Graham Hancock specialtyinterests Solomon Senenmut Out of Egypt prophet Nahum Shaphan

All posts tagged Graham Hancock specialtyinterests Solomon Senenmut Out of Egypt prophet Nahum Shaphan

Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian “… a mirror image”

Published May 1, 2017 by amaic


Damien F. Mackey



“Hadrian, revisits the actions of [the] predecessor Antiochus IV Epiphanes and

sets up a Temple of Jupiter on the Temple mount, ordering circumcision to cease …”.



Hadrian “a mirror image”

of Antiochus Epiphanes


That, at least, is how Anthony R. Birley has described the emperor Hadrian in his book, Hadrian, The Restless Emperor (p. 228):


The influence on Hadrian’s thinking of the first and most famous bearer of that name, Antiochus IV Epiphanes of Syria, had already been seen at Athens. It had, after all, been that king who had revived and gone a long way to completing the construction of the Olympieion. He too, like Hadrian, had promoted the cult of Zeus Olympios. There are various other aspects of the character and policies of the eccentric monarch which find an echo in Hadrian, of whom he seems to be almost a mirror image. In his long years as a hostage the Seleucid prince had acquired a fervent admiration for Roman ways. His behaviour at Antioch, mingling with the common people like a would-be civilis princeps, recalls Hadrian the plebis iactantissimus amator. Antiochus was also, at least in his latter years — and notwithstanding his promotion of Zeus Olympios — a devotee of [Epicureanism]. ….

[End of quote]


On shared Epicureanism still, we also read at:


The transformation of Epicureanism into a competitive sect celebrating Epicurus as “savior” increased the already existing opposition to it. Rhetorical literature falsely accused Epicurus of materialistic hedonism. Complaints of Epicurean dogmatism, “beguiling speech” (Col. 2:4), and compelling argumentation (of Avot 2:14 “…[know] what to answer the Epicurean”) are frequently heard. Rabbinic condemnation reflects knowledge of Greco-Roman rhetoric, experiences with individuals and centers (Gadara, Gaza, Caesarea), and, possibly, the favoritism shown to Epicureanism by *Antiochus Epiphanes and *Hadrian. “Epicurean” became thus a byword for “deviance” – ranging from disrespect to atheism – in Philo, Josephus, and rabbinism alike (see *Apikoros).


[End of quote]


Stephen D. Moore, in The Bible in Theory: Critical and Postcritical Essays, p. 196, when discussing the famous incident in the Maccabees of the mother and her seven martyred sons, adds this intriguing footnote (51) according to which Antiochus was replaced in rabbinic tradition by Hadrian:


Nameless in 4 Maccabees, the mother is dubbed Miriam bat Tanhum, or Hannah, in the rabbinic tradition, Solomone in the Greek Christian tradition, and Mart Simouni in the Syriac tradition (see further Darling Young 1991, 67). The tyrant in the rabbinic versions, however, is not Antiochus Epiphanes but Hadrian: Hadrian came and seized upon a widow …” (S. Eliyahu Rab. 30); “In the days of the shemad [the Hadrianic persecutions]…” (Pesiq. R. 43). ….

[End of quote]


Whilst Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC, conventional dating), a Macedonian Greek, had, as we read above, “acquired a fervent admiration for Roman ways”, Hadrian (117-138 AD, conventional dating), supposedly a Roman emperor, was “strongly Philhellene [Greek loving]”



According to the article, “The Temple in Jerusalem over the threshing floor which is presently under the Al Kas fountain”, “Hadrian [a Hitler type] … revisits … Antiochus IV Epiphanes” (


After Titus destroyed the Temple in 70 AD, Hadrian became Caesar in 117 – 138 AD [sic]. Hadrian, revisits the actions of [the] predecessor Antiochus IV Epiphanes and sets up a Temple of Jupiter on the Temple mount, ordering circumcision to cease and expelling the Jews from Jerusalem altogether. He not only made himself the object of worship in this temple, but made Jerusalem the capital city of the Roman world for the worship of Jupiter. He also built [a] temple to Jupiter in Baalbek, Lebanon that is still standing today. Just as Hitler deceived British Prime Minister Chamberlain in 1938 AD that there would be “peace in our time”, so too Hadrian deceived the Jews to believe that he was peacefully rebuilding the Jewish Temple, when in fact he was constructing the world headquarters “Temple of Jupiter”. As construction began, the Jews probably even helped in thankfulness and praise to Hadrian. But when the Jews finally learned of Hadrian’s true intent, as did England learn of Hitler’s, they rebelled and a huge war broke out in 132 AD [sic] where 85 major Jewish towns were destroyed and 580,000 Jewish men were killed. The false promises of peace of Hadrian and Hitler both resulted in major holocausts against the Jews. Israel came to the promised land with about 600,000 men and they were finally expelled from the land by having about 600,000 men killed by Hadrian. The Temple of Jupiter was completed on the temple mount in 135 AD [sic] and was the most important (Jupiter Capitolinus) “Temple to Jupiter” in the world. While the Jews of Hadrian’s time may have been looking for the story of 2 Maccabees conclude with a similar victory for the Jews, Hadrian was likely reminded of the same 2 Macc. text to make sure the ending was different. ….


And again:


Dan 9:27; 11:31; Matt 24:15; Luke 21:20 are specific prophecies that the “abomination of desolation that will make sacrifice cease” in the Jewish temple which was fully fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. But there were two other shadow or anti-typical fulfillments of these same prophecies. One was in 167 BC with Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the other was in 117 AD with the rise of Hadrian to power. Whereas Antiochus merely offered sacrifices to Jupiter in the Jewish Temple, Hadrian built the largest temples of Jupiter in the world in place of the Jewish temple. ….

[End of quote]







Simon Magus was a “Son of Perdition”

Published April 29, 2017 by amaic

Image result for simon magus


Damien F. Mackey


Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, ‘This man is rightly called the Great Power of God’. They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery”.

Acts 8:911


According to some, Simon the Magician was, all at once, Book of Revelation’s Beast and 666; the Antichrist; “the man of sin” and “the son of perdition”.

Jack Walton introduces Simon Magus as “… the most important person in history you never heard of” (


Simon Magus — The lluminati’s Jesus?


January 3, 2011


The full life of Simon Magus is mostly unknown ….


He was the towering figure of his time, along with his wife, Helen, the Jezebel and whore of Babylon from Revelation.


According to Bible Scholars Barbara Thiering and Hans Jonas, Simon Magus was the founder of the Gnostic church and was the direct competitor with Christianity for the hearts and minds of the Greco Roman world.


Simon is the Beast, the original Antichrist, and the true identity of the number 666. He was so powerful in fact, that he is known by many different names in the Bible.  Once all his “names” are learned, a very different picture of the Gospel emerges, one in which Jesus and Simon were creating two very different religions, for the reformation of Judaism, and the conversion of the Greco Roman/Pagan world to the Judaic god.


The circles that Magus worked in were the Illuminati of his time. At the time this consisted of what we would consider both “white” and “black” magicians, including the apostles of Jesus [sic] and the sects they led, (the “good” guys) as well as the Herod family, and the higher echelons of Rome, and the gnostic magicians (the Saturnalian or “black” magicians).


Thus, the “good guys” and the “bad guys had their start together at this time and later split up.   Simon Magus was a Samaritan Jew, whose particular version of Judaism incorporated the sexual licentiousness of the ancient Babylonian religions.


According to Clement, the early church father, Magus could, levitate items on command, speak with spirits, summon demons and place them into statues making the statues walk and talk, fly, and even raise the dead.


These were all deceptions designed to indoctrinate his followers into believing he was a god.  His religion, the Gnostic religion, was the sect that preceded Christianity in the Diaspora.  The current Illuminati religion (freemasonry) is based on Gnosticism and the ancient Babylonian mysticism (Satanism?) that he incorporated into his version of Judaism that he was selling (quite literally) to the masses of the Greco-Roman world.


He is the inspiration for Faust, and modern televangelist deceivers continue his tradition whether they realize it or not (i.e., religion based on deception.)  Anytime there is a reference to someone selling their soul to the devil, it is a reference to Faust, who was inspired by Simon Magus.


The medieval Rosicrucians who compiled the story of Faust understood all this (are they not Illuminati?)  One of the great untold stories of Christianity is how Peter and Paul came behind Simon and converted his many followers to Christianity.


In the beginning, Magus had been a follower of John the Baptist, and because of his genius and ability, was accepted by … the other Apostles. Simon’s early role in Judaism before his diaspora career, would be seen today as like an intelligence operative. He was of course, cast out of their ranks when they learned who he was.


One of the major things he did was attempt to organize a mass revolt against Pilate and the son of Herod, which was put down brutally. ….

Because of his stature, and the complexity of his life … Simon’s  accomplishments were divided by the Christians, and attributed to multiple people, under multiple pseudonyms.  In other words, he was so dangerous, that he was practically wiped from history, except for those “in the know.”


A great animosity existed between Simon and Peter.  Simon’s religion was based on deception, (Simon represented himself as a god), allowed for sexual licentiousness (the origins of “sex-magic”, which included orgies and homosexuality by his followers.


Peter taught abstinence in marriage, except for procreation, and this drew a lot of women to his flock. ….

[End of quote]


According to David L. Eastman, in “Simon the Anti-Christ? The Magos as Christos in Early Christian Literature”, Simon Magus was, for the early Christians, a “wicked, deceitful anti-Christ, the very embodiment of evil”



None of the early Christian sources denies that Simon had power to do things that others could not do. He is consistently remembered and presented as a figure who could perform amazing deeds to astound the crowds, even if he did so through the despicable arts of sorcery. In his various, reimagined guises, Simon was formidable because he was powerful, even if that power came from demons, as Peter asserts in his prayers to strike down Simon. In the earliest Christian centuries, when there existed a perceived threat of alternative Christologies, Simon is presented as the champion of ‘heresies’ such as Modalism and Docetism.

…. The authors of the later apocryphal texts, writing in a different cultural and ecclesiastical context, amend the earlier traditions and present a potent Simon in order to highlight the even greater power of the apostles. Peter and Paul confront and conquer this wicked, deceitful anti-Christ, the very embodiment of evil. ….

[End of quote]



The following description of “the man of sin”, “the son of perdition”, in Wayne Jackson’s article “Who Is Paul’s ‘Man of Sin’?”, seems to me to be perfectly applicable to Simon Magus (though this is by no means the conclusion that Wayne Jackson himself will reach):


Traits of the Man of Sin


Once a student has thoroughly read 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, we believe that it is possible to isolate certain tell-tale qualities of this diabolical force, and work toward a solution as to the identity of the “man of sin.”


Consider the following factors.

The Man of Sin and The Apostasy


The Man of Sin is the ultimate result of the falling away from the faith (v. 3).


The expression “falling away” translates the Greek term apostasia. Our English word “apostasy” is an anglicized form of this original term.


In the Bible, the word is used of a defection from the religion ordained by God. As a noun, it is employed of departure from the Mosaic system (Acts 21:21), and, in this present passage, of defection from Christianity. The verbal form of the term is similarly used in 1 Timothy 4:1 (cf. Heb. 3:12).


Note also that the noun is qualified by a definite article (the apostasia). A definite movement is in the apostle’s prophetic vision — not merely a principle of defection.

The Man of Sin Was Yet to Be Revealed


This sinister force, from a first-century vantage point, was yet to be revealed (v. 3).


This appears to suggest that the movement had not evolved to the point where it could be identified definitely by the primitive saints. It awaited future development.

The Man of Sin and Son of Perdition


This persecuting power was designated as the man of sin (v. 3), because sin was its “predominating quality” (Ellicott, p. 118). This character, referred to in both neuter and masculine genders (vv. 6-7), is the son of perdition (v. 3), because its end is to be perdition, i.e., destruction, by the Lord himself (v. 8).

The Lawless One


This opponent of God is called the lawless one (v. 8). This power has no regard for the law of God. One cannot but be reminded of that infamous “little horn” in Daniel’s vision: “[H]e shall think to change the times and the law” (7:25).

Man of Sin: Opposes God, Exalts Himself, and Sits in the Temple of God


The Man of Sin opposes God and exalts himself against all that is genuinely sacred (v. 4). He feigns religiosity, but his true character reveals that he is diabolic. His activity actually is according to the working of Satan (v. 9).


In some sense, the Man of Sin will sit in the temple of God (v. 4). The “temple” is not a reference to the Jewish house of worship. The Greek word is naos, used by Paul eight times. Never does he employ this term of the Jewish temple.


In fact, after the death of Christ, the Jewish temple is never again called the temple of God (Newton, p. 441). Rather it is used of the Christian’s body (1 Cor. 6:19) or of the church as God’s spiritual house (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; Eph. 2:21).


The implication of Paul’s warning is this. This unholy being is viewed as being a “church” character.


The expression “sitteth” may hint of unparalleled arrogance (Ellicott, pp. 119-120). Mason notes that the language describes the Man of Sin as attempting to exact “divine homage” from people (p. 169).


Moreover, this Son of Perdition sets himself forth as God. The present participle (“sets forth continually”) reveals that this presumptive posture is characteristic of the Man of Sin.


This person represents himself as God, either:


  • by making claims that belong only to deity;
  • by receiving adoration reserved exclusively for God; or,
  • by usurping prerogatives which only God can accomplish.

Clearly, the Man of Sin is an ecclesiastical character. Recall the description of John’s lamb-like beast in Revelation 13:11ff.

The Man of Sin Deceives with Lying Miracles


He deceives those who love not the truth, by virtue of the lying wonders he effects (vv. 9-10).

Bloomfield calls these “pretended miracles” (p. 345). These “wonders” are not in the category of Christ’s miracles. Lenski has well commented:


“So many are ready to attribute real miracles to Satan and to his agents; the Scriptures never do” (p. 426).



Man of Sin Already at Work in Paul’s Day


The early stages of this ecclesiastical apostasy were already at work in the early church (v. 7). The Greek term (energeitai, a present tense, middle voice form) suggests that this movement currently was working itself towards a greater goal.

The child, later to become a Man, was growing in Paul’s day. The error was “already operative” (Lenski, p. 417), but not yet “revealed” (v. 6). This is a crucial point.

Restrained During Paul’s Day


In Paul’s day there was some influence that restrained the budding Man of Sin. This was some sort of abstract force, as evidenced by the neuter form of katechon, “the restraining thing” (v. 6).

And yet, this force was strongly associated with a person/persons as suggested by the masculine, “he who restrains” (v. 7). Likely the significance is that of a broad power, operating under individual rulers.


Unlike the Man of Sin, whose identity was later to be revealed, the early saints knew personally of this restraining force. “You know (oidate — “to know from observation” — Vine, p. 444).


This indicates that the restraining power was an entity contemporary with Paul, not a modern one.

Restraining Force To Be Removed


The restraining force eventually would *be taken out of the way”, or, more correctly, “be gone.” And so, the Man of Sin, in “his own season,” would be revealed openly (vv. 6, 7).


Ellicott says that it is a season “appointed and ordained by God” (p. 121). One recalls that the “little horn” of Daniel’s fourth beast only rose to prominence after three horns were plucked up to make room for it.


Too, the earth-beast of John’s vision came into full power after the sea-beast had received a death-stroke, but was healed. And so here, the restraining power will give way to the horrible revelation of the Man of Sin. ….

[End of quotes]


Movement of apostasy, lawlessness, against all that is genuinely sacred, feignedly religious, diabolical, working according to power of Satan, a pseudo-Christian pretender, setting himself forth as a God, and so on. It reads just like the blasphemous profile of Simon Magus.