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
17-06-2014, 10:19 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(17-06-2014 10:09 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(17-06-2014 10:00 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Chas, Chas...what are we going to do with you. The world is passing you by.

Christ comes from "karas" which/who was Horus. That is how they pronounced it and they both mean the anointed son of god.

And, don't misrepresent what I posted. I said that words in different languages with similar sounds and similar meanings are likely to have a common root. That is precisely what modern linguists are now saying.

Also, I haven't suggested Europe was repopulated by mass spontaneous migration. The prevailing view is that Europe was repopulated slowly over thousands of years.




Even Hamlet is just the Horus story told in a different way. Hamlet is based on the Norse myth of Amleth which is the story of a son seeking revenge for his father's death. You miss the point by posting the video. This notion of the avenging son is based on astrology. People looked up and saw the star constellation which we now call Orion which, in December, is prominent in the southern sky and has a large cross formation behind it. They made up stories about it being a god who was chasing the darkness away so that the sun/father would return. It's actually not that profound or deep an idea but if you look up at the sky in December, if you happen to be at the same latitude as "Judea", which I am, you can see this very clearly as it dominates the night sky.

It's not that one "myth" is just based on or is the same as another. It is a feature of them all that they relate to this astrological tale. Whether you want to accept that, of course, is up to you. My view is that the Romans were working up a new international cult and they adapted features of the Horus story because the Horus cult was big in Egypt and the Near East.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 03:27 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(17-06-2014 10:19 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(17-06-2014 10:09 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  


Even Hamlet is just the Horus story told in a different way. Hamlet is based on the Norse myth of Amleth which is the story of a son seeking revenge for his father's death. You miss the point by posting the video. This notion of the avenging son is based on astrology. People looked up and saw the star constellation which we now call Orion which, in December, is prominent in the southern sky and has a large cross formation behind it. They made up stories about it being a god who was chasing the darkness away so that the sun/father would return. It's actually not that profound or deep an idea but if you look up at the sky in December, if you happen to be at the same latitude as "Judea", which I am, you can see this very clearly as it dominates the night sky.

It's not that one "myth" is just based on or is the same as another. It is a feature of them all that they relate to this astrological tale. Whether you want to accept that, of course, is up to you. My view is that the Romans were working up a new international cult and they adapted features of the Horus story because the Horus cult was big in Egypt and the Near East.

[Image: 51E%2BqZyyKKL.jpg]

Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2014, 02:40 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2014 02:54 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Yeah, something like that.

Anyway.

Ralph Ellis has written this book, see, and I read it.

Here are what I consider to be the key points. Please excuse the typos and vagueness. It is hard to reduce a book like this down to a few paragraphus.

1. There is an area of southern Turkey, northern Syria which was settled in about 4 AD by people who left Persia. Their leader was a King AgbarusV and his mother/wife Thea. She was a descendant of Julius Caesar, Cleopatra and Mark Anthoy. They were "Jews", but not as we know them. They were very rich as they headed up a tribe which was the Jews who left Egypt some years earlier and the left because Thea had poisoned her husband who was king of Persia, or something like that.

2. These people needed land so they did a deal with the Herodians that they would have this patch of land which was crap and they would defend the frontier against the Parthians and would be "tax free". The king, Agbarus, had to spend some time in Rome with Augustus Caesar as a hostage to ensure the loyalty of his people and he got to know Augustus very well and they became friends and Agbarus was freed in 13 AD when Augustus was about to die. He went home and got his wife pregnant with a kid they called "Jesus".

3. Some time later these people were sent Rabbis because they hadn't been keeping up with religious ideas and they converted to a form of Judaism which was being preached by Eleazar Ben Azariah which was a lot like what we might call Christianity because it was about being nice to people.

4. When Augustus died, the Romans tried to take away these people's tax free status. King Agbar staged a revolt and got killed so Jesus became king. They all lived in Edessa and Palmyra.

5. As the Roman Emperor, Nero, was a complete degenerate and killed himself as he was about to be strung up, there was a big fight to become next emperor and there were four in one year. Jesus, being descended from Julius Caesar and there being no Claudians to succeed Nero, decided that he would have a go so he started a revolt to take over Judea and then move on to Rome. He was successful at the start so the Roman sent Vespasian and Titus Flavius to fight the guy.

6. Jesus lost and decided, it seems, to be the fall guy and save everyone by handing himself over so that he could be executed and the Romans would leave the rest of the Jews alone.

7. Jesus was crucified but Vespasian decided to save him and he and his adopted son, Josephus, together with clerics in Alexandria took his religious ideas and worked them into a religion which was being developed in Alexandria. Vespasian had already adopted this religion which worshipped Serapis and was like "Christianity". Vespasian became Emperor because of his victory in Judea and because his troops liked him. He was a fairly decent sort of guy as well.

8. Josephus wrote up some gospels setting out a new religion. Jesus disappeared.

That is about it.

The book uses mainly literary analysis of the New Testament, comparing it with the history of the Armenians written by a man called Moses as well as Jewish writings and sets out other characters in these works who correspond to all these people.

For instance, Jesus' father, Abgarus is also Joshua of Gamala and, I think, Simon Magus. He is also called King Monobasus of Edessa. He is also called Gamaliel, I think.

Ellis tries to show that these people are the same and that the reason we have to hunt for their identity is the Rolmans rubbed out their story.

I think that the idea Vespasian and the Romans had was to develop Christianity out of Serapis worship in such a way that it would essentially co opt the kingdom that Agbarus ruled. His wife, Queen Helena, and Jesus had become very popular. Jesus had become High Priest of Jerusalem and they had fed the poor during a famine and opened schools for young children starting at age 6.

Ellis makes some very interesting observations, such as the fact that there are a lot of people living in Mardin in southern Turkey who have red hair and look Scottish but are Christians. He says these are descendants of these people and anyone with this hair colour is called "Izzy" after Jesus. He says Jesus' given name was actually Manu. Jesus was just a title meaning Hail Zeus. He then tells a story about a preacher who thought he was Jesus returned from the dead and started a religion. He renamed himself after Jesus, calling himself Manu and the religion he led was called Manicheanism and spread as far as China.

This book is over 500 pages long and contains a vast amount of comparisons which are done very carefully so that you can check up the sources and make up your own mind whether it is true or not.

I would say that it is likely, given the vast number of comparisons and similarities, and the circumstances of these people and the subsequent history of Edessa, that Ellis is probably right, that there was a historical character called Jesus or Izates who was a king of Edessa and who led the Jewish Revolt thinking he would become the Roman Emperor but was captured by the Romans.

If one adds to Ellis' theory the proof given by Atwill, then I would say there is a very strong case that what we know as Christianity is something developed by the Romans which was already in progress in Alexandria. One of the writings Ellis mentions is a letter from a prisoner called Mara ben Serapion who has been caught by the Romans and seems to be a disciple or one of the leaders of the revolt. His name denotes he was a follower of Serapis so it seems likely that Jesus and Vespasian were both converts to this religion but Jesus had the pedigree to mount a claim to the Imperial throne whereas Vespasian did not. I can see how the report by Suetonius that Josephus told Vespasian that he would be the Emperor together with what Atwill shows as a recasting of Titus' campaign as the story of Jesus' travels through Judea suggest that the Flavians set about to revamp Serapis "Christianity" in such a way that it had a reason based morality and would appeal not just to Romans but also to the Egyptians and the Edessans.

I have also been reading, again, Suetonius and Lucretious. It seems to me that there was a movement in Rome, in the late republican era towards Epicureanism and away from deism. Julius Caesar ended that and Rome descended back into, according to Suetonius, a long period of paganistic debauchery during which the Claudian Emperors acted in the most horrendous way. Nero, for instance, married another man after having him castrated and they all engaged in torture of the most inhuman kind. Suetonius paints a picture of a society which needed a change and a more humane and enlightened moral philosophy but had a strong pagan ideology.

I enjoyed Ellis' book. If it is true to any extent it debunks the supernatural nature of Christianity and explains it in an entirely historical and factual way. For that reason I think it is an important theory.

There are some aspects of the book which I felt could have made it a better read. Ellis has an idea that things might have been a lot better if the Romans had not won the war against the Jews. He does not, however, say much about what the moral philosophy of the Edessans or Jesus was. He claims that what we now call Judaism is also a rewrite by Josephus so modern Orthodox Judaism is nothing like the Judaism of 2000 years ago.

He is no fan of Islam but then calls Muslims "Nazareen-Sabeans", so Islam, he seems to suggest has a lot in common with the religion of Jesus/Izates. Nor is he a fan of the Ottomans, or of Ataturk, or of Obama and he is of the school that feels that it would have been better if the Cruscades had succeeded and if the Arab/Muslim world was under "our" control, where it "belongs" because, after all, it is "ours", we came from there, it's our homeland. The book has a strong political message which might appeal to some but I was more interested in the moral and philosophical underpinnings of what he calls the Fourth Sect of Judaism. He calls NT Christianity "simple Judaism" but, again, doesn't elaborate on what that is.

I have to say I think the book is an eye opener and well worth the read even if one doesn't buy the conclusions. I think some of the criticisms of Ellis are unwarranted. He does make clear where he is theorizing and he doesn't just say "King Arthur is Jesus". That aspect of the theory is hardly mentioned in the book at all. Also, if you read Suetonius, it was common practice for Roman Emperors to send people into exile as far away as possible from Rome. Tiberius was exiled to Rhodes and became known as "The Exile" before returning to Rome. Britain was under Roman control and, given Jesus' purported ancestry, it is likely that if such a person was captured he would be sent into exile at a distance and held hostage to ensure the loyalty of his people. There is nothing implausible about that at all. If it became translated into a legend because he came from "Gamala"...who know, it's possible.

Well, that is about it. I don't think I will post any more on it and I don't want to get into some sort of name calling match. The theory has a lot of meat to it. It is very exhaustively researched and he leaves pretty much no stone unturned. It is important to me because it confirms what I believe, that the Romans had been moving in a secular direction during the late republic.

I would like to see more study of the philosophical and moral movements in Rome at the time. Seems to me that Christianity is, indeed, the product of secularists and is actually a secular religion which is knowingly and cleverly wrapped up in a farcical, factional, fabulous myth, contrived to appeal to different people on different levels depending on what one is looking for/needs to be lured into following a religion based, ultimately, on reason and the "golden rule".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deltabravo's post
22-06-2014, 03:00 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(22-06-2014 02:40 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It is important to me because it confirms what I believe

Weeping

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-06-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(22-06-2014 03:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 02:40 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It is important to me because it confirms what I believe

Weeping

If only there was a term for that.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
23-06-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(22-06-2014 03:06 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 03:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Weeping

If only there was a term for that.

Hey, a "drole"! Laughat

I "believe" that the NT was written by secularists.

What do you believe in Bucky, other than yourself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2014, 09:20 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(23-06-2014 01:35 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 03:06 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  If only there was a term for that.

Hey, a "drole"! Laughat

I "believe" that the NT was written by secularists.

What do you believe in Bucky, other than yourself?

At least Bucky's not imaginary. So, there's that. 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
24-06-2014, 09:40 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(23-06-2014 01:35 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(22-06-2014 03:06 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  If only there was a term for that.

Hey, a "drole"! Laughat

I "believe" that the NT was written by secularists.

What do you believe in Bucky, other than yourself?

Why, I believe ... um ... tomorrow is another day.



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
26-06-2014, 12:56 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
If the bible is correct in it's claim that he was an ancestor of David on both his mothers and fathers side, he was no doubt nobility. Probably even high nobility. That claim is further validated by his movements among the most wealthy and influential people in jewish society such as Lazarus or Joseph of Arimathea and either being invited or being host in lavish weddings.

Certainly he was a mysticist and probably a priest.

That he was a Rabbi is mentioned in every one of the Gospels (though Rabbi did not mean the same thing as it does today).

The mention of Nazareth may mean that he was a Nazarite (a man who's taken certain vows such as not cutting his hair) for a set time during some part of his life. Certainly the town does not appear on any map until after his death.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lunda's post
01-07-2014, 09:17 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(26-06-2014 12:56 AM)Lunda Wrote:  If the bible is correct in it's claim that he was an ancestor of David on both his mothers and fathers side, he was no doubt nobility. Probably even high nobility. That claim is further validated by his movements among the most wealthy and influential people in jewish society such as Lazarus or Joseph of Arimathea and either being invited or being host in lavish weddings.

Certainly he was a mysticist and probably a priest.

That he was a Rabbi is mentioned in every one of the Gospels (though Rabbi did not mean the same thing as it does today).

The mention of Nazareth may mean that he was a Nazarite (a man who's taken certain vows such as not cutting his hair) for a set time during some part of his life. Certainly the town does not appear on any map until after his death.

That must be right.

There are Jewish writings about Queen Helena and her son Izates who "fed the poor" of Jerusalem. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...Helena.htm He became a rebel, leading the Jewish Revolt.

There is a "Christian" bias on this forum, I would say. Although many here are former "Christians" and say that they have rejected religion, they can't get past the idea that the NT is fictional. This results in their having an unshakable, almost dogmatic view that there "has to have been a Paul" or that, if there was a Jesus he "must have" lived at the time described in the NT.

Surely the way forward is to separate the fiction from history. What is the NT? It is an anonymously written fictionalized account of something, and a polemic work intended to make as many people "believe" in something as possible. Therefore, look at the style of writing, not at it's truth.

Then, what is the history of that era? It is one of war between Rome and Judea. What was the ideology of those opposing Rome? What was their religion?

Atwill says that it was anti-Roman and messianic, with a messiah who was a warrior, not a pro-Roman peacenik. So, that would suggest the NT is a political work which distorts the religion and conceals the nature of whatever any Jesus type would have preached...

Why is there an almost "ideological" opposition to discussing the possibility that Jesus has a historical basis in a figure from the time of the Jewish Revolt? It isn't a theistic position. It's just an historical theory which might have some validity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: