Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2013, 03:45 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 03:59 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(03-04-2013 12:15 PM)Doctor X Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 11:22 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  So Jesus was in his 60s when he led the Jewish Revolt .

He did not lead the Jewish Revolt, son.
I refer you to the answers I gave previously.


There were 'two' leaders of the Revolt, old son, as related to us by Josephus.
One was called Jesus (of Gamala) and the other was called Izas (of Adiabene). For many reasons these are the same person, and this conflated Jesus-Izas was the biblical Jesus.

Jesus, as we know, was the leader of a Revolt:

And there was one named Barabbas which lay bound with them that had made Revolt with him (Jesus), who had committed murder in the Revolt. Mark 15:7

Committed murder in a Revolt, eh? And what Revolt was that, eh? The Jewish Revolt and civil war, of course.


And here is a description of that civil war

(Jesus said) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. Math 10:35

(Jesus said) But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them (as their king), bring them here and kill them in front of me. Luk 19:27

Sounds like a revolutionary leader involved in a civil war to me. Father and son at war with each other? When did that happen in Judaea? Ahh, yes, the Jewish Revolt.
And Jesus as a king (the King of the Jews), asking for his enemies to be killed in cold blood? Who would that have been? The Pauper Prince of Peace? I think not. In reality this was King Izas (of Adiabene), for he was indeed a powerful king and the leader of the Jewish Revolt in Judaea.


And here is a biblical description of the siege of Jerusalem, as narrated by Jesus-Izas:

(Jesus said) For the days shall come upon thee (Jerusalem), that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side. And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. Luk 19:43

The trench is the one built by Vespasian, during the siege of Jerusalem.
And just like the quote from Josephus I mentioned previously, Jesus likewise says that Jerusalem would be raised to the ground, with 'not one stone upon another'.
Actually, if you compare the Gospel of Luke with Josephus' Jewish War and Life , you will see a miriad of similarities.



Face facts, the Revolt Jesus was involved in, was the Jewish Revolt. This is why the Talmud compares Jesus with Titus, as being the destroyers of Israel. This is why the Talmud gets so animated about Jesus that is says he should have been boiled in semen and shit (yes, really). The rabbis would not have been quite so animated about some minor insurrection that utterly failed, but they would have been greatly upset about the destruction of their Temple and capital city.

The problem you have, is that you have been indoctrinated by the gospel authors, and 2,000 years of misinformation. The Christian clergy had to separate Jesus from the Jewish Revolt, and so they brought his history back by one generation. How could they preach: "pray for the pauper prince of peace who was persecuted by the horrible Romans", when he was the leader of the Jewish Revolt who attempted to end Roman rule in Judaea and who fought several major battles with the Romans?

The true Christian prayer would have been: "pray for the powerful Nazarene king of Adiabene who defeated the Romans, but then was defeated himself in the bloodiest siege and battle of the era". It doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?



.
Find all posts by this user
04-04-2013, 03:59 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
Ralph, who do you think were the original authors of the four now canonical gospels?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
04-04-2013, 04:09 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-04-2013 03:17 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 11:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sorry Ralph. Jerusalem was not destroyed in 70 CE. That happened after the bar Kochba revolt about 50 years later. The temple was, not the city.


Sorry, Buckyball, you need to read Josephus in more detail:

Quote:
Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came to the place believe it had ever been inhabited. War 7:1:1


People 'could not even believe it had been inhabited'. The implication is clear - Jerusalem was raised to the ground.


.

As I read your Josephus quote, there were parts of the city left standing, yet there was obviously serious destruction too. Don't forget, the western wall of the temple is still intact to this day.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
04-04-2013, 04:12 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-04-2013 03:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ralph, who do you think were the original authors of the four now canonical gospels?

The primary author was Saul-Josephus Flavius.

Saul-Josephus was the pet spin-meister of Vespasian, and Vespasian wanted to prevent another uprising in the east of the Empire. So he set Saul-Josephus writing the Jewish War, which basically said that: 'Rome was invincible, so quit revolting'.

These books were then sent not to Rome, nor to Judaea - but instead to Adiabene (ie: Edessa), which lay 'Beyond the Euphrates' (just as Edessa does indeed lay). Why? Because the Jewish Revolt was not 'Judaean', it was fomented and led by King Izas, the king of Adiabene (Edessa), as Josephus narrates at great length in Jewish War.


But in the guise of Saul, Josephus Flavius was also the leader of a new religious sect, Judaism for Gentiles or Simple Judaism. Unlike Nazarene Judaism, this was a Rome-friendly form of Judaism that could quell disputes and revolts in the Romand East. So Saul-Josephus also took this new Rome-friendly creed to Adiabene (Edessa) too. And this new creed eventually became Christianity.

For many reasons we know that these two works - Jewish War and the Gospels - were very closely linked, not least because they had the same 'publisher' (scriptorium). Remember that the publisher of Saul and the publisher of Josephus was most probably the same person - Epaphroditus.


.
Find all posts by this user
04-04-2013, 04:24 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 04:34 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-04-2013 04:09 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  .
As I read your Josephus quote, there were parts of the city left standing, yet there was obviously serious
destruction too. Don't forget, the western wall of the temple is still intact to this day.


Despite what they say, the Wailing Wall is not a wall, it is the foundation of the Temple Mount (and nothing to do with the Temple of Jerusalem itself).

The reason that the Jews wail at the foot of the Temple Mount, rather than where the Temple stood, is because no Jews are allowed to step foot on the Temple Mount, by Islamic law. Muslims can go there, and tourists can go there (and I expect that some more Western Jews pretend to be tourists), but an Orthodox Jew is not getting onto the Temple Mount - not without a lot of shaving. So Orthodox Jews wail below where the Temple stood, and not actually where it stood. Remember that it was Ariel Sharon going onto the Temple Mount (in a prearranged visit) that caused the Second Intifada Uprising.

As to the Temple itself - not one stone of the original Temple remains. The Dome of the Rock stands there now.



So yes, the Romans did try to destroy the Temple Mount, as you can see by the enormous blocks that they heaved over the edge. But it was simply too massive to destroy, and so they left it.


[Image: templestones.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
04-04-2013, 04:33 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
What about Paul's letters being dated before the revolt?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
04-04-2013, 04:34 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 04:43 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-04-2013 03:45 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 12:15 PM)Doctor X Wrote:  
He did not lead the Jewish Revolt, son.
I refer you to the answers I gave previously.


There were 'two' leaders of the Revolt, old son, as related to us by Josephus.
One was called Jesus (of Gamala) and the other was called Izas (of Adiabene). For many reasons these are the same person, and this conflated Jesus-Izas was the biblical Jesus.

Jesus, as we know, was the leader of a Revolt:

And there was one named Barabbas which lay bound with them that had made Revolt with him (Jesus), who had committed murder in the Revolt. Mark 15:7

Committed murder in a Revolt, eh? And what Revolt was that, eh? The Jewish Revolt and civil war, of course.


And here is a description of that civil war

(Jesus said) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. Math 10:35

(Jesus said) But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them (as their king), bring them here and kill them in front of me. Luk 19:27

Sounds like a revolutionary leader involved in a civil war to me. Father and son at war with each other? When did that happen in Judaea? Ahh, yes, the Jewish Revolt.
And Jesus as a king (the King of the Jews), asking for his enemies to be killed in cold blood? Who would that have been? The Pauper Prince of Peace? I think not. In reality this was King Izas (of Adiabene), for he was indeed a powerful king and the leader of the Jewish Revolt in Judaea.


And here is a biblical description of the siege of Jerusalem, as narrated by Jesus-Izas:

(Jesus said) For the days shall come upon thee (Jerusalem), that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side. And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. Luk 19:43

The trench is the one built by Vespasian, during the siege of Jerusalem.
And just like the quote from Josephus I mentioned previously, Jesus likewise says that Jerusalem would be raised to the ground, with 'not one stone upon another'.
Actually, if you compare the Gospel of Luke with Josephus' Jewish War and Life , you will see a miriad of similarities.



Face facts, the Revolt Jesus was involved in, was the Jewish Revolt. This is why the Talmud compares Jesus with Titus, as being the destroyers of Israel. This is why the Talmud gets so animated about Jesus that is says he should have been boiled in semen and shit (yes, really). The rabbis would not have been quite so animated about some minor insurrection that utterly failed, but they would have been greatly upset about the destruction of their Temple and capital city.

The problem you have, is that you have been indoctrinated by the gospel authors, and 2,000 years of misinformation. The Christian clergy had to separate Jesus from the Jewish Revolt, and so they brought his history back by one generation. How could they preach: "pray for the pauper prince of peace who was persecuted by the horrible Romans", when he was the leader of the Jewish Revolt who attempted to end Roman rule in Judaea and who fought several major battles with the Romans?

The true Christian prayer would have been: "pray for the powerful Nazarene king of Adiabene who defeated the Romans, but then was defeated himself in the bloodiest siege and battle of the era". It doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?



.

Ralph, I'm sure you're aware that ever since the Romans moved into Judea in, I think about 63 BC, there were revolts led by messianic Jewish messianic aspirants. There were significant skirmishes in Galilee in four BC and six A.D, as reported by Josephus. Do you accept that it's possible that the timing of the activities of Jesus is in fact correctly described by the gospels as being in the late 20s, early 30s?

My theory is that there was in fact an historical Jesus at this time and he did try to start a war with Rome. He failed miserably. It was only after the first Jewish war that his story was written up in the Gospels. I totally agree with you that there are events described in the gospels which could only be describing the first Jewish War of 66 to 70, for example the encircling of the city and the razing of the Temple. The gospels have Jesus predicting these things will happen within one generation i.e. about 40 years into the future, which would fit with Jesus being around in the 30s. (I don't for one minute believe that if there was a Jesus he predicted these things.)

I concur with Joseph Atwill and many other historians that the benign pacifist Messiah Jesus was in fact an invention created to undermine the dreams of messianic Jews after the first war. If the Messiah wasn't a militarily minded King of the Jews but rather a type of spirit – God who promised people the kingdom of heaven in the afterlife, the Jews would settle down and stop causing trouble for the government. That, of course, never happened, and there was another seriously large revolt in 132 CE.

Whether Jesus actually did his thing in the 30s or in the 60s is to my mind anyway not the major issue. The big point is that this story is a fabrication, a joke, a black comedy, and just manufactured propaganda. I think the world deserves to know that.

I'll be interested to hear your comments.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
04-04-2013, 04:41 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-04-2013 04:24 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 04:09 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  .
As I read your Josephus quote, there were parts of the city left standing, yet there was obviously serious
destruction too. Don't forget, the western wall of the temple is still intact to this day.


Despite what they say, the Wailing Wall is not a wall, it is the foundation of the Temple Mount (and nothing to do with the Temple of Jerusalem itself).

The reason that the Jews wail at the foot of the Temple Mount, rather than where the Temple stood, is because no Jews are allowed to step foot on the Temple Mount, by Islamic law. Muslims can go there, and tourists can go there (and I expect that some more Western Jews pretend to be tourists), but an Orthodox Jew is not getting onto the Temple Mount - not without a lot of shaving. So Orthodox Jews wail below where the Temple stood, and not actually where it stood. Remember that it was Ariel Sharon going onto the Temple Mount (in a prearranged visit) that caused the Second Intifada Uprising.

As to the Temple itself - not one stone of the original Temple remains. The Dome of the Rock stands there now.



So yes, the Romans did try to destroy the Temple Mount, as you can see by the enormous blocks that they heaved over the edge. But it was simply too massive to destroy, and so they left it.


[Image: templestones.jpg]

Good post...I agree.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
04-04-2013, 04:53 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-04-2013 04:33 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  .
What about Paul's letters being dated before the revolt?


Saul went on his tours of the Empire, from AD 52 to AD 56. (Saul was a youngster on these tours.) He then spent 7 years in Jail. He is then sent to Rome in AD 63 with some prisoners and is shipwrecked, and taken to Naples and Rome, where he meets with Nero.

Josephus spent may years in religious training (from AD 52 to AD 56?). He then misses out 7 years of his life. He is then sent to Rome in AD 63 with some prisoners and is shipwrecked, and taken to Naples and Rome, where he meets with Nero.


Saul-Josephus then had to skip Rome in a hurry, as he was implicated in the saga of the death of Poppaea, and arrives back in Judaea just at the outbreak of the Jewish Revolt. And since he then joined the rebels, as commander of Galilee fighting against Jesus (of Gamala), he was safe from Nero. But he swapped sides back to the Romans as soon as Nero was dead, and became the spin-meister and Jewish historian of Vespasian.



The Epistles (Letters) of Saul (Josephus) were written between AD 52 and AD 66, in the eastern Mediterranean or in Rome). And yes, this was before the crucifixion (of King Izas), which happened in AD 70 as Josephus clearly narrates in his Life.

This is why, if you read the Epistles, the one thing that is missing is the central history in Christianity - there is no clear narrative of the Jesus' Revolt, his Capture, his Trial, his Crucifixion and his Resurrection. What happened here? Did Saul (Josephus) simply forget the main details in the life of Jesus?

The truth is that the crucifixion had not yet happened and that is why, in the Epistles, all we have is a few one-line interpolations and mis-translations that may or may not refer to a crucifixion.



.
Find all posts by this user
04-04-2013, 04:57 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 05:04 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-04-2013 04:33 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  What about Paul's letters being dated before the revolt?

I think Paul's letters were written well before the first Jewish war. My opinion on this is that Paul was a Roman government agent who was creating theology to undermine the messianic expectations of Jews.

I've had long discussions with various people on the forum about this... I don't think Paul considered the historical Jesus to be his Christ. I know that sounds a little far-fetched but I think that Paul's letters were interpolated by zealous Christians many years later, and where he had written "Christ" the name "Jesus Christ" was inserted. This would explain why Paul never really mentioned anything that Jesus said or did ( other than for Paul's description of the Last Supper which I strongly suspect is a second century interpolation). In all of Paul's genuine letters, his Christ is a ghost, a spirit figure, a mythical son of God, a connection between God (Yahweh) and man, not a real human being.

As for Ralph's idea that call is actually Josephus, I've never heard that theory before and, with due respect to Ralph, he has failed to convince me. There are some similarities between Paul's life story and Josephus' life story, but all that means is that some inventive authors, such as the whoever strung together the book of Acts, have borrowed from Josephus to create Paul's supposed itinerary.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: