The great josephus interpolation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2014, 03:05 AM
RE: The great josephus interpolation
(18-09-2014 04:36 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 03:31 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "So, within 30 years or so people were being persecuted in the name of this person"

Evidence?

"how on earth can any one focus on the date of it's supposed setting as being any more true than the miracles in it."

Well....there's this....

"Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think a man named Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple. I don’t think this is a Christian interpolation, as he doesn’t write of them with much respect.

I propose that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries."


Mark, I don't intend to conduct myself on this forum as though I am in a debate or writing a paper. I read both scientific articles and paper written by non-scientists. It isn't possible to prove things in the non-scientific world in the same way as in the scientific world because we have to rely on thing written by other people in other languages which requires us to understand what their particular writing techinique involves and whether they even write from an objective, truthful perspective. Back 2000 years ago the only people who could read and write were people schooled by the ruling classes so there is no reason whatsoever to assume anything written back then was objective or entirely truthful. Also, we, and particularly religious scholars, suffer from what BB accuses Ellis of, Presentism. If, for instance, you say that certain words have a similar meaning and sound, and this means they had a similar meaning, you get people, here, almost laughing. They are ok with the dual pronunciation of the word "Celt" with an "s" and "k" sound, but that is about as far as their minds stretch and they don't even know why this is.

In a civilization where 2% of the population wrote, and they were writing for the ruling class and religion, you have to devise other means of looking at the origins of religions.

I'm of the view, now, that Judaism today is nothing at all like Judaism of 2000 yeara ago. I don't even think the "Jews" were the same people. I think they were Gauls and their own book says they are because Abraham came from Ur in Sumeria which makes Jews "Aryan". This no doubt raises huge guffaws andFacepalm Facepalm but that is what Genesis says. It's also what DNA at Johns Hopkins says in research which has nothing to do with racial or religious theories. http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-en...m-1.490539

So, when you look at the Jesus story, you are looking at an era which had a pre exsiting religion, coming out of Egypt and a predominant religion there was the worship of "Karas" or "Horos". He is the anointed son of god and he is an avenging god. This cult was merged with Ra worship by the Pharoahs (I can give you a ref for that). Why? I think because it was like modern Islam.

Then you look at Jerusalem and it was often spelled with an "H" and stem from a consonantal language system so it is "RSLM". That means "submission of man to the "fire" god" or the god of the Aryans. There's no way round that. Then you look at the Egyptians who are often called the "Khem". If you take my Celtic analogy then this makes them "Sem" and "gem", giving us "Camal", "Gemel" and "seminal" and even "germinal". The reason these words come down to us with different spellings is that we don't know how things were pronounced. People didn't write first, they spoke and they used gutteral sounds to make their languages more complex with a greater variety of sounds. It is us who try to figure things out and are confused into thinking that this or that word means something different from another word because it is spelled differently. We all suffer from "presentism" in a big way, but that is what academia burdens itself with, that you have to move at a snail's pace if you adopt academic standards of proof.

Here's a newish sort of piece of scientific research that most people have never heard of and it could completely change how we look at world history: http://www.ees.lanl.gov/geodynamics/Wohl...akatau.htm

Since I was a kid, we have realized that there was, indeed, a world flood, that there was a Near East refugia of Europeans, that places like Syria were green sheep grazing lands inhabited by people who were "free" from the Romans, ie., Frankish people. Linguistic analysis shows that European languages descend from languages of the Near East, that Turkish is similar to Sumerian, that Enlish DNA shows that they migrated from Turkey 9000 years ago...

My view is becoming increasingly influenced by science which is washing over the sort of debate that goes on here. In my view, Egypt and the Near East had a religion which was based on astrological notions including an avenging, anointed son figure, pronounce it any way you like, but it is what gave rise to the "Christ" figure which we find in the NT. I have no doubt this is largely fiction but I think it is also a highly political work.

I think if you look at the Near East today you see what became of old Judaism. The Romans tried to turn it into NT Christianity but they failed. It worked for people under their influence but the problem is that people in the Near East had first hand and close up experience of "Jesus" and they adopted different sorts of religions which are like NT Christianity but see Jesus as, in some sects, a real person, not born of a virgin.

So, what happened? There was a collapse of the centre of the "world system" and that gave rise to a new development. The Kingdoms collapsed and the people who remained, dirt poor bedouins, rose up against their rulers. In the wake of this, Islam was written up as a religion to take advantage of and consolidate this. But, the underlying ideas of this movement come out of Near Eastern, Judaic monotheism.

Look at Gaza and Isis. The same dilemma presents itself today. This old religion with its militancy just won't go away. What is the best way of dealing with this so it goes away forever? The issues are ideological and one can easily see how the way forward has to be to change the way these militants see the world.

That is what the NT is. It is an ideological work intended to get this primitive religion to worship a figure who was at once a recognized leader of these people and also peaceful and pro-Roman.

Sorry, the idea of some "Yeshua" figure just doesn't cut it with me anymore. Not only is there no evidence of this figure but it just doesn't deal with a hundred year war with the Jews and the events of the Jewish revolt. It doesn't take into account that there was, in fact, someone called Jesus, on the scene, who fed the poor, was a high priest, a military leader and was probably the person Josephus took down from the cross.

The problem I have here, on this forum, is that I can see what Ellis is saying. I don't know enough to say he is entirely correct. However, where he mentions things I have read elsewhere, he reports things as I have read elsewhere.

I just reread bits of his King of Edessa book and was amazed at what he said about Hamas. He is criticized for being a "presentist" but one of the things he drove home in the book was the background and ideas of Hamas and what he says about them turned out to be entirely correct.

I think it is extremely important that we get to grips with what Islam is all about. Do many people actualy realize, for instance, that the disagreement between Sunnis and Shia muslims stems among other things from the view that Shia believe in the second coming of Jesus:

I said, ‘Verily, Jesus will descend to the world before the Resurrection Day, then the people of the Jewish nation or Christian nation will not remain [on the earth] unless they believe in him before their death and will pray behind al-Mahdi.’ He said, ‘Woe unto you! Where did you bring it from?’ I said, ‘Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib (‘a) narrated it to me.’ He said, ‘By Allah! You brought it from a pure spring.’”1 http://www.al-islam.org/jesus-though-shi...ond-coming

Then there is Syria which is ruled by the Alawi who are some kind of crypto-Christian sect, but we don't know because they are so secretive, only they know what they are. People think they are Muslims. Who knows?

My own view is that talk of who Jesus was is largely irrelevant. At some point there will be more of an academic interest in Jesus of Gamala et al and religious places like Sanliurfa and Gobleki Tepe.

For me, I am now of the view that the religions of Egypt and the near east and Rome were astrological inseminating/phallic religions and that Judaism comes from paganisic Tau worship. This became a predominant sect which spread across the Near East and the centre of the ancient world in what is now Turkey, and Iran. It challenged Rome in strength and where they met was in Judea, Syria and southern Turkey and this brought about a 100 year long war which brought the Flavians to power in Rome and the development of the NT as an antidote to the prevailing militant religion of the Near East. I think this new Roman religion is Hellenistic, Essene and Gnostic and is much like Epicureanism which had waned with the coming of the Claudians.

GaspWeepingFacepalmBowingThumbsup I thought I would get those in first.

"Sorry, the idea of some "Yeshua" figure just doesn't cut it with me anymore. Not only is there no evidence of this figure..."

You've conveniently ignored the evidence i gave you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2014, 03:11 AM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2014 03:37 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The great josephus interpolation
(18-09-2014 04:36 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(17-09-2014 03:31 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "So, within 30 years or so people were being persecuted in the name of this person"

Evidence?

"how on earth can any one focus on the date of it's supposed setting as being any more true than the miracles in it."

Well....there's this....

"Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think a man named Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple. I don’t think this is a Christian interpolation, as he doesn’t write of them with much respect.

I propose that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries."


Mark, I don't intend to conduct myself on this forum as though I am in a debate or writing a paper. I read both scientific articles and paper written by non-scientists. It isn't possible to prove things in the non-scientific world in the same way as in the scientific world because we have to rely on thing written by other people in other languages which requires us to understand what their particular writing techinique involves and whether they even write from an objective, truthful perspective. Back 2000 years ago the only people who could read and write were people schooled by the ruling classes so there is no reason whatsoever to assume anything written back then was objective or entirely truthful. Also, we, and particularly religious scholars, suffer from what BB accuses Ellis of, Presentism. If, for instance, you say that certain words have a similar meaning and sound, and this means they had a similar meaning, you get people, here, almost laughing. They are ok with the dual pronunciation of the word "Celt" with an "s" and "k" sound, but that is about as far as their minds stretch and they don't even know why this is.

In a civilization where 2% of the population wrote, and they were writing for the ruling class and religion, you have to devise other means of looking at the origins of religions.

I'm of the view, now, that Judaism today is nothing at all like Judaism of 2000 yeara ago. I don't even think the "Jews" were the same people. I think they were Gauls and their own book says they are because Abraham came from Ur in Sumeria which makes Jews "Aryan". This no doubt raises huge guffaws andFacepalm Facepalm but that is what Genesis says. It's also what DNA at Johns Hopkins says in research which has nothing to do with racial or religious theories. http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-en...m-1.490539

So, when you look at the Jesus story, you are looking at an era which had a pre exsiting religion, coming out of Egypt and a predominant religion there was the worship of "Karas" or "Horos". He is the anointed son of god and he is an avenging god. This cult was merged with Ra worship by the Pharoahs (I can give you a ref for that). Why? I think because it was like modern Islam.

Then you look at Jerusalem and it was often spelled with an "H" and stem from a consonantal language system so it is "RSLM". That means "submission of man to the "fire" god" or the god of the Aryans. There's no way round that. Then you look at the Egyptians who are often called the "Khem". If you take my Celtic analogy then this makes them "Sem" and "gem", giving us "Camal", "Gemel" and "seminal" and even "germinal". The reason these words come down to us with different spellings is that we don't know how things were pronounced. People didn't write first, they spoke and they used gutteral sounds to make their languages more complex with a greater variety of sounds. It is us who try to figure things out and are confused into thinking that this or that word means something different from another word because it is spelled differently. We all suffer from "presentism" in a big way, but that is what academia burdens itself with, that you have to move at a snail's pace if you adopt academic standards of proof.

Here's a newish sort of piece of scientific research that most people have never heard of and it could completely change how we look at world history: http://www.ees.lanl.gov/geodynamics/Wohl...akatau.htm

Since I was a kid, we have realized that there was, indeed, a world flood, that there was a Near East refugia of Europeans, that places like Syria were green sheep grazing lands inhabited by people who were "free" from the Romans, ie., Frankish people. Linguistic analysis shows that European languages descend from languages of the Near East, that Turkish is similar to Sumerian, that Enlish DNA shows that they migrated from Turkey 9000 years ago...

My view is becoming increasingly influenced by science which is washing over the sort of debate that goes on here. In my view, Egypt and the Near East had a religion which was based on astrological notions including an avenging, anointed son figure, pronounce it any way you like, but it is what gave rise to the "Christ" figure which we find in the NT. I have no doubt this is largely fiction but I think it is also a highly political work.

I think if you look at the Near East today you see what became of old Judaism. The Romans tried to turn it into NT Christianity but they failed. It worked for people under their influence but the problem is that people in the Near East had first hand and close up experience of "Jesus" and they adopted different sorts of religions which are like NT Christianity but see Jesus as, in some sects, a real person, not born of a virgin.

So, what happened? There was a collapse of the centre of the "world system" and that gave rise to a new development. The Kingdoms collapsed and the people who remained, dirt poor bedouins, rose up against their rulers. In the wake of this, Islam was written up as a religion to take advantage of and consolidate this. But, the underlying ideas of this movement come out of Near Eastern, Judaic monotheism.

Look at Gaza and Isis. The same dilemma presents itself today. This old religion with its militancy just won't go away. What is the best way of dealing with this so it goes away forever? The issues are ideological and one can easily see how the way forward has to be to change the way these militants see the world.

That is what the NT is. It is an ideological work intended to get this primitive religion to worship a figure who was at once a recognized leader of these people and also peaceful and pro-Roman.

Sorry, the idea of some "Yeshua" figure just doesn't cut it with me anymore. Not only is there no evidence of this figure but it just doesn't deal with a hundred year war with the Jews and the events of the Jewish revolt. It doesn't take into account that there was, in fact, someone called Jesus, on the scene, who fed the poor, was a high priest, a military leader and was probably the person Josephus took down from the cross.

The problem I have here, on this forum, is that I can see what Ellis is saying. I don't know enough to say he is entirely correct. However, where he mentions things I have read elsewhere, he reports things as I have read elsewhere.

I just reread bits of his King of Edessa book and was amazed at what he said about Hamas. He is criticized for being a "presentist" but one of the things he drove home in the book was the background and ideas of Hamas and what he says about them turned out to be entirely correct.

I think it is extremely important that we get to grips with what Islam is all about. Do many people actualy realize, for instance, that the disagreement between Sunnis and Shia muslims stems among other things from the view that Shia believe in the second coming of Jesus:

I said, ‘Verily, Jesus will descend to the world before the Resurrection Day, then the people of the Jewish nation or Christian nation will not remain [on the earth] unless they believe in him before their death and will pray behind al-Mahdi.’ He said, ‘Woe unto you! Where did you bring it from?’ I said, ‘Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib (‘a) narrated it to me.’ He said, ‘By Allah! You brought it from a pure spring.’”1 http://www.al-islam.org/jesus-though-shi...ond-coming

Then there is Syria which is ruled by the Alawi who are some kind of crypto-Christian sect, but we don't know because they are so secretive, only they know what they are. People think they are Muslims. Who knows?

My own view is that talk of who Jesus was is largely irrelevant. At some point there will be more of an academic interest in Jesus of Gamala et al and religious places like Sanliurfa and Gobleki Tepe.

For me, I am now of the view that the religions of Egypt and the near east and Rome were astrological inseminating/phallic religions and that Judaism comes from paganisic Tau worship. This became a predominant sect which spread across the Near East and the centre of the ancient world in what is now Turkey, and Iran. It challenged Rome in strength and where they met was in Judea, Syria and southern Turkey and this brought about a 100 year long war which brought the Flavians to power in Rome and the development of the NT as an antidote to the prevailing militant religion of the Near East. I think this new Roman religion is Hellenistic, Essene and Gnostic and is much like Epicureanism which had waned with the coming of the Claudians.

GaspWeepingFacepalmBowingThumbsup I thought I would get those in first.

"My own view is that talk of who Jesus was is largely irrelevant."

Well, yes, other than that the world is full of Jesus freaks polluting kid's thoughts, oppressing women, badmouthing homosexuals, stonewalling science, attacking non-Christians, and with the potential to start nuclear warfare.
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
19-09-2014, 03:34 AM
RE: The great josephus interpolation
(18-09-2014 09:15 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  "the NT was in Latin."

Um... Don't you mean it was translated into Latin, as it is universally accepted that NT was originally written in Greek?

~~~No, I was writing abouts the Saxons spoke a Germanic language but the NT was in Latin. The Saxons would never have come into contact with the NT written in Greek although that is the language it was originally written in:

Bible translations into Latin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Bible translations into Latin are the versions used in the Western part of the former Roman Empire until the Reformation and still used, along with translations from Latin into the vernacular, in the Roman Catholic Church and particularly in the Latin Rite.


"The real problem you have is that Armenians adopted Christianity in the first century..."

Evidence?

~~~Religion in Armenia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Armenia religiosity
Armenian Apostolic

Up to 95% of Armenians follow Christianity. Armenia has its own church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, which most Armenians follow. It was founded in the 1st century AD,


"and were being persecuted by 110AD."

Evidence?

~~~Near the end of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd centuries, members of the Voskyan and Sukiasian families continued the preaching of St. Thaddeus. A portion of the history about the martyrdom of these Saints has been preserved until today. The author of the historic account is the historian Tatian (2nd century), who was well acquainted with all the stories of the apostles and the first Christian preachers. His references on the preachers and martyrs in Armenia are of great value.
According to the historical account, before the martyrdom of the Apostle St. Thaddeus, he converted and baptized five men, who were originally Armenian ambassadors to the Roman Empire representing King Sanatruk. After the martyrdom of St. Thaddeus, they escaped to a remote area near the mouth of the Euphates river, in the ravines of Tsaghkehats, were they remained for roughly 40 years. They were led by Voski, whose name they bore, and they are referred to collectively as the Voskyan Priests. During the reign of King Artashes, they visited his palace and began preaching the Gospel to the Royal Court. Artashes, who was at war in the East, asked the preachers to visit him again after his return, in order to continue their conversation about Christ. In the king’s absence, they converted to Christianity some princes from the country of Alan, who had come to visit Queen Satenik. Among these noblemen were members of the Queen’s family, the Sukiasian. The Voskyan Priests were martyred by the king’s sons because of their new faith. The Alan Princes having become Christians, left the palace and settled on the slopes of Mount Jrabashkh, where they lived for 44 years. By the order of the Alan king, they were martyred along with their leaders who are collectively referred to as St. Sukiasiank.
Additional information on the beginning of Christianity in Armenia is recorded in various historical accounts.
In the book "Against the Jews," written in 197 by Tertullian, he spoke of the nations who had adopted Christianity: the Parthians, Lydians, Phrygians, Cappadocians, and the Armenians. This testimony is also confirmed by the blessed St. Augustine (+430), in his work, "Against Manichaeans."
At the end of the 2nd and at the beginning of the 3rd centuries Kings Vagharsh II (186-196). Chosroes (Khosrov) I (196-216) and their successors persecuted the Christians in Armenia. These persecutions were described by Firmillian, the bishop of Cappadocian Caesarea (230-268) in his book "History of the Persecutions of the Church."


"Jews wrote of him as a person."

Evidence, and please make it contemporary?

~~~Various works of classical Jewish rabbinic literature are thought to contain references to Jesus, including some uncensored manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud. Wiki. I was making the point that different religions and cultures see Jesus as a real historical figure. It's only recently and in a small field of mythicism that this idea that they were all wrong has become prevalent and it is only in response to the fact that so many Christians find themselves wanting to say that because they don't believe in miracles and virgin birth (after believing in it) that there is no underlying historical figure.

If one looks at the NT as a work of Hellenistic thinkers who were using this fictionalized character to change the militant pagan messianic monotheists into people who followed something resembling Epicureanism.

Again, I think all this huge effort to undermine Christianity in this particular way is a waste of time if it is, as Atwill and Ellis say, a Hellenistic political doctrine designed to win over militant pagans to a peaceful religion.

What is striking about Christianity as opposed to Judaism and Islam, is that Christianity is brimming with moral advice based on a philosophy resembling the categorical imperative, whereas Judaism is based on a jealous god giving people long lists of do's and don'ts followed by an "or else". Islam takes this to a higher or lower level with its admonitions to shave one's pubic hair, or else.

The problem with Christianity is that so many people are too stupid to realize that the supernatural parts of the NT are only there to make them, the stupid ones, follow a moral philosophy based on the golden rule. I think the NT is like that by design and out of the necessity of the era in which it was invented and not by some fluke that followers of some unknown lay preacher/carpenter wrote massively contradictory versions of his life while consistently putting forward a sophisticated and rational moral philosophy (for its time).

"Various works of classical Jewish rabbinic literature are thought to contain references to Jesus, including some uncensored manuscripts of the Babylonian Talmud. Wiki. I was making the point that different religions and cultures see Jesus as a real historical figure."

Ok. So...please quote them. You got me interested.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2014, 07:40 PM
RE: The great josephus interpolation
Quote:Some time around 1200 BCE, these tribes were loosely aligned together. A “Judge” organized them into a “Tribal Confederation.” Judges could be either men or women. Before this confederation formed, each tribe was independent, and there was no notion of “Israel.”


Actually, the evidence is that c 1200 BC various small hamlets were formed in the Eastern Hill Country. Israel Finkelstein finds the evidence to support the idea that they were pastoral nomads who settled down after their trading partners were obliterated by the Sea People raids on the coastal polities. William Dever suggests that they were refugees from the aforementioned Sea People attacks who fled eastward and that is where they stopped running. Oddly, both scenarios are plausible for reasons which are too complicated to go into here.

In any case, the OT is a huge steaming turd. You're right about that, Mark.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: