Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-04-2013, 07:36 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
Fucking guy... I go to get me some Josephus... and it's fifty-two hundred pages. Man, that fool had some neck. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
06-04-2013, 08:15 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(06-04-2013 11:56 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 02:05 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hey Ralph, I've never read anywhere that Bar Kockbar was a Nazarene....in fact I've read he definitely wasn't.
My friend and author Douglas Lockhart has written extensively on the Nazarenes. You will find this summary interesting...

http://douglaslockhart.com/pdf/THE%20NAZ...20SECT.pdf

PS I've always understood the Jews returned to Jerusalem in the years after the first revolt. Do you have any evidence that they were permanently banned?


Actually, this article just about confirms that Bar Kockba was Nazarene, as I have suggested. It says:

It was a well-known historical fact that the Church at Jerusalem had been run by Nazoraeans right up until AD 135, that they had left the city only once in 102 years (due to the city's capture by Titus in AD 70)

AD 135 being the date of the Bar Kokhba uprising.



This is actually a very good article. It is one of the first I have seen that understands the true distinction between Jesus' Nazarene sect, and Saul's Simple Judaists (proto Christians) - and the animosity and battles between these two groups. It is the first I have seen (after myself) to correctly understand that the Roman persecution by Nero was against Nazoreans, rather than Simple Judaists. And it is likewise the first (after myself) to understand that the Nazoreans were following the Jesus bloodline. etc: etc: and etc:

Nice article.



.

Ralph, I'm pleased you liked the article.

I think you'll find that your assertion that the Nazarenes were followers of Bar Kockba is incorrect. If you google the topic there are many commentators who state the opposite. Here is one
http://www.yashanet.com/library/temple/nazarenes.htm
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
06-04-2013, 08:51 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(06-04-2013 12:14 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 06:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ralph, you claim, without explanation, that Josephus wrote "most of the Talmud"

I hope you agree that josephus was a first century historian. Please note that the Talmud was written at the very earliest in the second century.


As usual, I am outside the box here, and well ahead of the pack.

I just noted that the primary rabbi around whom the Talmud orbits, is Johanan ben Zakkai. Johannan is a first century rabbi who was in Jerusalem during the great siege in AD 70, but was smuggled out in a coffin and was delivered to Vespasian. He then bestowed the emperorship upon Vespasian, the same as Josephus did. He then became the leader of Judaism, after the fall of Jerusalem, the same as Saul-Josephus became the leader of Christianity.

I simply noted that Johannan's surrender to Vespasian, is exactly the same as Josephus' surrender to Vespasian at Jotapata. And the friends and concerns of Johannan are exactly the same as Saul-Josephus (Jesus of Gamala, the Boethus sisters, the siege of Jerusalem etc: ).

Think about it. After Jerusalem fell in AD 70, there was only one Jew that Vespasian and Titus trusted, and that was Josephus Flavius. And Josephus was given the 'university' and sanhedrin Jabneh as a scriptorium to produce his many books, and it was from Jabneh that much of the Talmud was derived - from Johannan ben Zakkai.


It is clear from all of this that Josephus Flavius has modeled much of the modern world around us - the most influential person in the last 3,000 years.

.. As Josephus, he helped instal Vespasian on the Throne of Rome, and wrote the secular history of Judaea.
.. As Saul-Paul he created Christianity almost single-handedly.
.. As Johannan ben Zakkai he created modern Judaism in his style.**

You have to hand it to the untrustworthy old quisling, he had good reason to be smug egotist.



** You will note that modern Judaism does not make roast animal sacrifices, as Josephus mocked them.



.

Hi Ralph, I'm not convinced Johannan ben Zakkai wrote the talmud under Josephus' direction. I can't see anywhere that Johannan ben Zakkai is considered to be the author of the Talmud, despite me looking at numerous articles about this.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14213-talmud
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Ra...muds.shtml

Didn't Josephus and this character live in different parts of the world?

Also, I can't imagine that Josephus helped install Vespasian on the Roman throne. Surely it was Vespasian who provided Josephus with his power and legitimacy, not the other way around.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
06-04-2013, 08:55 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(06-04-2013 08:15 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 11:56 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Actually, this article just about confirms that Bar Kockba was Nazarene, as I have suggested. It says:

It was a well-known historical fact that the Church at Jerusalem had been run by Nazoraeans right up until AD 135, that they had left the city only once in 102 years (due to the city's capture by Titus in AD 70)

AD 135 being the date of the Bar Kokhba uprising.



This is actually a very good article. It is one of the first I have seen that understands the true distinction between Jesus' Nazarene sect, and Saul's Simple Judaists (proto Christians) - and the animosity and battles between these two groups. It is the first I have seen (after myself) to correctly understand that the Roman persecution by Nero was against Nazoreans, rather than Simple Judaists. And it is likewise the first (after myself) to understand that the Nazoreans were following the Jesus bloodline. etc: etc: and etc:

Nice article.



.

Ralph, I'm pleased you liked the article.

I think you'll find that your assertion that the Nazarenes were followers of Bar Kockba is incorrect. If you google the topic there are many commentators who state the opposite. Here is one
http://www.yashanet.com/library/temple/nazarenes.htm

PS I've just reread the whole article. Nowhere does it say that the Nazarenes were followers of Bar Kockba.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
06-04-2013, 09:32 PM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 09:41 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(06-04-2013 01:47 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  .

>>So ...James was the brother of Jesus.
>>But didn't you claim King Izas (who you say is Jesus) was an "only begotten son?"

Indeed, but you need to understand Josephus' sense of humor. He was not simply duping his new converts, he of the great ego was laughing at their stupidity too.

This Only Begotten Son was Monogenes, in Greek, meaning "Only Child".
But when the child grew up he became Monobazus, in Greek, meaning "Only King" (or "Forsaken King")
Monobazus was, of course, the King of Adiabene (Edessa).

But I am sure there is another layer of wit in this cryptic code, because one can easily read:

Mono-Bazus meaning Only King
or,
Manu Bazus meaning King Manu of Edessa

Thus when Manugenes grew up he became Manubazus, or King Manu VI of Edessa. Ho, ho - all hail to the quicksilver-quilled wordsmith.






>>When I google "Izas-Monobazuz the elder" I get ONE reference.

You will have to read Josephus' Antiquities: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2848/pg2848.txt

The king of Adiabene was King Monobazus, and his son was King Izates, who Josephus also calls Izas for short (in the Greek text). However, if you go through Josephus' accounts, Monobazus becomes Izates and Izates becomes Monobazus, in a sort of random fashion.

The answer to this riddle is that this royal family had the same names. It is like sorting out Emperor Vespasian and Emperor Titus, who also had exactly the same names - Titus Flavius Vespasianus.
So I have labeled the Adiabene family for convenience as:
Monobazus-Izas the elder (the father, reigned AD 14 - AD 50)
Izas-Monobazus I (James, reigned AD 50 - AD 57)
Izas-Monobazus II (Jesus, reigned AD 57 - AD 70)

But remember that these are merely Josephus' pseudonyms for this family, and we know this because the mother of the Adiabene and Edessan royal families was the same person - Queen Helena. (She was the wife of King Monobazus of Adiabene and the wife of King Abgarus of Edessa.) So historically their names were:

King Abgarus au Kama V (Monobazus-Izas)
King Manu V (James) (Izas-Monobazus V, with Manubazus probably meaning "King Manu")
King Izas Manu VI (Jesus EmManuuel) (Izas-Monobazus VI, with Manubazus probably meaning "King Manu")






>>I'm no expert on Josephus, but I can't see why "James" has to
>>be someone else. Why can't "James" be...um..."James."

Because he was not "James", he was "Yakob" (with Yakob being an old name of some of the pharaohs of Egypt).
See the problem? The gospels are littered with changes in language.

Besides, Saul-Josephus did not want you to know that the Edessan royal family and the biblical royal family were one and the same, so the names had to change a bit.

So Izas became Jesus, Manu became EmManuel, Shalmath became Almah. et: etc:





>>Please enlighten me on what a "Spira" is.

My misspelling. It is a cohort. It comes from Jesus' capture on the Mount of Olives:

Judas then, having received a spiera of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Joh 18:3

But a spiera is 600 heavily armed legionnaires, so the question is why did it take a whole spiera to capture Jesus and just 12 disciples (and a naked boy)?** Answer? Jesus had 30,000 armed men with him, as Josephus clearly says.

Gospels:
And (Jesus) went to the Mount of Olives ... a band of men and officers from
the chief priests and Pharisees, came with lanterns and torches and weapons
... the disciples said. ‘shall we smite them with the sword?’ ... Then Jesus said
unto the chief priests, ‘do you come to us, like against a Zealot, with swords
and staves?’
Math 26:47, Mr 14:43 etc:

Josephus:
(The Egyptian) got together thirty thousand men ... on the Mount of Olives,
and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place ... But Felix
prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers.
War 2:262




>>I much prefer your idea that Josephus supervised the writing of
>>the gospels rather than writing them himself. I don't think there's
>>any linguistic evidence the four gospels were written by the same author.

There is a very good analysis by a Swedish lady. i will try and find it.




>>Who, if anyone, are the other brothers and sisters of Jesus
>>frequently mentioned in the Gospels?

James, Jude, Joset (Joseph) and Simon, plus two sisters.




>>Are you aware that the Emperor Domitian (81-96) sort some of these
>>men out and interviewed them, as he imagined they were descended
>>from David and therefore potential future messiahs?

They were the sons of Jesus and James (all the disciples had sister-wives, in the Egyptian tradition.)




>>Please explain Pontius Pilate's and Herod's and Caiaphas' appearances
>>in the gospels if the story is based in the 60's, not the early 30's.

Pilate had to be added to the text, to distance Jesus chronologically from the Jewish Revolt.

Not sure about Caiaphas, as I am fairly sure that Caiaphas and Cephas are the same title. The Nazorean creed was all about stones, or rather sacred meteorites, which is why Simon was called Peter Cephas (Simon the Stone Stone). It is also why the Jewish holy day is called Yom Kippur (the Day of the Stone).

In my analysis, many of the priests of Judaea would have had the title Cephas (the Stone) (just as Jesus was the rejected stone that became the corner-stone), because that is what the Nazarenes venerated -- the Elagabal stone (a sacred meterorite) that was eventually taken to Rome by Emperor Elagabalus (and a piece is still in Mecca to this day).




** The Church has not changed....


.

You wrote...
"Indeed, but you need to understand Josephus' sense of humor. He was not simply duping his new converts, he of the great ego was laughing at their stupidity too."

Um...what's the joke? You claimed your character was an only child, now you're saying he had a brother.

You wrote...
"Because he was not "James", he was "Yakob" (with Yakob being an old name of some of the pharaohs of Egypt).
See the problem?"

NO. What "problem?" I'm well aware Yakob was his real name.

"The gospels are littered with changes in language."
I'm talking about a quote from Josephus, not the gospels.

"James, Jude, Joset (Joseph) and Simon, plus two sisters."
Well, yes, we know these names are in the gospels. What I'm wondering is, as you believe that the characters in the gospels are, in reality, somebody else (eg Jesus is king Izas, Mary is Helena), who are these people?

"Not sure about Caiaphas, as I am fairly sure that Caiaphas and Cephas are the same title."
BUT....Caiaphas is listed as high priest from 18 to 36.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hig..._of_Israel

"The Nazorean creed was all about stones, or rather sacred meteorites,"
Can you provide a reference for this? I've read literally hundreds of articles and numerous books about the Nazarenes, and have never heard this before.

I agree with you that it's very interesting that a cohort of soldiers was required to arrest Jesus. I'm sure he was trying to start a war in Jerusalem and had many armed supporters with him at the time of his arrest. I'll cut-and-paste my spiel on this for your interest.

Yeshua’s Arrest
Yeshua and his entourage were easily outmaneuvered. The Romans swooped on them in the garden of Gethsemane while Jewish residents slept. John claimed a cohort of soldiers was consigned to collar him:
“Judas the traitor knew the place well, since Jesus had often met his disciples there, and he brought the cohort to this place together with a detachment of guards sent by the chief priests and Pharisees, all with lanterns and torches and weapons” (John 18:3 JB). Judas had betrayed him to the Romans. A cohort was six hundred Roman soldiers, one tenth of a legion. Pilate wouldn’t have sent this many men to arrest an agreeable, unarmed, peace-loving preacher who thought he was God. Yeshua was a big fish with an entourage of admirers, and a city packed with potential patrons, so he needed to be decisively dealt with before things got out of hand.

Some of his disciples were with him at the time of his arrest. One or more of them was supposed to be on watch. It must have been intimidating to have that many soldiers tramping toward you in the dead of night, torchlight reflecting off their swords and armor, shining up a silhouette of trees in the distance. It was no contest. There may have been a minor scuffle, but it’s obvious most of his mates dashed off into the dark, leaving him to his fate. They were taken by surprise, outplayed by a more experienced and professional opposition. Much is made in the Gospels about the guilt Peter felt at abandoning Jesus. There were others in the troop too terrified to put their lives on the line, and they must have felt just as guilty.

Yeshua supposedly surrendered meekly. He was trumped before he’d made his master move. He was taken into custody and unable to issue instructions. His allies had let him down, and he must have known what was in store. Luke claimed he was sweating blood (Luke 22; 44), which is not physiologically possible. Luke was trying to tell how terrified Jesus was about his impending crucifixion.

Yeshua would’ve felt abandoned not only by his friends but also by his god. His work and dreams had come to nothing, and I imagine he may have played the last card of a wretched man by begging his god for a miracle.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
06-04-2013, 09:39 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(06-04-2013 09:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 01:47 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  .

>>So ...James was the brother of Jesus.
>>But didn't you claim King Izas (who you say is Jesus) was an "only begotten son?"

Indeed, but you need to understand Josephus' sense of humor. He was not simply duping his new converts, he of the great ego was laughing at their stupidity too.

This Only Begotten Son was Monogenes, in Greek, meaning "Only Child".
But when the child grew up he became Monobazus, in Greek, meaning "Only King" (or "Forsaken King")
Monobazus was, of course, the King of Adiabene (Edessa).

But I am sure there is another layer of wit in this cryptic code, because one can easily read:

Mono-Bazus meaning Only King
or,
Manu Bazus meaning King Manu of Edessa

Thus when Manugenes grew up he became Manubazus, or King Manu VI of Edessa. Ho, ho - all hail to the quicksilver-quilled wordsmith.






>>When I google "Izas-Monobazuz the elder" I get ONE reference.

You will have to read Josephus' Antiquities: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/2848/pg2848.txt

The king of Adiabene was King Monobazus, and his son was King Izates, who Josephus also calls Izas for short (in the Greek text). However, if you go through Josephus' accounts, Monobazus becomes Izates and Izates becomes Monobazus, in a sort of random fashion.

The answer to this riddle is that this royal family had the same names. It is like sorting out Emperor Vespasian and Emperor Titus, who also had exactly the same names - Titus Flavius Vespasianus.
So I have labeled the Adiabene family for convenience as:
Monobazus-Izas the elder (the father, reigned AD 14 - AD 50)
Izas-Monobazus I (James, reigned AD 50 - AD 57)
Izas-Monobazus II (Jesus, reigned AD 57 - AD 70)

But remember that these are merely Josephus' pseudonyms for this family, and we know this because the mother of the Adiabene and Edessan royal families was the same person - Queen Helena. (She was the wife of King Monobazus of Adiabene and the wife of King Abgarus of Edessa.) So historically their names were:

King Abgarus au Kama V (Monobazus-Izas)
King Manu V (James) (Izas-Monobazus V, with Manubazus probably meaning "King Manu")
King Izas Manu VI (Jesus EmManuuel) (Izas-Monobazus VI, with Manubazus probably meaning "King Manu")






>>I'm no expert on Josephus, but I can't see why "James" has to
>>be someone else. Why can't "James" be...um..."James."

Because he was not "James", he was "Yakob" (with Yakob being an old name of some of the pharaohs of Egypt).
See the problem? The gospels are littered with changes in language.

Besides, Saul-Josephus did not want you to know that the Edessan royal family and the biblical royal family were one and the same, so the names had to change a bit.

So Izas became Jesus, Manu became EmManuel, Shalmath became Almah. et: etc:





>>Please enlighten me on what a "Spira" is.

My misspelling. It is a cohort. It comes from Jesus' capture on the Mount of Olives:

Judas then, having received a spiera of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Joh 18:3

But a spiera is 600 heavily armed legionnaires, so the question is why did it take a whole spiera to capture Jesus and just 12 disciples (and a naked boy)?** Answer? Jesus had 30,000 armed men with him, as Josephus clearly says.

Gospels:
And (Jesus) went to the Mount of Olives ... a band of men and officers from
the chief priests and Pharisees, came with lanterns and torches and weapons
... the disciples said. ‘shall we smite them with the sword?’ ... Then Jesus said
unto the chief priests, ‘do you come to us, like against a Zealot, with swords
and staves?’
Math 26:47, Mr 14:43 etc:

Josephus:
(The Egyptian) got together thirty thousand men ... on the Mount of Olives,
and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place ... But Felix
prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers.
War 2:262




>>I much prefer your idea that Josephus supervised the writing of
>>the gospels rather than writing them himself. I don't think there's
>>any linguistic evidence the four gospels were written by the same author.

There is a very good analysis by a Swedish lady. i will try and find it.




>>Who, if anyone, are the other brothers and sisters of Jesus
>>frequently mentioned in the Gospels?

James, Jude, Joset (Joseph) and Simon, plus two sisters.




>>Are you aware that the Emperor Domitian (81-96) sort some of these
>>men out and interviewed them, as he imagined they were descended
>>from David and therefore potential future messiahs?

They were the sons of Jesus and James (all the disciples had sister-wives, in the Egyptian tradition.)




>>Please explain Pontius Pilate's and Herod's and Caiaphas' appearances
>>in the gospels if the story is based in the 60's, not the early 30's.

Pilate had to be added to the text, to distance Jesus chronologically from the Jewish Revolt.

Not sure about Caiaphas, as I am fairly sure that Caiaphas and Cephas are the same title. The Nazorean creed was all about stones, or rather sacred meteorites, which is why Simon was called Peter Cephas (Simon the Stone Stone). It is also why the Jewish holy day is called Yom Kippur (the Day of the Stone).

In my analysis, many of the priests of Judaea would have had the title Cephas (the Stone) (just as Jesus was the rejected stone that became the corner-stone), because that is what the Nazarenes venerated -- the Elagabal stone (a sacred meterorite) that was eventually taken to Rome by Emperor Elagabalus (and a piece is still in Mecca to this day).




** The Church has not changed....


.

You wrote...
"Indeed, but you need to understand Josephus' sense of humor. He was not simply duping his new converts, he of the great ego was laughing at their stupidity too."

Um...what's the joke? You claimed your character was an only child, now you're saying he had a brother.

You wrote...
"Because he was not "James", he was "Yakob" (with Yakob being an old name of some of the pharaohs of Egypt).
See the problem?"

NO. What "problem?" I'm well aware Yakob was his real name.

"The gospels are littered with changes in language."
I'm talking about a quote from Josephus, not the gospels.

"James, Jude, Joset (Joseph) and Simon, plus two sisters."
Well, yes, we know these names are in the gospels. What I'm wondering is, as you believe that the characters in the gospels are, in reality, somebody else (eg Jesus is king Izas, Mary is Helena), who are these people?

"Not sure about Caiaphas, as I am fairly sure that Caiaphas and Cephas are the same title."
BUT....Caiaphas is listed as high priest from 18 to 36.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hig..._of_Israel

"The Nazorean creed was all about stones, or rather sacred meteorites,"
Can you provide a reference for this? I've read literally hundreds of articles and numerous books about the Nazarenes, and have never heard this before.

I agree with you that it's very interesting that a cohort of soldiers was required to arrest Jesus. I'm sure he was trying to start a war in Jerusalem and had numerous armed supporters with him at the time of his arrest. I'll cut-and-paste my spiel on this for your interest.

Yeshua’s Arrest
Yeshua and his entourage were easily outmaneuvered. The Romans swooped on them in the garden of Gethsemane while Jewish residents slept. John claimed a cohort of soldiers was consigned to collar him:
“Judas the traitor knew the place well, since Jesus had often met his disciples there, and he brought the cohort to this place together with a detachment of guards sent by the chief priests and Pharisees, all with lanterns and torches and weapons” (John 18:3 JB). Judas had betrayed him to the Romans. A cohort was six hundred Roman soldiers, one tenth of a legion. Pilate wouldn’t have sent this many men to arrest an agreeable, unarmed, peace-loving preacher who thought he was God. Yeshua was a big fish with an entourage of admirers, and a city packed with potential patrons, so he needed to be decisively dealt with before things got out of hand.

Some of his disciples were with him at the time of his arrest. One or more of them was supposed to be on watch. It must have been intimidating to have that many soldiers tramping toward you in the dead of night, torchlight reflecting off their swords and armor, shining up a silhouette of trees in the distance. It was no contest. There may have been a minor scuffle, but it’s obvious most of his mates dashed off into the dark, leaving him to his fate. They were taken by surprise, outplayed by a more experienced and professional opposition. Much is made in the Gospels about the guilt Peter felt at abandoning Jesus. There were others in the troop too terrified to put their lives on the line, and they must have felt just as guilty.

Yeshua supposedly surrendered meekly. He was trumped before he’d made his master move. He was taken into custody and unable to issue instructions. His allies had let him down, and he must have known what was in store. Luke claimed he was sweating blood (Luke 22; 44), which is not physiologically possible. Luke was trying to tell how terrified Jesus was about his impending crucifixion.

Yeshua would’ve felt abandoned not only by his friends but also by his god. His work and dreams had come to nothing, and I imagine he may have played the last card of a wretched man by begging his god for a miracle.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
07-04-2013, 03:36 AM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 04:24 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
..

Here is the textural analysis of the New Testament I was looking for. It is a 2005 analysis, so some 7 years after mine.

Lena Einhorn here compares the NT and Josephus, with the implication that this is the same material. In some respects her analysis is more convincing than mine, as she uses bar-charts to document the events on a chronological time scale. It graphically demonstrates what I have been saying.

Her conclusion, of course, is that the NT events happened in the AD 60s, and there are great similarities between Luke-Acts and Josephus. It is well worth a read.


Lena Einhorn, PhD
http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads....11.25.pdf




Here is Einhorn's chronological comparison of the Mount of Olives battle.
Note that the gospels give an AD 30s date (as they would have to do), while Josephus gives as AD 60s date (which is the correct answer).

.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Find all posts by this user
07-04-2013, 04:12 AM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 04:22 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(06-04-2013 08:51 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi Ralph, I'm not convinced Johannan ben Zakkai wrote the talmud under Josephus' direction. I can't see anywhere that Johannan ben Zakkai is considered to be the author of the Talmud, despite me looking at numerous articles about this.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14213-talmud
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Ra...muds.shtml

Didn't Josephus and this character live in different parts of the world?


There were two Talmuds, the Babylonian and the Jerusalem Talmuds. About half of the 1st century comments in the Talmud are by Johannan ben Zakkai - and he was in Jerusalem during the siege in AD 70, and so he it intimately connected to this city and to these events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Talmud

And if you think that someone remembered all of Johannan's complicated observations for 100 years before they were written down, you have another think coming. The Jews wrote everything down, and Johannan would have done likewise.

And the primary scriptorium and sanhedrin in this era was the Roman controlled institute run by Josephus in Jabneh, where all the other texts were written. Which is one of many reasons why Johannan is Josephus. And if you think modern Judaism is going to acknowledge that their religion was founded by the duplicitous Saul-Josephus, there is another thought coming your way.


As an aside, the Babylonian Talmud was written in Pumbetheta in Iraq. This city is now called Fallujah, and how many Jews are left there today after the Muslim persecution and exile of the Babylonian Jews? Some 500,000 were exiled after 1947, ending 2,500 years of Iraq being substantially Jewish.




(06-04-2013 08:51 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Also, I can't imagine that Josephus helped install Vespasian on the Roman throne. Surely it was Vespasian who provided Josephus with his power and legitimacy, not the other way around.


Far from it. Saul-Josephus was not only an aristocrat and army commander, he was also (pretending to be) a prophet with considerable powers of foresight. This was a man who, although a Jewish captive, was influential enough to see Vespasian and Titus in private and tell them that he had been sent by god himself to bestow the emperorship upon Vespasian.

This is why I said earlier that Johannan ben Zakkai bestowed the emperorship upon Vespasian, because as ambassadors of god, that is exactly what they both did. Both Johannan and Josephus held the divine power to bestow the Star Prophesy upon Vespasian - and yet the Star Prophesy originally belonged to Jesus.

And since the surrender of both Josephus Flavius and Johannan ben Zakkai were remarkably similar, and their meeting before Vespasian was almost identical, you can see why I say they were the same person. The only difference is that Johannan surrendered at Jerusalem while Josephus surrendered at Jotapata.


When Josephus heard him give those orders, he said that he had
somewhat in his mind that he would willingly say to himself alone. When
therefore they were all ordered to withdraw, excepting Titus and two of
their friends, he said, "Thou, O Vespasian, thinkest no more than
that thou hast taken Josephus himself captive; but I come to thee as a
messenger of greater tidings; for had not I been sent by God to thee
,
I knew what was the law of the Jews in this case?

Thou, O Vespasian, art Caesar and emperor,
thou, and this thy son. Bind me now still faster,
and keep me for thyself, for thou, O Caesar, are not only lord over me,
but over the land and the sea, and all mankind; and certainly I deserve
to be kept in closer custody than I now am in, in order to be punished,
if I rashly affirm any thing of God."

When he had said this, Vespasian
at present did not believe him, but supposed that Josephus said this as
a cunning trick, in order to his own preservation; but in a little time
he was convinced, and believed what he said to be true, God himself
erecting his expectations, so as to think of obtaining the empire, and
by other signs fore-showing his advancement.
JW 3:8:9




.
Find all posts by this user
07-04-2013, 04:20 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(06-04-2013 07:36 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fucking guy... I go to get me some Josephus... and it's fifty-two hundred pages. Man, that fool had some neck. Big Grin


That is one of the many problems with Josephusan scholarship... Big Grin

Then add to that the known fact that Josephus was sometimes covering things up and writing from a Roman propagandist perspective. And also that at least two very crude interpolations of text have been added (there was no AD 30s biblical Jesus here, so Eusebius added a reference to an AD 30s biblical Jesus.)

The preface to War clearly states that the first copies were sent to the Edessans 'beyond the Euphrates', to quell any thoughts of further revolt.


.
Find all posts by this user
07-04-2013, 04:37 AM (This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 04:47 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(06-04-2013 09:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Um...what's the joke? You claimed your character was an only child, now you're saying he had a brother.

I never said he was an only child. It was all wordplay, a joke. Even Josephus says that Izas - the Only Begotten Son - had an elder brother. Read what I said again.




(06-04-2013 09:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You wrote...
"Because he was not "James", he was "Yakob" (with Yakob being
an old name of some of the pharaohs of Egypt). See the problem?"

NO. What "problem?" I'm well aware Yakob was his real name.

"The gospels are littered with changes in language."
I'm talking about a quote from Josephus, not the gospels.

Do you think that Josephus was not similarly grappling with, and fully exploiting, the many changes in language before him? Josephus had spellings and pronunciations in Parthian Greek, Parthian Aramaic, Palmyran Aramaic, Judaean Aramaic and Syrian Greek - plus a smattering of Latin.

Why do you think that Josephus transliterates the Greek 'Monos Basileus' as 'Mono Bazus' (meaning Only King)? This not only represents a Parthian pronunciation of basileus, it also neatly covers up what the name means, except for a select few initiates.

And the deceit has worked. Unless you can show me otherwise, I am the first person to correctly translate Monobazus as meaning 'Only King'.




It is not only the Gospels and Josephus that have fun with wordplay, the Talmud is full of it. The Talmud says that Titus had an flying insect in his brain...

When Titus landed, the gnat
entered his nose, and it knocked against his brain for seven years. One day as
he was passing a blacksmith’s it heard the noise of the hammer and stopped.
He said; I see there is a remedy. So every day they brought a blacksmith who
hammered before him. If he was a non-Jew they gave him four coins, if he was
a Jew they said, ‘It is enough that you see the suffering of your enemy’.
(Gittin 55 - 57)


Vespasian ... Vespa-sian ... Wasp. Get it?? Oh never mind, please yourselves. (with apologies to the late and great Frankie Howerd)



.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: