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
15-05-2014, 01:18 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(14-05-2014 08:32 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(14-05-2014 03:44 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Here is a NSA captured picture of Trainwreck at his keyboard.

What look were you going for in that picture? Classic Pedo by John Wayne Gacy? Damn man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
15-05-2014, 05:13 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(14-05-2014 11:52 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 03:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I believe Josephus was "behind" the NT."

I agree that it is possible that Josephus, either directly or indirectly, had a hand in writing parts of the Gospels. Remember that the finished products we read today evolved over at least a 200 year period, so they are quite different to the products that Josephus may have helped create.

"Atwill says the Alexanders assisted in writing it."

I'm sure you mean the Flavians.

"Galileean Jews were pro-Roman"

Ah, no. Quite the opposite. Galilean peasants started skirmishes in 4 BCE, possibly the year Yeshua was born. Josephus relates that Judas, son of Ezekias, gath- ered together a band of bandits who broke into the royal armory at Sepphoris, and stole weapons and money. Further south at Jericho, 30 kilometers from Jerusalem, another Jew named Simon led a pack who torched the royal palace. A shepherd named Athronges raised a rabble that roamed the countryside for a few months. Soon most of
Galilee was in revolt. The Roman army responded with brutal force by marching into Galilee, burning towns and villages, and crucify- ing anyone resisting Roman rule. Three thousand Jews were massa- cred. There must have been much terror and many innocent people murdered. (http://www.josephus.org/causesOfWar.htm). There’s no mention of this violence in the Gospels, yet Mary, Joseph and their families must have been involved, either as participants or observers.

Mary was a young girl vulnerable to rampaging troops. It’s possible Yeshua’s biological father was a Roman soldier. (http://jamestabor. com/2010/10/10/the-jesus-son-of-panthera-traditions/).

Ten years later, in 6 CE, the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius, undertook a census to work out who should be paying taxes to Rome. This sparked another revolt led by a Galilean, also named Judas, who many imagined was the messiah. Josephus tells the story:
“There was one Judas, a Galilean, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Zadok, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt. Both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their lib- erty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same. So men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height.” (Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.4-6.)

The Romans gathered three legions and four regiments of cavalry, and the movement was quickly and brutally suppressed. (http:// http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articl...galilean). Judas’ army was routed and the Romans set fire to Sepphoris. This time two thousand Jews were slaughtered. A young Yeshua may have witnessed the battle from a distance. He might have seen the surviving members of Judas’s army crucified on crosses, and a long line of Jewish widows and their children marched off to slavery in Rome. Many Jews were convinced their God would come to their aid in battles, and he may have been dismayed and disappointed that this didn’t happen.

There’s no mention of this encounter in the Gospels either, as they were written in an era when Jewish nationalism was suppressed. Readers didn’t need to know about the violence and bad feeling of the times.

Despite this decisive defeat, the rebels didn’t discard their dreams, but went underground. Judas’ descendants and others continued to oppose Roman rule for generations afterwards. Josephus named them “Sicarii,” because their favorite weapon was the Roman dag- ger, or siva.

Most Palestinian Jews, and particularly the poor peasants of Galilee, must have felt degraded and oppressed by Romans, who had impov- erished them, and killed or sold into slavery many of their relatives and friends. They had it hard from many directions; suffering under the burdens of landlessness, poverty, taxation and sometimes violent oppression. Some Galileans resented their fellow Jews who had par- tially assimilated into the Greco-Roman culture. I think Yeshua was one of these disgruntled rustics.

From the Roman perspective, Palestine was an important province by virtue of its position. It was in “the middle of the crescent” of the Middle East, and shared its coastal water with Italy. It was the gateway to the East, a major stop on every trade route from as far away as China, India, Russia and the West. Galilee was considered a parochial backwater, a festering wound that had failed to become peaceful. Palestine wouldn’t have appealed as a port of call for the out posted Roman trooper. It was a hot, dusty desert filled with indignant natives.

"The result, in my opinion, is that they decided to write up this whole idea as a basis for a new Emperor, ie., Vespasian and wove the underlying idea into a narrative of a hero figure of the day but with embellishments from popular myths and military campaigns., as Atwill says."

Agreed.

"They saw life as having a "reason" or "logic" to it. I think they were trying to put forward an idea based on reason and the Jesus narrative is just a literary device or vehicle to deliver the idea to the masses in a form they would recognise."

Yes… maybe. Yet I think you're neglecting to mention the most important reason that Jesus stories were invented; to undermine militant Judaism by claiming their Messiah had already been and gone, and by diluting purity and exclusivity of Judaism by watering down its membership with law abiding tax paying Gentiles.


I have difficulty responding to this for a number of reasons.

I don't have access to histories of the period and haven't made it a subject of studies. Most/all of what I post is from something I have found on the internet in the Jewish Encyclopedia or other sites, and articles.

I read somewhere that Galillee, or was it Gamala which is in Galilee, I think, was pro-Roman. I will have to look that up. I think there is some support from that in that Josephus had been to Rome, met Vespasian and was commander of Gamala. What it (?) said was that Gamala filled up with people from elsewhere so it became anti Roman. Jospehus has some sort of affinity with Vespasian. Maybe they just saw eye to eye?? Who knows but Vespasian adopts him and presumably agrees with his Essene, Nazarite views.

Atwill says, somewhere, maybe on a Youtube video that it is Josephus and others, the Alexanders, who write up the New Testament for the Flavians.

I would draw this analogy. There is a "view" represented in the film "Anonymous", that Shakespeare was Edward de Vere. Those who agree with this say that Hamlet is de Vere. This is a similar argument.

One could say, using the analogy, that Hamlet was based on a Danish prince, we don't know who but there were a lot of Danish princes. However, none of them did what Hamlet did or were called Hamlet. Ditto the bigged up Judean preacher who some people think turns into a water walking miracle maker. There are lots of preachers in Judea, but none like Jesus, in 33 AD. So where does it get anyone to say the NT is based on such a figure? If he is, he is so dissimilar to that guy that it is irrelevant that the guy is the basis of the story.

Then, one could say, of the Hamlet story, that it is just made up and is based on the Horus/Nordic myth of revenge, copying Amleth. Just a story...end of discussion. That is easy enough to accept. Yes, for the most part the Jesus story is just a fiction in which most of it is just invented because whoever wrote it probably based it on hearsay and had to make most of it up out of his head.

Then, there is the view that Hamlet is de Vere, renamed and set in an earlier time, different country, all the names changed. But underlying it are many similarities so that when one considers it in the round, Hamlet's ideas and relationships are very similar to those of de Vere. Is this what Jesus is? This idea that there would be a Ruler of the World emerging in Judea, as Suetonius says in The Twelve Caesars, actually gives rise to the Jewish Revolt because along comes someone who is a charismatic leader? But, he loses and the Romans decide to take his character and recast him in the role of a preacher who predicts a Roman victory in Jerusalem and tells people to obey Rome? And, maybe Vespasian actually liked Jesus or admired him, or belonged to the same sect, or was talked into accepting that this sect that this charismatic Jesus character belonged to had a powerful idea, ie., that if a ruler follows the ideas of Gnosticism, they are less likely to end up with a knife in them like Julius Caesar and more likely to be liked and respected like Queen Helena and Izates who had both converted to this religion???

Read Suetonius. Clearly the Flavians had a different philosophy to their predecessors and they had Josephus lurking in the background...

"I don't have access to histories of the period and haven't made it a subject of studies. Most/all of what I post is from something I have found on the internet in the Jewish Encyclopedia or other sites, and articles."

Hey DB, you've told us a little about yourself on this thread. I like it that you have inquisitive mind and that you share your thoughts. In my opinion there are occasional gems of ideas in what you post.

Permit me the brief indulgence of telling you about me. I've spent the last seven years of my spare time studying this shit, and I've written a book about it. I want to share what I've learnt with you and anyone else who is interested. I'm not asking you to believe everything that I post, but I don't think you should casually dismiss my ideas either. If I share something with you, I promise you it is worth googling it, and then perhaps coming to your own conclusions. Hope this doesn't sound patronising, regards Mark.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 09:22 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(12-05-2014 03:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yet I think you're neglecting to mention the most important reason that Jesus stories were invented; to undermine militant Judaism by claiming their Messiah had already been and gone, and by diluting purity and exclusivity of Judaism by watering down its membership with law abiding tax paying Gentiles.

Wow - you sound very confident, as if it is an absolute truth! Taxes!?!?! It is difficult to believe that in ancient times that they had a sophisticated tax collecting service - what kinds of private businesses did they have back then? I think most of the stories about trade were incorporated after the Dark Ages.

I'm going to suggest that the concept of a man descendant of god is an allegory for generating and perpetuating scientific/philosophical inquiry. And I am going to suggest that the concept was relatively generated by the legend of Socrates, and his claim that his knowledge was from the gods, which was probably a claim of the Egyptian emperors, as well.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 10:36 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(15-05-2014 09:22 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 03:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yet I think you're neglecting to mention the most important reason that Jesus stories were invented; to undermine militant Judaism by claiming their Messiah had already been and gone, and by diluting purity and exclusivity of Judaism by watering down its membership with law abiding tax paying Gentiles.

Wow - you sound very confident, as if it is an absolute truth! Taxes!?!?! It is difficult to believe that in ancient times that they had a sophisticated tax collecting service - what kinds of private businesses did they have back then? I think most of the stories about trade were incorporated after the Dark Ages.

I'm going to suggest that the concept of a man descendant of god is an allegory for generating and perpetuating scientific/philosophical inquiry. And I am going to suggest that the concept was relatively generated by the legend of Socrates, and his claim that his knowledge was from the gods, which was probably a claim of the Egyptian emperors, as well.

Do you even Google?

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
15-05-2014, 10:37 AM
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
[Image: e4epe4e6.jpg]

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
15-05-2014, 11:57 AM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2014 12:04 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(15-05-2014 10:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  Do you even Google?

Good work chas - that reads to confirm my theory: It is difficult to believe that in ancient times that they had a sophisticated tax collecting service - what kinds of private businesses did they have back then?
Quote:With expansion, Roman censors found that accurate census taking in the provinces was a difficult task at best. To ease the strain, taxes were assessed as a tithe on entire communities rather than on individuals. Tax assessments in these communities fell under the jurisdiction of Provincial governors and various local magistrates, using rules similar to the old system.

And then it reads as if it created the central banking system - no???

Quote:Tax farming proved to be an incredibly profitable enterprise and served to increase the treasury, as well as line the pockets of the Publicani. However, the process was ripe with corruption and scheming. For example, with the profits collected, tax farmers could collude with local magistrates or farmers to buy large quantities of grain at low rates and hold it in reserve until times of shortage. These Publicani were also money lenders, or the bankers of the ancient world, and would lend cash to hard-pressed provincials at the exorbitant rates of 4% per month or more.

How do the historians know this is what happened back then? Are there accurate records that were interpreted to understand the corrupt activities being described here???

Let's not forget they had a fairly crude numbering system - I don't know how they would calculate wealth and percentages.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 12:05 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
[Image: train-wreck.jpg]

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WitchSabrina's post
15-05-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
d
(15-05-2014 05:13 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(14-05-2014 11:52 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I have difficulty responding to this for a number of reasons.

I don't have access to histories of the period and haven't made it a subject of studies. Most/all of what I post is from something I have found on the internet in the Jewish Encyclopedia or other sites, and articles.

I read somewhere that Galillee, or was it Gamala which is in Galilee, I think, was pro-Roman. I will have to look that up. I think there is some support from that in that Josephus had been to Rome, met Vespasian and was commander of Gamala. What it (?) said was that Gamala filled up with people from elsewhere so it became anti Roman. Jospehus has some sort of affinity with Vespasian. Maybe they just saw eye to eye?? Who knows but Vespasian adopts him and presumably agrees with his Essene, Nazarite views.

Atwill says, somewhere, maybe on a Youtube video that it is Josephus and others, the Alexanders, who write up the New Testament for the Flavians.

I would draw this analogy. There is a "view" represented in the film "Anonymous", that Shakespeare was Edward de Vere. Those who agree with this say that Hamlet is de Vere. This is a similar argument.

One could say, using the analogy, that Hamlet was based on a Danish prince, we don't know who but there were a lot of Danish princes. However, none of them did what Hamlet did or were called Hamlet. Ditto the bigged up Judean preacher who some people think turns into a water walking miracle maker. There are lots of preachers in Judea, but none like Jesus, in 33 AD. So where does it get anyone to say the NT is based on such a figure? If he is, he is so dissimilar to that guy that it is irrelevant that the guy is the basis of the story.

Then, one could say, of the Hamlet story, that it is just made up and is based on the Horus/Nordic myth of revenge, copying Amleth. Just a story...end of discussion. That is easy enough to accept. Yes, for the most part the Jesus story is just a fiction in which most of it is just invented because whoever wrote it probably based it on hearsay and had to make most of it up out of his head.

Then, there is the view that Hamlet is de Vere, renamed and set in an earlier time, different country, all the names changed. But underlying it are many similarities so that when one considers it in the round, Hamlet's ideas and relationships are very similar to those of de Vere. Is this what Jesus is? This idea that there would be a Ruler of the World emerging in Judea, as Suetonius says in The Twelve Caesars, actually gives rise to the Jewish Revolt because along comes someone who is a charismatic leader? But, he loses and the Romans decide to take his character and recast him in the role of a preacher who predicts a Roman victory in Jerusalem and tells people to obey Rome? And, maybe Vespasian actually liked Jesus or admired him, or belonged to the same sect, or was talked into accepting that this sect that this charismatic Jesus character belonged to had a powerful idea, ie., that if a ruler follows the ideas of Gnosticism, they are less likely to end up with a knife in them like Julius Caesar and more likely to be liked and respected like Queen Helena and Izates who had both converted to this religion???

Read Suetonius. Clearly the Flavians had a different philosophy to their predecessors and they had Josephus lurking in the background...

"I don't have access to histories of the period and haven't made it a subject of studies. Most/all of what I post is from something I have found on the internet in the Jewish Encyclopedia or other sites, and articles."

Hey DB, you've told us a little about yourself on this thread. I like it that you have inquisitive mind and that you share your thoughts. In my opinion there are occasional gems of ideas in what you post.

Permit me the brief indulgence of telling you about me. I've spent the last seven years of my spare time studying this shit, and I've written a book about it. I want to share what I've learnt with you and anyone else who is interested. I'm not asking you to believe everything that I post, but I don't think you should casually dismiss my ideas either. If I share something with you, I promise you it is worth googling it, and then perhaps coming to your own conclusions. Hope this doesn't sound patronising, regards Mark.


It's a learning experience. A year ago I had never heard of Atwill, Gobeli Tepi, Ellis or any of this stuff, and then last summer I was camping outside Tarsus. That started my interest in this subject.

I don't have any problem with the ideas you are putting forward. I don't know enough about the history of early Christianity to express a view as to whether, for instance, there was someone like Jesus in the first half of the first century. I am really beginning, however, to see the outlines of a huge event in the Jewish revolt which was a serious clash of religions and cultures. I think that over the next few decades our understanding of our own history will become much clearer. We are now getting results of DNA studies showing where are ancestors came from, for instance. Thermal imaging is showing us that there were huge civilizations in places like Syria, which have now just disappeared, or move elsewhere.

I get, of all things, Eritrean television, where I live. What an eye opener that is. What a strange place. I think it ranks as one of the hottest, driest places on earth and they are trying to promote it as a tourist destination. Why I bring this up is that there are various myths and theories about westerners having migrated from the Near East and as they were showing a map of Eritrea on the TV it showed the Suez written as Suweiss, (Swiss?) The more I learn about this place the more it seems that Europeans came from here and that it was a green place where the ancestors of modern Europeans lived. The Galileans, for instance, were called that because of the whiteness of their skin. The Phoenicians were from Lebanon and had red hair, people around Ankara in Turkey spoke German. Abraham was a Keltoi or Celt. The Turks all have something called the Nazar. It is a blue eye made of glass which everyone hangs in their houses. And I mean everyone. This thing is like a talisman which everyone has to have in their house and businesses. If you go to tourists shops there are thousand of them. It is like the Eye of Horus, something that looks out for you and protects you. Then I heard about the Nazarites and their conversion of Queen Helena, and she according to Ellis was from Edessa which is in Turkey. You soon realize when you study Turkish history that it was the homeland of present day Europeans and the headquarters of the Roman Empire for over a thousand years and that the place was invaded and conquered by Muslim Turks, because they didn't like them. One of my friends said that the Muslims invaded Turkey to try to make "us" better people.

The problem is, it is very easy to get sucked down a rabbit hole with this stuff. You never know where it is going to lead you. I think that is what happens when you come to this part of the world. For instance, did you know there is one theory that the Scottish came from Egypt?

I have come to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter that much whether Jesus was Titus, Izates, a dusty footed preacher or entirely mythical. I think the interesting thing about it is that the philosophical concept in Christianity is a principle which is very powerful and identical with Kant's Categorical Imperative, which to me, shows the sophistication of the people who wrote the NT and that it probably emanates from a very old religion of the Near East. I have also come to realize that there is something to the idea that the "Jews" weren't actually "semitic" in the sense we now use the word, which is recent development. Yahoodees, as they are more accurately called, were simply monotheists as opposed to the polytheistic pagans who surrounded them, like the Romans.

What is the book you wrote? I am interested. I am enjoying posting here because I am finding it is becoming a little less hostile.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 10:52 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(15-05-2014 09:22 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 03:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yet I think you're neglecting to mention the most important reason that Jesus stories were invented; to undermine militant Judaism by claiming their Messiah had already been and gone, and by diluting purity and exclusivity of Judaism by watering down its membership with law abiding tax paying Gentiles.

Wow - you sound very confident, as if it is an absolute truth! Taxes!?!?! It is difficult to believe that in ancient times that they had a sophisticated tax collecting service - what kinds of private businesses did they have back then? I think most of the stories about trade were incorporated after the Dark Ages.

I'm going to suggest that the concept of a man descendant of god is an allegory for generating and perpetuating scientific/philosophical inquiry. And I am going to suggest that the concept was relatively generated by the legend of Socrates, and his claim that his knowledge was from the gods, which was probably a claim of the Egyptian emperors, as well.

Re "Taxes!?!?!"

The Herods had to get money for their building projects, and money was also needed to support the Roman bureaucracy and army. It came from taxes paid by the already struggling peasants, and was accrued by the infamous tax collectors. Tax was one percent of a man's income per year, and there were export and import taxes, taxes levied on crops - one tenth of the grain crop and one fifth of that from wine, fruit, and oil. There were taxes payable on the transfer of property, emergency taxes, and others. So anything from twenty to forty percent of the produce of the peasant workforce went into paying tax. A Roman official called a “censor” was responsible for reaping in the revenue, but he often sold the right to collect it to the highest bidders, men who demanded more money than was due and kept the difference for themselves. They commonly took bribes from the rich, so it was the poor people who ended up paying most of the tax, arousing deep resentment.

After the Romans took control many of the poorer people lost land when it was incorporated into large estates of the upper classes. It was obvious to the farmers and fishermen of Galilee that the richer people, many of whom lived in the largest cities, were exploiting them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 12:07 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(15-05-2014 12:08 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  d
(15-05-2014 05:13 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "I don't have access to histories of the period and haven't made it a subject of studies. Most/all of what I post is from something I have found on the internet in the Jewish Encyclopedia or other sites, and articles."

Hey DB, you've told us a little about yourself on this thread. I like it that you have inquisitive mind and that you share your thoughts. In my opinion there are occasional gems of ideas in what you post.

Permit me the brief indulgence of telling you about me. I've spent the last seven years of my spare time studying this shit, and I've written a book about it. I want to share what I've learnt with you and anyone else who is interested. I'm not asking you to believe everything that I post, but I don't think you should casually dismiss my ideas either. If I share something with you, I promise you it is worth googling it, and then perhaps coming to your own conclusions. Hope this doesn't sound patronising, regards Mark.


It's a learning experience. A year ago I had never heard of Atwill, Gobeli Tepi, Ellis or any of this stuff, and then last summer I was camping outside Tarsus. That started my interest in this subject.

I don't have any problem with the ideas you are putting forward. I don't know enough about the history of early Christianity to express a view as to whether, for instance, there was someone like Jesus in the first half of the first century. I am really beginning, however, to see the outlines of a huge event in the Jewish revolt which was a serious clash of religions and cultures. I think that over the next few decades our understanding of our own history will become much clearer. We are now getting results of DNA studies showing where are ancestors came from, for instance. Thermal imaging is showing us that there were huge civilizations in places like Syria, which have now just disappeared, or move elsewhere.

I get, of all things, Eritrean television, where I live. What an eye opener that is. What a strange place. I think it ranks as one of the hottest, driest places on earth and they are trying to promote it as a tourist destination. Why I bring this up is that there are various myths and theories about westerners having migrated from the Near East and as they were showing a map of Eritrea on the TV it showed the Suez written as Suweiss, (Swiss?) The more I learn about this place the more it seems that Europeans came from here and that it was a green place where the ancestors of modern Europeans lived. The Galileans, for instance, were called that because of the whiteness of their skin. The Phoenicians were from Lebanon and had red hair, people around Ankara in Turkey spoke German. Abraham was a Keltoi or Celt. The Turks all have something called the Nazar. It is a blue eye made of glass which everyone hangs in their houses. And I mean everyone. This thing is like a talisman which everyone has to have in their house and businesses. If you go to tourists shops there are thousand of them. It is like the Eye of Horus, something that looks out for you and protects you. Then I heard about the Nazarites and their conversion of Queen Helena, and she according to Ellis was from Edessa which is in Turkey. You soon realize when you study Turkish history that it was the homeland of present day Europeans and the headquarters of the Roman Empire for over a thousand years and that the place was invaded and conquered by Muslim Turks, because they didn't like them. One of my friends said that the Muslims invaded Turkey to try to make "us" better people.

The problem is, it is very easy to get sucked down a rabbit hole with this stuff. You never know where it is going to lead you. I think that is what happens when you come to this part of the world. For instance, did you know there is one theory that the Scottish came from Egypt?

I have come to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter that much whether Jesus was Titus, Izates, a dusty footed preacher or entirely mythical. I think the interesting thing about it is that the philosophical concept in Christianity is a principle which is very powerful and identical with Kant's Categorical Imperative, which to me, shows the sophistication of the people who wrote the NT and that it probably emanates from a very old religion of the Near East. I have also come to realize that there is something to the idea that the "Jews" weren't actually "semitic" in the sense we now use the word, which is recent development. Yahoodees, as they are more accurately called, were simply monotheists as opposed to the polytheistic pagans who surrounded them, like the Romans.

What is the book you wrote? I am interested. I am enjoying posting here because I am finding it is becoming a little less hostile.

Ok, thanks for replying. I obviously got the wrong impression that you were skimming over my replies. Us wannabe authors have overinflated egos. My book is called "Get over Christianity by understanding it" . Check out my website.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: