The Lost City of Aelia Capitolina

[Divus Iulius]

King Hadrian was a Famous Builder, He built the Wall boarding Scotland and England , but he also built

"Aelia Capitolina", which is the Old City of Jerusalem.

 

Josephus, a contemporary, reports that "Jerusalem during the War (70-72CE) ... was so thoroughly razed to the ground by those that demolished it to its foundations, that nothing was left that could ever persuade visitors that it had once been a place of habitation."

 

King Hadrian built, in 135, The City of Aelia Capitolina, and several Temples to many Roman Gods, In-fact even Herod built Roman Temples to Roman Gods and idolized Divus Iulius and Augustus.

 

Why would a Roman City , be sacred to the Three Monotheistic religions ?

 

Do Roman Historians agree that Temple Mount is a Roman Creation ?

 

 

 

 

 

[caldrail]

Firstly, Hadrian was a Caesar, not a king. Secondly, 'Aelia Capitolina' was his replacement city for Jerusalem which the Romans had all but destroyed and promised to rebuild. Since Hadrian intended to create a Roman city to further his ideas of romanisation it upset the Jews considerably, who believed he was reneging on a promise, and caused a further outbreak of hostilities.

 

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

 

The Temple Mount is part of christian mythos and is not a Roman creation as such. The city wasn't sacred but had sacred sites within it.

Edited February 18, 2013 by caldrail

[Divus Iulius]

 The city wasn't sacred but had sacred sites within it.

 

Aelia came from Hadrian's nomen gentile, Aelius, while Capitolina meant that the new city was dedicated to IOVIS,

 

The City was dedicated to the Supreme Roman God thus it was a Sacred Roman City and a Roman Creation.

 

In-fact, their is another Roman City in Israel called Nablus , which was founded by Imperator Vespasius in 72CE,

in Roman Times it was named Neapolis, "Tomb of Joseph" and "Jacob's Well" in Nablus are Roman Creations.

[DecimusCaesar]

The connection between Jerusalem and the Jewish religion pre-dates the Roman era by many centuries, if not more than a millennium. I think Josephus may have exaggerated the destruction of the city somewhat, but the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed almost totally. Hadrian's later demolition of the city happened after Josephus's time, but Jerusalem is still located in the same place as it always has been. I very much doubt that the Romans were responsible with the current connection between the city and the three Abrahamic religions. For instance the Temple of Jerusalem predates the Roman era, while the Dome of the Rock is post-Roman.

[Divus Iulius]

The connection between Jerusalem and the Jewish religion pre-dates the Roman era by many centuries, if not more than a millennium. I think Josephus may have exaggerated the destruction of the city somewhat, but the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed almost totally. Hadrian's later demolition of the city happened after Josephus's time, but Jerusalem is still located in the same place as it always has been. I very much doubt that the Romans were responsible with the current connection between the city and the three Abrahamic religions. For instance the Temple of Jerusalem predates the Roman era, while the Dome of the Rock is post-Roman.

 

The Temple remains that stand today are Roman and Built by Hadrian, but even the Temple that Herod built were also Roman, Herod built the Caesarea, many Roman Bath Houses, and during his Reign, the Imperial Cult was created, and Augustus

built temples all over the Roman Empire, the Temple that Herod built was part of the Imperial Cult , and it is proven

with Archaeology.

 

Hadrian dedicated the City to "IOVE" (Jupiter)

 

According to some scholars Jove is pronounced yo-ve and pronounced by some as "ya-o-ve." (Jahovah), Identical to the

God of Judaism, So Hadrian dedicated the City to a Roman God which is pronounced the same way was the Jewish God.

 

Also, King Hadrian established "Syria-Palestine", which are the Roman/Greek renderings of the names "Israel-Philistia".

 

 

I believe this is Evidence of Deliberate rewriting of History.

[caldrail]

The City was dedicated to the Supreme Roman God thus it was a Sacred Roman City and a Roman Creation.

Woah... Lets not get too carried away. Roman homes were dedicated to gods as well though I doubt many of those were considered sacred. The dedication in the case of Aelia Capitolina simply reinforces the status of the city in Roman eyes (which those ungrateful jews couldn't understand ). Also it ought to be remembered that not that single god was part of the deal. Local gods were also given temples (though undoubtedly under their Roman pseudonyms.

[Divus Iulius]

You are using Modern Rhetoric that did not exist in Roman Times , which is the term "Jews". Take example "Tacitus" or "Suetonius" , the term is "Iudaians", meaning people that lived in a Particular region.

 

When he was assassinated, he was mourned by the Jews [= Iudains) more than by any other nation, and for a long time after they continued to weep over his tomb both by day and night (Suetonius, Divus Iulius, 84).

This thus Evidence that the Iudains embraced the Imperial Cult, also "King Herod", all his children were given the

additional named of "Marcus Julius" (Honor of Julius Caesar and Mark Antony)

 

Then the Symbols of the Imperial, One being the Comet of Caesar (Sidus Iulium), which is abundantly found in the

Archaeology of Israel

 

 

 

 

Priests of the Imperial Cult

Edited February 20, 2013 by Divus Iulius

[Melvadius]

 

According to some scholars Jove is pronounced yo-ve and pronounced by some as "ya-o-ve." (Jahovah), Identical to the

God of Judaism, So Hadrian dedicated the City to a Roman God which is pronounced the same way was the Jewish God.

 

<SNIP>

I believe this is Evidence of Deliberate rewriting of History.

I believe this is more likely evidence of extremely sloppy research on the part of any 'scholar' who promotes this fallacy:

 

This was recently discussed as Etymological Relationship  between Latin "Iove" and Hebrew "Yahweh"? at the Ask

Metafilter site where one of the respondents pointed out that in their view it had already been definitively answered on the Ancient Near East mailing list by Aayko Eyma in 1998 

 

http://ask.metafilter.com/14348/Etymological-Relationship-between-Latin-Iove-and-Hebrew-Yahweh

 

The Greek version of the Hebrew divine name has little relationship to Jove (iovis). The similarity appeared much later, after the questionable transliteration of Yahweh as "Jehovah."

 

A quick Google and a bit of sifting is all it took to find out the topic comes up regularly on the Ancient Near East mailing list. Find "Aayko Eyma" on this page (April 9, 1998); his post gets referenced on the list later as relatively definitive:

 

Perhaps your question was invoked by the late medieval form Jehova? - which however is based on wrong vocalisation. Note that the V in that form stems from Latin, expressing the W sound, not our modern V sound, and the J expressing the Y sound, not the modern English J. The Hebrew divine name YHWH, so with W, sounded like Yahweh. In Greek the name was transliterated _iaoue_ (Clement of Alexandria) or even _iabe_ (Theodoret); as in Greek, 'ou' or 'b' came closest to w, and they could not render the Hebrew H in the middle of words either. The short or poetic form of YHWH was Yahu, in Greek lettering transliterated as _iaO_.

 

So any resemblance between Yahweh/Yahu and Jove (iovis) is not really big.

 

 

 

[Divus Iulius]

The Dead Sea Scholar, John Allegro , Did indeed verify that Yahweh, Zeus and Jove are the same in Origin, the 3 Deities are composed of Two Syllables , which is IA (ya, dialectally za), and U ( or W/V).

He may have given the god numerous epithets describing his various

functions and manifestations but there is no reason to doubt that the reality behind the names was

envisaged as one, all

Edited February 21, 2013 by Divus Iulius

[Melvadius]

The Dead Sea Scholar, John Allegro , Did indeed verify that Yahweh, Zeus and Jove are the same in Origin, the 3 Deities are composed of Two Syllables , which is IA (ya, dialectally za), and U ( or W/V).

This would be the same John Allegro who wrote The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross?

 

An interesting viewpoint by all accounts when first written and still raising eyebrows today amongst most scholars.

 

The linkage between Roman and Greek mythology is well attested however the jury is still out on the other leg of your proposition.

[Divus Iulius]

 

 

The Dead Sea Scholar, John Allegro , Did indeed verify that Yahweh, Zeus and Jove are the same in Origin, the 3 Deities are composed of Two Syllables , which is IA (ya, dialectally za), and U ( or W/V).

This would be the same John Allegro who wrote The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross? [/size][/size]

 

An interesting viewpoint by all accounts when first written and still raising eyebrows today amongst most scholars. [/size][/size]

 [/size]

The linkage between Roman and Greek mythology is well attested however the jury is still out on the other leg of your proposition. [/size][/size]

 

 

The Greek and Roman Mythology is well Attested , But so is the mythology between the Phoenician and

the Greeks, as seen in the works of Sanchuniathon or Phllo of Byblos.

 

The God "EL" according to Sanchuniathon equates with the Greek "Chronos", and Yahweh is the Son of EL

and this is written in the Torah, but the deities are in "Epithet" Form... So EL is Israel/Jacob

and Yahweh becomes Judah.

 

Chronos = Jacob = Saturn

Rhea = Leah = Ops

Zeus = Judah = Jove

Hera = Dinah = Juno

 

The Equated deities have similar pronunciation (Rhea/Leah) and (Dinah/Juno).

 

The Goddess "Rhea" (Which we equate with Leah), Is also Equated with "Cybele", the

name also known as "KUBeLEyAn" (compare jaCOB_LEAH)

 

Cybele and Rhea was titled

"the Great IDAIAN mother of the Gods" (Magna Mater deorum Idaea)

and Leah gives birth to JUDAH (IDA)(she was also IDAEA MATER) , Tacitus equates IUDAEA with IDA

and ZEUS was born/raised in Mount IDA . also Jesus and King David was born in Judea (Ida)

 

There is no Evidence for "King David", because he was not a king, he was a God, He was

Zeus...(David / The name is a Form of Yhwh/Zeus/Deus/Dyeu-d)(Dav-id).

[caldrail]

You are using Modern Rhetoric that did not exist in Roman Times , which is the term "Jews". Take example "Tacitus" or "Suetonius" , the term is "Iudaians", meaning people that lived in a Particular region.

You are using modern English, which also did not exist in Roman times.  The phrase 'Jew' predates the Roman empire, as the jewish people were said to be those descended from Abraham. The phrase 'Judaean' is the greek form of the word used to describe residents of a Roman province that existed between the arrival of Roman government (63BC) and the abolishment of the province in the 130's as a result of the Bar Kokhba revolt. The use of the word 'jews' refers to native inhabitants and is thus correct.

 

This thus Evidence that the Iudains embraced the Imperial Cult, also "King Herod", all his children were given the

additional named of "Marcus Julius" (Honor of Julius Caesar and Mark Antony)

Well... No... It isn't. The Imperial Cult was established in the reign of Augustus. That passage refers to the popularity of an individual person, not a persistent official cult.

Edited February 22, 2013 by caldrail

[Maladict]

This thread is heading deep into David Icke territory. I'm scared..

 

Also note that the Greeks did not always wrote Zeus with the Z, they sometimes wrote it with an IOTA
as IEUS, As Seen on Pottery

Now if you were to drop the -s, To end up with IEU , In Hebrew Transliteration would become
YHW (YHWH), same manner between Iesous and Joshua.

Also note that the Greeks did not always wrote Zeus with the Z, they sometimes wrote it
as DIOS, As Seen on Pottery

Now if you were to drop the -s, To end up with DIO.

 

Zeus = RONNIE JAMES DIO????

[Divus Iulius]

You are using modern English, which also did not exist in Roman times.  The phrase 'Jew' predates the Roman empire, as the jewish people were said to be those descended from Abraham. The phrase 'Judaean' is the greek form of the word used to describe residents of a Roman province that existed between the arrival of Roman government (63BC) and the abolishment of the province in the 130's as a result of the Bar Kokhba revolt. The use of the word 'jews' refers to native inhabitants and is thus correct.

"Iudaean" refers to Native inhabitants , but not a term referring to a Religious Group, but the specific

for the religious group whom followed the Novel form of worship (The Torah) were called the "Pharisee", which is akin to "Stoicism".(F.Josephus)

 

They is no Evidence that Abraham existed , In-fact the same thing is used in Roman Times, were

"Julius Caesar" is described to be descended from Aeneas and Venus.

Bar Kokhba means "Son of the Star", showing the Roman Temple with "Sidus Iulium" (The Star of Julius Caesar/ or Comet, or Symbol of Venus)

 

Traders and speculators of Iudaea whom Caesar had protected, were the first? to mourn god Caesar sacrifice

initiating the FIRST cult of Divus Iulius, which they merge in Hierosolyma with the local gods. This

happen all through the vast empire and proven with Archaeology

 

 

The Roman City of Aelia Capitolina

http://www.tedmontgomery.com/bblovrvw/emails/images/Temple.DomeoftheRock.jpg]

Edited February 22, 2013 by Divus Iulius

[caldrail]

"Iudaean" refers to Native inhabitants , but not a term referring to a Religious Group, but the specific

for the religious group whom followed the Novel form of worship (The Torah)

were called the "Pharisee", which is akin to "Stoicism".(F.Josephus)

No, it refers to the inhabitants of the Roman province of Judaea.

 

They is no Evidence that Abraham existed

Irrelevant. The Jews claim such a descent and as such helps establish their idemntity as a people.

 

 

In-fact the same thing is used in Roman Times, were "Julius Caesar" is described to be descended from Aeneas and Venus. Bar Kokhba means "Son of the Star", showing the Roman Temple with "Sidus Iulium" (The Star of Julius Caesar/ or Comet, or Symbol of Venus)

The identification of individuals with divine origin or manifestation is not the same as a religious/civic identity shared by an entire people, especially since Abraham is not (and never has been) anything more than a prophet.

 

Traders and speculators of Iudaea whom Caesar had protected, were the first? to mourn god Caesar sacrifice initiating the FIRST cult of Divus Iulius, which they merge in Hierosolyma with the local gods. This happen all through the vast empire and proven with Archaeology

The idea that a man can more than mundane isn't unsual. We see occaisional individuals even today who claim, or are credited with, powersthan can be classified as 'magical' or divine'. The Imperioal Cult, as an established belief system, represents an attempt by the state to harness the adulation often given by a people toward a popular leader. Since the Caesar's depended greatly on popularity for continued survival, it then follows the intent was not religious but merely self interest, and given the Imperial Cult was established in the reign of Augusts, it also seems fairly clear that Augustus was keen to avoid a similar fate to his great-uncle.

 

Since Julius Caesar was the first Roman to be nominated 'Dicator For Life'  (and thus as Suetonius claims made him the first 'Emperor') there was no precedent for a cult surrounding him. It is true that attempts were made to glorify him before his death (Antony was even made his flamen, or 'priest', but this was a bare-faced publicity campaign rather than a sincere religion.

 

Once Augustus had been made Princeps "First Citizen" of the empire, he adopted the same principle but please note the restrictions of it. Augustus did not claim divine descent, nor was his cult overly publicised, and indeed it was only the nomination of Augustus as 'Caesar' (thus meaning a ruler as compared directly to his illustrious predecessor) that allowed Augustus to assume a role which apparently he was very dismissive of. In fact, the main reason for Augustus to permit the association was to promote loyalty from the legions. As must be fairly clear, Augustus did ot want to appear as a totalitarian ruler - that was part of the reason Julius Caesar was killed - but Augustus was keenly aware of the inherently weak loyalty of the armed men paid by Rome to fight, or more accurately, their commanders by Roman consent and support. For instance, note how he amalgamated the bodyguard cohorts of the various civil war leaders yet made sure they were dispersed in various barracks to avoid them becoming a dangerous power bloc (which they did thanks to Aelius Sejanus anyway).

 

Whilst Julius Caesar is therefore clearly interested in self-aggrandisement and thus promotes his own divinity shamellessly, Augustus provides the precedent for imperial practice by creating a more restricted cult, and because it was Augustus, whose name means "The Revered One", whose succesful reign is being emulated or built upon by his successors rather than Julius Caesar, who for all his popularity and claims of divine origin, proved to be somewhat mortal when it was all said and done.

Edited February 23, 2013 by caldrail