Jesus of Gamala
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-01-2014, 02:01 AM
RE: Jesus of Gamala
Vosur,
I don't think this is about humor; I think it's about custom and language.

Also, it's hard to survive in these threads unless you know the personalities of each, that takes time, maybe too mush time.

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 06:51 AM
RE: Jesus of Gamala
Thanks Mark,

I keep writing out a post but then press some keys and it disappears so I will just post this from Josephus' Antiquities:

3. (63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross [2], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day [3], as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.

4. (65) About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. (66) There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation; she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty. She was married to Saturninus, one that was every way answerable to her in an excellent character. (67) Decius Mundus fell in love with this woman. He was a man very high in the equestrian order; and as she was of too great dignity to be caught by presents, and had already rejected them, though they had been sent in great abundance, he was still more inflamed with love to her, insomuch that he promised to give her two hundred thousand Attic drachmas for one night's sexual intercourse; (68) and when this would not prevail upon her, and he was not able to bear this misfortune in his amours, he thought it the best way to famish himself to death for want of food, on account of Paulina's sad refusal; and he determined with himself to die after such a manner, and he want on with his purpose accordingly. (69) Now Mundus had a freedwoman, who had been made free by his father, whose name was Ide, one skillful in all sorts of mischief. This woman was much grieved at the young man's resolution to kill himself (for he did not conceal his intentions to destroy himself from others), and came to him, and encouraged him by her discourse, and made him to hope, by some promises she gave him, that he might obtain a night's sexual intercourse with Paulina; (70) and when he joyfully hearkened to her entreaty, she said she wanted no more than fifty thousand drachmas for entrapping the woman. So when she had encouraged the young man, and gotten as much money as she required, she did not take the same methods as had been taken before, because she perceived that the woman was by no means to be tempted by money; but as she knew that she was very much given to the worship of the goddess Isis, she devised the following stratagem; (71) She went to some of Isis's priests, and upon the strongest assurances [of concealment], she persuaded them by words, but chiefly by the offer of money, of twenty-five thousand drachmas in hand, and as much more when the thing had taken effect; and told them the passion of the young man, and persuaded them to use all means possible to beguile the woman. (72) So they were drawn in to promise so to do, by that large sum of gold they were to have. Accordingly, the oldest of them went immediately to Paulina; and upon his admittance, he desired to speak with her by herself. When that was granted him, he told her that he was sent by the god Anubis, who was fallen in love with her, and directed her to come to him. (73) Upon this she took the message very kindly, and valued herself greatly upon this condescension of Anubis, and told her husband that she had a message sent her, and was to dine and lie with Anubis; so he agreed to her acceptance of the offer, as fully satisfied with the chastity of his wife. (74) Accordingly, she went to the temple, and after she had dined there, and it was the hour to go to sleep, the priest shut the doors of the temple, when, in the holy part of it, the lights were also put out. Then did Mundus leap out (for he was hidden therein), and did not fail to enjoy her, who was at his service all the night long, as supposing he was the god; (75) and when he was gone away, which was before those priests who knew nothing of this stratagem were stirring, Paulina came early to her husband, and told him how the god Anubis had appeared to her. Among her friends, also, she declared how great a value she put upon this favor, (76) who partly believed the thing, when they reflected on its nature, and partly were amazed at it, as having no pretense for not believing it, when they considered the modesty and the dignity of the person. (77) But now, on the third day after what had been done, Mundus met Paulina, and said, "Nay, Paulina, you have saved me two hundred thousand drachmas, which sum you might have added to your own family; yet have you not failed to be at my service in the manner I invited you. As for the reproaches you have laid upon Mundus, I value not the business of names; but I rejoice in the pleasure I reaped by what I did, while I took to myself the name of Anubis." (78) When he had said this, he went his way. But now she began to come to the sense of the grossness of what she had done, and rent her garments, and told her husband of the horrid nature of this wicked contrivance, and prayed him not to neglect to assist her in this case. So he revealed the fact to the emperor; (79) whereupon Tiberius inquired into the matter thoroughly by examining the priests about it, and ordered them to be crucified, as well as Ide, who was the occasion of their ruin, and who had contrived the whole matter, which was so injurious to the woman. He also demolished the temple of Isis, and gave order that her statue should be thrown into the river Tiber; (80) while he only banished Mundus, but did no more to him, because he supposed that what crime he had committed was done out of the passion of love. And these were the circumstances which concerned the temple of Isis, and the injuries occasioned by her priests. I now return to the relation of what happened about this time to the Jews at Rome, as I formerly told you I would.

5. (81) There was a man who was a Jew, but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man. He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. (82) He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves, on which account it was that they at first required it of her. (83) Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome; (84) at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 06:58 AM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2014 07:13 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Jesus of Gamala
I like Atwill but he simultaneously says that these passages by Josephus represent true events, if you read them properly, but fails give any explanation of how Eleazor fits the description of Jesus.

I disagree that the Flavians were in on the "satire". I don't believe they were that clever to read it as a satire as Atwill suggests.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 07:08 AM
RE: Jesus of Gamala
(28-01-2014 11:28 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 02:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't really care if some preacher named Jesus existed; the miracle-working, risen-from-the-dead Jesus of the Bible almost certainly did not.

And Ralph Ellis? Really? The guy is a charlatan - just Google him. Yes

I agree that the risen from the dead Jesus never existed. Which is why I find the reaction to people like Joe Atwill and Ralph Ellis to be strange. Neither say he did. Atwill says that some people including Josephus constructed Jesus Christ using stories from the War of the Jews so that the New Testament reflects the campaign of Titus Flavius. Ellis writes about Jesus of Gamala, who was a Jewish High Priest and was crucified.

Equallly, you might not care about Jesus of Gamala. Ok. So you aren't interested in that history. Some people are.

Did Ellis violate some rule of this forum? I know it is ok to call someone a "sick fuck" here because they joke about being told they are beating a dead horse so it is okay to abuse people for expressing their ideas, but if you don't like their ideas, you all get together and drive them off. Is that how "free speech" works?

No, Ellis did not violate any rules, he is quite simply a charlatan.

I care a great deal about history, but not pseudo-history.

He says that Jesus went to England and became King Arthur, that Scotland was first settled by Egyptians, that Jesus was the last of the pharaohs, and so on.

And you seem to have misunderstood the phrase 'beating a dead horse' and the subsequent humor.

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
29-01-2014, 07:32 AM
Re: RE: Jesus of Gamala
(28-01-2014 11:28 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I agree that the risen from the dead Jesus never existed.

Anyone else is simply not Jesus. Why don't people understand that?

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phil Hill's post
29-01-2014, 07:35 AM
RE: Jesus of Gamala
(29-01-2014 07:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 11:28 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I agree that the risen from the dead Jesus never existed. Which is why I find the reaction to people like Joe Atwill and Ralph Ellis to be strange. Neither say he did. Atwill says that some people including Josephus constructed Jesus Christ using stories from the War of the Jews so that the New Testament reflects the campaign of Titus Flavius. Ellis writes about Jesus of Gamala, who was a Jewish High Priest and was crucified.

Equallly, you might not care about Jesus of Gamala. Ok. So you aren't interested in that history. Some people are.

Did Ellis violate some rule of this forum? I know it is ok to call someone a "sick fuck" here because they joke about being told they are beating a dead horse so it is okay to abuse people for expressing their ideas, but if you don't like their ideas, you all get together and drive them off. Is that how "free speech" works?

No, Ellis did not violate any rules, he is quite simply a charlatan.

I care a great deal about history, but not pseudo-history.

He says that Jesus went to England and became King Arthur, that Scotland was first settled by Egyptians, that Jesus was the last of the pharaohs, and so on.

And you seem to have misunderstood the phrase 'beating a dead horse' and the subsequent humor.

Well, I do actually understand the phrase, "beating a dead horse" and other ones like "pushing an open door" and "hitting your head against a brick wall".

I thought that the post was dismissive and insulting so I teased him to the point that he seemed to get angry, which is one way of giving someone back as good as they give without using offensive language. I assumed you had got my sense of humour. For the sake of clarity, I didn't think the Poe family portrait was real either, or that he didn't like animals. You might want to reread my posts. I also don't suffer from a serious anxiety disorderShocking

I have been on a few forums in the past and moderate three myself so I know all about trolling and etiquette.

I don't like pseudo-history either which is why I don't like people like David Icke. I gave Ellis a wide berth at first. It was only a few weeks ago I bothered to look at what he was saying so I am new to this. I stayed away from anything to do with mythology and I had no opinion on whether there was a real Jesus or not. I started looking into it all because of the huge interest in Near East religion, particularly the rise of Islam and I only did that because I moved to the Near East last summer and I drove across Europe and Asia Minor and ended up near Tarsus.

When Ellis discusses Jesus of Gamala, he isn't engaging in pseudo history because this character is well documented. I don't know how much of what he says is his own interpretation of the facts but in the week or so that I have been reading up on his stuff, he seems to be careful to say what is factual and what is his gloss on it and I haven't had a problem with any pseudo science. In fact, quite the opposite, he seems to want only to base his views on facts.

He, of course, is an atheist and his goal, as I see it is to "make sense" of the bible by looking for factual evidence of what was actually going on in the first century AD. Considering that there are a few billion or so people out there who are happy to go from day to day believing in miracles and divine prophesy, I hardly think it is right to say that this one guy who is trying to piece the "truth" together from the fragments left from the first century is more of a crank that the "believers".

At the end of one of his videos he makes it quite clear what his views are and that he is strongly opposed to religions which are based on false ideas from hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Sorry, but I just don't understand why someone who is talking about a factual character being the basis for a fictionalized, politicized and embellished New Testament character is someone who should be labelled a crank and banned from this forum. Seems he got as good as he gave on the threads I have read, in fact he got more than he gave.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 07:39 AM
RE: Jesus of Gamala
(29-01-2014 06:51 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Thanks Mark,

I keep writing out a post but then press some keys and it disappears so I will just post this from Josephus' Antiquities:

3. (63) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. (64) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross [2], those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day [3], as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.

4. (65) About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. (66) There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation; she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty. She was married to Saturninus, one that was every way answerable to her in an excellent character. (67) Decius Mundus fell in love with this woman. He was a man very high in the equestrian order; and as she was of too great dignity to be caught by presents, and had already rejected them, though they had been sent in great abundance, he was still more inflamed with love to her, insomuch that he promised to give her two hundred thousand Attic drachmas for one night's sexual intercourse; (68) and when this would not prevail upon her, and he was not able to bear this misfortune in his amours, he thought it the best way to famish himself to death for want of food, on account of Paulina's sad refusal; and he determined with himself to die after such a manner, and he want on with his purpose accordingly. (69) Now Mundus had a freedwoman, who had been made free by his father, whose name was Ide, one skillful in all sorts of mischief. This woman was much grieved at the young man's resolution to kill himself (for he did not conceal his intentions to destroy himself from others), and came to him, and encouraged him by her discourse, and made him to hope, by some promises she gave him, that he might obtain a night's sexual intercourse with Paulina; (70) and when he joyfully hearkened to her entreaty, she said she wanted no more than fifty thousand drachmas for entrapping the woman. So when she had encouraged the young man, and gotten as much money as she required, she did not take the same methods as had been taken before, because she perceived that the woman was by no means to be tempted by money; but as she knew that she was very much given to the worship of the goddess Isis, she devised the following stratagem; (71) She went to some of Isis's priests, and upon the strongest assurances [of concealment], she persuaded them by words, but chiefly by the offer of money, of twenty-five thousand drachmas in hand, and as much more when the thing had taken effect; and told them the passion of the young man, and persuaded them to use all means possible to beguile the woman. (72) So they were drawn in to promise so to do, by that large sum of gold they were to have. Accordingly, the oldest of them went immediately to Paulina; and upon his admittance, he desired to speak with her by herself. When that was granted him, he told her that he was sent by the god Anubis, who was fallen in love with her, and directed her to come to him. (73) Upon this she took the message very kindly, and valued herself greatly upon this condescension of Anubis, and told her husband that she had a message sent her, and was to dine and lie with Anubis; so he agreed to her acceptance of the offer, as fully satisfied with the chastity of his wife. (74) Accordingly, she went to the temple, and after she had dined there, and it was the hour to go to sleep, the priest shut the doors of the temple, when, in the holy part of it, the lights were also put out. Then did Mundus leap out (for he was hidden therein), and did not fail to enjoy her, who was at his service all the night long, as supposing he was the god; (75) and when he was gone away, which was before those priests who knew nothing of this stratagem were stirring, Paulina came early to her husband, and told him how the god Anubis had appeared to her. Among her friends, also, she declared how great a value she put upon this favor, (76) who partly believed the thing, when they reflected on its nature, and partly were amazed at it, as having no pretense for not believing it, when they considered the modesty and the dignity of the person. (77) But now, on the third day after what had been done, Mundus met Paulina, and said, "Nay, Paulina, you have saved me two hundred thousand drachmas, which sum you might have added to your own family; yet have you not failed to be at my service in the manner I invited you. As for the reproaches you have laid upon Mundus, I value not the business of names; but I rejoice in the pleasure I reaped by what I did, while I took to myself the name of Anubis." (78) When he had said this, he went his way. But now she began to come to the sense of the grossness of what she had done, and rent her garments, and told her husband of the horrid nature of this wicked contrivance, and prayed him not to neglect to assist her in this case. So he revealed the fact to the emperor; (79) whereupon Tiberius inquired into the matter thoroughly by examining the priests about it, and ordered them to be crucified, as well as Ide, who was the occasion of their ruin, and who had contrived the whole matter, which was so injurious to the woman. He also demolished the temple of Isis, and gave order that her statue should be thrown into the river Tiber; (80) while he only banished Mundus, but did no more to him, because he supposed that what crime he had committed was done out of the passion of love. And these were the circumstances which concerned the temple of Isis, and the injuries occasioned by her priests. I now return to the relation of what happened about this time to the Jews at Rome, as I formerly told you I would.

5. (81) There was a man who was a Jew, but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws, and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same; but in all respects a wicked man. He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. (82) He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves, on which account it was that they at first required it of her. (83) Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome; (84) at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men."

I hope you know that it is accepted by scholars that #3 above is a forged interpolation by later Christian monks. Josephus did not write that. The book is an attempt to DISCREDIT other messiahs, and prove that Vespasian (the Roman Emperor) was the messiah. Josephus would NEVER have written THAT, in that context. The oldest version is in a museum in Milan, (the Museso Ambrosiano), and that paragrah is clearly NOT part of the original text ... different handwriting, different ink, AND the text does not flow in context from what is discussed above and below it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-01-2014, 07:58 AM
RE: Jesus of Gamala
(29-01-2014 07:32 AM)Phil Hill Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 11:28 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I agree that the risen from the dead Jesus never existed.

Anyone else is simply not Jesus. Why don't people understand that?

I do, which is why I don't understand people who say there was a real Jesus or mythicists.

If there is a real person, is it a preacher type guy knocking about Judea? Right, well that isn't Jesus. The figure in the NT is a fictional character.

With the Mythicists, what is the basis for cobbling together a complete myth out of nothing. That would be like trying to convince people that Harry Potter was real. No one would believe it.

Similarly, Jesus of Gamala isn't Jesus Christ of the New Testament, did not do those things, did not rise from the dead, was not the son of God. What is different is that he was a real character and the events of his life and his position as a high priest and his heritage could have been used to base a character on, with some embellishment and weaving in other tales.

I think it is an interesting hypothesis. I agree the idea that Vespasian shipped him of to Dewa at Chester is fanciful but the tale Ellis tells is a "good'un". I have only watched the presentation on Youtube of his theory but I found it quite entertaining. I also don't know why one can't just take an hypothesis like Ellis' and enjoy it, even if it is completely wrong. I have read JFK conspiracy books and enjoyed them and convinced myself it was a conspiracy but have come back to accepting most of what the Warren Commission found.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 08:10 AM
Re: RE: Jesus of Gamala
(29-01-2014 07:58 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(29-01-2014 07:32 AM)Phil Hill Wrote:  Anyone else is simply not Jesus. Why don't people understand that?

With the Mythicists, what is the basis for cobbling together a complete myth out of nothing.

I don't think you understand the mythicist position. I'm a mythicist or realist if I may call it that. The Jesus myth wasn't cobbled together out of nothing and I have no idea where you get that idea. There are many sources of the Jesus story in Greek literature and tragedy. You can find many parallels in Homer. And then you even have reworked tales from the old or original testament. From nothing?! You have no idea how wrong you are. Actually you are so wrong you're not even wrong. To be honest, your "out of nothing" idea while being a common misconception is really laughable.

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2014, 08:14 AM
RE: Jesus of Gamala
(29-01-2014 07:35 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(29-01-2014 07:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, Ellis did not violate any rules, he is quite simply a charlatan.

I care a great deal about history, but not pseudo-history.

He says that Jesus went to England and became King Arthur, that Scotland was first settled by Egyptians, that Jesus was the last of the pharaohs, and so on.

And you seem to have misunderstood the phrase 'beating a dead horse' and the subsequent humor.

Well, I do actually understand the phrase, "beating a dead horse" and other ones like "pushing an open door" and "hitting your head against a brick wall".

I thought that the post was dismissive and insulting so I teased him to the point that he seemed to get angry, which is one way of giving someone back as good as they give without using offensive language. I assumed you had got my sense of humour. For the sake of clarity, I didn't think the Poe family portrait was real either, or that he didn't like animals. You might want to reread my posts. I also don't suffer from a serious anxiety disorderShocking

I have been on a few forums in the past and moderate three myself so I know all about trolling and etiquette.

I don't like pseudo-history either which is why I don't like people like David Icke. I gave Ellis a wide berth at first. It was only a few weeks ago I bothered to look at what he was saying so I am new to this. I stayed away from anything to do with mythology and I had no opinion on whether there was a real Jesus or not. I started looking into it all because of the huge interest in Near East religion, particularly the rise of Islam and I only did that because I moved to the Near East last summer and I drove across Europe and Asia Minor and ended up near Tarsus.

When Ellis discusses Jesus of Gamala, he isn't engaging in pseudo history because this character is well documented. I don't know how much of what he says is his own interpretation of the facts but in the week or so that I have been reading up on his stuff, he seems to be careful to say what is factual and what is his gloss on it and I haven't had a problem with any pseudo science. In fact, quite the opposite, he seems to want only to base his views on facts.

He, of course, is an atheist and his goal, as I see it is to "make sense" of the bible by looking for factual evidence of what was actually going on in the first century AD. Considering that there are a few billion or so people out there who are happy to go from day to day believing in miracles and divine prophesy, I hardly think it is right to say that this one guy who is trying to piece the "truth" together from the fragments left from the first century is more of a crank that the "believers".

At the end of one of his videos he makes it quite clear what his views are and that he is strongly opposed to religions which are based on false ideas from hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Sorry, but I just don't understand why someone who is talking about a factual character being the basis for a fictionalized, politicized and embellished New Testament character is someone who should be labelled a crank and banned from this forum. Seems he got as good as he gave on the threads I have read, in fact he got more than he gave.

Well, I apologize if I did not get your humor.

Ralph Ellis (username: ralphellis) has not been banned from this forum. Cranks and nutcases are not summarily banned here.

If you Google Ellis, you will find that he has some pretty bizarre ideas and that his methodology is not just questionable, but laughable.

What do you mean "...he got as good as he gave on the threads I have read, in fact he got more than he gave."?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: