Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(07-02-2014 09:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There are at least as many "coincidental similarities" with Odysseus.




I am going on vacation now so I may not be around for a week or so (cheers)

BB, I am not sure of the point. I know there are common myths of the birth on 25 December and the resurrections after three days. That seems to have an astrological significance so I see that as something which is added to try to convince people back then that the Jesus character qualified as a god.

What I am saying is that there are also similarities between Jesus Christ and a real live person who was not a god and wasn't resurrected and did not perform miracles. There are also similarities with the campaign of Titus Flavius and there are similarities in the teachings of the New Testament with Gnostic and Buddhist ideas. It is an amalgam of ideas and characters. All I am saying is that it is possible that aspects of the story are based on a person called Jesus of Gamala who was head of a Jewish sect. I don't know a lot about the sect and there isn't much written about this Jesus person, nor do I much care about it because he was a Nazarene and they believed in castration so I am not particularly interested in joining up.Shocking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(07-02-2014 08:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

Yes they do.

Shocking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(07-02-2014 12:18 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Yes they do.

...what then, of the Bar Kochba revolt? Are historians unaware of it?

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 03:53 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2014 04:16 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus myth
(07-02-2014 06:50 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(07-02-2014 02:35 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

Hi delta bravo, Thanks for your reply.

"I haven't read Ellis yet so I can't comment about whether his theories actually hang together." Good luck with that. You'll need a lot of time and the ability to perform mental gymnastics. If you ever make any sense of it I'll be very interested in your conclusions.

"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."

Actually, You probably do have a pretty good understanding of Atwill. My comment was unfair. It was referring to your comment that the Flavians and other Romans considered that the Jewish revolt was over after the first war. One of Atwill's main points is that it was obvious to everyone that while the militaristic fight was over (in the short-term) the religion that inspired it had not been crushed. The slaves that Titus marched back to Rome refused to do worship him and his dad as Lord and Emperor. So the government suppressed the Jews economically by imposing taxes on them and by using propaganda by creating the Gospels. None of these tactics actually worked as there were numerous Jewish insurrections against the government throughout the early second century which culminated in the second Jewish War (the equivalent of World War II) in 132 to 136 CE.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2014, 04:13 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2014 04:17 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus myth
(07-02-2014 06:50 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(07-02-2014 02:35 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  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.

"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."

BUT....if our Jeebus is Jesus of Gamala, it's very hard to explain a few things.

1. Our Jeebus interacted with John the Baptist, the existence of whom has been independently historically verified by Josephus and others, in the late 20s.

2. Paul, who almost certainly wrote in late 40s 50s and early 60s claims he met James the brother of Jesus and Peter, the disciple. He doesn't speak of them with much respect, which to my mind means these references are unlikely to have been Christian interpolations.

3. The existence of James, the brother of our Jeebus, has been independently historically verified by numerous authors. I'm not aware that Jesus of Gamala had a brother named James.

I'll tell you what my opinion on an historical Jesus is. I believe there probably was a Jewish insurgent in the late 20s and early 30s who was crucified by the Romans for trying to start a war in Jerusalem. I think that Flavian's borrowed the identity of this relatively unknown character to create Jeebus. The Nazarenes still existed after the first Jewish War, and were a thorn in the side of Roman peace. They would've remembered their hero figure, so to turn him into a Rome loving, peace loving, tax paying preacher was rubbing shit in the faces of the Nazarenes. Great propaganda!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 12:57 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(07-02-2014 04:13 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(07-02-2014 06:50 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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.

"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."

BUT....if our Jeebus is Jesus of Gamala, it's very hard to explain a few things.

1. Our Jeebus interacted with John the Baptist, the existence of whom has been independently historically verified by Josephus and others, in the late 20s.

2. Paul, who almost certainly wrote in late 40s 50s and early 60s claims he met James the brother of Jesus and Peter, the disciple. He doesn't speak of them with much respect, which to my mind means these references are unlikely to have been Christian interpolations.

3. The existence of James, the brother of our Jeebus, has been independently historically verified by numerous authors. I'm not aware that Jesus of Gamala had a brother named James.

I'll tell you what my opinion on an historical Jesus is. I believe there probably was a Jewish insurgent in the late 20s and early 30s who was crucified by the Romans for trying to start a war in Jerusalem. I think that Flavian's borrowed the identity of this relatively unknown character to create Jeebus. The Nazarenes still existed after the first Jewish War, and were a thorn in the side of Roman peace. They would've remembered their hero figure, so to turn him into a Rome loving, peace loving, tax paying preacher was rubbing shit in the faces of the Nazarenes. Great propaganda!


I am only "learning" about this now so I can't answer those points. However, I came across something which is historical which is that the Queen Helena who is the mother of Izats, the leader of the Jewish Revolt was converted by a Jewish preacher from Galilee named Eleazor, along with Izats. That would be in about the right time and corresponds to what Atwill hints at, that the real Jesus was Eleazor, but I only found this a few days ago so I haven't had time to look into it. I did find this discussion of the issue on a Jewish site (my view is that Jesus is a political conflation of three or more characters, Eleazor, Izats and Titus):

Here is a most unusual but fascinating story about a strange chapter in the history of our Jewish people which took place almost two thousand years ago.

It is not often that a queen decides to become a Jewess, but such was the case with Queen Helena of Adiabene, the capital of a rich country which extended over a part of the former Assyrian empire.

This remarkable event took place about half a century before the Beit Hamikdash was destroyed by the Romans.

Queen Helena lived happily with her husband, Monobaz, in Adiabene. Occasionally, Jewish merchants used to visit Adiabene on business. Through them Helena became acquainted with, and interested in, the Jewish religion. As time went on, she became so deeply attracted by the high moral standard of Judaism that she engaged a teacher for herself to learn all she could about it.

Meanwhile her husband died, and Izates, their younger son, was placed on the throne, this being the king’s dying wish. Izates was as eager as his mother to learn all about the Jewish religion, and so they employed as their teacher a Jewish merchant by the name of Ananias (Chananyah). Both mother and son were so impressed by all they learnt about Judaism that they decided to give up the pagan faith of their land and adopt the Jewish religion as their own.

It happened that a Jewish scholar named Rabbi Eleazar of Galilee called at the court of Adiabene. Eagerly, King Izates invited him to become his teacher, to which the rabbi agreed. Monobaz II, the king’s elder brother, also showed an interest and wanted to take part in the lessons, and the king readily agreed. (Clearly, there was no ill feeling on the part of Monobaz II that his younger brother had been made king on the death of their father.)

One day, when Rabbi Eleazar was teaching them the portion concerning the importance of circumcision, the divine commandment which was the sign of G‑d’s covenant with the Jewish people, the two brothers decided there and then that they would take this step in order to become real Jews. Although there might have been a great risk that this step would have caused their pagan people to rise in rebellion against the royal family, the two brothers (with the encouragement of their mother, Queen Helena) arranged to become circumcised, and the event passed off quite peacefully. Queen Helena and King Izates were very much loved by their people, and the fact that the royal house had embraced the Jewish religion did not affect the people’s loyalty to their king and queen.

After a very peaceful reign of twenty-four years, Izates died. His older brother, Monobaz, took over the throne of Adiabene.

A very close and friendly relationship developed between the Jewish people and the foreign state ruled by Helena and Monobaz. Not only were they personally very pious and observant followers of the Torah and its commands, but they influenced many of their own people to follow their example and embrace Judaism.

The royal house of Adiabene helped the Jewish state in many ways. Many a time they sent large sums of money to Jerusalem, either to provide for the needs of the Beit Hamikdash or to help the poor. Once, a very serious famine ravished the Jewish land, and soon there was no money left to buy food from other countries. Queen Helena and her son used a large portion of their own state treasury to buy grain in Alexandria and dried fruits in Cyprus, and have all this lifesaving food shipped to Jerusalem.

When Monobaz was criticized by some of his advisers for squandering his money on the poor, both in his own country and in the Jewish state, he replied:

“My ancestors amassed treasures in this world, while I gather treasures for the world to come. My ancestors placed their treasures in chambers, and had to guard them against thieves; my treasures are far from the reach of any greedy hand, and will be safe forever. My ancestors’ treasures did not produce any fruits, but mine continue to bring more and more fruit.”

Such was the piety and charitableness of Queen Helena and her sons.

In the Mishnah we are told of many gifts which Queen Helena and her son gave to the Beit Hamikdash, for which they are remembered for all time. For instance, she had a golden candelabra placed above the entrance to the Beit Hamikdash, which not only had its own light, but early in the morning it reflected the sun’s first rays. Thus, when the priests wanted to know whether it was already time to say the Shema in the morning, they had only to look at Queen Helena’s candelabra.

Another gift of Queen Helena was a tablet of gold, on which she had a certain portion of the Torah inscribed, which was of special interest to women. In addition, King Monobaz and his mother donated golden handles to be attached to all vessels used in the Beit Hamikdash on Yom Kippur.

Once, on a visit to Jerusalem, Queen Helena built a beautiful mausoleum where she and her sons were to be buried after their death. Its door had an ingenious mechanism that opened it once a year at a certain hour and closed itself again, to stay closed for another twelve months. Even now, parts of this beautiful tomb, called the Tombs of the Kings, are still left.

Before her death, Queen Helena traveled to Jerusalem to spend there the last years of her life in prayer and good deeds. According to tradition, she lived as a nezirah (nazirite) for fourteen years, to keep a vow she had made for her son and for herself.

Even after the death of Queen Helena and King Monobaz II, the royal house and the people of Adiabene maintained their friendship with the Jewish people for many years.


Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 01:11 AM
RE: Jesus myth
The other point is, of course, that Josephus appears to make up names. If one accepts that he was writing political works and that he wrote the new testament as Atwill and Ellis both say, then none of the names matter because it is all contrived. Don't we really have to start looking at this from a different angle? If religion is contrived polemical fiction then one has to start trying to understand that type of writing so writers like Candida Moss and Atwill are important. There is a long history of writing which is not only "mythical" but "pseudonomous" associated with the Celts and it is very well detailed by Prof. Schofield at Harvard: http://www.archive.org/stream/mythicalba...t_djvu.txt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 02:31 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(01-04-2014 12:57 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(07-02-2014 04:13 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "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."

BUT....if our Jeebus is Jesus of Gamala, it's very hard to explain a few things.

1. Our Jeebus interacted with John the Baptist, the existence of whom has been independently historically verified by Josephus and others, in the late 20s.

2. Paul, who almost certainly wrote in late 40s 50s and early 60s claims he met James the brother of Jesus and Peter, the disciple. He doesn't speak of them with much respect, which to my mind means these references are unlikely to have been Christian interpolations.

3. The existence of James, the brother of our Jeebus, has been independently historically verified by numerous authors. I'm not aware that Jesus of Gamala had a brother named James.

I'll tell you what my opinion on an historical Jesus is. I believe there probably was a Jewish insurgent in the late 20s and early 30s who was crucified by the Romans for trying to start a war in Jerusalem. I think that Flavian's borrowed the identity of this relatively unknown character to create Jeebus. The Nazarenes still existed after the first Jewish War, and were a thorn in the side of Roman peace. They would've remembered their hero figure, so to turn him into a Rome loving, peace loving, tax paying preacher was rubbing shit in the faces of the Nazarenes. Great propaganda!


I am only "learning" about this now so I can't answer those points. However, I came across something which is historical which is that the Queen Helena who is the mother of Izats, the leader of the Jewish Revolt was converted by a Jewish preacher from Galilee named Eleazor, along with Izats. That would be in about the right time and corresponds to what Atwill hints at, that the real Jesus was Eleazor, but I only found this a few days ago so I haven't had time to look into it. I did find this discussion of the issue on a Jewish site (my view is that Jesus is a political conflation of three or more characters, Eleazor, Izats and Titus):

Here is a most unusual but fascinating story about a strange chapter in the history of our Jewish people which took place almost two thousand years ago.

It is not often that a queen decides to become a Jewess, but such was the case with Queen Helena of Adiabene, the capital of a rich country which extended over a part of the former Assyrian empire.

This remarkable event took place about half a century before the Beit Hamikdash was destroyed by the Romans.

Queen Helena lived happily with her husband, Monobaz, in Adiabene. Occasionally, Jewish merchants used to visit Adiabene on business. Through them Helena became acquainted with, and interested in, the Jewish religion. As time went on, she became so deeply attracted by the high moral standard of Judaism that she engaged a teacher for herself to learn all she could about it.

Meanwhile her husband died, and Izates, their younger son, was placed on the throne, this being the king’s dying wish. Izates was as eager as his mother to learn all about the Jewish religion, and so they employed as their teacher a Jewish merchant by the name of Ananias (Chananyah). Both mother and son were so impressed by all they learnt about Judaism that they decided to give up the pagan faith of their land and adopt the Jewish religion as their own.

It happened that a Jewish scholar named Rabbi Eleazar of Galilee called at the court of Adiabene. Eagerly, King Izates invited him to become his teacher, to which the rabbi agreed. Monobaz II, the king’s elder brother, also showed an interest and wanted to take part in the lessons, and the king readily agreed. (Clearly, there was no ill feeling on the part of Monobaz II that his younger brother had been made king on the death of their father.)

One day, when Rabbi Eleazar was teaching them the portion concerning the importance of circumcision, the divine commandment which was the sign of G‑d’s covenant with the Jewish people, the two brothers decided there and then that they would take this step in order to become real Jews. Although there might have been a great risk that this step would have caused their pagan people to rise in rebellion against the royal family, the two brothers (with the encouragement of their mother, Queen Helena) arranged to become circumcised, and the event passed off quite peacefully. Queen Helena and King Izates were very much loved by their people, and the fact that the royal house had embraced the Jewish religion did not affect the people’s loyalty to their king and queen.

After a very peaceful reign of twenty-four years, Izates died. His older brother, Monobaz, took over the throne of Adiabene.

A very close and friendly relationship developed between the Jewish people and the foreign state ruled by Helena and Monobaz. Not only were they personally very pious and observant followers of the Torah and its commands, but they influenced many of their own people to follow their example and embrace Judaism.

The royal house of Adiabene helped the Jewish state in many ways. Many a time they sent large sums of money to Jerusalem, either to provide for the needs of the Beit Hamikdash or to help the poor. Once, a very serious famine ravished the Jewish land, and soon there was no money left to buy food from other countries. Queen Helena and her son used a large portion of their own state treasury to buy grain in Alexandria and dried fruits in Cyprus, and have all this lifesaving food shipped to Jerusalem.

When Monobaz was criticized by some of his advisers for squandering his money on the poor, both in his own country and in the Jewish state, he replied:

“My ancestors amassed treasures in this world, while I gather treasures for the world to come. My ancestors placed their treasures in chambers, and had to guard them against thieves; my treasures are far from the reach of any greedy hand, and will be safe forever. My ancestors’ treasures did not produce any fruits, but mine continue to bring more and more fruit.”

Such was the piety and charitableness of Queen Helena and her sons.

In the Mishnah we are told of many gifts which Queen Helena and her son gave to the Beit Hamikdash, for which they are remembered for all time. For instance, she had a golden candelabra placed above the entrance to the Beit Hamikdash, which not only had its own light, but early in the morning it reflected the sun’s first rays. Thus, when the priests wanted to know whether it was already time to say the Shema in the morning, they had only to look at Queen Helena’s candelabra.

Another gift of Queen Helena was a tablet of gold, on which she had a certain portion of the Torah inscribed, which was of special interest to women. In addition, King Monobaz and his mother donated golden handles to be attached to all vessels used in the Beit Hamikdash on Yom Kippur.

Once, on a visit to Jerusalem, Queen Helena built a beautiful mausoleum where she and her sons were to be buried after their death. Its door had an ingenious mechanism that opened it once a year at a certain hour and closed itself again, to stay closed for another twelve months. Even now, parts of this beautiful tomb, called the Tombs of the Kings, are still left.

Before her death, Queen Helena traveled to Jerusalem to spend there the last years of her life in prayer and good deeds. According to tradition, she lived as a nezirah (nazirite) for fourteen years, to keep a vow she had made for her son and for herself.

Even after the death of Queen Helena and King Monobaz II, the royal house and the people of Adiabene maintained their friendship with the Jewish people for many years.


Drinking Beverage

Who is this story written by? You? Ellis?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
01-04-2014, 08:29 AM
RE: Jesus myth
Oh no, not this thread! It gets resurrected more than ...

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2014, 09:29 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(01-04-2014 08:29 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  Oh no, not this thread! It gets resurrected more than ...

Hitler? Gasp

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: