Comparative Christian Revisionism: Atwill v Ellis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2016, 04:14 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2016 04:46 AM by Deltabravo.)
Comparative Christian Revisionism: Atwill v Ellis
I thought I would share my understanding of the revisionist views of Joe Atwill and Ralph Ellis, such as it is, and point out the key elements, and differences and some interesting parts of the New Testament.

First, here is a passage from the NT which no one understands if the NT is read traditionally. It has Jesus supposedly asking his disciples who he looks like, then meeting with Thomas to whom he tells something which Thomas cannot reveal.

LAYTON
(13) Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I resemble." Simon Peter said to him, "A just angel is what you resemble." Matthew said to him, "An intelligent philosopher is what you resemble." Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth utterly will not let me say what you resemble." Jesus said, "I am not your (sing.) teacher, for you have drunk and become intoxicated from the bubbling wellspring that I have personally measured out. And he took him, withdrew, and said three sayings to him. Now, when Thomas came to his companions they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I say to you (plur.) one of the sayings that he said to me, you will take stones and stone me, and fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."


So, what's this about?

I'll come back to that after I make some points about Atwill and Ellis.

Joe Atwill analyzed the NT and came to the conclusion that the events in the four synoptic gospels follow a pattern in relation to the travels of Jesus through Galilee which parallels the travels of Titus Flavius through Glalililee as recounted in Josephus' War with the Jews. He also points out time differences and account differences in the story of Mary and the empty tomb. Statistically, he says, the chances of these happening by accident in unrelated works is one in several billion, so the Synoptic Gospels have to have been written collaboratively and since they were written in Greek and correspond to a work by Josephus Bar Matthias, then Josephus must be behind this and is likely to be Matthew.

Where does this lead us? Atwill says it means that Titus was trying to portray himself as the Messiah figure although he does point out that Titus was chasing a Rebel figure called Jesus through Judea. He entirely discounts this rebel as being the NT Jesus. Instead, he says that the Rabbi Eleazar is the preacher we know as Jesus. This is the same Eleazar who converted Helen and her son Izates to Hellenistic Judaism, by the way. Atwill doesn't deal with this at all. He just says the real Jesus is Eleazar and leaves you having to hunt around for who Eleazar was.

Ellis, on the other hand, clearly says that Jesus is Izates, and has a twin brother of the same name. He says these are the Jesus and Thomas figures in the NT. He uses Armenian, Jewish, Roman etc, historical works and legends to make his claim.

His conclusion is that Jesus was a rebel leader and was crucified but lived because Josephus, his friend, comes along and takes him down from the cross. Josephus then takes him to see the Roman general, Vespasian Flavius, in Alexandria and Jesus essentially gives Vespasian his "blessing" so that Vespasian becomes the next Roman Emperor, since he has been blessed by the king who has ostensible credentials as descending from Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. Thomas, on the other hand, makes off to India and ends as the founder of Thomas Christianity and his body ends up at Rozabal in Kashmir. The shrine even has castes of his feet complete with nail holes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/fr...587838.stm

But, the Jesus who Josephus takes to Alexandria has a missing eye and a damaged leg, and is lame. It's interesting to note this for two reasons. One is that the Jewish history of Izates says he was not crucified, but thrown over the city walls. So, this could explain a broken leg. Then we have the idea that the Messiah is Horus and Horus has his eye plucked out. So, this may have been a deliberate mocking of Jesus/Izates as the purported Horus/messiah of the old religion.

Ellis then says that Jesus is taken off to a purpose built prison near Chester, England, called Dewa: http://www.dewaromanexperience.co.uk/

This site has only recently been excavated and has a fish shaped structure with seats round the perimeter, suggestive of a "round table". Ellis says Jesus became the basis of the English legend of King Arthur (Ar-Aryan, Thur-Thor...)

Ellis then goes on to say that Christianity is something called "simple Judaism" and this involves only a couple of Jewish rites, a kind of "Judaism for Dummies". He then goes on to end his book with a diatribe against Islam and the Ottomans, calling Islam a "death cult" and showing how it discriminates against non-Muslims, calls for their death, even today. It's not exactly clear how the two topics relate.


Anyhow...

Getting back to the quote from the bible. We have Jesus taking aside Thomas after asking his disciples who he looks like and them all making arses of themselves. He says they can't tell because he has got them drunk, then he has a conversation with someone who Ellis says is his brother, Thomas. Then Thomas comes away and says he can't say what he's been told.

Well, interesting stuff. So, here's my theory. I think that Jesus' knew he was going to be crucified as someone purporting to be the Messiah. He had a brother who would not have been as much of a rebel as Jesus and perhaps more of a preachery type. Then we have Jesus saying that Judas is going to betray him and is to indicate who Jesus is by kissing him. This suggests the Romans didn't know what he looked like.

On the cross, Jesus exclaims, "my lord, why have you forsaken me?"

Muslims, of course, say that Jesus was not crucified, but escaped and someone else was put in his place.

So, what does all this point to?

If we take Ellis's position, then we have two brothers, one a leader, the other a preacher. When the end comes, Jesus gets his disciples drunk so they can't tell him and his brother apart. He tells Thomas that Thomas is to be taken by the Romans and tried as the Messiah. He cannot possibly tell this to the other disciples. Judas is then told to kiss Thomas to identify Thomas, not Jesus as the leader of the revolt. Thomas is tried and crucified, expecting to be rescued by his brother and when he is not, he cries out in despair that his "lord" has forsaken him. Thomas is taken down by Josephus who, in the War of the Jews, does not say this is Jesus...because it isn't. Thomas makes his escape and goes to Kashmir while Jesus is caught and thrown over the wall and then is captured by the Romans, who don't know him as Jesus since they have just crucified Jesus, but Josephus knows better and produces him to Vespasian as the real messiah who gives Vespasian the authority to make a bid for the Imperial throne by having Vespasian spit in his eye.

"

Articles
Spit in Your Eye: The Blind Man of Bethsaida and the Blind Man of Alexandria

Harris Manchester College, Oxford,


Abstract
The account of Vespasian's use of spittle to heal a blind man at Alexandria has long been noted as a parallel to the use of spittle in Mark's healing of the Blind Man of Bethsaida, but little has been made of the temporal proximity of these two stories. Vespasian's healings formed part of the wider Flavian propaganda campaign to legitimate the new claimant to the imperial throne; to many Jewish ears this propaganda would have sounded like a usurpation of traditional messianic hopes. This article argues that Mark introduced spittle into his story of the Blind Man of Bethsaida to create an allusion to the Vespasian story as part of a wider concern to contrast the messiahship of Jesus with such Roman imperial ‘messianism’."


So, there we have it. Deltabravo Christian Revisionism, if you like. Or dot-joining. Matters not to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2016, 05:21 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2016 06:29 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Comparative Christian Revisionism: Atwill v Ellis
Nice story, but needs more dragons and vampires.
Muslims also say Muhammad flew on a donkey/magic pony to Jerusalem. That's pretty cool. Don't forget about the flying ponies. Did Judas get his own pony ? I bet not. That's why he was pissed at Jesus.
Thumbsup
There are 3 synoptic gospels, not 4. A 5th grader knows that.
Facepalm

This I know for sure. Jesus had a lisp and so did the angels in the NT. ("He goeth before thee to Galilee").
Jebuth died for my thins, and I believeth on him.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-08-2016, 05:19 PM
RE: Comparative Christian Revisionism: Atwill v Ellis
(17-08-2016 04:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  and some interesting parts of the New Testament.
I haven't read the NT, but I doubt there are any interesting parts to it. Not for me anyways.

I've been enjoying the Star wars novels lately. As well as Stacia Kane downside series (urban fantasy). All with mystical magical elements but far less preachy than the NT.

As far as I can tell Jesus is a pretty dull character, Chess Putnam, Han solo, Darth Bane are far more interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
17-08-2016, 05:51 PM
RE: Comparative Christian Revisionism: Atwill v Ellis
(17-08-2016 04:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I thought I would share my understanding of the revisionist views of Joe Atwill and Ralph Ellis, such as it is, and point out the key elements, and differences and some interesting parts of the New Testament.

First, here is a passage from the NT which no one understands if the NT is read traditionally. It has Jesus supposedly asking his disciples who he looks like, then meeting with Thomas to whom he tells something which Thomas cannot reveal.

LAYTON
(13) Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I resemble." Simon Peter said to him, "A just angel is what you resemble." Matthew said to him, "An intelligent philosopher is what you resemble." Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth utterly will not let me say what you resemble." Jesus said, "I am not your (sing.) teacher, for you have drunk and become intoxicated from the bubbling wellspring that I have personally measured out. And he took him, withdrew, and said three sayings to him. Now, when Thomas came to his companions they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I say to you (plur.) one of the sayings that he said to me, you will take stones and stone me, and fire will come out of the stones and burn you up."


So, what's this about?

I'll come back to that after I make some points about Atwill and Ellis.

Joe Atwill analyzed the NT and came to the conclusion that the events in the four synoptic gospels follow a pattern in relation to the travels of Jesus through Galilee which parallels the travels of Titus Flavius through Glalililee as recounted in Josephus' War with the Jews. He also points out time differences and account differences in the story of Mary and the empty tomb. Statistically, he says, the chances of these happening by accident in unrelated works is one in several billion, so the Synoptic Gospels have to have been written collaboratively and since they were written in Greek and correspond to a work by Josephus Bar Matthias, then Josephus must be behind this and is likely to be Matthew.

Where does this lead us? Atwill says it means that Titus was trying to portray himself as the Messiah figure although he does point out that Titus was chasing a Rebel figure called Jesus through Judea. He entirely discounts this rebel as being the NT Jesus. Instead, he says that the Rabbi Eleazar is the preacher we know as Jesus. This is the same Eleazar who converted Helen and her son Izates to Hellenistic Judaism, by the way. Atwill doesn't deal with this at all. He just says the real Jesus is Eleazar and leaves you having to hunt around for who Eleazar was.

Ellis, on the other hand, clearly says that Jesus is Izates, and has a twin brother of the same name. He says these are the Jesus and Thomas figures in the NT. He uses Armenian, Jewish, Roman etc, historical works and legends to make his claim.

His conclusion is that Jesus was a rebel leader and was crucified but lived because Josephus, his friend, comes along and takes him down from the cross. Josephus then takes him to see the Roman general, Vespasian Flavius, in Alexandria and Jesus essentially gives Vespasian his "blessing" so that Vespasian becomes the next Roman Emperor, since he has been blessed by the king who has ostensible credentials as descending from Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. Thomas, on the other hand, makes off to India and ends as the founder of Thomas Christianity and his body ends up at Rozabal in Kashmir. The shrine even has castes of his feet complete with nail holes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/fr...587838.stm

But, the Jesus who Josephus takes to Alexandria has a missing eye and a damaged leg, and is lame. It's interesting to note this for two reasons. One is that the Jewish history of Izates says he was not crucified, but thrown over the city walls. So, this could explain a broken leg. Then we have the idea that the Messiah is Horus and Horus has his eye plucked out. So, this may have been a deliberate mocking of Jesus/Izates as the purported Horus/messiah of the old religion.

Ellis then says that Jesus is taken off to a purpose built prison near Chester, England, called Dewa: http://www.dewaromanexperience.co.uk/

This site has only recently been excavated and has a fish shaped structure with seats round the perimeter, suggestive of a "round table". Ellis says Jesus became the basis of the English legend of King Arthur (Ar-Aryan, Thur-Thor...)

Ellis then goes on to say that Christianity is something called "simple Judaism" and this involves only a couple of Jewish rites, a kind of "Judaism for Dummies". He then goes on to end his book with a diatribe against Islam and the Ottomans, calling Islam a "death cult" and showing how it discriminates against non-Muslims, calls for their death, even today. It's not exactly clear how the two topics relate.


Anyhow...

Getting back to the quote from the bible. We have Jesus taking aside Thomas after asking his disciples who he looks like and them all making arses of themselves. He says they can't tell because he has got them drunk, then he has a conversation with someone who Ellis says is his brother, Thomas. Then Thomas comes away and says he can't say what he's been told.

Well, interesting stuff. So, here's my theory. I think that Jesus' knew he was going to be crucified as someone purporting to be the Messiah. He had a brother who would not have been as much of a rebel as Jesus and perhaps more of a preachery type. Then we have Jesus saying that Judas is going to betray him and is to indicate who Jesus is by kissing him. This suggests the Romans didn't know what he looked like.

On the cross, Jesus exclaims, "my lord, why have you forsaken me?"

Muslims, of course, say that Jesus was not crucified, but escaped and someone else was put in his place.

So, what does all this point to?

If we take Ellis's position, then we have two brothers, one a leader, the other a preacher. When the end comes, Jesus gets his disciples drunk so they can't tell him and his brother apart. He tells Thomas that Thomas is to be taken by the Romans and tried as the Messiah. He cannot possibly tell this to the other disciples. Judas is then told to kiss Thomas to identify Thomas, not Jesus as the leader of the revolt. Thomas is tried and crucified, expecting to be rescued by his brother and when he is not, he cries out in despair that his "lord" has forsaken him. Thomas is taken down by Josephus who, in the War of the Jews, does not say this is Jesus...because it isn't. Thomas makes his escape and goes to Kashmir while Jesus is caught and thrown over the wall and then is captured by the Romans, who don't know him as Jesus since they have just crucified Jesus, but Josephus knows better and produces him to Vespasian as the real messiah who gives Vespasian the authority to make a bid for the Imperial throne by having Vespasian spit in his eye.

"

Articles
Spit in Your Eye: The Blind Man of Bethsaida and the Blind Man of Alexandria

Harris Manchester College, Oxford,


Abstract
The account of Vespasian's use of spittle to heal a blind man at Alexandria has long been noted as a parallel to the use of spittle in Mark's healing of the Blind Man of Bethsaida, but little has been made of the temporal proximity of these two stories. Vespasian's healings formed part of the wider Flavian propaganda campaign to legitimate the new claimant to the imperial throne; to many Jewish ears this propaganda would have sounded like a usurpation of traditional messianic hopes. This article argues that Mark introduced spittle into his story of the Blind Man of Bethsaida to create an allusion to the Vespasian story as part of a wider concern to contrast the messiahship of Jesus with such Roman imperial ‘messianism’."


So, there we have it. Deltabravo Christian Revisionism, if you like. Or dot-joining. Matters not to me.

Starting at the beginning of your blather most people talk about 3 synoptic gospels, not 4.
And if you were really quoting from the New Testament you'd name the book and the chapter and verse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Born Again Pagan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: