Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2014, 01:17 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(06-02-2014 01:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I don't see it as anything more than saying who is the best "fit". The Gamala Jesus is the best one I can see and Atwill says that the likely Jesus person was another of the leaders of the Jewish revolt. Jesus of Gamala was a leader of the Jewish revolt and was married to a woman called Mary.

Atwill's hypothesis is that Jesus is a purely fictional character, created by the Flavians to win the propaganda war with radical Jews, and that Jesus' travels are modelled after the conquests of Titus, so that Jews would worship Roman authority without even realizing that's what they were doing.

Quote:Remember, before "Jesus", he was the messianic avenger who was going to return and lead the Jews. There was a revolt which had leaders but the revolt failed and the only leader figure who emerges is this Jesus character who was thrown out even by orthodox Jews.

The revolts didn't actually end until the early 2nd century, when the Bar Kochba revolt was thoroughly suppressed and Jerusalem was layed to waste. If you read Mark 13, it closely matches those events.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(06-02-2014 01:17 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 01:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I don't see it as anything more than saying who is the best "fit". The Gamala Jesus is the best one I can see and Atwill says that the likely Jesus person was another of the leaders of the Jewish revolt. Jesus of Gamala was a leader of the Jewish revolt and was married to a woman called Mary.

Atwill's hypothesis is that Jesus is a purely fictional character, created by the Flavians to win the propaganda war with radical Jews, and that Jesus' travels are modelled after the conquests of Titus, so that Jews would worship Roman authority without even realizing that's what they were doing.

Quote:Remember, before "Jesus", he was the messianic avenger who was going to return and lead the Jews. There was a revolt which had leaders but the revolt failed and the only leader figure who emerges is this Jesus character who was thrown out even by orthodox Jews.




The revolts didn't actually end until the early 2nd century, when the Bar Kochba revolt was thoroughly suppressed and Jerusalem was layed to waste. If you read Mark 13, it closely matches those events.

It is odd that people here accuse Ralph of making up facts..

As of 70 AD the Romans were celebrating the victory and constructed a Triumph in honour of Titus Flavius:

The last emperor in the first Roman imperial dynasty was the Julio-Claudian Emperor Nero. During his reign, he sent his competent general Titus Flavius Vespasianus (Vespasian) to suppress the Jewish revolt (A.D. 66-70). By the year 68, most of Judaea had been recovered (BBC Vespasian). On June 9, Nero committed assisted suicide. Vespasian left his eldest son, Titus, in Judaea while he went home to Rome (to be precise, he was born in Italy, at Falacrina near Sabine Reate [DIR Vespasian] but not in Rome) where he eventually re-established stable government when he became emperor, the first of the Flavian Dynasty. In August of A.D. 70, Titus took Jerusalem and destroyed the temple.

The Arch of Ttitus commemorates this victory.

Located in the Roman Forum at the highest point on the Via Sacra, the Arch of Titus (Arcus Titi) is the oldest surviving arch in Rome. It was built to celebrate Titus' victory in Jerusalem, but Titus died before it could be finished. Titus' brother Domitian dedicated the Pentelic marble monument (13.5m wide, 15.4m high, and 4.75m deep; with archway 8.3x5.36m) in A.D. 85, 4 years after Titus' death. There was originally a bronze quadriga on the top. The arch was damaged and then rebuilt/restored in 1822. Napoleon commissioned triumphal arches made in imitation of the Arch of Titus.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/archi...ches_3.htm

The whole of the Western World has regarded the Jewish Revolt as ending in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Certainly the Romans and the Flavians considered it over which is what is relevant to the position Atwill and Ellis put forward, that they then set about creating a religion based on Jesus.

I have to say, coming to this forum has had two consequences for me on a personal level. I have seen how nasty people can be over religious ideas, even when they are all supposed to be atheists. I find it remarkable that anyone would not see a similarity between Jesus and Jesus of Gamala and reject the idea that the dating of the story is wrong and that it is possibly a fictionalization of Jesus of Gamala but cling to the idea that Jesus must have been some almost inconsequential lowly Essene preacher, for which there is absolutely no evidence, and cling to that view so dogmatically that they descend into name calling.

The other thing I have found is that I a tending to think that Christianity was necessary because if people today can get so heated over religion within an atheistic community, god only knows what it was like for the Romans trying to hold together an Empire where no one could read or write and every village had its own Pagan god.

I am thinking of accepting Jesus of Gamala as my personal saviour.Shocking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2014, 07:41 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(06-02-2014 01:16 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 10:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I have interacted with Ellis here and I have read some of his posted/published work.

He makes stuff up. He draws absurd inferences from coincidence, he forces similarities that simply aren't there, and he proposes ridiculous pseudo-scientific garbage.

He is a fool and a charlatan. I pay no attention to him because he has proved to be utterly unreliable.

What is your view on whether there was a person called Jesus upon whom the NT is based in whole or in part?

I have no real opinion on that. There is a distinct lack of good evidence either way.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-02-2014, 01:27 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(06-02-2014 07:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 01:16 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  What is your view on whether there was a person called Jesus upon whom the NT is based in whole or in part?

I have no real opinion on that. There is a distinct lack of good evidence either way.


History is not contingent upon there being an actual historical Jesus (in the way that history is contingent on there actually having been a historical Julius Caesar), but just because one is not needed to explain what little evidence we have doesn't necessarily mean one or more men didn't exist as the basis of this clearly blended and syncretistic myth.


Either way, there is no good reason to believe in a miracle performing god-man Jesus.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
07-02-2014, 02:20 AM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2014 02:36 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus myth
(06-02-2014 10:04 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Mark, I typed a long reply and then it disappeared, which is happening a lot.

I understand Ellis to say that there was a Jesus of Gamala who is in the historical record and has characteristics which lend themselves to being the subject of a political work by Josephus. He was married to a Mary, was a priest, liked children, was crucified, survived and was a Nazarene. He was later than Jesus Christ but this fits in with the Atwill conspiracy theory.

I haven't entirely digested why Ellis says he is the same person as Izas of Edessa/Abiadene. His theory from that point is based on that assumption and if one accepts that one can, I think, understand why this guy would have been important in Judea. He disappears from the historical record after he is taken down from the cross but a similar character turns up in the historical record in Alexandria in Vespasians court and then Vespasian becomes Emperor...

The rest, about Arthur is speculative but very intriguing. I have no problem at all seeing where Ellis is saying he has facts, where he is making assumptions and where he is hypothesizing so I have no problem with him at all. All theories from that era are going to be speculative as most of the historical record is lost for good.

"Mark, I typed a long reply and then it disappeared, which is happening a lot."
I know the feeling mate, it does happen a lot. What a shame. I was looking forward to your reply.

For your information, I have read Atwills book four or five times. I've written 10 pages on his theory in my own book. I've watched all his youtube videos and his documentary. I understand and agree with his perspective although I have some very minor reservations.

Ralph Ellis is a different story. I tried to approach his ideas with an open mind and downloaded one of his books, but I only got halfway through it. He's just so mixed up and contradicts so many knowledgeable historians it's very hard to make head nor tale of what he's on about. I still think it's just possible there may be little bits of truth in what he says, but his is just a too hard, too complex puzzle to make sense of. And that's coming from someone who's been studying the damn topic for seven or eight years. It doesn't surprise me that you haven't totally made sense of his ideas. I think Ralph is the only person in the world who has ever made sense of his ideas, although that may be a little unfair. It's just possible he's an eccentric genius who has trouble communicating his ideas in a way that people can understand.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 02:35 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(06-02-2014 03:41 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 01:17 PM)toadaly Wrote:  Atwill's hypothesis is that Jesus is a purely fictional character, created by the Flavians to win the propaganda war with radical Jews, and that Jesus' travels are modelled after the conquests of Titus, so that Jews would worship Roman authority without even realizing that's what they were doing.





The revolts didn't actually end until the early 2nd century, when the Bar Kochba revolt was thoroughly suppressed and Jerusalem was layed to waste. If you read Mark 13, it closely matches those events.

It is odd that people here accuse Ralph of making up facts..

As of 70 AD the Romans were celebrating the victory and constructed a Triumph in honour of Titus Flavius:

The last emperor in the first Roman imperial dynasty was the Julio-Claudian Emperor Nero. During his reign, he sent his competent general Titus Flavius Vespasianus (Vespasian) to suppress the Jewish revolt (A.D. 66-70). By the year 68, most of Judaea had been recovered (BBC Vespasian). On June 9, Nero committed assisted suicide. Vespasian left his eldest son, Titus, in Judaea while he went home to Rome (to be precise, he was born in Italy, at Falacrina near Sabine Reate [DIR Vespasian] but not in Rome) where he eventually re-established stable government when he became emperor, the first of the Flavian Dynasty. In August of A.D. 70, Titus took Jerusalem and destroyed the temple.

The Arch of Ttitus commemorates this victory.

Located in the Roman Forum at the highest point on the Via Sacra, the Arch of Titus (Arcus Titi) is the oldest surviving arch in Rome. It was built to celebrate Titus' victory in Jerusalem, but Titus died before it could be finished. Titus' brother Domitian dedicated the Pentelic marble monument (13.5m wide, 15.4m high, and 4.75m deep; with archway 8.3x5.36m) in A.D. 85, 4 years after Titus' death. There was originally a bronze quadriga on the top. The arch was damaged and then rebuilt/restored in 1822. Napoleon commissioned triumphal arches made in imitation of the Arch of Titus.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/archi...ches_3.htm

The whole of the Western World has regarded the Jewish Revolt as ending in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Certainly the Romans and the Flavians considered it over which is what is relevant to the position Atwill and Ellis put forward, that they then set about creating a religion based on Jesus.

I have to say, coming to this forum has had two consequences for me on a personal level. I have seen how nasty people can be over religious ideas, even when they are all supposed to be atheists. I find it remarkable that anyone would not see a similarity between Jesus and Jesus of Gamala and reject the idea that the dating of the story is wrong and that it is possibly a fictionalization of Jesus of Gamala but cling to the idea that Jesus must have been some almost inconsequential lowly Essene preacher, for which there is absolutely no evidence, and cling to that view so dogmatically that they descend into name calling.

The other thing I have found is that I a tending to think that Christianity was necessary because if people today can get so heated over religion within an atheistic community, god only knows what it was like for the Romans trying to hold together an Empire where no one could read or write and every village had its own Pagan god.

I am thinking of accepting Jesus of Gamala as my personal saviour.Shocking

You quite rightly point out the history. There is no doubt in my mind that the gospels were written as a consequence of the first Jewish War.

You write
"The whole of the Western World has regarded the Jewish Revolt as ending in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Certainly the Romans and the Flavians considered it over."
This is not really true.
You don't appear to have understood Atwill's theory.
I will elaborate if you're interested.

"I have seen how nasty people can be over religious ideas, even when they are all supposed to be atheists."

I agree. Some people are unjustifiably nasty. Sometimes the nasty people have valid opinions though, and sometimes they don't. I think the trick is to not get personally offended, but to try to be totally objective. That's bloody hard to do if someone is pissing you off.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 06:50 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(07-02-2014 02:35 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 03:41 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It is odd that people here accuse Ralph of making up facts..

As of 70 AD the Romans were celebrating the victory and constructed a Triumph in honour of Titus Flavius:

The last emperor in the first Roman imperial dynasty was the Julio-Claudian Emperor Nero. During his reign, he sent his competent general Titus Flavius Vespasianus (Vespasian) to suppress the Jewish revolt (A.D. 66-70). By the year 68, most of Judaea had been recovered (BBC Vespasian). On June 9, Nero committed assisted suicide. Vespasian left his eldest son, Titus, in Judaea while he went home to Rome (to be precise, he was born in Italy, at Falacrina near Sabine Reate [DIR Vespasian] but not in Rome) where he eventually re-established stable government when he became emperor, the first of the Flavian Dynasty. In August of A.D. 70, Titus took Jerusalem and destroyed the temple.

The Arch of Ttitus commemorates this victory.

Located in the Roman Forum at the highest point on the Via Sacra, the Arch of Titus (Arcus Titi) is the oldest surviving arch in Rome. It was built to celebrate Titus' victory in Jerusalem, but Titus died before it could be finished. Titus' brother Domitian dedicated the Pentelic marble monument (13.5m wide, 15.4m high, and 4.75m deep; with archway 8.3x5.36m) in A.D. 85, 4 years after Titus' death. There was originally a bronze quadriga on the top. The arch was damaged and then rebuilt/restored in 1822. Napoleon commissioned triumphal arches made in imitation of the Arch of Titus.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/archi...ches_3.htm

The whole of the Western World has regarded the Jewish Revolt as ending in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Certainly the Romans and the Flavians considered it over which is what is relevant to the position Atwill and Ellis put forward, that they then set about creating a religion based on Jesus.

I have to say, coming to this forum has had two consequences for me on a personal level. I have seen how nasty people can be over religious ideas, even when they are all supposed to be atheists. I find it remarkable that anyone would not see a similarity between Jesus and Jesus of Gamala and reject the idea that the dating of the story is wrong and that it is possibly a fictionalization of Jesus of Gamala but cling to the idea that Jesus must have been some almost inconsequential lowly Essene preacher, for which there is absolutely no evidence, and cling to that view so dogmatically that they descend into name calling.

The other thing I have found is that I a tending to think that Christianity was necessary because if people today can get so heated over religion within an atheistic community, god only knows what it was like for the Romans trying to hold together an Empire where no one could read or write and every village had its own Pagan god.

I am thinking of accepting Jesus of Gamala as my personal saviour.Shocking

You quite rightly point out the history. There is no doubt in my mind that the gospels were written as a consequence of the first Jewish War.

You write
"The whole of the Western World has regarded the Jewish Revolt as ending in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Certainly the Romans and the Flavians considered it over."
This is not really true.
You don't appear to have understood Atwill's theory.
I will elaborate if you're interested.

"I have seen how nasty people can be over religious ideas, even when they are all supposed to be atheists."

I agree. Some people are unjustifiably nasty. Sometimes the nasty people have valid opinions though, and sometimes they don't. I think the trick is to not get personally offended, but to try to be totally objective. That's bloody hard to do if someone is pissing you off.

Hi Mark,

I haven't read Ellis yet so I can't comment about whether his theories actually hang together. I was very shocked when I read Atwill because I studied religion at university when John Allegro's theories were around but I had no understanding of the Jewish revolt or the role of Titus Flavius.

I thought I pretty much understood Atwill. I have the book and I have watched his videos so I am interested to hear why you feel I have got it wrong.

I am not so sure he and Ellis are that far apart because Atwill, in one of his interviews says that the "christ" is a "mason" i., tekton, rather than a carpenter which starts to bring in the Egyptian theme again although he only allude to it.

My beef with some people is that they just throw around invectives when they don't actually have a view. Any search for the truth in this sort of field requires one to use one's intuition and to piece things together since it is such a long time ago, most of the evidence has been lost, destroyed, re-written, hijacked etc so to just call someone names when one has nothing to add to the debate is silly.

My point in all this is that if Atwill is right, then we are looking for the historical person (not a god man) behind Jesus in the wrong era and the one person who stands out in 67 AD is Jesus of Gamala. I know hardly anything about him or whether his teachings are anything like the New Testament...

One thing I try to bear in mind is that people then did not read or write and relied on what people in authoritative positions told them so when someone comes to town who says he is representing Rome and tells a bunch of people who belong to a religoin that their saviour has arrived and has been crucified, resurrected etc, precisely to what religious group is he speaking? D S Murdoch says that Christianity predates Jesus? Then there is Mithraism??? Who knows who the supposed Paul character was visiting around the Mediterranean to give them news. I have to agree that this event, whether it is a construction by Romans of a fake Jesus out of existing myths, or is based partly on a wandering priest or is based on Jesus of Gamala has to be referenced to something in the churches he visited in order for it to make sense. "Hey people , that messiah you have all been worshipping...he arrived in Judea last year"....

I can't see my way around that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 08:31 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(06-02-2014 03:41 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The whole of the Western World has regarded the Jewish Revolt as ending in 70 AD with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Certainly the Romans and the Flavians considered it over...

No they don't. Obviously you have never seriously studied History.
There is no more reason to think Jesus of Nazareth is anymore related to Jesus of Gamala than Simon of Perea, or Philo's Jesus.

(06-02-2014 03:41 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I am thinking of accepting Jesus of Gamala as my personal saviour.Shocking

Good for you. It's actually not shocking. It's totally irrelevant.

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
07-02-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(07-02-2014 01:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-02-2014 07:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have no real opinion on that. There is a distinct lack of good evidence either way.


History is not contingent upon there being an actual historical Jesus (in the way that history is contingent on there actually having been a historical Julius Caesar), but just because one is not needed to explain what little evidence we have doesn't necessarily mean one or more men didn't exist as the basis of this clearly blended and syncretistic myth.


Either way, there is no good reason to believe in a miracle performing god-man Jesus.


I agree, one can now say that we don't need to be concerned about whether there was an actual human upon whom some myths were grafted to make the Jesus of the New Testament.

However, if in the course of researching into it one comes up with a real human being who has so many similarities that it becomes inescapable that this figure is based on him, then that has, in my opinion, some very interesting consequences. One can, for instance, completely take apart the idea that Jesus was divine/son of god because one can say he was not born of a virgin and was not resurrected. He was ordinary and died of old age. I think that is significant and is a step ahead. I am not arguing that one should adopt the idea because it allows one to do that either. Personally, I feel there is enough based on Atwill's logic and on the character of Jesus of Gamala for me to think that he is part of the base for the NT story.

Also, there is the idea Ellis puts forward that the "Egyptians" who left Egypt and settled in Judea, the Hyksos, would have been very similar to the Jews and in their religion they had the Horus figure who was the avenging messiah who the Pharoah identified with. Ellis is saying that the nativity in the New Testament is a reference to the "anticipated" birth of an heir to the pharoahic line of these people because a daughter of Cleopatra and Julius Caesar was given to the ruler of Persia as a wife and then left Persia and set up on her own in northern Syria/southern Tureky area. I think he says it is her daughter who then marries a cousin and they have a child who ostensibly has a "claim" to be the "annointed" one simply because of his ancestry. Which is, of course, a much more understandable idea than virgin birth, wise men following stars etc. He says this child is Isaz and that he is the same person as Jesus of Gamala because, as I understand it, Josephus says that they are both leaders of the Jewish revolt, and other things. I can't comment on that but even if one cannot make that leap, the idea of a birth of a dynastic successor among a people who have become subjugated to Rome is an interesting suggestion for the origin of the nativity scene. Again, it is plausible, whereas virgin birth isn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: Jesus myth
There are at least as many "coincidental similarities" with Odysseus.




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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: