Poll: What's Jesus about?
Son of God, etc
Lowly preacher bigged up
Total myth, never existed
Based on real people and events to create a religion
King Arthur
[Show Results]
 
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-05-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(05-05-2014 11:51 AM)Leo Wrote:  Hey Geremy walker , are you the christard walker dude that was banned in the atheistforums.com website? The same christard that is trolling the atheist.org website ? Consider

I am waiting for the ban from this planet to take effect!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2014, 08:00 PM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2014 08:04 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(04-05-2014 10:31 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I decided to look at what Suetonius (Roman historian) said about Vespasian in his book "The Twelve Caesars", which I bought when I was at university studying classical political theory.

He says that there was an "ancient idea in Judea" that the "ruler of the world" would come from Judea. He then says that, in fact, it turned out that the ruler of the world would be Vespasian. So, it is well known orthodox history that there was a movement in Judea which believed that a Roman Emperor would emerge from Judea.

After this he says that this ancient idea gave rise to the Jewish revolt which Vespasian was sent to oppose.

Who was the leader of this revolt who Jews thought would be the ruler of the world, ie., Roman Emperor? Why do we know so little about this?

Suetonius then goes on to say that Jospephus was captured and told Vespasian that Vespasian would become ruler of the world, ie., Emperor of Rome.

Josephus was from Galilee and was the commander at Gamala, in Galilee. He took a friend off a cross. Galilee is the center of a sect called the Nazarites. Josephus is adopted by Vespasian and is a Nazarite.

Then, Vespasian adopts Christianity as his religion and makes members of his court "Saints". Josephus writes the Wars of the Jews in which he recounts the destruction of Jerusalem as foretold by someone called "Jesus Christ". So either Jesus was able to foretell the future, or did so by chance, a lucky guess, or the Jesus story is a later invention to make it look like Vespasian is the "Son of Man".

Hmmm....

Ah...yep.

This is not new news to most of us, but it's good stuff and well worth repeating.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2014, 01:23 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
At the risk of beating an already dead horse, I don't see what the big problem is here about Ellis. The problem I have with his theory is that, so far, I can't tie the three figures together, Jesus of Gamala, Izates of Edessa and King Agbar (sp?). I will have to read his book and see what I can make of it. Even if they are not the same person, though, I suppose it is not beyond the realms of possibility that features of each of them are incorporated into a fictional character. A bit like Robin Hood who some say is based on two characters. Or like Grandma Ewing on Dallas who becomes Donna Reed and then goes back to being Barbara Bellgedes. Hey, I think I have the answer.Laugh out load

Anyway, why do we know so little about the leaders of the Jewish revolt?

Just to be clear, I start with the proposition that Jesus was a person in the 60s AD as set out by Joe Atwill. I accept his statistical argument that the NT has to have been a collaborative effort and is not a collection of gospels written independently. I think I may be at cross purposes with some posters who ask which Jewish revolt I am talking about. I am only talking about the revolt which led to the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.

And, as always, this is something I believe but no one else has to. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2014, 01:46 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(06-05-2014 01:23 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  At the risk of beating an already dead horse, I don't see what the big problem is here about Ellis. The problem I have with his theory is that, so far, I can't tie the three figures together, Jesus of Gamala, Izates of Edessa and King Agbar (sp?). I will have to read his book and see what I can make of it.

Ellis connects dots only he can see... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
06-05-2014, 04:21 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(06-05-2014 01:23 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  At the risk of beating an already dead horse, I don't see what the big problem is here about Ellis. The problem I have with his theory is that, so far, I can't tie the three figures together, Jesus of Gamala, Izates of Edessa and King Agbar (sp?). I will have to read his book and see what I can make of it. Even if they are not the same person, though, I suppose it is not beyond the realms of possibility that features of each of them are incorporated into a fictional character. A bit like Robin Hood who some say is based on two characters. Or like Grandma Ewing on Dallas who becomes Donna Reed and then goes back to being Barbara Bellgedes. Hey, I think I have the answer.Laugh out load

Anyway, why do we know so little about the leaders of the Jewish revolt?

Just to be clear, I start with the proposition that Jesus was a person in the 60s AD as set out by Joe Atwill. I accept his statistical argument that the NT has to have been a collaborative effort and is not a collection of gospels written independently. I think I may be at cross purposes with some posters who ask which Jewish revolt I am talking about. I am only talking about the revolt which led to the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.

And, as always, this is something I believe but no one else has to. Drinking Beverage

"The problem I have with his theory is that, so far, I can't tie the three figures together, Jesus of Gamala, Izates of Edessa and King Agbar (sp?). I will have to read his book and see what I can make of it."

Good luck with that, you're going down a long winding road, and when you reach the end of it, you still may not make any sense out of the story.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2014, 04:24 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(06-05-2014 01:23 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  At the risk of beating an already dead horse, I don't see what the big problem is here about Ellis. The problem I have with his theory is that, so far, I can't tie the three figures together, Jesus of Gamala, Izates of Edessa and King Agbar (sp?). I will have to read his book and see what I can make of it. Even if they are not the same person, though, I suppose it is not beyond the realms of possibility that features of each of them are incorporated into a fictional character. A bit like Robin Hood who some say is based on two characters. Or like Grandma Ewing on Dallas who becomes Donna Reed and then goes back to being Barbara Bellgedes. Hey, I think I have the answer.Laugh out load

Anyway, why do we know so little about the leaders of the Jewish revolt?

Just to be clear, I start with the proposition that Jesus was a person in the 60s AD as set out by Joe Atwill. I accept his statistical argument that the NT has to have been a collaborative effort and is not a collection of gospels written independently. I think I may be at cross purposes with some posters who ask which Jewish revolt I am talking about. I am only talking about the revolt which led to the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.

And, as always, this is something I believe but no one else has to. Drinking Beverage

"Anyway, why do we know so little about the leaders of the Jewish revolt?"

What we know comes mainly from Josephus because all other histories of the revolt were destroyed. I may be wrong about this so I'm happy to be corrected if you happen to come across other information.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2014, 04:28 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(06-05-2014 01:23 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  At the risk of beating an already dead horse, I don't see what the big problem is here about Ellis. The problem I have with his theory is that, so far, I can't tie the three figures together, Jesus of Gamala, Izates of Edessa and King Agbar (sp?). I will have to read his book and see what I can make of it. Even if they are not the same person, though, I suppose it is not beyond the realms of possibility that features of each of them are incorporated into a fictional character. A bit like Robin Hood who some say is based on two characters. Or like Grandma Ewing on Dallas who becomes Donna Reed and then goes back to being Barbara Bellgedes. Hey, I think I have the answer.Laugh out load

Anyway, why do we know so little about the leaders of the Jewish revolt?

Just to be clear, I start with the proposition that Jesus was a person in the 60s AD as set out by Joe Atwill. I accept his statistical argument that the NT has to have been a collaborative effort and is not a collection of gospels written independently. I think I may be at cross purposes with some posters who ask which Jewish revolt I am talking about. I am only talking about the revolt which led to the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.

And, as always, this is something I believe but no one else has to. Drinking Beverage

"Just to be clear, I start with the proposition that Jesus was a person in the 60s AD as set out by Joe Atwill"

The basic thrust of Atwill's theory is that Jesus is actually a satire of Titus. He is quite specific about that, there's nothing nebulous about it. You really really should read his book, as you don't quite seem to have got your head around what he says.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2014, 02:05 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(06-05-2014 04:28 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 01:23 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  At the risk of beating an already dead horse, I don't see what the big problem is here about Ellis. The problem I have with his theory is that, so far, I can't tie the three figures together, Jesus of Gamala, Izates of Edessa and King Agbar (sp?). I will have to read his book and see what I can make of it. Even if they are not the same person, though, I suppose it is not beyond the realms of possibility that features of each of them are incorporated into a fictional character. A bit like Robin Hood who some say is based on two characters. Or like Grandma Ewing on Dallas who becomes Donna Reed and then goes back to being Barbara Bellgedes. Hey, I think I have the answer.Laugh out load

Anyway, why do we know so little about the leaders of the Jewish revolt?

Just to be clear, I start with the proposition that Jesus was a person in the 60s AD as set out by Joe Atwill. I accept his statistical argument that the NT has to have been a collaborative effort and is not a collection of gospels written independently. I think I may be at cross purposes with some posters who ask which Jewish revolt I am talking about. I am only talking about the revolt which led to the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem.

And, as always, this is something I believe but no one else has to. Drinking Beverage

"Just to be clear, I start with the proposition that Jesus was a person in the 60s AD as set out by Joe Atwill"

The basic thrust of Atwill's theory is that Jesus is actually a satire of Titus. He is quite specific about that, there's nothing nebulous about it. You really really should read his book, as you don't quite seem to have got your head around what he says.


I have read his book and he says that Jesus Christ was, as you say, Titus. However, he also says that there was a "real" Jesus, ie., Eleazar. He doesn't expand on that to any great extent. That is what I was saying. I understand his book very well, thanks.

The issue is, not whether there was a person who corresponds to Jesus, but, rather, what it is you are looking for and when you are looking for him. There is no Jesus, either a preacher or a messianic leader, in the 30s. There are both of these in the 60s, Eleazar B. Azariah, a rabbi, and a leader of the Jewish revolt, or two or three.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2014, 09:46 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(06-05-2014 02:05 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 04:28 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Just to be clear, I start with the proposition that Jesus was a person in the 60s AD as set out by Joe Atwill"

The basic thrust of Atwill's theory is that Jesus is actually a satire of Titus. He is quite specific about that, there's nothing nebulous about it. You really really should read his book, as you don't quite seem to have got your head around what he says.


I have read his book and he says that Jesus Christ was, as you say, Titus. However, he also says that there was a "real" Jesus, ie., Eleazar. He doesn't expand on that to any great extent. That is what I was saying. I understand his book very well, thanks.

The issue is, not whether there was a person who corresponds to Jesus, but, rather, what it is you are looking for and when you are looking for him. There is no Jesus, either a preacher or a messianic leader, in the 30s. There are both of these in the 60s, Eleazar B. Azariah, a rabbi, and a leader of the Jewish revolt, or two or three.

"The issue is, not whether there was a person who corresponds to Jesus, but, rather, what it is you are looking for and when you are looking for him."

And cranks like Ellis and Atwill project what they want, and only find what they want, and only see what they want. That's why they are cranks...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2014, 10:06 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(06-05-2014 09:46 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(06-05-2014 02:05 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I have read his book and he says that Jesus Christ was, as you say, Titus. However, he also says that there was a "real" Jesus, ie., Eleazar. He doesn't expand on that to any great extent. That is what I was saying. I understand his book very well, thanks.

The issue is, not whether there was a person who corresponds to Jesus, but, rather, what it is you are looking for and when you are looking for him. There is no Jesus, either a preacher or a messianic leader, in the 30s. There are both of these in the 60s, Eleazar B. Azariah, a rabbi, and a leader of the Jewish revolt, or two or three.

"The issue is, not whether there was a person who corresponds to Jesus, but, rather, what it is you are looking for and when you are looking for him."

And cranks like Ellis and Atwill project what they want, and only find what they want, and only see what they want. That's why they are cranks...

Takes one to know one.

Richard Dawkins promoted Atwill. That makes him a crank too then?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: