Category: CONSPIRACY
-
10 reasons you can’t be a Christian and vote for Donald Trump
REBUTTAL TO ARTICLE LINK ABOVE
Do not Judge the inner work of the Holy Spirit My Rebutle to Christopher Pieper and Matt Henderson,
If you ‘cherry-pick’ scripture in favor to justify your thesis allow me the courtesy to pose a counter-argument. I’ll stick with the New Testament to keep it simple; as I am sure you’re aware considering your credentials and sheepskin that denomination, sect, and school of thought can alter the context and meaning of certain scriptural texts and sometimes not.
For Example take Luke 19:27 (Jesus Speaking):
“27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
How do we translate that in a positive light? This appears to favor Trump more than it condemns him.
How about context?
This is extracted from the parable of the 10 Talents (Luke 19:11-27) crossreferenced with Matthew 25:14-30 below.
Starting with Matthew 25:30 (Jesus Speaking):
“30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Now that fits Tumps ‘Modus Operandi,’ I can hear him say, “You’re Fired!” Hey, let us dig deeper, shall we? We shall…
Starting from the beginning of the Parable and adding context to the meaning, READ- look at what large letters I am using- Matthew 25:14-30.
Now that you’ve hopefully read the above-selected scripture, we should take a closer look and examine Matthew 25: 15, 21, and 23.
Jesus describes how the ‘man traveling into a far country’ gives out talents to each of his three servants:
“15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.”
To the servant that he gave five talents, Jesus says,
“21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.”
To the servant that he gave two talents, Jesus says,
“23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.”
To the servant that he gave one talent, Jesus says (And we will focus here for the sake of context),
” 24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: ”
Pay particular attention to: “Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed…”
In context with your thesis, by interchanging ‘Lord’ with ‘Trump’ watch what happens: “Trump, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed…” Wow, that fits like a glove, the ‘Lord’ Jesus is referring to in the Parable sounds an awful lot like Trump.
For fun, suppose we interchange ‘the Lord’ with ‘Trump’ in your ‘simple argument?’
“A Christian who supports ‘the Lord’ either does not understand this person and his positions, or supports him in spite of Christian convictions.”
Or ‘the CEO…’
“A Christian who supports ‘the CEO’ either does not understand this person and his positions, or supports him in spite of Christian convictions.”
How about, ‘the Banker’ or ‘the Millionaire’ or ‘their Boss…?’
You get the point, it fits and sounds like Donald Trump and his world. Where were we? Oh yeah, Matthew 25:24-27:
” 24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.”
Is Jesus teaching about investing money and banking, a ‘Parable’ about investing and compounding money by usury?
Not to mention, there aren’t any details on just how the first two servants doubled their money… Maybe they bought a rundown hotel with tax structure ‘A.’ Next, they acquired a loan to remodel the hotel thus bankrupting tax structure ‘A.’ After the work is almost completed they then filed ‘chapter 13’ and auctioned off the property and assets of tax structure ‘A’ (In this case the newly remodeled Hotel minus the debts). Then bribed the auctioneer to hold the Auction at 6 AM on a Tuesday morning when it was supposed to rain in order to buy up all the assets without competition with tax structure ‘B!’ Only to sell the New and Improved Hotel at a Profit! Boy oh Boy, won’t the Lord be pleased?
Is that not what Trump has done with the talents he’s been given?
What is the third servant’s correction from the ‘Lord?’
Matthew 25:28-30 (Jesus Speaking):
“28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
I guess we know where ‘trickledown economics’ originated from don’t we? Matter o’ fact in verse 29, Jesus is teaching the ‘Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer’ implying that a person is poor because they’re lazy and disobedient! And how about that “cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness…” That’s not a very nice and frankly it, according to your cherry-picked thesis, is very un-Christian of Jesus.
Compare that by READING- look at what large letters I am using- Luke 19:14-27.
Comparing Lukes version with Matthews version, It’s noticeable they’re both almost the same except for the ending of Luke’s version:
“27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
Wow, that is harsh! Did Jesus actually say, “Slay them?” Matter o’ fact he did. This can almost sound like Jesus is calling for a ‘Jihad’ or ‘Holy War’ against anti-capitalists (don’t forget lazy and disobedient servants), even calling them ‘enemies!’
If the Bible, in truth, is the inerrant Word of God, then we must take it seriously, when according to Luke 19: Jesus says,
“11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.”
And in Matthew 25:14 Jesus says,
“14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.”
Wow, they disabled my comment… Weak. Christopher Pieper and Matt Henderson, with your academic accolades, one would think you both to be better examples, knowing better by not using the Scripture as a tool to condemn when the work of Jesus is about redemption- the redemptive work of the Cross. Donald Trump is a baby Christian, needing the milk of the Word not the meat of the Word. And with your high and mighty Ph.D.’s, don’t you know that God will hold you to a stricter judgment as a teacher of the Word? Yeah, you’re both probably atheist theologians with no knowledge of the Word, lacking the understanding of the redemptive work of the Cross and Salvation offered by Jesus, lacking revelation of the ongoing relationship and walk with the Father while lacking wisdom by the inner workings of the Holy Spirit… Is it any wonder you would mistake the Sword of Truth to be the Sword of Righteousness? Methinks you need the Milk of the Word of God again.
I will say studying You Has Made Me a Better Person!
(Luke 19:14 and Matthew 25 the ‘Parable of the Talents’ are sarcastic references spoken by Jesus condemning Herod ‘the Scourge.’ By mocking Herod, Jesus mimics his character, in the reverse take of what Heaven is like, or in this context what Heaven is ‘not’ like. Often many Christians fail to see God has a sense of humor and it doesn’t help when the translations or transliterations aren’t rendering or conveying the intended context and original meaning.)
-
-
Praying for Vladimir Putin, Dad may your divine hand be upon and place favor on him. Bless his feet and hands that whatever he touches carry your correction and where he walks your mercy may be declared. Grant him the many splendors of Wisdom and let discernment be a crown of peace upon his head. Gird him, round about with Sanctity and Righteousness. May he be aware that You, Dad, shroud him in Your Holy Spirit and be protection, peace, and comfort to him in his journey in this world. Grant us strength to overcome the corrupt evil cabal that subjugates man in slavery.
In the name of Yesu, haem.
Prophetic Word:
1 My Father, lifted me out by my hair, and brought me to a vision, amidst a deep valley’ there where a river ran through.
2 God led my wife, and mother with me, to a river. Trees lined either side of the river, and the river flowed with time, through time, and in time.
3 As I stood on one bank, thereupon a cliff, caught in a gaze and froze in my tracks. As the only sound was of many rushing waters.
4 I looked and Behold, there in the river, flowing downstream, came rubble, shrouded amidst the reeds and the rushes.
5 Amidst the reeds and the rushes, I saw a pale-green Dragon, his cold, calculating eyes looking back at me; as it flow past, caught in the current of the river, its gaze held me transfixed.
6 Raising my hand and spoke I unto the Dragon and said, “I see you!” pointed and spoke unto the Dragon again, “I see you, I know who you are!”
7 I riled that Serpent, to arise from his shroud, amidst the reeds and the rushes, where he hid and lifted his mighty head.
8 Time stopped as I stared at that pale-green Serpent, the clacking of his prismatic pale-green scales, rippling in the Sun.
9 Enraged, he shook angrily, clawing the bramble, flailing against the current; lashing his mighty tail, in a fight to gain footing and cross the river.
10 His fangs shown, his razor teeth shown, as he grimaced in the fury, of his delight; the noise ceased, and the many rushing waters, were left silent.
11 There held, I, my ground and made my stand. Smoke filled his nostrils, as that pale-green Dragon, charged across the flowing river; with time, through time, and in time.
12 He, that mighty Serpent, clutched the sand of the shore, with His front right claw; there he clutched the sand of the shore, right past, beneath the cliff where I stood.
13 He then transformed from that pale-green Dragon, his continence, suddenly, changed to Righteous indignation; where once that mighty Serpent was, there stood a ferocious Black Bear.
14 The Black Bear, clawed the ground three times and began his charge, only troubled by the cliff, where I stood.
15 Short of time, search I there, through the trees, for a place to hide.
16 I looked and Behold, stood there, a Tabernacle, amidst the trees, and ran to the threshold and there, entered in.
17 Searching to and fro, there stood, in the center of the room, a ladder ascending through a skylight.
18 Did I not turn, did I not look, I did not turn and look, at the Black Bear; that clawed the air, huffing and thundering, in its furious anger!
19 Dare I not turn, not look and see, that pale-green Dragon; the mighty Serpent that transformed and formed into the Black Bear.
20 My heart, beneath my chest, my heart did pound; and saw out the corner of my eye, his claw of his right hand, about to tear my body apart.
21 And I cried out to the Father and lift me out, He did, by my hair, to deliver me from the vision.
-
==THE MANFREDINGI==
THE MANFREDINGI
Matfried
It took a while and many hours of frustration, prayer and persistence. Many times you want to throw your hands up in the air and just quit but that is when ‘Passion’ takes over. Genealogy, is mainly a jigsaw puzzle to be solved by logical and deductive reasoning.
After spending two weeks and sixteen hour days, getting little to no sleep, cross referencing every suggested, possible and/or logical relation, sifting historical data and crunching all the numbers… It finally became apparent,Mattfrid II, Graf von Eifelgau-Orleans was the only logical person to be the father of Mattfrid I, von Wied (Same person as Matfrid III, Graf von Eifelgau).
But first let us jump back to a later descendant.
Matfried III, von Wied (Engersgau, 1093-1123/1129), had, yet another road block, in this line. He (Matfrid III) had, from multiple sources, three fathers to chose from: [A] Ruckerus von Wied; [B] Wigger III von Engersgau (Beilstein); [C] Richwin IV, Graf von Wied.
Having dealt with ‘Ruckerus’ and deduced that, while he could be Matfrid III’s father, it was more likely, Richwin IV, Graf von Wied, was his father. Then in the ‘Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia‘ (ref. 2b), it made the claimMattfried III ( von Wied, also Engersgau ) was the son of Wigger III von Engersgau– to justify the ‘Engersgau’ surname. It further stated (Pg. 824) that ‘He’ (Mattfried III) was related to the Matfrid’s (d’Orleans) but ‘suggested’ through a matrilineal line.
This is ruled out, with all the evidence compiled, that it’s not only likely but logical that Mattfried III (von Wied-Engersgau) was related to the Matfrid I, d’Orleans (Manfred V) but instead through the patrilineal line.
Matfrid I, von Wied and Matfrid III, Graf von Eifelgau (d’Orleans) dates are very similar.
Wikapedia states: “The third Matfrid, presumed son of the second, was active in the period 867 to 878″ (ref. 1b)
In the, ‘Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia‘, it states: “Matfrid III, the son of Matfrid II, flourished 867-878 as a count in Lotharingia and also in Eifelgau. He appears to have property in the part of Lothar II’s realm that went to Charles the Bald in 870, probably in the Waberngau and in the Verduner Gau. In 877, with other magnates he was appointed at Queirzy as counselor to Charle’s son, as often as he should be in the Meuse region. Matfrid III followed his father as lay abbot St. Vaast, and died about 883.” (ref. 2b)
Matfrid I, von Wied is cited to have been born between 850-860 and that he died around 886 that is only a three year difference between both Matfrid’s date of death. Neither Matrfrid (Matfrid I, von Wied or Matfrid III, von Eifelgau (d’Orleans) has a specific or set date for their death. Due to the lack of information and/or evidence, there’s really not a good reason, to believe they are or were different people.
(Well, unless your a descendant of the Hapsburg’s :P)
As if we weren’t deep enough into bizarre common attributes and seemingly coincidental mirrored numerical values we stumble upon, yet another ‘Manfredingi’, grand son of ‘Manfred V‘… Manfredo VII conte di Lodi e Milano, Conte del Sacro Palazzo d’Italia- Count of the ‘Sacred Place’ in Italy. Who was born around 850 (same asMatfried I, Graf von Wied) and died when? You guessed it, in 886!
Manfredo VII conte di Lodi e Milano AKA: Manfredo, Marquis di Lombardia; AKA: Matfried I, Graf von Wied (AKA: Matfrède III, Graf von Eifelgau). Born about 85O in Italy, is presumed to have been at least 15 years of age by the time his son Manfredo was born. Married before 866. He died in 886 in Italy, rather he was beheaded in the year 886 by Lambert.
Matfrid I (Manfred V), von Eifelgau Compte d´Orléans
“Ipotesi sull’origine ei filii Manfredingi”
See: Descendants of Matfried comte d’Orleans at MedLands.
Parentage Unknown- Maybe…
Suggested parents: Guagenfred, comte de Verdun and Theudelinda of Kent.
Well it’s known, you just have to keep sifting and cross referencing until you find the common denominators. In many substantiated, unsubstantiated online sources it is said that Adrien, Comte d’Orléans (Udalriching), Count of Orléans and Waldrada von Hornbach was Matfrid I (Manfred V), d’Orlean’s parents. This was not a ‘made-up’ theory, instigated by ignorant people, it was actually suggested by ‘Academia’, to be the most plausible father based on the limited information available.
So, I accepted this possibility with some reservation. Throughout this research, the evidence of multiple instances of confusing and obscuring the lineage, were encountered. If it happened once or even twice you could assume it to be human error but more than three times… I don’t think so. It is more than obvious that this is a deliberate attempt to eliminate competition at the time this line and other parallel lines are competing for familial elevation and tenure.
The question then is, ‘why… Why this line in particular?’
That is the pestering question that haunts my ongoing research. Again, as before, amid frustration with prayer and quiet meditation God has pointed the way- God being Love, then Love has pointed the way… A love of my familial heritage and ancestors.
‘Manfred III (Manfred V)’ and Matfried I d’Orleans Connection and Parentage
Manfred V, Comte d’Orleans, Duca di Neustria d’Italia, Duca di Tuscia was born in 770, while Matfrid I Graf von Eifelgau, Comte d’Orleans has conflicting dates of 795 or 800. This is easy to understand when you cross reference and compare each ‘Manfredingi’.
First, the 795 date is simply misunderstood information, 795 was symbolic of birth, or rebirth for Manfred V, Comte d’Orleans because this is the date his father ‘Guagenfred I, Comte de Verdum‘ died; and being Catholic, probably went through a public, ceremonial baptismal inauguration (symbolic of birth or re-birth), shortly after his father’s death in 795. The 800 date is also, easily understood, because this is the date Manfred V, d’Orleansofficially assumed the title ‘Comte d’Orleans’.
Matfrid I, Graf von Eifelgau (d’Orleans), in some sources, is said to have been denied his hold on the title ‘Comte d’Orleans’, while, Manfred V, Comte d’Orleans is said to have resigned the post and title. Both ‘Matfrid I‘ and ‘Manfred V‘ not only held the Matfrid (Manfred) name but also the title ‘Comte d’Orleans’ simultaneously. Which is uncanny, to say the least, not to mention, ‘Matfrid I‘ and ‘Manfred V‘ both died in Italy in 836, even more uncanny…
Aripert II di Lombardia, King of the Lombards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aripert_II
Aripert II (also spelled Aribert) was the king of the Lombards from 701 to 712. Duke of Turin and son of King Raginpert, and thus a scion of the Bavarian Dynasty, he was associated with the throne as early as 700. He was removed by Liutpert, who reigned from 700 to 702, with the exception of the year 701, when Raginpert seized the throne. After his father’s death, he tried to take the throne, too. He defeated Liutpert and the regent Ansprand’s men at Pavia and captured the king, whom he later had strangled in his bath. He seized the capital and forced Ansprand over the Alps. He was firmly in power by 703.
He thence reigned uninterrupted until his death. His reign was a troubled one. In 703, Faroald, duke of Spoleto, attacked the Exarchate of Ravenna, but Aripert refused to assist him, for he wanted good relations with papacy and empire. He tried nevertheless to assert his authority over Spoleto and Benevento in the Mezzogiorno. He nursed friendship with Pope John VI by donating vast tracts of land in the Cottian Alps to the Holy See. This friendship helped him little, for he had many rebellions to deal with and many Slovene raids into Venetia.
In 711, Ansprand, whom he had exiled, returned with a large army from the duke of Bavaria, Theudebert. Many Austrians (the men of Venetia and the east) joined the returning regent and battle was joined by Pavia. Aripert fled to his capital when the tide went against him, but he horded the treasures and tried to cross over into Gaul by night. He drowned in the River Ticino and Ansprand was acclaimed sovereign. He was the last Bavarian to wear the Iron Crown.
Alternate Story
Reginbert 1: King of the Lombards in Italy (r 700).
He was Duke of Turin before succeeding as King. On the death of his cousin, King Cunnincpert I in 700, he rose in rebellion and marched eastward with a strong army and met Ansprand, the guardian of the Boy King Luitpert on the plain of Novara. He defeated Ansprand and his allies and won the crown. However he died three months later, he had two sons- Aripert and Gumbert.
Gumbert, Prince of the Lombard’s
Born ca: 665, and died in France in Exile in 700, at an unknown date. On the death of their father in 700, Gumbert’s elder brother Aripert II succeeded to the throne, but he had to fight Ansprand and his allies for the throne and Aripert being Victorious, Ansprand fled, leaving his family behind. King Aripert II in revenge , mutilated Ansprand’s wife and one of their daughters.
Ansprand returned with an army in 712, and was Victorious, and Aripert II was advised by his supporters to flee to France and raise an army to fight for his throne, however he was drowned crossing the river Tecino.
Gumbert made it successfully to France with his three sons, fearing that Ansparnd would take revenge on his sons, for what his brother Aripert had done to his wife and daughter.
It was his great grandson Manfred V (Matfrid I, von Eifelgau), Comte de Orleans, who in 834 returned to Italy on the request of his nephew, King Lothaire I, King of Italy (Future Emperor).
Basic Facts:
- Were a line of Nobles of subalpine Italy stemming from Manfred V (or Matfrid I Comte von Eifelgau), Comte de Orleans (765–836)
- Manfred V inherited the title Comte de Orleans in 800 from a separate (extinguished) line of the family founder
- Branches of the family included the Guasco, the Boidi and the Trotti
- In 712 AD Aripert II, Prince of the Lombard’s, was forced to flee his holdings in Northern Italy, along with his family count forbears.
===== Matfried =====
It took a while and many hours of frustration, prayer and persistence. Many times you want to throw your hands up in the air and just quit but that is when ‘Passion’ takes over. Genealogy, is mainly a jigsaw puzzle to be solved by logical and deductive reasoning.After spending two weeks and sixteen hour days, getting little to no sleep, cross referencing every suggested, possible and/or logical relation, sifting historical data and crunching all the numbers… It finally became apparent, [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-II-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151257772 Mattfrid II, Graf von Eifelgau-Orleans] was the only logical person to be the father of [http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Mattfrid I, von Wied (Same person as Matfrid III, Graf von Eifelgau)].
But first let us jump back to a later descendant.
[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-III-Graf-zu-Wied/6000000020802284608 Matfried III, von Wied (Engersgau, 1093-1123/1129)], had, yet another road block, in this line. He ([http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-III-Graf-zu-Wied/6000000020802284608 Matfrid III]) had, from multiple sources, three fathers to chose from: [A] [http://www.geni.com/people/Ruckerus-von-Wied/6000000020814941815 Ruckerus von Wied]; [B] [http://www.geni.com/people/Wigger-III-im-Engersgau-Beilstein/6000000011196917359 Wigger III von Engersgau (Beilstein)];
[C] [http://www.geni.com/people/Richwin-IV-Graf-von-Wied/6000000020802709328?through=6000000020814941815 Richwin IV, Graf von Wied].Having dealt with [http://www.geni.com/people/Ruckerus-von-Wied/6000000020814941815 ‘Ruckerus’] and deduced that, while he could be [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-III-Graf-zu-Wied/6000000020802284608 Matfrid III’s] father, it was more likely, [http://www.geni.com/people/Richwin-IV-Graf-von-Wied/6000000020802709328?through=6000000020814941815 Richwin IV, Graf von Wied], was his father. Then in the ‘[http://books.google.com/books?id=0Sdo1gNF4D8C&pg=PA1497&lpg=PA1497&dq=matfrid+III.+of+orleans&source=bl&ots=XlPqjnOKLf&sig=cfpqg_YVxnqBaFUvTGj-UpQo66A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V3uqUej6C9DoiwKGs4DYBQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=matfrid%20III.%20of%20orleans&f=false Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia]’ (ref. 2b), it made the claim [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-III-Graf-zu-Wied/6000000020802284608 Mattfried III ( von Wied, also Engersgau )] was the son of [http://www.geni.com/people/Wigger-III-im-Engersgau-Beilstein/6000000011196917359 Wigger III von Engersgau]- to justify the ‘Engersgau’ surname. It further stated (Pg. 824) that ‘He’ ([http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-III-Graf-zu-Wied/6000000020802284608 Mattfried III]) was related to the [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid’s (d’Orleans)] but ‘suggested’ through a matrilineal line.
This is ruled out, with all the evidence compiled, that it’s not only likely but logical that [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-III-Graf-zu-Wied/6000000020802284608 Mattfried III (von Wied-Engersgau)] was related to the [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid I, d’Orleans (Manfred V)] but instead through the patrilineal line.
[http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfrid I, von Wied] and [http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfrid III, Graf von Eifelgau (d’Orleans)] dates are very similar.
Wikapedia states:” “The third [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matfrid Matfrid], presumed son of the second, was active in the period 867 to 878″”
(ref. 1b)In the, ‘[http://books.google.com/books?id=0Sdo1gNF4D8C&pg=PA1497&lpg=PA1497&dq=matfrid+III.+of+orleans&source=bl&ots=XlPqjnOKLf&sig=cfpqg_YVxnqBaFUvTGj-UpQo66A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V3uqUej6C9DoiwKGs4DYBQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=matfrid%20III.%20of%20orleans&f=false Medieval Germany: An Encyclopedia]’, it states: ””Matfrid III, the son of Matfrid II, flourished 867-878 as a count in Lotharingia and also in Eifelgau. He appears to have property in the part of Lothar II’s realm that went to Charles the Bald in 870, probably in the Waberngau and in the Verduner Gau. In 877, with other magnates he was appointed at Queirzy as counselor to Charle’s son, as often as he should be in the Meuse region. Matfrid III followed his father as lay abbot St. Vaast, and died about 883.” ”
(ref. 2b)[http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfrid I, von Wied] is cited to have been born between 850-860 and that he died around 886 that is only a three year difference between both Matfrid’s date of death. Neither Matrfrid ([http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfrid I, von Wied] or [http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfrid III, von Eifelgau (d’Orleans)] has a specific or set date for their death. Due to the lack of information and/or evidence, there’s really not a good reason, to believe they are or were different people.
===== (Well, unless your a descendant of the Hapsburg’s :P) =====
As if we weren’t deep enough into bizarre common attributes and seemingly coincidental mirrored numerical values we stumble upon, yet another ‘Manfredingi’, grand son of ‘[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V]’… Manfredo VII conte di Lodi e Milano, Conte del Sacro Palazzo d’Italia- Count of the ‘Sacred Place’ in Italy. Who was born around 850 (same as [http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfried I, Graf von Wied]) and died when? You guessed it, in 886!
Manfredo VII conte di Lodi e Milano AKA: Manfredo, Marquis di Lombardia; AKA: [http://www.geni.com/people/Matfr%C3%A8de-III-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000003051286591 Matfried I, Graf von Wied (AKA: Matfrède III, Graf von Eifelgau)]. Born about 85O in Italy, is presumed to have been at least 15 years of age by the time his son Manfredo was born. Married before 866. He died in 886 in Italy, rather he was beheaded in the year 886 by Lambert.
=== Matfrid I (Manfred V), von Eifelgau Compte d´Orléans ===
”“Ipotesi sull’origine ei filii Manfredingi””See: [http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/FRANKISH%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc169575361 Descendants of Matfried comte d’Orleans] at MedLands.
=== Parentage Unknown- Maybe… ===
Suggested parents: ”'[http://www.geni.com/people/Guagenfred-I-Comte-de-Verdum/6000000020958773698 Guagenfred, comte de Verdun]”’ and ”'[http://www.geni.com/people/Princess-Theudelinda-de-Verdum/6000000020959363839 Theudelinda of Kent]”’.
Well it’s known, you just have to keep sifting and cross referencing until you find the common denominators. In many substantiated, unsubstantiated online sources it is said that [http://www.geni.com/people/Adrien-Comte-d-Orl%C3%A9ans/6000000007316403023 Adrien, Comte d’Orléans (Udalriching), Count of Orléans] and [http://www.geni.com/people/Waldrada-von-Hornbach/6000000003827237317?through=6000000007316403023 Waldrada von Hornbach] was [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid I (Manfred V), d’Orlean’s] parents. This was not a ‘made-up’ theory, instigated by ignorant people, it was actually suggested by ‘Academia’, to be the most plausible father based on the limited information available.
So, I accepted this possibility with some reservation. Throughout this research, the evidence of multiple instances of confusing and obscuring the lineage, were encountered. If it happened once or even twice you could assume it to be human error but more than three times… I don’t think so. It is more than obvious that this is a deliberate attempt to eliminate competition at the time this line and other parallel lines are competing for familial elevation and tenure.
The question then is, ‘why… Why this line in particular?’
That is the pestering question that haunts my ongoing research. Again, as before, amid frustration with prayer and quiet meditation God has pointed the way- God being Love, then Love has pointed the way… A love of my familial heritage and ancestors.
=== ‘Manfred III (Manfred V)’ and Matfried I d’Orleans Connection and Parentage ===
[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V, Comte d’Orleans, Duca di Neustria d’Italia, Duca di Tuscia] was born in 770, while [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid I Graf von Eifelgau, Comte d’Orleans] has conflicting dates of 795 or 800. This is easy to understand when you cross reference and compare each ‘Manfredingi’.
First, the 795 date is simply misunderstood information, 795 was symbolic of birth, or rebirth for [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V, Comte d’Orleans] because this is the date his father ‘[http://www.geni.com/people/Guagenfred-I-Comte-de-Verdum/6000000020958773698 Guagenfred I, Comte de Verdum]’ died; and being Catholic, probably went through a public, ceremonial baptismal inauguration (symbolic of birth or re-birth), shortly after his father’s death in 795. The 800 date is also, easily understood, because this is the date [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V, d’Orleans] officially assumed the title ‘Comte d’Orleans’.
[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid I, Graf von Eifelgau (d’Orleans)], in some sources, is said to have been denied his hold on the title ‘Comte d’Orleans’, while, [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V, Comte d’Orleans] is said to have resigned the post and title. Both ‘[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid I]’ and ‘[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V]’ not only held the Matfrid (Manfred) name but also the title ‘Comte d’Orleans’ simultaneously. Which is uncanny, to say the least, not to mention, ‘[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Matfrid I]’ and ‘[http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V]’ both died in Italy in 836, even more uncanny…
===Aripert II di Lombardia, King of the Lombards===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aripert_IIAripert II (also spelled Aribert) was the king of the Lombards from 701 to 712. Duke of Turin and son of King Raginpert, and thus a scion of the Bavarian Dynasty, he was associated with the throne as early as 700. He was removed by Liutpert, who reigned from 700 to 702, with the exception of the year 701, when Raginpert seized the throne. After his father’s death, he tried to take the throne, too. He defeated Liutpert and the regent Ansprand’s men at Pavia and captured the king, whom he later had strangled in his bath. He seized the capital and forced Ansprand over the Alps. He was firmly in power by 703.
He thence reigned uninterrupted until his death. His reign was a troubled one. In 703, Faroald, duke of Spoleto, attacked the Exarchate of Ravenna, but Aripert refused to assist him, for he wanted good relations with papacy and empire. He tried nevertheless to assert his authority over Spoleto and Benevento in the Mezzogiorno. He nursed friendship with Pope John VI by donating vast tracts of land in the Cottian Alps to the Holy See. This friendship helped him little, for he had many rebellions to deal with and many Slovene raids into Venetia.
In 711, Ansprand, whom he had exiled, returned with a large army from the duke of Bavaria, Theudebert. Many Austrians (the men of Venetia and the east) joined the returning regent and battle was joined by Pavia. Aripert fled to his capital when the tide went against him, but he horded the treasures and tried to cross over into Gaul by night. He drowned in the River Ticino and Ansprand was acclaimed sovereign. He was the last Bavarian to wear the Iron Crown.
===Alternate Story===Reginbert 1: King of the Lombards in Italy (r 700).
He was Duke of Turin before succeeding as King. On the death of his cousin, King Cunnincpert I in 700, he rose in rebellion and marched eastward with a strong army and met Ansprand, the guardian of the Boy King Luitpert on the plain of Novara. He defeated Ansprand and his allies and won the crown. However he died three months later, he had two sons- Aripert and Gumbert.
Gumbert, Prince of the Lombard’s
Born ca: 665, and died in France in Exile in 700, at an unknown date. On the death of their father in 700, Gumbert’s elder brother Aripert II succeeded to the throne, but he had to fight Ansprand and his allies for the throne and Aripert being Victorious, Ansprand fled, leaving his family behind. King Aripert II in revenge , mutilated Ansprand’s wife and one of their daughters.
Ansprand returned with an army in 712, and was Victorious, and Aripert II was advised by his supporters to flee to France and raise an army to fight for his throne, however he was drowned crossing the river Tecino.
Gumbert made it successfully to France with his three sons, fearing that Ansparnd would take revenge on his sons, for what his brother Aripert had done to his wife and daughter.
It was his great grandson [http://www.geni.com/people/Mattfried-I-Graf-von-Eifelgau/6000000007151327775 Manfred V (Matfrid I, von Eifelgau), Comte de Orleans], who in 834 returned to Italy on the request of his nephew, King Lothaire I, King of Italy (Future Emperor).
===Basic Facts:===
# Were a line of ‘Blood Royals’ and Nobles of subalpine Italy stemming from Manfred V (or Matfrid I Comte von Eifelgau), Comte de Orleans (765–836)# Manfred V inherited the title Comte de Orleans in 800 from a separate (extinguished) line of the family founder
# Branches of the family included the Guasco, the Boidi and the Trotti
# In 712 AD Aripert II, Prince of the Lombard’s, was forced to flee his holdings in Northern Italy, along with his family count forbears. -
Published on Mar 24, 2013
DISTURBING AND APPALLING Recording of the February 24th, 2013 phone call in which Lila Tolui, Fiancé of de Vere places a phone call to Sir James Robert Wright, Board Member of de Vere’s company, and describes the scene in which Nicholas de Vere was found and alleges sinister activity / ritual slaying / foul play. This conversation has been publicly denied by the British authorities, until an anonymous intel source provided it from Wright’s tapped phone lines in Los Angeles.
-
DISTURBING AND APPALLING Recording of the February 24th, 2013 phone call in which Lila Tolui, Fiancé of de Vere places a phone call to Sir James Robert Wright, Board Member of de Vere’s company, and describes the scene in which Nicholas de Vere was found and alleges sinister activity / ritual slaying / foul play. This conversation has been publicly denied by the British authorities, until an anonymous intel source provided it from Wright’s tapped phone lines in Los Angeles.
-
Note: This Interview is Privately Owned – This version Mastered courtesy of VinnyMRNEWSguerillamedia·LINK: http://www.youtube.com/user/MRNEWSguerillamedia?feature=watch
(Transcript to come shortly) Conspiracy
Dragon Sovereignty International 