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
27-04-2014, 04:01 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(27-04-2014 11:45 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(27-04-2014 01:00 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  RE "The characters of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azarias, Queen Helena and Izats are very interesting and overlooked....They were Nazareens..."

Can you link me to a source stating this? (preferably not Ralph, but he'll do if you don't have another)


Not really, Mark. I am posting as I go along, in real time. I have never heard of these people before. They are referred to in wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_of_Adiabene and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleazar_ben_azariah. Queen Helena is well known for her benevolence. She and her son Izates fed the poor. Izates set up schools for children from the age of six when he was high priest of Jerusalem. His name is similar to Jesus Immanual, ie., Izates Manu. I would have to get Ralph's book to say more.

I am coming to the view that St. George is also this person. The muslims have a Jesus figure who they believed would return on horseback and slay the false messiah at Lydda, which is where St. George is said to have been born and St. George was supposed to have refused to give up his faith, just like Izates, and then been tortured and killed by the Romans. He is also, according to myth, supposed to have travelled to have travelled to England, just like Arthur and Arthur is supposed, according to myth, not to have died. He is just asleep, waiting to return... It is all to similar. It is a bit like Atwill in that these stories are from all sorts of different places but they have an underlying theme of a warrior messiah. It is all quite worrying in a way because it obviously upsets and annoys people for all sorts of reasons and results in a lot of name calling, just because one is interested in there possibly being a figure in history who has been black balled by the Romans.

" I would have to get Ralph's book to say more."

I would like you to do that. Decipher it for us, and present a coherent summary. I tried, but didn't have the time or the patience for the mental gymnastics. You're obviously impressed by Ralph....so go for it!

PS Have you actually read Atwill's book?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 04:14 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(27-04-2014 04:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  " I would have to get Ralph's book to say more."

I would like you to do that. Decipher it for us, and present a coherent summary. I tried, but didn't have the time or the patience for the mental gymnastics. You're obviously impressed by Ralph....so go for it!

PS Have you actually read Atwill's book?

I very much doubt that a coherent summary is even possible. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-04-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(26-04-2014 01:15 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I would like to post a poll with the following options about what is the most likely explanation of who Jesus was?

1. Son of god, born of a virgin, resurrected, the usual stuff.

2. A religious guy of lowly background in the 20s and 30s AD who had a sort of Buddhist outlook and had some followers and then the religion just evolved and his life was embellished with some myths and invented stories. He was crucified and died or maybe just passed out and woke up and maybe went to India. It's all vague and we will never know who he really was.

3. A complete myth based Mythra or Horus with no basis in fact.

4. A deliberate construction by clerics taking facets of various real people and real events and altering, modifying, mystifying, embellishing, interpreting and adding to them to create a religion which was pro Roman.

5. King Arthur

I felt a theological compulsion to vote that He was the Son of God.

On the subject of Mithras and Horus, they bare almost no resemblance to Jesus at all. (Unless you call creepy necrophilia a virgin birth...)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 09:38 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(27-04-2014 04:48 PM)An_Theist Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 01:15 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I would like to post a poll with the following options about what is the most likely explanation of who Jesus was?

1. Son of god, born of a virgin, resurrected, the usual stuff.

2. A religious guy of lowly background in the 20s and 30s AD who had a sort of Buddhist outlook and had some followers and then the religion just evolved and his life was embellished with some myths and invented stories. He was crucified and died or maybe just passed out and woke up and maybe went to India. It's all vague and we will never know who he really was.

3. A complete myth based Mythra or Horus with no basis in fact.

4. A deliberate construction by clerics taking facets of various real people and real events and altering, modifying, mystifying, embellishing, interpreting and adding to them to create a religion which was pro Roman.

5. King Arthur

I felt a theological compulsion to vote that He was the Son of God.

On the subject of Mithras and Horus, they bare almost no resemblance to Jesus at all. (Unless you call creepy necrophilia a virgin birth...)

" I felt a theological compulsion to vote that He was the Son of God."

Childhood indoctrination can be a powerful thing
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
27-04-2014, 11:16 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(27-04-2014 09:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(27-04-2014 04:48 PM)An_Theist Wrote:  I felt a theological compulsion to vote that He was the Son of God.

On the subject of Mithras and Horus, they bare almost no resemblance to Jesus at all. (Unless you call creepy necrophilia a virgin birth...)

" I felt a theological compulsion to vote that He was the Son of God."

Childhood indoctrination can be a powerful thing

So can Limburger.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 01:23 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I decided to look up "Gamala" on Wiki and found out something I had never known. It seems that Gamala is near Galilee and that Jospephus who was pro-Roman, was the commander of Gamala before he defected to the Romans. Here is the Wiki entry for Gamla:

Josephus Flavius, Commander of Galilee during the Jewish Revolt against Rome, in 66 CE fortified Gamla as his main stronghold on the Golan.[5] Josephus gives a very detailed topographical description of the city and the steep ravines which precluded the need to build a wall around it. Only along the northern saddle, at the town's eastern extremity, was a 350 meters-long wall built. It was constructed by blocking gaps between existing houses and destroying houses that lay in its way.[6][7]

Initially loyal to the Romans, Gamla turned rebellious under the influence of refugees from other locations.[3] It was one of only five cities in the Galilee and Golan who stood against Vespasian's legions, reflecting the cooperation between the local population and the rebels.[8] At the time of the revolt, the town minted its own coins, probably more as a means of propaganda than as currency. Bearing the inscription "For the redemption of Jerusalem the H(oly)" in a mixture of paleo-Hebrew (biblical) and Aramaic, only 6 of these coins have ever been found.[3]

Josephus also provides a detailed description of the Roman siege and conquest of Gamla in 67 CE by components of legions X Fretensis, XV Apollinaris and V Macedonica.[9] The Romans first attempted to take the city by means of a siege ramp, but were repulsed by the defenders. Only on the second attempt did the Romans succeed in breaching the walls at three different locations and invading the city. They then engaged the Jewish defenders in hand-to-hand combat up the steep hill. Fighting in the cramped streets from an inferior position, the Roman soldiers attempted to defend themselves from the roofs. These subsequently collapsed under the heavy weight, killing many soldiers[6] and forcing a Roman retreat. The legionnaires re-entered the town a few days later, eventually beating Jewish resistance and completing the capture of Gamla.[


Then we have two stories, Josephus saying there was a man called Jesus in Judea doing good things and Josephus saying he took his friend down off the cross.

The theory that "Jesus" is actually Jesus of Gamala is also supported by a book in Italian. I haven't read it. I am beginning to see that the New Testament is a Roman rewriting of this guy's life, and he wasn't a godman.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 01:46 AM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2014 01:50 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(27-04-2014 04:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(27-04-2014 11:45 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Not really, Mark. I am posting as I go along, in real time. I have never heard of these people before. They are referred to in wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_of_Adiabene and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleazar_ben_azariah. Queen Helena is well known for her benevolence. She and her son Izates fed the poor. Izates set up schools for children from the age of six when he was high priest of Jerusalem. His name is similar to Jesus Immanual, ie., Izates Manu. I would have to get Ralph's book to say more.

I am coming to the view that St. George is also this person. The muslims have a Jesus figure who they believed would return on horseback and slay the false messiah at Lydda, which is where St. George is said to have been born and St. George was supposed to have refused to give up his faith, just like Izates, and then been tortured and killed by the Romans. He is also, according to myth, supposed to have travelled to have travelled to England, just like Arthur and Arthur is supposed, according to myth, not to have died. He is just asleep, waiting to return... It is all to similar. It is a bit like Atwill in that these stories are from all sorts of different places but they have an underlying theme of a warrior messiah. It is all quite worrying in a way because it obviously upsets and annoys people for all sorts of reasons and results in a lot of name calling, just because one is interested in there possibly being a figure in history who has been black balled by the Romans.

" I would have to get Ralph's book to say more."

I would like you to do that. Decipher it for us, and present a coherent summary. I tried, but didn't have the time or the patience for the mental gymnastics. You're obviously impressed by Ralph....so go for it!

PS Have you actually read Atwill's book?

I keep trying but now I find I don't get Kindle here in the Near Eastern reaches of the Mediterranean. I will have another go at it, but it seems there are lots of other sources of this idea.

My impression from living not so far from the "Holy Lands" is that much of the actual history of the area has been suppressed because it has been under Muslim rule and they have no incentive to investigate this. In fact, there is a plan to flood much of Southern Turkey by building a massive set of dams, some of which have been built already, and revitalizing the old Mesopotamia. This will flood a huge number of early religius (non-Islamic) sites. The "Christian" history of places like Gamala have also been buried because it is in Golan so we are only now finding out about it...

What I think happened is that this whole area was occupied 2000 years ago by monotheists who had an older religion than the Romans. When the Romans made their final effort to conquer the area, and won, the leader of this religion, or one of them, was sort of deified by the "peoples" of the area which is where we get the widespread adoption of St. George as a patron saint. Some say Islam is a descendant of this monotheism and St. George is essentially the same as the Muslim idea of Jesus, a warrior. The Armenians adopted Christianity long before the Romans so I wonder which Jesus they were actually worshiping??

I also think linguistically that Horus and George and Christ are related names as George comes from Giorgios and if the G is silent, as it is in Turkish, then it is pronounced like Iorius. And H is also often silent so they could be the same name, and the name comes, so it is said, from a Greek god. What a surprise!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 02:08 AM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2014 02:18 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(29-04-2014 01:46 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(27-04-2014 04:01 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  " I would have to get Ralph's book to say more."

I would like you to do that. Decipher it for us, and present a coherent summary. I tried, but didn't have the time or the patience for the mental gymnastics. You're obviously impressed by Ralph....so go for it!

PS Have you actually read Atwill's book?

I keep trying but now I find I don't get Kindle here in the Near Eastern reaches of the Mediterranean. I will have another go at it, but it seems there are lots of other sources of this idea.

My impression from living not so far from the "Holy Lands" is that much of the actual history of the area has been suppressed because it has been under Muslim rule and they have no incentive to investigate this. In fact, there is a plan to flood much of Southern Turkey by building a massive set of dams, some of which have been built already, and revitalizing the old Mesopotamia. This will flood a huge number of early religius (non-Islamic) sites. The "Christian" history of places like Gamala have also been buried because it is in Golan so we are only now finding out about it...

What I think happened is that this whole area was occupied 2000 years ago by monotheists who had an older religion than the Romans. When the Romans made their final effort to conquer the area, and won, the leader of this religion, or one of them, was sort of deified by the "peoples" of the area which is where we get the widespread adoption of St. George as a patron saint. Some say Islam is a descendant of this monotheism and St. George is essentially the same as the Muslim idea of Jesus, a warrior. The Armenians adopted Christianity long before the Romans so I wonder which Jesus they were actually worshiping??

I also think linguistically that Horus and George and Christ are related names as George comes from Giorgios and if the G is silent, as it is in Turkish, then it is pronounced like Iorius. And H is also often silent so they could be the same name, and the name comes, so it is said, from a Greek god. What a surprise!

What I think is the Easter Bunny was Jesus, because as anyone can see, they both have he letter "e" in their names. Weeping

"What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?"
Most likely it was : "Mom, he (James) started it".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 01:18 PM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2014 01:49 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I found this link to a paper written by David Donnini. http://members.efn.org/~iahu/gesing.htm

He explains why the New Testament has to be a fake by looking at the way in which someone would have been dealt with and comparing it to the NT story.

If there was a humble preacher, why would anyone take such elaborate measure to construct a bizarre story around him? It doesn't make sense. Suppose some peace preacher turned up in Washington, or any world capital and did some David Blane type magic. It wouldn't get press time, let alone get the guy into big trouble because he was a threat to national security and a religion named after him after someone wrote stories in which, for god knows what reason, all the facts were so misinterpreted and mangled that the story of his life was clearly a fake.

Why would anyone invest such a lot of time in this story and this lowly preacher/carpenter. That is the problem, the middle ground of there having been a Simon Magnus type who had stories embellished about him doesn't make sense in the real world. No one has anything to gain by beefing this guy up into a miracle performing god man.

If Atwill is right about the Jesus story being from the 60s and written by Josephus, then Josephus and Jesus of Gamala are friends, because they both come from Gamala, and they are both Nazareens. They are also both pro Roman. Jesus is pro Roman Jesus of Gamala, if he is Izates, is the descendant of Julius Caesar, so of course he is pro Roman, and he is a Nazareen from Galilee and Josephus is going to take him down from the cross and the Romans are going to agree to it because he is one of their allies. It also explains the idea that the Jews wanted to crucify Jesus, because he was a pro-Roman convert who had become High Priest of Jerusalem. He just wasn't one of them. His friend, Josephus, had defected to the Romans and was fighting against the Jews.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
He was the Joseph Smith of the late bronze age.


Seriously, he lived in an era of Roman occupation, when the native people yearnd for a revolutionary, warlord or messiah to liberate them from the Romans.

He probably took advantage of that.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: