ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2013, 07:16 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2013 09:40 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?

>>However, I was questioning why you agree with the biblical narrative when it
>>correlates to Izaz, seeing as you agree with me that the biblical narrative is questionable.

Actually, if you remove the fairy-dust, much of the biblical narrative is pretty accurate. But removing the fairy-dust involves a knowledge of what the duplicitous author (Saul-Josephus) was trying to achieve.



>>For instance, Jesus was not called Emmanuel.

This verse was the primary proof that Jesus was the christ-messiah, and the fact that he never really used that name has caused an amount of consternation in religious circle. (Isa 7:14, Math 1:23)

What we have here is classic Talmudic Pesher (predictions using past events - the verse from Isaiah). But what the gospel author has done with this Pesher, is to encode Jesus' real throne name into the biblical narrative, so that those 'with ears to hear' would realise who Jesus really was (ie, King Manu of Edessa). It was a deliberate clue, for present and future generations.

And we know this was deliberate, because the same verse also encodes Izas-Manu's mother's name too. The verse says Jesus' mother was a 'virgin' which was 'almah' in Aramaic. But the mother of Izas was Shalmath (Sh-almah-th). Thus if we do the same truncation to the name Shalmath (Sh-Almah-th), as we did to the name Emmanuel (Em-Manu-el), we derive almah (the virgin). Ho, ho, ho, those gospel authors (Saul-Josephus) must have been rolling around the pews of Jabneh (where the gospels were most probably written).





>>Jesus was referred to as "King of the Jews" by the sign over his head (not universally in
>>every gospel, but we are given that account nevertheless) but it appears to be a joke rather than a label.

Fairy dust. The Church would like you to think this was mockery, because they do not want you to know who Jesus really was. How could they admit that he was really a king and the high priest of Jerusalem, when he was supposed to be a pauper-carpenter? So they denied it. But the gospels clearly say Jesus was a king, and Hebrews 7 says he was high priest.

And as an aside, the title 'Christ' also means 'king'. Why was Jesus called the Christ (the anointed one)if he was not a king? Pharaoh Ptolemy III was also the Christ, and bore the 'Christian chi-ro symbol. Was that because he was a carpenter?? And do recall that it was Mary Magdalene that anointed Jesus as king, which just proves how important she was.




>>The biblical Jesus was not "sent away to Egypt for his education" but rather his
>>family "fled to Egypt" to escape Herod's slaughter of babies.

Fairy dust. Why was Herod scared of a carpenter? He would only be scared of a prince or king, who was threatening his position (by claiming a much more famous royal heritage). As an aside, the 'children' is often a Talmudic reference to the Israelite leadership or priesthood (the Children of Israel).

And the Talmud says the the slaughter of the children/priesthood was actually made by Agrippa, and this is when Jesus of Gamala went into hiding in Egypt. But we know that this journey was also for Jesus' education, Firstly because he came back with some Masonic knowledge about Giza, and Secondly because he was said to have come back with the sacred name of god tattooed on his skin (according to the Talmud).

Jesus also came back from Egypt with one of Hero of Alexandria's trick jugs, for turning water into wine, as the gospels make perfectly clear. And he also came back with a great deal of Egyptian wisdom - much of the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, is from an ancient Egyptian text (the Maxims of Ani).




>>Jesus may have been a revolutionary, but he didn't "fight" anyone
>>(except the temple's moneychangers, notably).

Fairy dust. Jesus said he "came not to bring peace on Earth, but a sword" (Mth 10:34). He then sold everything the group had to buy arms (Lu 22:36), which were used on the Mount of Olives to defend against a surprise Roman night attack (Lu 22:49).

Incidentally, Josephus Flavius records the very same incident on the Mount of Olives. The only differences being that Josephus says that the Egyptian False Prophet (ie, Jesus) had 30,000 soldiers at his disposal, and was going to take Jerusalem by force. (Jewish War 2:261).
.




>>In fact, he preached against fighting in the Sermon on the Mount (saying instead that
>>one should "turn the other cheek" in response to being attacked).

Fairy dust. This is what the Romans wanted people to hear.

Rome was fed up with Jewish agitation and rebellion on its eastern borders, and so (Saul-Josephus) was ordered to craft a new version of his Jewish War that preached peace and turning the other cheek, instead of rebellion and war. The revised, peaceful version of the Jewish War became the Gospels and Acts.




>>Have you ever considered that the story of Izaz might be a plagiarism of the Jesus narrative,
>>rather than an actual person whose life was plagiarized by a differing-but-similar Jesus?
>>As you've noted, the writer that you believe to be Josephus appears to think that Izaz was the Christ.

Unlikely, because it is likely that Jewish War was written before the gospels. In addition, you can only derive the entire history of King Izas-Manu that I have demonstrated here, if you know that Adiabene was Edessa. I struggled for many years with the history of the semi-mythical Adiabene, until I discovered that all the Syriac historians (who have largely been deleted from scholarship), say that the Edessan and Adiabene royalty were one and the same. Only then, does all this fall into place.

As to Izas being 'the Christ', well of course he was - Christ simply means 'king' and King Izas Manu of Edessa was most certainly a king.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 07:20 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2013 08:09 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(05-03-2013 07:44 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  To be honest, I do wonder why Jesus' disciples were armed after Jesus commanded them in Matthew 10:10, Mark 6:8-9, Luke 9:3 and 10:4 to journey with not a single possession except a staff. And as I already noted, Peter's drawing a weapon proves that at least one of them was armed.


A thin layer of Fairy Dust, here.

In the historical record, according to Josephus, the Essene journeyed everywhere with not a single possession except for a sword. This is what the biblical text originally said, until the purveyors of fairy dust got to it.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 07:32 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(06-03-2013 05:03 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-03-2013 04:44 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  That "rational explanation" would most likely be that people sat around a table and made the miracle stories up, don't you think?

One does not need a "rational" explanation. All the messiah figures, and "holy" prophet figures were seen to do miracles. It was an ignorant "magical" society, in a pre-scientific age. Miracle workers were a dime a dozen, and the literacy rate was < 5%.


The literacy rate among the aristocracy was nearer 100%. The Jews have long been keen purveyors of education for their children, and have long had a high literacy rate. In fact, you could not pass your bar-mitzvah, if you could not read the Torah.

As to the water to wine trick - we know this was a trick, because we have a full description of the trick jug that was used. It was one of Hero of Alexandria's many trick 'water to wine' jugs.

http://himedo.net/TheHopkinThomasProject...tion8.html

As Hero said:
"We may also pour in the water first, and then, stopping the vent, pour wine upon it, so as to pour out wine for some, wine and water for others, and mere water for those whom we wish to jest with."


Yes, for those whom we wish to jest with. It was a trick, designed to entertain the aristocracy, as were most of Hero's cunning devices. Incidentally, this also demonstrates the power and wealth of Jesus' family. Hero of Alexandria was the Leonardo da Vinci of the 1st century, and - just like Leonardo - he did not make his superb automotons and trick machines for pauper carpenters.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(06-03-2013 04:33 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Wow!

Yep! Bingo! Bulls eye! .....Except for the bit about Paul and Josephus being the same person....do your best to convince me


Have you ever wondered why or how all these famous and influential people simply went 'missing' from the historical record?

Abraham, Joseph, Moses, King David, King Solomon, Jesus, James, Mary, Mary Mag, and Saul-Paul. They all just slipped off the historical record?? Really??

Either they were ficticious (which many people believe), or their history has been concealed. Like my uncovering of the historical Jesus, the same can be done with Saul-Paul. In fact, you have to know that Saul is Josephus, before you can discover the historical Jesus.

In short, the life of Saul parallels that of Josephus. I cannot go though all the equivalences here, but perhaps the best illustration is that they were both on a 'prison ship' bound for Rome, in the early AD 60s, which was shipwrecked off Malta, but they were saved and taken to Naples and thence Rome, where both met with Emperor Nero. Quite a coincidence, huh? Both of them? Really? They also both had 'flashes of inspiration' and changed sides, were considered enemies or traitors, and wrote copious letters and histories.

And if you understand that they were the same person, then we end up with a situation in which:

a. Saul was chasing 'Jesus' around Galilee and arresting his followers (Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?)
b. Josephus was chasing 'Jesus' around Galilee and arresting his followers. (chasing Jesus of Gamala, of course)

Why and how was Saul able to arrest Jesus' followers? It is not explained. However, if Saul was Josephus Flavius, everything becomes clear - because Josephus was the army commander in charge of Galilee, and the main 'enemy' he was persuing around Galilee was Jesus (Jesus-Izas of Gamala-Adiabene). Hence the famous phrase: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?".


However, the main consequence of this conflation of Saul and Josephus, is that the gospel events took place in the AD 60s. And so the 'minor revolt' that the biblical Jesus was involved in, was actually the rather more major Jewish Revolt of the AD 60s. This is why the gospels contain an exact description of the siege of Jerusalem (the little apocalypse).

How and why did the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 get into the gospels? Easy, because the revolt Jesus was involved in, was the Jewish Revolt. But the gospel authors did not want you to know that, because the pauper-carpenter was supposed to be meek and mild (fairy dust). It is much easier for the gospel authors to say 'pray for the prince of peace who was persecuted by Rome', rather than 'pray for the warrior king who waged a bitter war against Rome'.

The true history does not quite have the same effect, as you can see - so out came the fairy-dust once more.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 06:04 PM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(06-03-2013 07:16 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Fairy dust.


I don't even know how to respond to this attack on my cited responses with a comparison to fictitious material.

Did you not read or notice my emphasis on your confirmation bias? You keep deliberately ignoring the parts of scripture that don't line up with your theory while putting forth as evidence parts of scripture that conform with your theory. You ignore scripture that disagrees with you and argue for the veracity of bits that agree.

I can't keep wasting my time like this. I went through a lot of trouble to put those scriptures in context, just so you could say that the context is all false but the parts you like are true in a different context. There's simply no way to give you evidence that you'll actually spend time pondering. Even when I agreed with you about the oddity of Peter's sword, you still can't grant me the same objectivity.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 06:11 PM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(06-03-2013 07:16 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Why was Herod scared of a carpenter? He would only be scared of a prince or king, who was threatening his position (by claiming a much more famous royal heritage).


Despite knowing that it will be pointless (because of your bias), let me enlighten you: Yes, you're right, Herod would be afraid of a child that would take his throne. Jesus is supposedly along royal lines and Herod was not; Herod was only a steward of the throne and could be dethroned once a rightful heir came along. This also makes the whole Jerusalem narrative make sense, as the "triumphal entry" could be seen as the Jews' happiness over the king returning to the capital city to take the throne. It also explains why they'd be so upset with him, once it became clear that he had no ambition to take the throne, that they'd prefer the murderer Barabbus to Jesus.

But to acknowledge that Jesus could dethrone Herod, you also have to acknowledge that he made no attempts to do so because you're drawing both stories from the same source. You can't just accept the parts you like and ignore the parts that you don't.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
06-03-2013, 06:15 PM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(04-03-2013 12:13 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  .
Actually, there is a lot of evidence that Jesus existed as a real person.


Firstly, the circumstantial.
The N.T. is a hopeless record for the 'Jesus Never Existed' brigade. If one were making a text de-novo, one could make a much better fairy story than the NT. Why record that this so-called Prince of Peace ordered his disciples to buy swords (Luk 22:36). That he declared he would bring war to Judaea (Mt 10:34). That he would bring civil war to families (Mk 13:2). Or that he would ask for his enemies to be killed:

Quote:
Jesus said ... Those enemies, who would not acknowledge me as their king, bring them here and kill them in front of me (Lu 19:27)



Secondly, the Talmud mentions Jesus on many occasions. In fact, the Talmud gets very abusive, saying that Jesus was the Criminal of Israel who should have been boiled in semen and shit. The Talmud then goes on to say that Mary Magdalene was a Nazarene priestess, and she was the richest woman in Judaea (the daughter of Simon Boethus). It also says that Mary married Jesus of Gamala, which is another reason for assuming that Jesus of Gamala was the biblical Jesus. And it goes on to say that Mary bought the position of High Priest for Jesus, for the extortionate sum of 75 kilos of silver (the biblical Jesus became High Priest of Jerusalem in Hebrews 7).

References:
Boiled in shit Gittin 55-57
Mary bought the high priesthood Yebamoth 61


There would be no point in the Jewish rabbis getting quite so animated about a fictional Jesus. They only poured forth their bile because in reality Jesus was the leader of the Jewish Revolt, and therefore caused the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and the exile of all Jews from Jerusalem. This is why they were so upset. And you will note that the other character despised in the same tractate was Titus, the commander (and thence Emperor) who destroyed Jerusalem.

This is why, in the crucifixion scene, the NT says of the compatriot of Jesus:
Jesus Barabbas lay bound with him who had made revolution with him, and had comitted murder in the revolution. (Mr 15:7)

The revolt here was the Jewish Revolt. Yet we know who the leader of the Jewish Revolt was, he was alternately called Jesus of Gamala or Izas of Adiabene - the very same character that the Talmud says married Mary Magdalene.


Thus Jesus was a real person, but the Church doesn't want you to know who he was because the warrior-monarch called Jesus-Izas does not match the pauper-carpenter imagery they have sold as a sob-story. It is far easier to ask for pity for the poor persecuted artisan who was crucified by the horrid Jews/Romans, than to ask for pity for the warrior monarch who launched a bitter war against Rome and lost (and was crucified in the Kidron Valley, and saved by Joseph, as Josephus Flavius narrates in this 'Vita' or 'Life').

Thus the Jesus story was originally a secular history of Judaea, rather than a spiritual intervention by a god. It was Saul (Josephus) who took this story and crafted it into a spiritual fantasy.

.

Where exactly in the Talmud?


For the ones who had a notion, a notion deep inside,
That it ain't no sin to be glad you're alive -- Badlands; Bruce Springsteen

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 06:32 PM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 06:31 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(06-03-2013 07:58 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(06-03-2013 04:33 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Wow!

Yep! Bingo! Bulls eye! .....Except for the bit about Paul and Josephus being the same person....do your best to convince me


Have you ever wondered why or how all these famous and influential people simply went 'missing' from the historical record?

Abraham, Joseph, Moses, King David, King Solomon, Jesus, James, Mary, Mary Mag, and Saul-Paul. They all just slipped off the historical record?? Really??

Either they were ficticious (which many people believe), or their history has been concealed. Like my uncovering of the historical Jesus, the same can be done with Saul-Paul. In fact, you have to know that Saul is Josephus, before you can discover the historical Jesus.

In short, the life of Saul parallels that of Josephus. I cannot go though all the equivalences here, but perhaps the best illustration is that they were both on a 'prison ship' bound for Rome, in the early AD 60s, which was shipwrecked off Malta, but they were saved and taken to Naples and thence Rome, where both met with Emperor Nero. Quite a coincidence, huh? Both of them? Really? They also both had 'flashes of inspiration' and changed sides, were considered enemies or traitors, and wrote copious letters and histories.

And if you understand that they were the same person, then we end up with a situation in which:

a. Saul was chasing 'Jesus' around Galilee and arresting his followers (Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?)
b. Josephus was chasing 'Jesus' around Galilee and arresting his followers. (chasing Jesus of Gamala, of course)

Why and how was Saul able to arrest Jesus' followers? It is not explained. However, if Saul was Josephus Flavius, everything becomes clear - because Josephus was the army commander in charge of Galilee, and the main 'enemy' he was persuing around Galilee was Jesus (Jesus-Izas of Gamala-Adiabene). Hence the famous phrase: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?".


However, the main consequence of this conflation of Saul and Josephus, is that the gospel events took place in the AD 60s. And so the 'minor revolt' that the biblical Jesus was involved in, was actually the rather more major Jewish Revolt of the AD 60s. This is why the gospels contain an exact description of the siege of Jerusalem (the little apocalypse).

How and why did the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 get into the gospels? Easy, because the revolt Jesus was involved in, was the Jewish Revolt. But the gospel authors did not want you to know that, because the pauper-carpenter was supposed to be meek and mild (fairy dust). It is much easier for the gospel authors to say 'pray for the prince of peace who was persecuted by Rome', rather than 'pray for the warrior king who waged a bitter war against Rome'.

The true history does not quite have the same effect, as you can see - so out came the fairy-dust once more.


.
Hi Ralph, I agree with a lot of what you have to say here. Before I accept your hypothesis that Saul was Josephus, I would like you to elaborate on a few more points.

Do linguistic experts think that Paul's and Josephus' writing styles are the same?

How do you explain the markedly different personalities of the two men?

If Josephus had a hand in writing the Gospels (an idea that I concur with), how do you explain Paul's almost complete lack of knowledge about anything the Gospels' Jesus said or did?

Is the Jesus of the Gospels was, in fact, Jesus of Gamalla, how do you explain the fact that James, the brother of a Jesus, was the leader of the Nazarenes executed in about 62 CE? James would not have been the leader of the Nazarenes if Jesus had been alive.

You claim Josephus had a very comfortable financially successful life. Yet if we read Paul's letters, it is clear that he was not very well off, he was continually attacked by Jews nearly everywhere he went, and therefore not particularly happy or successful. The author of the epistles of Paul was a deluded dreamer, never completely at ease with himself, or with a world that he couldn't totally control. He was anxious, paranoid, homophobic, misogynistic and probably homosexual, yet ashamed of the fact. Are you suggesting that Josephus simply made up all these character traits? If so he was a remarkably competent writer! For me it just doesn't ring true that the methodical levelheaded Josephus who wrote the history of the Jews and the history of the Jewish war was the same person who wrote Paul's letters.

Have you read Joseph Atwilll's book? He claims he's studied Josephus and the dead sea scrolls and the Gospels for the last 10 years, and he's come to the conclusion that the Jesus of the Gospels is in fact a satire of Titus. This idea sounds plausible to me. Apologies to any readers who have read this before but I really would like to get Ralph's opinion on Joseph Atwill's ideas's, so here they are again...


Atwill’s Theory


There’s a fascinating, intriguing theory about the origins of the gospels that fits with my suspicion that Christianity originated as government propaganda. The contemporary writer Joseph Atwill, who spent ten years studying the gospels, the Dead Sea scrolls and the works of Josephus, thinks intellectuals working for the government during the Flavian dynasty (69-96 CE) wrote the original versions of the gospels.

He writes in his 2005 book “Caesar’s Messiah” (http://www.amazon.com/Caes+ars-Messiah-R...oks&ie=UTF) about events from the ministry of Jesus that closely parallel Titus’ military campaign in the first Jewish war. He believes that intellectuals under the direction of Titus created the gospels, and incorporated a skillful satire of the Jews that becomes apparent on reading Josephus’ “Wars of the Jews” and his “The Life of Flavius Josephus.”


Mr Atwill believes that Titus had the gospels invented for two reasons; firstly to act as a theological barrier against the spread of messianic Judaism, and secondly because if he could get Jews to worship “Jesus,” it would mean they accepted
Roman authority. Titus had decimated militant Judaism in 70 CE, but he couldn’t get the Jewish prisoners to worship him as Lord. The revolt may have been crushed, but the religion that inspired it wasn’t. It became obvious that Jews were still dreaming about their messiah, so Titus transformed himself into the embodiment of their dreams. He had a derivative of Judaism created that worshiped him (as Jesus) without its followers knowing it. He became the Son of God, sent by his father. The Roman Senate had already deified Vespasian. The agenda was to tame Judaism by transforming it into a cooperative, government friendly religion.


Using religion for the good of the state was a well-established practice in ancient Rome. It was
done to subdue stubborn Jews and to stroke Titus’ ego by surreptitiously getting
them to worship him. The Flavians fancied Christianity might flourish before the
Gospels’ satirical level became widely known. The gospels were designed to
become apparent as satire only to the more educated classes who could recognize
the parallels in Josephus’ works. If this is true, they were a very black comedy.


Josephus was an adopted member of the Imperial family. He lived in the imperial palace, and was their official historian. He would have considered Vespasian and Titus divine, or been pleased to help propagate the myth. Titus supported the publication of his “Wars of the Jews.”


Titus became emperor in 79 CE, and was deified shortly after his death in 81 CE. The historian Seutonius says of him


“I have likewise been informed by many persons, that he was remarkably quick in writing short-hand, would in merriment and jest engage with his secretaries in the imitation of any hand-writing he saw, and often
say, ‘that he was admirably qualified for forgery.’" (The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, section 466).


Titus had his writers who wrote the gospels backdate Jesus’ ministry to c.30 CE, thereby enabling
“Jesus” to foresee events in the future war.


As part of the scheme, Josephus shaped some of the details of his history of the war so it appeared that the messiah fulfilled predictions from the book of Daniel.


There were plenty of people in the Flavian household who, like Josephus, were familiar enough with
Judaism to help create Christianity. Titus’ mistress Bernice was a Jew of Maccabean descent. Tiberias Alexander, a Jew, was chief of staff to Titus during the siege of Jerusalem. He was also the nephew of Philo, the well-known Jewish philosopher. John of Gischala, one of the main leaders of the Jewish revolt, had been transported as a prisoner back to Rome, but not executed. Atwill believes his inside knowledge of the struggle against Rome was used by the Flavians to help fabricate gospel fictions.


Titus Flavius fulfilled in real life many of “Jesus’” prophesies, nearly forty years after “Jesus” spoke them. Titus was in his late 20’s, just like Jesus. Jesus and Titus both preached “good news,” and both were sent on a mission from God,
their father. Both began their three-year campaigns in Galilee and finished them in Jerusalem. Atwill believes
the site of today’s Nazareth was chosen in the fourth century because it was the location of Titus’ first battle in Galilee. Titus is the “son of man” who “laid low” many Galilean towns, surrounded Jerusalem and destroys the buildings
therein, all as predicted by Jesus.


“For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.” (Luke 19:43-44 KJV). Many Jews had been trapped inside Jerusalem’s walls because they didn’t know the Romans were coming and were going to surround the city in a siege.


Jesus predicted the annihilation of a “wicked generation,” which is precisely what Titus did.


The understanding that a “generation” lasted forty years comes from the Torah.


“And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until
all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the Lord, was consumed. (Numbers 32;13 KJV). They were wicked because they’d rebelled against Rome.


Mark’s gospel says:


And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.” (Mark 4:18-19 KJV). That sounds like a nice story, but takes on a more macabre meaning if read in conjunction with Josephus’ Wars of the Jews in which he relates the story of a battle between Jews and Titus’ troops on the same sea of Galilee:


“Sometimes the Romans leapt into their ships, with swords in their hands, and slew them; but when some of them met the vessels, the Romans caught them by the middle, and destroyed at once their ships and themselves who were taken in them. And for such as were drowning in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels; but if, in the desperate case they were in, they attempted to swim to their enemies, the
Romans cut off their heads or their hands…”


Hence Titus’ troops followed him on to the Sea of Galilee where they became “fishers of men.”


We read in Luke chapter eight


“And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee. And when he went forth to land, there met him out of the city a certain man, which had devils long time,
and ware no clothes, neither abode in any house, but in the tombs. When he saw
Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What
have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment
me not. For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For
oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters;
and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness. And
Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many
devils were entered into him. And they besought him that he would not command
them to go out into the deep. And there was there an herd of many swine feeding
on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into
them. And he suffered them. Then went the devils out of the man, and entered
into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake,
and were choked. When they that fed them saw what was done, they fled, and went
and told it in the city and in the country. Then they went out to see what was
done; and came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were
departed, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind: and
they were afraid. They also which saw it told them by what means he that was
possessed of the devils was healed. Then the whole multitude of the country of
the Gadarenes round about besought him to depart from them; for they were taken
with great fear: and he went up into the ship, and returned back again.” (Luke 8;26-38 KJV).


This is an odd tale. There’s no theological or moral principle that can be gleaned about demons entering a herd
of swine that then drowned. Why would the demons wish to enter swine, and why do these swine rush into the lake?


The answer is that the story makes sense as a satire of Josephus’ description of the battle of Gadara. Gadara was
located east of the Jordan River on a mountain about 10 kilometers south-east of The Sea of Galilee. The people of Gadara were known as “Gadarenes.” (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20010621.htm).


Atwill thinks the “demon possessed man” is a satire of John of Gischala. This is how Josephus describes John


“Yet did John demonstrate by his actions that these Sicarii were more moderate than he was himself, for he not
only slew all such as gave him good counsel to do what was right, but treated them worst of all…he filled his entire country with ten thousand instances of wickedness” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews)


Josephus describes the battle of Gadara:


“These things were told Vespasian by deserters…Accordingly, he marched against Gadara…but Placidus…slew all that
he overtook, as far as Jordan; and when he had driven the whole multitude to the riverside…he put his soldiers in array over against them…At which flight, hand to hand, fifteen thousand of them were slain, while the number of those
that were unwillingly forced to leap into Jordan was prodigious.” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews)


John was the rebel leader who commanded “legions” of the Sicarii, who “infected” many people, who were denigrated
as swine. These people were slain or drowned in the river Jordan.


Here is part of Matthew’s version of the story:


“And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
(Matthew 8;28-29 KJV).


What’s “the time” the “devils” are referring to? It could have been the capture of John and Simon at the end of
the campaign.


Jesus repeatedly says


“…repent for the kingdom of God is at hand…” (Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Mark 1:15.)


Titus wanted the Jews to “repent” for their rebellion against Rome. The “kingdom of God” that was “at hand” was the conquering of Jerusalem by Vespasian (God.)


Titus destroyed the Temple in 70 AD, as foretold by Jesus.


"As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one
stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” (Luke 21:6 KJV, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1).


How then, does Atwill explain the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus? The parallel is in Josephus’
autobiography “The Life of Flavius Josephus”


“Moreover, when the city Jerusalem was taken by force…I was sent by Titus Caesar…to a certain
village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp;
as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as
my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with
tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded
them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to
their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the
third recovered. (75, 417, 420-421).

So three men were crucified, but only one survived. The person who begged the Roman commander to take the survivor down from the cross was Josephus himself, whose Jewish name was Joseph Bar Matthias, from which the gospels get Joseph “of Arimathea,” the man who allegedly asked Pilate for Jesus’ body.


When Rome went to war it had a long tradition of absorbing the religions of its opponents. It was easier and more cost effective than allowing those gods to remain enemies, thereby risking more wrangles with the rank and file rallying under them. This was another example, yet with its own unique twist. The authors were hoping to convince Hebrews that
Jesus, who was really Titus, had predicted the future, and had been the messiah they’d been waiting for. “Jesus” was designed to deprive them of the desire to start insurrections. Titus was, in effect, trying to rewrite Jewish scripture to make it government friendly.


If this is true, Christianity was a very clever, and in one sense humorous, product of the broader struggle that had been going on since Alexander the great in 333 BCE, the one between Hellenism with its polytheism, cleverness and rationalism, and Judaism’s monotheism, subservience and faith.


This neatly explains how Christianity, a pro-Roman religion reliant on the gospels and said to promote pacifism and obedience, allegedly emerged from a Judean cult in a nation that had over a one hundred year history of a militant struggle against Rome.

It explains why a pacifist preacher was created out of the story of an
unsuccessful upstart. It’s why the true identities of all the four gospel
authors are unknown. It’s why “Jesus” referred to Jews (his own companions!) who
rebelled against Rome as a “wicked generation.” It’s why the “second coming” of
Jesus never happened; it was Titus who came instead. It’s why the gospels are
so often anti Semitic. It nicely explains why “Jesus” would say


“And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.’ (Matthew 5:41 KJB,) about Roman
soldiers conscripting people to carry their packs.


It also explanations why “Jesus” was able to predict the future, as noticed by the credulous (or
dishonest) Eusebius:


“If anyone compares the words of our savior with the other accounts of the historian (Josephus) concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly divine and marvelously strange.” (Church History, Book III, Chapter VII.) Eusebius failed to realize, or admit, that the gospels’ authors had used Josephus to create Jesus. Even some modern Christian apologists think
Jesus predicted the future. (http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/AD70.htm)


It explains why the gospels were first written in Greek and how Christianity’s structures of authority, namely churches and the college of bishops, were based on Roman, not Judaic, traditions.


It’s why so many members of the Roman imperial family were said to be promoting Christianity, for example Flavius Clemens, later said to be the fourth pope, Bernice, Titus’ mistress, and Flavia Domitilla, Vespasian’s granddaughter. If these people were “Christians,” they were so in name only as part of the propaganda, as they couldn’t have believed in their own spoof.


Atwill thinks the Flavians didn’t intend sophisticated, educated people similar to themselves to read their invention as serious literature or history. It was intended for militant Jews and the hoi polloi, people Josephus referred to as “slaves” and “scum.” Propaganda was a powerful tool in Roman times, just as it is today. Public opinion was easily manipulated, because people didn’t have the means to check out the facts.


If Atwill’s theory is correct, Christians have been unwittingly worshipping Titus Flavius for nearly 2000 years. Jesus’ injunctions to love your enemies, turn the other cheek, aspire to poverty, dream about heaven, and pay your taxes take on a sinister meaning, because they were invented to pacify peasants and slaves.Titus' invented religion, the one said to be the basis of western morality, took hold partly because common people didn't have the intellectual armor to guard against it, and it grew beyond the wildest dreams of the Flavians. Titus, lying in his grave, has had an embarrassed grin on his face for the last two millennia. He was responsible for the most monumental fraud ever inflicted on mankind.


This theory adds weight to the hypothesis that Paul’s Christianity originated as part of a government plot. Paul probably
wrote well before the Flavians, yet there’s a good reason why the propaganda could have started in Paul’s day; Rome was trying to prevent a war with the Jews. Mr Atwill will be writing a subsequent book that helps explain Paul’s role in the scheme.


There is, however, in my opinion, what seems to be a few minor problem with the theory. Atwill has proposed the four gospels were originally written under Titus’ direction, yet it’s a fact that no first century source ever mentions the existence of any of the four Gospels, so there’s no particular reason to even date them from the first century. (see http://www.harrington-sites.com/f5.htm). There are, however, many possible explanations that render Atwill’s theory still plausible. One is that the story of Jesus, but not the gospels as we know them now, was first written in the 70’s. It could
be that they were only given names in the later second century. It could also be that later Christians intent on promoting the later versions removed all explicit mentions of first century gospels.


Many scholars disagree with me and think the gospels were first penned in the later first century, which fits perfectly with
the theory.


Atwill implies all the four gospels were written simultaneously. This idea isn’t generally accepted, because Mark appears to
have been written first. I find it hard to imagine why the government would invent four different accounts, although it’s possible. It seems more likely to me they wrote one, the original version of Mark, and the others evolved from this as the second century progressed.


Atwill doesn’t explain the proliferation of dozens of now apocryphal gospels in the second century, or the success of
Marcion and the gnostics, but neither does anyone else.


I haven’t done justice to all of Atwill’s ideas, so I encourage anyone interested to read his fascinating book.


Where does this leave my theory that there existed an historical Yeshua who tried to start a war with Rome? I admit it makes a “non existent” Jesus more probable, yet I don’t think the ideas are mutually exclusive. It’s not hard to imagine Jewish and Roman intellectuals deciding to use the memory of a political activist crucified under Pontius Pilate roughly forty years earlier as the foundation for a very tall tale. Considering the gospels as we have them today made use of many sources for inspiration, there was still room to add in details about Yeshua as the decades went by.


The truth about what may have happened 2000 years ago makes a fascinating discussion. We’ll probably never know for sure, unless startling facts are one day discovered in the bowels of the Vatican or somewhere else.


All historians have their own opinions, and to varying degrees we all turn Yeshua into what we imagine. I think while we may be unsure of the exact details, the whole Christian narrative reeks of political propaganda.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 10:14 PM
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(05-03-2013 07:36 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 10:26 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  .



Pretty sure, as everything fits too nicely for a 'forced fit' of characters. Too many coincidences.

For instance:

The biblical Jesus was called King Jesus Emmanuel.
The historical Izas was called King Izas Manu(el) VI of Edessa.

The biblical Jesus was a King of the Jews.
The historical Izas was a defacto King of the Jews (because his mother, Queen Helena, was the defacto Queen of the Jews).

The biblical Jesus was a Nazarene.
The historical Izas was a Nazarene.

The biblical Jesus was sent away to Egypt for his education.
The historical Izas was sent away for his education, and appears to have visited Egypt and stayed in Jerusalem.
... (his mother furnished the Temple of Jerusalem)

The biblical Jesus' disciples (Saul and Barnabas) took money from King Abgarus of Edessa, to provide famine relief for Jerusalem.
The historical Izas-Manu's father was the same King Abgarus of Edessa.

The biblical Jesus was a revolutionary who fought the Jerusalem authorities and the Romans.
The historical Izas was a revolutionary who fought the Jerusalem authorities and the Romans.

The biblical Jesus was captured and crucified.
The historical Izas was captured and crucified.

The biblical Jesus survived the cross (by being taken down early).
The historical Izas survived the cross (by being taken down early).

The biblical Jesus was taken down by Joseph of Arimathaea.
The historical Izas was taken down by Josephus Flavius.

The biblical Jesus wore a Crown of Thorns.
The historical Izas wore a Crown of Thorns.

The biblical Jesus wore a purple cloak (the Imperial cloak).
The historical Izas would have worn a purple cloak (the Imperial cloak), because he wanted to become Emperor.

The biblical Jesus was born under the Eastern Star.
The historical Izas was using the Star Prophesy of the Eastern Star to become Emperor.
.... (you will note that it was Vespasian who took the Star Prophesy, and used it to become Emperor, as Tacitus and Suetonius confirm).


I could go on, but you perhaps see my point. Jesus was a prince and king of Edessa, called King Izas Manu(el).

And the reason why you have never heard of King Abgarus or King Manu (even though they were very famous historically), is because the Catholic Church has done everything in its power to delete them from history (even though Abgarus appears in Acts of the Apostles in Acts 11:27). This is the unspoken truth, that has remained hidden for nearly 2,000 years - the historical truth that the Catholic Church thought it had buried forever.

These were pivotal events in the history of the Roman Empire, before Saul-Josephus poured fairy-dust over them and concocted the gospel fairytales. But because of Saul-Josephus' marvelously distorted history, these still are pivotal events, because some 2 billion people have based their life upon them (for some strange reason). And they did so without even bothering to discover if they were true or not - bizarre, I know, but that is humanity for you.



And as I intimated previously, this evidence does give us coins of the biblical Jesus that demonstrate what he looked like. This is Jesus, wearing his ceremonial Crown of Thorns (which was not made from the circlet of brambles the Church would like you to think).
http://www.edfu-books.com/edessa-jacket.html


.

Correlation doesn't prove causation, although I'm not so skeptical as to think that a strong correlation should be denied or ignored. However, I was questioning why you agree with the biblical narrative when it correlates to Izaz, seeing as you agree with me that the biblical narrative is questionable.

Furthermore, as a former Christian who read the bible many times, I instantly recognize some of these things said about the biblical Jesus as not accurate. For instance, Jesus was not called Emmanuel. There's a single reference to an angel telling Joseph to name him Emmanuel (in order to fulfill biblical prophecy), but this clearly didn't happen -- he was named Jesus, instead, and is never referred to as Emmanuel after that point. Plus, you're playing with the title of "Manu" a bit to make it fit this correlation.

Jesus was referred to as "King of the Jews" by the sign over his head (not universally in every gospel, but we are given that account nevertheless) but it appears to be a joke rather than a label. For instance, to quote Matthew 27:29 -- "...they knelt in front of him and mocked him. 'Hail, King of the Jews!' they said." and again in verse 42 -- "...He's the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him." The crown and the robe also appear to be attempts to mock his claim that he would someday rule over them.

The biblical Jesus was not "sent away to Egypt for his education" but rather his family "fled to Egypt" to escape Herod's slaughter of babies. And as you recognized, the one reference we have to Jesus' early education places him in Jerusalem, not Egypt.

Jesus may have been a revolutionary, but he didn't "fight" anyone (except the temple's moneychangers, notably). In fact, he preached against fighting in the Sermon on the Mount (saying instead that one should "turn the other cheek" in response to being attacked).

And I'll re-iterate, you're ignoring the claims that don't correlate. Wherever the bible's Jesus and the historical Izaz do different things (such as preach instead of start battles), you disregard this as being untrue. Your confirmation bias is helping you to see only the things that support your claim and discredit things that don't.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say that these two stories do parallel each other as you believe they do. Have you ever considered that the story of Izaz might be a plagiarism of the Jesus narrative, rather than an actual person whose life was plagiarized by a differing-but-similar Jesus? As you've noted, the writer that you believe to be Josephus appears to think that Izaz was the Christ. Doesn't his pro-Izaz bias give you pause when considering whether he had motive to try winning over Christians to his Messiah, as many atheists suggest the Jesus narrative was an attempt to win over pagans by adding elements like a virgin birth?
Hi star crash, I just thought I'd mention that I appreciate the effort you put into writing this post. I got something from it.

I must say that I think one of your points needs to be elaborated on. Any historian who comments on the historical Jesus has to, to some extent, ignore some parts of the Bible. Writing about Jesus is a very tricky business because there are so few nonbiblical sources to use. Inevitably the historian ends up using some parts of the new Testament and disregarding other parts, hopefully with some reasonable justification.

I think Ralph is putting forward a reasonable hypothesis, although it's not perfect, because no hypothesis about Jesus can be, given the lack of reliable sources. I think you recognise that too. I agree with a lot of what he has said. I think it is very obvious that the Roman government was responsible in one way or another for creating the Gospels. I've just downloaded the Kindle version of his book "Jesus King of Edessa." I hope that there will be a lot more comprehensive explanations in this than he is able to provide in a forum such as here.

I'm fascinated by his idea that Saul and Josephus may have been the same person. I have always thought that Josephus played a hand in the writing of the gospels, but that Paul was active in the few decades before this happened, and that they were not one and the same person. I have always thought that Paul was a Roman government agent but that he was on the scene at a time well before the gospels were written.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
06-03-2013, 10:36 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2013 10:40 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: ANY contemporary evidence for Jesus ?
(06-03-2013 07:16 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  >>However, I was questioning why you agree with the biblical narrative when it
>>correlates to Izaz, seeing as you agree with me that the biblical narrative is questionable.

Actually, if you remove the fairy-dust, much of the biblical narrative is pretty accurate. But removing the fairy-dust involves a knowledge of what the duplicitous author (Saul-Josephus) was trying to achieve.



>>For instance, Jesus was not called Emmanuel.

This verse was the primary proof that Jesus was the christ-messiah, and the fact that he never really used that name has caused an amount of consternation in religious circle. (Isa 7:14, Math 1:23)

What we have here is classic Talmudic Pesher (predictions using past events - the verse from Isaiah). But what the gospel author has done with this Pesher, is to encode Jesus' real throne name into the biblical narrative, so that those 'with ears to hear' would realise who Jesus really was (ie, King Manu of Edessa). It was a deliberate clue, for present and future generations.

And we know this was deliberate, because the same verse also encodes Izas-Manu's mother's name too. The verse says Jesus' mother was a 'virgin' which was 'almah' in Aramaic. But the mother of Izas was Shalmath (Sh-almah-th). Thus if we do the same truncation to the name Shalmath (Sh-Almah-th), as we did to the name Emmanuel (Em-Manu-el), we derive almah (the virgin). Ho, ho, ho, those gospel authors (Saul-Josephus) must have been rolling around the pews of Jabneh (where the gospels were most probably written).





>>Jesus was referred to as "King of the Jews" by the sign over his head (not universally in
>>every gospel, but we are given that account nevertheless) but it appears to be a joke rather than a label.

Fairy dust. The Church would like you to think this was mockery, because they do not want you to know who Jesus really was. How could they admit that he was really a king and the high priest of Jerusalem, when he was supposed to be a pauper-carpenter? So they denied it. But the gospels clearly say Jesus was a king, and Hebrews 7 says he was high priest.

And as an aside, the title 'Christ' also means 'king'. Why was Jesus called the Christ (the anointed one)if he was not a king? Pharaoh Ptolemy III was also the Christ, and bore the 'Christian chi-ro symbol. Was that because he was a carpenter?? And do recall that it was Mary Magdalene that anointed Jesus as king, which just proves how important she was.




>>The biblical Jesus was not "sent away to Egypt for his education" but rather his
>>family "fled to Egypt" to escape Herod's slaughter of babies.

Fairy dust. Why was Herod scared of a carpenter? He would only be scared of a prince or king, who was threatening his position (by claiming a much more famous royal heritage). As an aside, the 'children' is often a Talmudic reference to the Israelite leadership or priesthood (the Children of Israel).

And the Talmud says the the slaughter of the children/priesthood was actually made by Agrippa, and this is when Jesus of Gamala went into hiding in Egypt. But we know that this journey was also for Jesus' education, Firstly because he came back with some Masonic knowledge about Giza, and Secondly because he was said to have come back with the sacred name of god tattooed on his skin (according to the Talmud).

Jesus also came back from Egypt with one of Hero of Alexandria's trick jugs, for turning water into wine, as the gospels make perfectly clear. And he also came back with a great deal of Egyptian wisdom - much of the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, is from an ancient Egyptian text (the Maxims of Ani).




>>Jesus may have been a revolutionary, but he didn't "fight" anyone
>>(except the temple's moneychangers, notably).

Fairy dust. Jesus said he "came not to bring peace on Earth, but a sword" (Mth 10:34). He then sold everything the group had to buy arms (Lu 22:36), which were used on the Mount of Olives to defend against a surprise Roman night attack (Lu 22:49).

Incidentally, Josephus Flavius records the very same incident on the Mount of Olives. The only differences being that Josephus says that the Egyptian False Prophet (ie, Jesus) had 30,000 soldiers at his disposal, and was going to take Jerusalem by force. (Jewish War 2:261).
.




>>In fact, he preached against fighting in the Sermon on the Mount (saying instead that
>>one should "turn the other cheek" in response to being attacked).

Fairy dust. This is what the Romans wanted people to hear.

Rome was fed up with Jewish agitation and rebellion on its eastern borders, and so (Saul-Josephus) was ordered to craft a new version of his Jewish War that preached peace and turning the other cheek, instead of rebellion and war. The revised, peaceful version of the Jewish War became the Gospels and Acts.




>>Have you ever considered that the story of Izaz might be a plagiarism of the Jesus narrative,
>>rather than an actual person whose life was plagiarized by a differing-but-similar Jesus?
>>As you've noted, the writer that you believe to be Josephus appears to think that Izaz was the Christ.

Unlikely, because it is likely that Jewish War was written before the gospels. In addition, you can only derive the entire history of King Izas-Manu that I have demonstrated here, if you know that Adiabene was Edessa. I struggled for many years with the history of the semi-mythical Adiabene, until I discovered that all the Syriac historians (who have largely been deleted from scholarship), say that the Edessan and Adiabene royalty were one and the same. Only then, does all this fall into place.

As to Izas being 'the Christ', well of course he was - Christ simply means 'king' and King Izas Manu of Edessa was most certainly a king.



.
Ralph...not having read your book yet...it seems to me you have some explaining to do here...

"The Church would like you to think this was mockery, because they do
not want you to know who Jesus really was. How could they admit that he
was really a king and the high priest of Jerusalem,"

Aren't you forgetting that the High Priest in Jesus' day was a Roman puppet? If Jesus was a political insurgent (and I absolutely agree with you that he was,) the Romans would hardly have installed him as a high priest in the temple.

On the surface it seems you have neglected to consider the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene. I think they were a branch of the Essenes, and we know from the dead sea scrolls that the Essenes deeply resented and hated the high priest in the temple. So Jesus would hardly have been willing to act as a Roman puppet (the high priest) in Jerusalem.

What is more, the high priest lived in Jerusalem. He did not wander around Galilee for a number of years preaching to the crowds, which is what the gospels would have us believe that Jesus did.

I think that it is far more likely that, rather than being a high priest, Jesus was aiming to depose the Roman installed high priest of the time. That would be why the chief priest sent a cohort of Roman soldiers (600 men) to arrest Jesus. That would be why he was crucified as a pretender to the throne of Israel.

James Tabor, in his book "The Jesus Dynasty" points out that Jesus, the decendent of David, may have been aspiring to become the king of Israel. He also mentions that John the Baptist, said to be a descendent Aaron, may have been aspiring to become the new high priest. I assume you agree that this may have been the case?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: