Theodelinda - Authari - Organa - The Story between Angels, Men, and Elves and God

Aug 2013
560
Earth
#1


Okay Gents, today we're going to tackle six historical figures (maybe even more!) Cleph, Authari/Agillulf, Theodelinda, Adaloald Organa, Kubrat. And why Authari, is actually the historical King Arthur. (Theodelinda is especially important but why say more?)

Geoffery Monmouth's History Of The Kings Of Britain

http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/geoffrey_thompson.pdf

and then

Paul the Deacon's Historia Langobardorum

http://www.thule-italia.org/Nordica/Paul the Deacon - History of the Lombards (1907) [EN].pdf?lbisphpreq=1

And to help


It all started over a thousand years ago, between the Catholic Church and the Knights Templar


Judas Thaddeus is the Saint that the True Church invokes the name of he is known as Thaddeus or Courageous, even though he bears the name of the traitor, and he is known as the cousin of Jesus Christ. In like manner in Paul's Historia Langobardorum Agilulf is known as the cousin of Authari. I asked Alpin Luke 3 years ago whether there was a tomb for one Authari and he said to the best of his knowledge there was none. I presumed then that Agilulf and Authari were the same person just as I assumed that for Judas Thaddeus and Jesus Christ (Judas Thaddeus is depicted with a coin with the face of Jesus on it) and in the bible Jesus says to give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar because it was his face that appeared on the coin.

The Knights Templar I believe discovered Gnostic Texts pertaining to this even though today the Church struggles to teach basic arithmetic to people.

On the Origin of the World - Bethge and Layton - The Nag Hammadi Library

The Gospel of Truth - Translation by Barnstone and Meyer - The Nag Hammadi Library

The Treatise on the Resurrection - Willis Barnstone - The Nag Hammadi Library

Saint John Chapter 8:14-8:18 (basic arithmetic)
Jesus answered and said to them: Although I give testimony of myself, my testimony is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go:but you know not whence I come, or wither I go. You judge according to the flesh: I judge not any man. And if I dojudge my judgment is true: because I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. And in your law it is written,that the testimony of two men is true. I am the one that gives testimony of myself: and the Father that sent me give testimony of me. (if you have trouble understanding this watch Fulton Sheen's video)

I already posted my thoughts on this earlier
King Authari the Legendary King Arthur and the Elves.

Do you believe me now? God Bless the Freemasons and God Bless the True Church.

My Grandmother was the first one I shared my story with, and my Grandfather passed away recently, I've written a book, and I think I'll dedicate it to them and the long marriage they had. It is a story after all of love.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2014
2,292
Westmorland
#4
For all of the reasons set out in previous years, Authari is not Arthur and, indeed, Arthur may not ever have been a historical figure.

Your argument (which, as I recall, was based on points of similarity between Authari and Arthur legends) failed to take account of the fact that none of the points which related to Arthur belonged to the earliest stratum of material about him. What you were doing was spotting similarities with the later medieval literary character of Arthur, which has virtually nothing in common with any "original" Arthur. So, your argument was essentially a foray into literary criticism rather than history.

It is therefore good to see that you appear now to be focussing on producing a piece of literature rather than a piece of history.
 
Aug 2013
560
Earth
#5
For all of the reasons set out in previous years, Authari is not Arthur and, indeed, Arthur may not ever have been a historical figure.

Your argument (which, as I recall, was based on points of similarity between Authari and Arthur legends) failed to take account of the fact that none of the points which related to Arthur belonged to the earliest stratum of material about him. What you were doing was spotting similarities with the later medieval literary character of Arthur, which has virtually nothing in common with any "original" Arthur. So, your argument was essentially a foray into literary criticism rather than history.

It is therefore good to see that you appear now to be focussing on producing a piece of literature rather than a piece of history.
Its unfortunate that you are still so vehement in your refusal to accept the truth. Theodelinda is just as important as Authari because Theodelinda is in fact the Holy Grail, the sacred vessel in which was poured the love of a son for his mother. Or as Paul the Deacon simply wrote. Why say more? More importantly Adaloald became king at the young age of 14 the same age Authari is in my book, in my book I'm taking a little bit of a leap from history as I figured history has tons of examples of a young princess marrying an old king but few examples of a young prince marrying an old queen. I thought it would be fun to mix things up a bit. So you understand I am in fact a Grail Thief. And I am for all intents and purposes a penitent thief, which is why my story is being written for all. I'll publish it soon, probably this year.

Its good to see you again, but I prefer my italian comrade he obviously unlike you has more interest in the truth because it aligns with his nationality. You on the other hand being from Britain can't bare to even fathom the slightest possibility that Arthur isn't british. This my friend though is truly what the Freemasons have built their legend around and what the Catholic Church even to this day so ardently tries to oppress because with it comes the truth of the Christian religion, that Jesus Christ wasn't the son of God but as the Muslims say, he was just a prophet.

 
Jan 2014
2,292
Westmorland
#6
Its unfortunate that you are still so vehement in your refusal to accept the truth. .
Its good to see you again, but I prefer my italian comrade he obviously unlike you has more interest in the truth because it aligns with his nationality. You on the other hand being from Britain can't bare to even fathom the slightest possibility that Arthur isn't british.
It's good to see you too, but I take issue with these comments.

Firstly, you can't be both advocate and judge. If you wish to present a theory, it is up to others to decide whether or not it is the truth. If you fail to convince anyone, the fact that you personally believe your theory counts for nothing. I don't know if you have this saying in America, but over here we'd say that was a case of "everyone walking out of step expect our Johnny".

Secondly - and as should have been clear from my posts in your original thread some years ago, I don't accept that Arthur existed at all. So, the accusation that I cannot bear to fathom the slightest possibility that Arthur isn't British is a nonsense. I've never argued that Arthur was British because I don't think there ever was an Arthur. It's also pretty unfair to suggest that my own nationality (or that of AlpinLuke) gets in the way of clear thinking. In case you hadn't noticed. Alpin Luke is one of a relatively smaall number of posters who appears to agree that Arthur was never a real person.

Good luck with the book though.
 
Similiar History Discussions History Forum Date
European History

Similar History Discussions