopatra. The question of Jesus's being born to a virgin is meant to address the question of Caesarion's legitimacy; if you view it according to Egyptian religion, Caesarion was probably legitimate by Egyptian standards, but not by Roman standards. Of course, Caesar was in a position to alter Roman law if he wished, and as he wished; and may in fact have done so; so a marriage by Egyptian law might have been required to be recognized in a de facto way by the Romans. In any case, nobody did anything to challenge Cleopatra as a consort of Julius. She lived openly in a mansion in Rome with their son Caesarion and Julius visited her frequently and often stayed with her. This is a matter of historical fact. In other words, Cleopatra lived openly in Rome with the boy, and acted as Caesar's second wife, and the details of her status as his wife were irrelevant to the situation. But since she was available by Egyptian law this may have allowed an Egyptian marriage, and it is difficult to imagine that her priests did nothing to facilitate a religious bond of some kind between her and Julius.

So Caesar was polygamous, and here was have another clue as to the meaning of one of the stories in the New Testament. Julius's polygamy is the reason Jesus does not give a direct answer to the question put to him by the rabbis about which of the seven brothers the widow married according to the Jewish law of Levirate the woman would be married to in Heaven. The question was another effort to annoy or entrap Jesus about the fact that the mother of Ptolemy XV Caesar, his incarnational predessor, Cleopatra VII, who corresponds with his mother Mary, was married to two of her own brothers in Egyptian custom before she became Julius's mistress, and his spiritual mother Cleopatra never married his spiritual father according to Roman law. Jesus's Jewish adversaries were calling his spiritual mother a whore, and they were calling him a bastard. This makes it easier to understand Jesus's failure to make a direct reply to their quesiton. The question actually meant, "In Heaven, is your spiritual mother again and for all time going to be married to her own brothers as well as to Julius and Mark Anthony?" Any reply would have been risky; so Jesus simply accuses them of "hardness of heart." Which is true enough. But on this point, Jesus's prudence in his mouth shut was the right thing to do; the facts were against him.

We are given a clue to Jesus's correspondence to things Egyptian through the matter of his being brought up in Egypt as a result of a persecution by the Jewish King Herod. Nowadays it is generally believed that when Joseph and Mary fled Palestine to Egypt that they went to Alexandria, which was the city with the largest population of Jews anywhere. It would be like a Jew fleeing Washington D.C. and going to New York City. They were fleeing what was the political center of Judaism, but not the largest Jewish center, and going to the largest urban Jewish population in the world. And one where his chances of being recognized as an incarnation were the greatest. Not a bad move, Joseph.

Different ideas about reincarnation allow for different concepts of the possibilities and duties of a reincarnation. According to some models of the possibilities of a reincarnation, the successor relives the events of his predecessor's life, perhaps as some kind of "eternal return." Jesus himself turned out to be unable to live past the time in his life that corresponded to the betrayal of Julius, and this is not a surprise. The political situation was doubly against him, since the incomplete peace-winning work of Caesar, and which Jesus was trying to effect, had been cut short through assassination, just as the life of Ptolemy XV Caesar, which he was following, also had been. But if he corresponds specifically to Ptolemy XV Caesar, then the real action that defied the simplest fatal historical patterns of incarnation was Joseph and Mary's flight to Egypt, which kept Jesus/Caesarion alive through the time that corresponded to the murder of Caesarion by Octavian, and enabled Jesus to undertake a pretty good version of Julius's work. So Joseph's contribution to Jesus's life should never be underestimated. He made possible the successful effort to get the reincarnation of a man who died at age seventeen past that particulary ghastly "teeage crisis," in order to avoid the exact repetition of the deaths of Jesus's incarnational predecessor's, and that predecessor's father. Direct correspondence to Caesarion's life would have meant that Jesus would have been killed at age seventeen.

As I mentioned earlier, some of the parallels between individuals in the life of Julius, to persons in the life of Jesus, are not hard to find. Again, Peter is probably Labienus. Pontius Pilate corresponds with whatever higher-level commander transmitted the execution order of Octavian, later called Augustus. Mary is Cleopatra. If this is so, we need only to look at some of the other persons in Cleopatra's life to find more of the people in Jesus's life. And a second husband for Cleopatra after her "divine coupling" with the Divine Julius would be Anthony. I suggest that Anthony is Joseph.

The bond between the lives of religious practitioners is, debatably, one of the principal reasons for the religious practice, perhaps depending on the religion. Christians are not supposed to be so thick that they don't know this about the reason they are "following in the footsteps of Christ."

What I am saying is that Jesus was already an advanced practitioner of this kind of religious bonding. He was a first-Century Jew who was, or was playing, the role of Ptolemy XV Caesar, practising a religious bond with Julius Caesar. Now, here is where I have something interesting to suggest about the bridge that I think clearly exists between Julius and Jesus. As a religious bond it affects the lives of all Christians, and perhaps others as well. Most of the events that occur to Christians due to the religious bond they create with him through their religious practice correspond to the battle actions of Julius. The midlife crisis that many people, especially men of course, experience is due to events in their lives that correspond to the murder of Julius at age 56, and the fact that it is something we live through is due to Jesus's life. Any Christian who makes it past the mid-life crisis caused by the secret bond to Julius, a bond deliberately created by Christianity, is only then really in correspondence with the life of Jesus. For Jesus's life is the "second half" of Julius's life. Again, Julius lived only long enough to complete his wars; Jesus showed the way to the completion of the peace.

The real life of a follower of Christ is two lives, strung together by the work of Jesus onto the opportunity created by Julius: the first life is Julius's, the second, Jesus's.

With insight, it is possible to determine who the people in the latter part of a Christian's life correspond to in the first part of their lives. To this suggestion I would add that any life is the whole of a life, so it should not be assumed that simplistic ideas apply regarding the arrow of time, or the cut-off between one part of one's life and another. There might also be reasons why the order of the lives one's own life is in correspondence with may be the other way round than that which was chronological for Julius and Jesus.

According to this scenario, the Catholic Church's current teaching makes perfect sense that it is inappropriate to hold all Jews collectively responsible for the death of Jesus. The Catholic Church is not just trying to smooth things over with their separated brethren. It is not just something politick to say. That teaching is meant to keep Christians in proper focus. As the Catechism commissioned by Pope John Paul II teaches, only a tiny number of Jews committed the murder in question, and they were all known to Julius - the Catechism interestingly does not say they were "known to Jesus" here; it says they were "known only to God." This small number of persons were responsible for the actions which forced the double and lethal correspondence between Jesus and both Julius and Caesarion, who were killed through betrayal, as in the case of Julius and Jesus, or through a pre-emptive political policy, as in the case of Caesarion and Jesus. There is an tragic irony that Medieval theologians would love: when he was betrayed once, Jesus was betrayed twice, one as Julius, simulataneously, as Ptolemy XV.

The population of Rome was generally appalled with what that tiny number of very stupid men did.

Julius was very popular with the Jews of Rome, who gave him an elaborate three-day funeral ritual when he was murdered. Not very much is known about that kind of Jewish Jewish ritual from those days, but if you believe in the efficacy of ritual, then perhaps you may think that that ritual may have been what brought the reincarnation of Julius's action emanation, in the form of the reincarnation of his son, into the Jewish sphere of incarnation.

There is another broad and very traditional Jewish clue linking Jesus to Julius. There was a tradition of Jewish holy warriors called Nazirites. There chief characteristic was that they never cut their hair; Samson was one of these Nazirites. In the New Testament the references to "Jesus the Nazarean" mean "Jesus the Nazirite," they refer to this tradition of long-haired Jewish warriors, and not, as churchgoers often suppose (if they think about anything they are hearing), to Nazareth, the village where Jesus was born. If you look in a Bible concordance, it may tell you that a Nazarene is "a native of Nazareth." Why would a concordance go out of the way to tell you something extra like this? Only to mislead you. If you follow the concordance's notice to the only reference in either the Old Testament or the New, you will read Matthew 2:23, which says "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." However, as I just said, that's the only mention of a Nazarene in the Bible. There is no such prophecy to precisely that word. However, there are many references to the Nazirs, of whom Samson was the most famous. The editors of the concordance are throwing you off the track. Bad editors, bad.

The reason this is important is very simple. The name Caesar comes from the Latin root word meaning "hairy." Both the Jewish tradition of the long-haired warriors called Nazarite, or Nazirs, and the unanimous tradition that Jesus wore long hair, indicate that Jesus chose the religious order of the Nazirs as his own in order to silently identify himself with Julius. If he was not a member of their sect, he certainly chose their "look," and for a reason that would have been clear to Jewish Romans, and probably to any scholarly Jews. And certainly the Jewish tradition of scholarship was already well in place by Jesus's time.

If there were a reincarnation of Jesus, wherever he appeared, those persons who were responsible for his predessessor's death would only be a handful in number and would likely be known to him. Such persons would perhaps be highly placed politically, or at least in relation to the person of such an incarnation. They would very likely include family members, and be a threat to him, because they would jealously regard him as a threat to themselves. If the patterns in a new incarnation were to continue as they had in a previous incarnation, it would appear to his enemies that he, as Jesus appeared to his enemies, were a lawbreaker, while to others, likely to be most people, his persecution or murder would appear to be completely illegal or at least very unfair. In other words, each side would accuse the other of being the lawbreakers.

This aspect of the situation is due to the fact that Jesus's predessor, Ptolemy XV Caesar was no threat to the Egyptian throne, and indeed rightfully held it for seventeen days; he was only a threat to Octavian. Octavian was named as Julius's heir, so by this reasoning Ptolemy XV was not a convenience to have around. Octavian had him killed according to the policies of the time against potential claimants to the throne, even those who made no claim to the throne. Though Ptolemy never claimed the Roman "throne," he was a Caesar by name, so his claim would have been believable by many people if he had wanted to eventually claim the throne, and there was always the chance that somebody would make war in his name "on his behalf." So Octavian simply had Ptolemy XV Caesar killed, like a traitor, ceratinly as a threat to his rightful inheritance of Julis's will.

All this explains Jesus's curious answer when asked by Pilate whether he were a King. "That's what you say," he said, meaning, it's only important to you, not to me. I know I can never make this claim, even if there may be a basis for it, and I know any discussion of it carries little real weight. I never had time to make such a claim.

This line of description also makes plain sense of Jesus's remarks that he was not a king "of this world." He could talk this way because he was the king of another country, and even there, he was not considered "alive," he was an incarnational "continuation" of a dead man, a man who had, as king, gone on to make the Pharaonic journey to another world that the Pharaoah's whole life is supposed to train him to do. It seems possible that any Egyptian priests there might have easily recognized that Jesus was Ptolemy XV, making his actual after-death journey. The Egyptians always did believe that the land to which the King went after death was somewhere in the east of Egypt. Palestine is indeed east of Egypt.

As a self-realized incarnation, Jesus however may have believed that he could yet again be reincarnated, so he probably did not think he was speaking out of his hat when he said that if the temple of his body were destroyed, he could raise it up again in three days. He might have been referring to that three-day ritual the Jews of Rome performed for Julius. He may have known that because, as a Jew trained in Alexandria, the city with the largest Jewish population at the time, but fully Egyptian in its state religion, he knew more about reincarnation than either most Romans or most Jews. That three-day ritual might have been what Jesus was thinking of when he made the remark about rising up in three days, a remark which confused people and which his detractors took to be religious blasphemy. The Gospel clearly remarks that Jesus was referring to "the temple of his body," though obviously his accusers took this to mean he thought he were the kind of god who could rebuild a literal temple building in literally three days.

Even Jesus, who was a fluent practitioner in three religions, Jewish, Egyptian, and Roman (and maybe others, if reincarnation is really a part of all this), had to deal with literalist, fundamentalist blockheads. (There are also suggestions here and there that Jesus knew Greek philosophical teachings; the Hebrew scriptures do not refer to bitter cups of fatal destiny, but Socrates, who like Jesus was forced into suicide, died as a result of drinking a cup of hemlock; this was the more "genteel" of the Athenian methods of capital punishment. It seems plausible that Jesus may have been comparing himself to Socrates. Itis worth considering that one of the purposes of the Last Supper was a staging of the final hours of Socrates. The best reason for such a thing would perhaps be to allow for an eventual understanding of the meaning of Jesus's death, by comparing it to one that was known from history.)

Jesus's murder on the cross was deliberately adapted using Jewish tradition to express the message that he, too, was a traitor: the piercing of his heart, and his death "on a tree," were clearly meant as an echo of the death of King David's traitorous son Absalom. This may have been Jesus's greatest shame, to have had to endure that message, when he had tried so hard to be faithful.

When Jesus refers to God the Father, the name he uses for God, expressed in Greek, the language of the Gospels, is Deus Pater. This is known to be the origin of the name Jupiter; the Romans slurred together the sounds of "Deus Pater" into "Dju-Piter" and eventually simply Jupiter. In case it isn't obvious, let's make it plain: Zeus is Deus. The name in Greek evens sounds like both at once, "Dzeus." Zeus and Jupiter are the same god, and the Greek Zeus, who was the god the Romans called Jupiter, had only one legitimate son.

Robert Graves gave the secret teaching, but kept it secret by obscuring the religious trends and making it all sound like some kind of folk religion. Jesus was not playing a folk religion. He was playing at the skill level, if in not in the political league, of the big empire-making religions of his day, Roman, Greek, and Egyptian.

Ultimately the secret teaching is that Jesus Christ is, or was playing, the Roman god Vulcan, called Hephaestus by the Greeks. Jupiter, "Dzeus Pater," had only one legitimate son by his one legal wife Juno, called Hera by the Greeks.

The gambit played by Jesus was that since Julius had had no son, he, Jesus, could play Ptolemy as the "only son of God," even though by Roman law, there was no such person. Julius might easily have had illegitimate children, but his only legitimate child was Julia, a daughter. But as the "son of God," Jesus could play himself as "legitimate on his mother's side."

Jesus knew there were other sons of Jupiter, his God the Father, but that they were not legitimate, so when in his teachings he had to deal with their political competition he simply called them "false prophets."

Julius had only one son who bore his name; Ptolemy XV Caesar was his name. He was for seventeen days the last Pharaoh of Egypt; when he was murdered by Octavian, the Romans took over Egypt, thus ending the office of the Pharaoh.

In passing, it may be said that Jesus found a number of indirect ways to tell people he was a king, indeed a Pharaoh. I have already suggested that for anybody to have twelve disciples was a neon sign saying "Twelve Tribes and Company;" it meant as well "Pantheon worship here."

But a perhaps even clearer sign is that Jesus called himself "the light of the world."

For the word "Pharaoh" means "lighthouse." Jesus said quite plainly he was the light of the world; he was properly understood to have said he could rebuild the house of his body in three days. In his person, he was the Pharaoh, the Light-house.

Julius Caesar was the last political leader of the Roman Republic. Through politics and war he led Rome to a new system of government and new levels of power. But his work, and any chance for his son Caesarion, to achieve a Pax Romana was cut short by a group of very stupid men. Though it took centuries to complete, through duty, example and teaching, and through acting the role of peacemaker, Jesus, the reincarnation of Julius's son, Ptolemy XV, the Last Pharaoh, effected Julius's last mission, the mission of winning the peace.


c Copyright 2010 by Christopher Fulkerson. All rights Reserved.

First posted August 17, 2010. Updated August 23, 2010. Updated again 12/23/2012.