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
29-04-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(26-04-2014 03:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Magic mushrooms and dopamine.

This^
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2014, 04:04 PM
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!

Go to iTunes and download the kindle app. You will then effectively have a kindle on your computer. Then go to Amazon and download whatever book you want on to your kindle app. Atwill's book is worth reading. So is Peter Cresswell's "Jesus the terrorist"... although you can't get that on Kindle, well it wasn't on the Kindle two years ago.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 01:40 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(29-04-2014 01:18 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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.

"If Atwill is right about the Jesus story being from the 60s"

You need to be a little more careful about your wording here. Atwill thinks the Jesus story was originally written in the 70s.

"and written by Josephus,"
Atwill doesn't think the Gospels were written by Josephus, but by Jewish and Gentile intellectuals who were using the Josephus histories as a source.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 01:59 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(29-04-2014 01:18 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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.

"I found this link to a paper written by David Donnini. http://members.efn.org/~iahu/gesing.htm"

What an excellent article! Excellent because he agrees with me! LOL!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 06:26 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Total myth; never existed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 06:32 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I think I now understand what Christianity is.

When they say Jesus died to save mankind, what is meant is that in the face of the Roman's being victorious, it was better to betray the leader of the Jewish revolt so that everyone else would be spared.

The religion is Essene. The NT is a fictionalization of the events leading up to the crucifixion of the leader of the revolt, who was a Nazarite Essene, probably called Jesus of Gamala. The characters in the NT are fictional versions of real people at the time, ie., 67-70 AD.

Josephus was a secret Essene and he converted Vespasian so they decided to construct the NT to take forward the Essene ideology with Vespasian as the beneficiary of it. It was entirely political but it recognized the strength of the Essene version of Judaism.

Whether Jesus of Gamala is the same person as Izates Manu Monobasus, I don't know. I don't think that is a necessary argument. In writing the NT, the idea was to sell the religion so it is less important that the main character is an accurate reflection of the real person or a combination of two of them.

I have to say, this has been an interesting experience, coming here because I now feel I understand Christianity and believe that Jesus was a real person who was crucified. Hmmm....

I also think that the message which is actually in the NT is a very powerful one and very important and I believe that the Essenes, who were behind it, had a very different idea of who "god" was. I think they had a Gnostic view of god as a "logic" behind life, not as an anthropomorphized cosmic being.

I think that is all I can say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 06:59 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Oh, and, Christianity is like a dissolving time capsule which you swallow and the capsule dissolves so the medicine can be released.

The NT is deliberately self contradictory because whoever wrote it did not want to deify someone like pagans do. They weren't pagans.

The NT is written so that you can't actually say what the facts are, because they aren't important, the message is. The inconsistencies are so great and there are so many of them that one has to abandon any hope of making sense of what happened. That way, it is impossible to become dogmatic, or it should be, about the factual basis of the story. The facts of what happened dissolve away revealing the message.

It is ingenious. Ohmy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 08:05 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
What about Jesus is an alien. That's at least as reasonable as him being the son of god. Probably even more likely...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 10:10 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
If you read Michio Kaku, then anything is possible.

I just think the explanation is quite simple, that there was a charismatic leader in Judea and he was a Nazarite Essene who was either crucified or killed by the Romans and Josphus, who was a Nazarite and a friend of Vespasian set up a religion based on Essene teachings, using this rebel leader as a focal point but changing names and places.

A friend of mine is the son of a WWII escapee and there was a film made about it. They changed all the names of all the people in it and a lot of it was fictionalized, for a variety of reasons.

Lots of "historical" movies have to be fictionalized because no one really knows or can remember exactly what happened and there is a need to make the film sell to its audience. That is all Christianity is. It is a philosophy wrapped up in a fictionalized, and sensationalized story which appeals to pagans because it has mythological aspects.

I think that it being the work of a very intelligent cleric like Josephus is the simplest and most cogent explanation of it. Josephus was a pro Roman Galilean Nazarite Essene Jew who was extremely bright and an adopted member of the Imperial Roman Flavian family who adopted Christianity as the court religion.

It is not so difficult to understand. It is the way ideas were packaged back then to sell to the public.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 11:01 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I'll take option 6, LEGEND.

I put Jesus in the same category as Hercules (another son of god) and Romulus (the mythic founder of Rome). Legends can have real human origins, but it's certainly not required; nor are the later embellishments limited by their origins or source material.

YouTuber 43alley sums it up nicely here.




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: