PROVING ROME PART 1: Roman Law

Updated: Jun 25




In this blog I will go over one of the three sources which allegedly confirms that the Roman Empire existed-Roman Law. The following sources come from the best of the best in scholarship, to expressly show the reader that I am not making these claims. The official scholars with millions at their disposal, are making these claims. at The end of this work, I do explain just why the explicit need of Rome‘s existence in history, is so important to Christianity.


The Allegation:

“The Justinian Code or Corpus Juris Civilis (Corpus of Civil Law) was a major reform of Byzantine law created by Emperor Justinian I (r. 527-565 CE) in 528-9 CE. Aiming to clarify and update the old Roman laws, eradicate inconsistencies and speed up legal processes, the collection of imperial edicts and expert opinions covered all manner of topics from punishments for specific crimes to marriage and the inheritance of property. Not only used as a basis for Byzantine law for over 900 years, but the laws also therein continue to influence many western legal systems to this day.”-World History Encyclopedia
“In February 528 CE Justinian I assembled a group of ten legal experts and 39 scribes to reassess Byzantine law and compile a new collective legislative code.”-Word History Encyclopedia

There are some main questions that I have right off the bat:


  1. Where are these old Roman texts which inspired the Corpus Juris Civilis? Most particularly from the old Republic?

  2. Justinian is considered a Byzantine emperor, an yet this text he wrote is considered a primary codex proving the old Roman Empire/Republic. Which is it?

  3. Did Rome speak Greek or Latin? Or both, and why the jumping back and forth of these two languages?

According to the scholars, the text in question is known as a new law code. I thought it was a reform of old Roman texts?

“The old system relied on such diverse traditional sources of Byzantine law as the Codex Gregorianus (imperial edicts from 196 to 284 CE), Codex Hermogenianus (mostly imperial edicts of Diocletian, r. 284-305 CE), and Codex Theodosianus (issued in 438 CE and containing edicts dating back to Constantine I, r. 306-337 CE).”-World History Encyclopedia
“As previously noted, archaic Roman law initially consisted of a body of unwritten customary norms, the nucleus of which had its origins in the period when the gentile organization of society was still effective. These norms were characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and, when a legal question arose, it fell to the college of the pontiffs to give an authoritative answer thereto. As the members of this college, like all state magistrates, were at this time exclusively patricians [elites], it is reasonable to suppose that the plebeians frequently accused them of showing class bias in their determinations.”- https://lawexplores.com/the-sources-of-roman-law/

So, the official narrative claims that these are the older Roman texts but at the same time initially they were not written down. And of course, all this decision making regarding the law, was in the hands of the elite. Not much has changed it seems.


"It is thus unsurprising that one of the plebeians’ chief demands during the struggle of the orders was that the customary law in force be written down and made public so that it could no longer be applied arbitrarily by the pontiffs and other magistrates charged with the administration of justice. After several years of strife, it was agreed that a written code of laws applicable to all citizens should be compiled.”-https://lawexplores.com/the-sources-of-roman-law/


The above passage is of course speaking of the Law of the Twelve Tablets. The masses forced the elites to write down the laws………However, this idea that it would rid the customs of abstract interpretation, is not true or a mistake in the fabricated narrative, otherwise what point would Justinian have for compiling and clarifying the older laws? And if the people forced the elite to write the laws down, was it in a language they could understand?

“It was a truly Herculean task which involved studying hundreds of documents and LATIN Roman laws dating back to the early Roman Republic of the west….”-World History Encyclopedia


It is also claimed that old Roman texts were in Latin. Keep this in mind also. These next couple of quotes comes from an article written by a Mark Cartwright.


Contradictions:


  • “Many of the laws within the older works were repetitive, contradictory or simply did not meet the requirements of a society which had since moved on from earlier Roman times.”-Mark Cartwright


And yet it is claimed further down in the article:


  • “Roman and then Byzantine laws were, above all, rational, precise and comprehensive, and it is these qualities which have greatly influenced many of the national and international laws by which we live today.”-Mark Cartwright

Do we see a problem here?

“From over 2000 books and three million lines of legal text, a new comprehensive and consistent body of laws had to be thrashed out and distilled and then better organized into subjects and themes.”-World History Encyclopedia

Where are these 2000 books and three million lines of legal text? Where is the list of titles and where did they all end up? This is of course vaguely addressed and never elaborated on. Also keep in mind that this Justinian character had lawyers creating this large text. Do lawyers seem like honest trustworthy people who have the masses’ best interests in mind? Let’s continue.


“Finally, A NEW and consistent law code would help in Justinian's plan to expand the Byzantine Empire into new territories and bring those societies under the jurisdiction of Roman law.”

A new law code? Yet I have been told this text provEd the existence of the great Roman empire? Interesting, that this text seems to be more Byzantium than old Roman. The World History Encyclopedia claims that a man named Tribonian was in one of the highest legal positions:


"The commission to update Byzantine law was led by the great legal expert Tribonian who had already served as quaestor of the Great Palace of Constantinople, the highest legal position in the empire.”-World History Encyclopedia


That is quite a tale, because the same encyclopedia states this as well:


"Among the LOWEST ranking magistrates in both the early Republic and Roman Empire was the quaestor - “the man who asks questions.” -world History Encyclopedia


Do the people who fabricated our current historical narrative, made mistakes which we can now expose? Or did the Father leave us bread crumbs to find our way back, or both? The elites are certainly mocking us. It does not help either, considering most people haven't taken the time to read a single book in decades? This is infuriating! We are indeed a society of illiterates.


“The first part of the Corpus Juris Civilis was completed in April [529 CE], and two more parts were added in the following year. The work superseded all previous legal documents and records of any kind. To add to these, Justinian himself issued decrees, and thus the Justinian Code was EVENTUALLY made up of four main parts:”-World History Encyclopedia


  1. Codex Justinianus - the Codex, issued in 529 CE, was a collection of 12 books containing 4,562 imperial edicts from the time of Hadrian (r. 117-138 CE) to Justinian I himself, organized by theme and all correctly attributed to the emperor who had made them and with a date.

  2. Digestum (or Pandectae) - the Digest (or Pandects), issued in December 533 CE, was a compendium of legal opinions by celebrated Roman jurists of the past, which could be cited by claimants and defenders in court. It was also designed to be of use to practicing judges. These words of wisdom were all edited, reduced and assembled into 50 books (instead of the previous 1,500) and all organized by subject. The works of the prolific 2nd-3rd century CE lawyer and writer Ulpian (aka Domitius Ulpianus) were especially popular with Justinian's legal team, and these make up 40% of the Digest.

  3. Institutiones - the Institutes, also issued in December 533 CE, was a sort of handbook of the Codex and Digestum for law students to better understand and apply them. It was compiled by Trebonian and two other experts, Theophilos and Dorotheos.

  4. Novellae Constitutiones - the Novels (or New Laws) was a collection of the imperial edicts made by Justinian between 534 and 565 CE, the final year of his reign. Instead of Latin, as used previously (and still used in the other three parts), Greek was mostly used in these new edicts, THE COMMON LANGUAGE of the Byzantine Empire.


Notice it is claimed that Greek was the common language of the Byzantine Empire (but what about the Roman Empire-again, I thought this text was to prove the old Roman empire, not Byzantium??) Furthermore, the Codex Justinianus only claims to date to Hadrian at the very earliest, which was well after Yesho according to the official timeline. What about the documents proving the founding of the old Roman Republic to its end (500 BC-27 BC)?


I find all these inconsistencies astounding. It is also interesting that the first three documents listed above, were written in Latin. So why then, if the common language is Greek, were the first three written in Latin?? A law the people were bound by, but who couldn’t even read? Hmm……


“The laws within this huge body of work (still around 1 million words) dealt with every aspect of life and society in Byzantium. There are matters regarding the constitution, the powers of the emperor, the duties of high-ranking officials, and the sources of law. There are matters of private law and criminal law with punishments listed for specific crimes, as well as coverage of administrative affairs and issues related to tax, local government, the civil service, and the military. As with previous Roman law, a particular concern was the relations between individuals such as contracts, marriage, divorce, property ownership, inheritance, and succession.”-World History Encyclopedia

Such an integral part of society! Notice the statement “as with Roman law”……I must sound like a broken record at this point, but I must once again reiterate that I was told this document was proof of the Roman empire. And yet it was not written until allegedly 527 AD? The Roman empire ended in supposedly 476 AD. But the Byzantine empire began in allegedly 330 AD? We are not being told the truth about history!


“The Novels, in particular, addressed the social changes that Byzantine society had undergone and its evolution away from the Roman society of Constantine's days.”-World History Encyclopedia


The Novels are not about the old Roman empire at all as admitted by the World History Encyclopedia above. A text that supposedly proves the Roman empire, is a text that actually moving away from Roman law? There are so many contradictions here, it’s a wonder they get away with this filth! It is then claimed that it was again revised (how do we know this without the original copy?) and this new revision was available in 534 AD. It is thus a revision of a revision of old Roman texts, of which none now exist? This is what we are told is absolute proof of the Roman Empire. The following is where the official narrative gets really interesting:


“The Code was studied by students of law in the fifth year of their studies.”


This was said to have been in the 6th century……


“As a consequence, gradually most of the Codex was translated into Greek by the end of the 6th century AD.”


But wait! Did not this encyclopedia just state prior in this article, that the common language of the Byzantine empire was Greek? So why then was it not originally written in this common language of the people TO BEGIN WITH?

“Justinian's Code was also introduced into the recently reconquered Italy (in 554 CE), but it was relatively neglected there until the 11th century CE when it was incorporated into the medieval Corpus Juris Civils using Latin instead of Greek.” -World History Encyclopedia

It takes the people five centuries to learn Latin and now the texts are written in Greek, a language that the people do not commonly speak anymore? What a tale they spin! So, the common people, whose Language was Greek, is now Latin, but 500 years of alleged obscurity is never satisfactorily explained! And were not the people studying it, one of the books being a handbook for that very purpose!? Why are these claims made by this author, Mark Cartwright, not exhaustively explained?


The body of laws created by Justinian and his experts, in one form or another, lasted for almost a millennium until the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 CE. New Byzantine laws were, of course, added to it over the centuries as each emperor issued their own edicts and society evolved. Leo VI (r. 886-912 CE), for example, famously produced another collection of Byzantine edicts and had everything translated into Greek as next to nobody understood Latin anymore (few ordinary people would have even in Justinian's day).


The text lasted for almost a millennium, but from sometime in the 6th century to the 11th century, it was neglected? How? In what way? The first three books were in Latin, but it is claimed no one understood Latin. The last book was in Greek, something that they could understand, but it was neglected all the same?

 

What do other sources tell us about this text?


The name given in the early seventeenth century to the collection of Civil Law based upon the compilation and Codification of the Roman system of Jurisprudence directed by the Emperor Justinian I during the years from 528 to 534 a.d.- https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Corpus+Iuris+Civilis


The Following passages are from a paper written by Frederick W. Dingledy from College of William & Mary Law School and Rafael Domingo in The Revival of Roman Law and the European Legal Tradition


Flavius Petrus Sabbatius was born into Tauresium, a LATIN -SPEAKING town in the Byzantine Empire10 around 482 CE,11 and took the name Justinian to honor his adoptive uncle, Emperor Justin I (r. 518-527).


Justinian had a knack for discovering talent and placed some of his protégés on the commission. One of those protégés was a lawyer named Tribonian, quite possibly the brightest legal mind in the empire, and a very charming man to boot. He was only the sixth-ranked member, but quickly became one of the most important figures in the Corpus Juris Civilis's story. One year later, the commission finished the Codex Justianus -- a remarkable feat by the reckoning of that age's historians. The Codex was a practical handbook for judges, officials, and litigators that contained the empire's most important laws in one place. This first edition, called the Codex Vetus, is NOW LOST to time.


Now lost to time. How? The primary source for the alleged Roman empire, is lost to time……..this means that a copy was found later, or fabricated and the originals destroyed. Not something I would hang my hat on. How do we know it existed at all, if it is lost to time? Again, it is not explained. It is my submission ladies and gentlemen, that history is never lost, but only intentionally erased and hidden.


“From Justinian's view, there was not even a need to keep the old sources for historical research. Justinian ordered Tribonian's commission to destroy some of the sources they used, and many other copies of the ancient resources disappeared from neglect.”


How convenient! The originals were all destroyed or crumbled into dust from neglect………..So what does that mean? This means that there are no actual existing primary documents dating from the actual time the Roman empire is said to have taken place. Only Justinian’s version from the 6th century, again, allegedly!

“Justinian’s project to revise Roman law was complete.”

This Corpus (dead body) is not proof of the Roman empire, the scholars’ own admittance! It was simply a revision of old texts for a different time period. It in no way proves the Roman Empire ever existed.


“The language of instruction was also important. Justinian was a native Latin-speaker,84 and Tribonian preferred Latin to Greek.85 They were in the minority, however. Few people in the capital outside of the legal and bureaucratic spheres spoke Latin…….”


Preferred for what reason exactly? So that no one could actually read and understand the law that they were bound by? This is most repugnant to say the least! Of course, is not legalize the same concept today. Laws written so arbitrarily and abstract as to not be understood by the Aryan laymen and aboriginals from all over. Many of which do not belong in Europe or North America. I digress.


“Justinian's law of December 16, 533, limited the list of authorized law schools to three: Beirut, Constantinople, and Rome. In the first year of the Justinian curriculum, students attended lectures on the Institutes and the first part of the Digest. Second and third years were devoted to lectures on other parts of the Digest. Fourth year was for private study of the rest of the Digest, and the fifth year was spent on private study of the Codex. Justinian may have added a sixth year for private study of his novels. To help their studies (and increase his new works' visibility, no doubt), Justinian made provisions for law students to receive cheap copies of the Digest, Institutes, and Codex.


This sounds very eerily like that of Mason’s moving up ranks to the 33rd degree……. This was a secret society where only select people could understand what texts actually meant!


“Justinian died on November 14, 565.The years diluted the impact of Justinian's works in the empire as the Greek language strengthened its hold. Later emperors and scholars abridged and amended the books, translated them into Greek, and added extensive commentary. Emperor Leo VI's (Leo the Wise, r. 886-912) Basilica was probably the most important of these post Justinian revisions, collecting fragments of the Corpus Juris Civilis and integrating them with other laws.”


So exactly what part of this massive text is actually of the old Roman Empire? The official narrative admits to abridging the early texts of Justinian, let alone the source texts which were used to create the Corpus Juris Civilis. Considering that all of the source texts were destroyed, we may never know, but this text has yet to prove a Roman empire.


Basilica was probably the most important of these post Justinian revisions, collecting fragments of the Corpus Juris Civilis and integrating them with other laws.”

If this is a revision, where is its predecessor?


…the Codex, Institutes, and Novellae languished in obscurity, and western Europe was ruled by varying mixes of Germanic traditions and Roman law borrowed from the Codex Theodosianus.”


It is inevitable that the Germans are forever blamed for so much of history that cannot be proven. It’s par for the mainstream narrative. But is it actually true? Also keep in mind that the Codex Theodosianus is only said to be date back to the END of the Roman empire……..but is it proof of the old Roman Republic, and do we have actually texts dating back to that period? No.


The Alleged Medieval Revival


The official story claims that many ancient texts were rediscovered, and this is what sparked the Renaissance. There is no evidence to suggest this is true, however. Only empty claims by those who are the gatekeepers of what actually occurred and the circumstances surrounding true events. Were these texts rediscovered, or were they concocted during the Renaissance? I believe this is a fair question.


Codex Justinian


This is the first of four main parts of the Corpus Juris Civilis.

“In the West, Justinian's Codex was largely lost, or in many places never present, due to the limited western extent of the Byzantine territories. The Latin version known today was painstakingly restored over many centuries. The only known manuscript that once contained the entire Latin Codex is a Veronese palimpsest of the 6th or 7th century…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Justinian


There is a 13th century copy published in Italy which can be viewed here:


https://lib.ugent.be/viewer/archive.ugent.be:B96419FA-8AA4-11E3-9E68-C04DD43445F2#?c=&m=&s=&cv=41&xywh=-1539%2C-334%2C9411%2C5666


It is clearly Medieval and not a primary source of the Roman empire. My question is and has been for some time now; where are the actual primary sources that are without a doubt from the actual old Republic of the Roman empire and subsequent years within it? There should be millions of documents coming out of the woodwork in Europe! And they all should be signed with many names of men who penned them. There is not, however. We are forced to refer to texts from the Renaissance!


This is not proof, for anyone during the 13th century could forge documents. Considering that these elite Catholics and Jews did so in secret, it would not be difficult to hide this fabrication of history from the masses. Especially when they wrote in a language no ordinary person could read. This was intentionally done to hide their actions!


Discovery of the Digest


This is the second part of the Corpus Juris Civilis.

“Two manuscripts of the Digest SEEM to have been discovered in the eleventh century: one called Littera Florentina or Codex Florentinus (also known as Littera Pisana) and the other called Codex Secundus.”- by Rafael Domingo in The Revival of Roman Law and the European Legal Tradition

I have not found exactly the name of the man who found the Digest, only vague references to the 11th century.


Scholarly access was difficult. It took more than three centuries before a reliable edition of the Littera Florentina was finally made available. Nowadays two facsimile editions are at the disposal of scholars.”- Littera Florentina - Wikiwand


“The Secundus formed the basis of the Digest versions created in medieval times, but copies of it no longer exist.”- Frederick W. Dingledy in The Corpus Juris Civilis: A Guide to Its History and Use

I find all this information extremely dubious. At this point dear reader, all I can say is that if you wish to believe the Roman empire existed, you are doing so purely on blind faith and not concrete factual history.


The Institutions

“The Institutes of Justinian is a component of the Corpus Juris Civilis, the sixth-century codification of Roman law ordered by the Byzantine emperor Justinian I. It is largely based upon the Institutes of Gaius, a Roman jurist of the second century A.D.”-WikiMili

This is the third section which makes up the Corpus Juris Civilis. So right off the bat, this official source proving the Roman Empire existed, only dates to the sixth century. It is also claimed that these Institutions were to be used by beginners studying law, whereas the Digest was to be used for advanced students. And we see that it was largely based on a single man. We are not told who else may have been involved the creation of this document.


“The bulk of this new Institutes is the Institutes of Gaius, much of it taken verbatim; but it also uses material from the Institutes of Marcian, Florentinus, Ulpian, and perhaps Paulus (the other writers of "authority." There is some debate over which of the commission members is responsible for what part of the new Institutes. Most recently it has been suggested that Theophilus and Dorotheus created the extracts taken from the older works, while Tribonian revised and added new imperial laws.”-Wikipedia


This text is called new. This text is a mongrolization of several men, of which we do not know who contributed what. How unconvincing, yet people swallow this fecal matter as if it were sweet wine.


“This new version of the Institutes was published on November 21, 533 and promulgated with the Digest on December 30, 533. These new Institutes were not only a textbook for first year law students, but, according to the decree that promulgated them (C. Tanta), they carried the force of law. First year law students used Justinian's Institutes as their textbook for centuries.”-Wikipedia


And yet, I thought it had been lost for centuries. If it was indeed used by students so frequently and diligently, why then was there a rediscovery of it in the first place? Again, why was it lost?


“Justinian's Institutes was largely unknown in the West. The earliest known manuscript are fragments of a Veronese palimpsest of the ninth century. The first printed edition of Justinian's Institutes was Petrus Schoyff's in 1468. Scholars using the Veronese palimpsest suggested changes to the existing text, and these criticisms resulted in the definitive texts by Paul Krüger and Eduard Huschke in 1867 and 1868 respectively.”-Wikipedia


Let us see if we can at least concretely track down this man named Gaius.


“Gaius (AD 130–180) was a celebrated Roman jurist. Scholars know very little of his personal life. It is impossible to discover even his full name, Gaius or Caius being merely his personal name (praenomen). As with his name it is difficult to ascertain the span of his life, but it is safe to assume he lived from AD 110 to at least AD 179, since he wrote on legislation passed within that time.

From internal evidence in his works it may be gathered that he flourished in the reigns of the emperors Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. His works were thus composed between the years 130 and 180. After his death, however, his writings were recognized as of great authority, and the emperor Theodosius II named him in the Law of Citations, along with Papinian, Ulpian, Modestinus and Paulus, as one of the five jurists whose opinions were to be followed by judicial officers in deciding cases. The works of these jurists accordingly became most important sources of Roman law.”-Wikipedia


We do not know if Gaius is his real name. We do not know where he was born. We do not know his lifespan. His works were only recognized after his death which is convenient. And yet this man is one of the most important sources of Roman law? If we know nothing of his personal life, when he lived, or even his full name, how then can we ascertain his written works?

“Many quotations from the works of Gaius occur in the Digest, created by Tribonian at the direction of Justinian I.”

The Digest, however, was only discovered in the 11th century. We are told this man Gaius wrote several great works, but do we have any texts which are signed by him to validate this claim? I have yet to find any; and further still from the date in question. Circular reasoning anyone?


“The Institutes of Gaius, written about the year AD 161, was an introductory textbook of legal institutions divided into four books: the first treating of persons and the differences of the status they may occupy in the eye of the law; the second of things, and the modes in which rights over them may be acquired, including the law relating to wills; the third of intestate succession and of obligations; and the fourth of actions and their forms.”-Encyclopedia Britannica


So, when was this indispensable (and yet dispensable all the same, to have been discarded and subsequently lost-for this text served as law, remember this dear reader) rediscovered and then published?


“The Institutiones of Gaius, written about 161 CE, comprise four books. The first concerns the legal status of persons; the second and third, property rights, including inheritance; and the fourth, forms of legal actions. The text was lost until 1816, when a manuscript, probably of the 5th century, was discovered at Verona, Italy. It was deciphered with great difficulty, because writings of St. Jerome had been superimposed on Gaius’s words. It is the only classical law book to have survived nearly complete and unchanged during the time of Justinian.”-Encyclopedia Britannica


How conclusive! I do declare this does stink in the foulest manner. I believe this sums up the bulk of what we know of one of the most foundational texts proving the Roman Empire’s existence.


Justinian’s Novels


“The basic history of Justinian’s sixth century codification of Roman law is no secret. Literature about the Corpus Juris Civilis (CJC), as that body of law came to be known, abounds in many languages.1 However, one part of that compilation, the Novellae constitutiones (New Constitutions, or Novels), has been less widely discussed than the others. Moreover, it appears that, in particular, detailed descriptions of how editions of the Novels were transmitted from Justinian’s time to our own era have not been published in English.”- Timothy G. Kearley in The Creation and Transmission of Justinian’s Novels


The fact that so many text remain in languages other than English only goes to show how the powers at be do not want the lingua franca of the world to be aware of the concealment of history; our history.


“It was not until 1476, however, that the Novels was printed. This first print edition was based on the text of the Authenticum and was made in Rome, apparently as part of the whole CJC, not as an individual printing of the Novels.122 The CJC was organized differently then than now:”-Timothy G Kearley


It is admitted that even Justinian did not complete an official compilation of the Novels. There are five categories of alleged sources of Justinian’s novels:


1. The Liber Legum

2. Compilations The Epitome Juliani

3. The Authenticum

4. The Greek Collection of 168

5. Other Collections


Justinian’s administration is credited with the first source, the Liber Legum. Apparently, this is a dubious collection of texts men used later to create the Novels. I could find only a single paper going over the Liber Legum in any kind of detail, if it can be suggested as details at all.

“According to Noailles, the laws were kept in “groups of six months” but were not necessarily in chronological order within those semiannual batches. He believed this Liber Legum was the common source of the novel texts used by private parties to create the novel compilations that have come down to us.”-Timothy G. Kearley

I wonder if we will ever be privileged enough to know the names of those making up the private party of men who have done us such a service! Although scholars disagree, they claim that there was this ancient archive where the documents making up the Novels, were kept safe. There is a lot more information regarding this topic of the proof the Roman Republic/Empire existed, and I will adding to this series as I am able to find the time to write it. All of the sources came from the official narrative.

 

Many people do not like Wikipedia, and neither do I. The entire reason for the use of that gatekeeping site, was to show what the official's elites ruling over us, are claiming. but as it has been shown, all the encyclopedias say the same thing. It's a carefully constructed narrative to hide the truth.


Which brings me to the very reason for studying the Roman Empire at all-the New Testament. For if Rome cannot be proven to exist with any authentic document, and it will be learned in later studies that the same people who wrote the Roman narrative, are the same people who gave us the official narrative of the New Testament. I wish to make perfectly clear; I am not denying the existence of Yesho my Savior, the Son of David. I am not denying that the 12 apostles were real and that they spread the truth to the lost sheep, Matthew 15:24. What I am questioning is the official version we have been force-fed. And not necessarily each and every verse, for many verses do line up with what the Father commands. But the overall narrative.


The time and location of the true events did not happen in Palestine or Rome. They took place alright, but in a must more goodly land. I will leave the reader with an essential piece of this scattered puzzle. A piece that we are just now beginning to understand at ethnic Yshral. For is it about time that we are able to read the scripture apart from the rabbi? Matthew 23. For is it about time that we truly took Yesho's words seriously? Matthew 16:6.


Please consider watching this incredible documentary by a dear brother, Jonathan Machtemes. Please also consider visiting his website and looking over the tools he has so diligently been producing. They are his own original work and quite impressive, and if I may say so, impossible to ignore from an honest Germanic Celtic Nordic Yshralite. The enemy wants our people mentally enslaved, for Jonathan discovered that the bible is written in such a way as to chain and constrict the truth of the scripture.


I also wish to make quite clear, that when I say 'our people' I am specifically speaking of my Germanic Celtic Saxon Nordic kinsfolk. I am not speaking of all Aryans and certainly not the aboriginals of the world. I am speaking to my genetic kinsmen. This is politically incorrect these days, however tribal identity is fundamental in a true morale and biblical society. Please also consider browsing through the library I am compiling. Be blessed my most dear kinsmen. For it is you who I labor for, to therefore give glory to the Father. The true scriptures are our history. Never forget that beloved. Be blessed and seek the Father.