[split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2013, 03:56 AM
[split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(27-10-2012 12:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I propose that what we think today as the "resurrection" event, is misguided, for a number of reasons. They include the facts that :


Err, its much easier to decipher than that, Bucky.

If you look at the end of Josephus' Life, you will see that the leader of the Revolt (King Izas) was crucified along with two others. But that Josephus Flavius petitioned the governor of Jerusalem to take them down from the cross. They were tended to by physicians and while two died, one survived.

All you need to know is:
King Izas was King Jesus (King Iousus).
Josephus Flavius was Joseph(us) of Aramathaea.

End of story.

The reason that Jesus was later seen to be alive, is because he was. He was 'saved' by Joseph(us) of Aramathaea and his wounds tended to by physicians.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2013, 04:28 AM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2013 09:31 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(26-05-2013 03:56 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  All you need to know is:
King Izas was King Jesus (King Iousus).
Josephus Flavius was Joseph(us) of Aramathaea.
End of story.
The reason that Jesus was later seen to be alive, is because he was. He was 'saved' by Joseph(us) of Aramathaea and his wounds tended to by physicians..

Prove it. By generally accepted historical methodology.
I guess I'll decide what I "need to know".
Please provide links and support by at least one legitimately trained and recognized authority on the ancient Near East, and peer reviewed published material/articles for any of your "theories". If there is truth to your "stuff", it would stand up to scrutiny by legitimate historians. Where is it published ?
If this WAS the "end of story" one legitimate Jewish or Roman historian would have reported seeing him, after the execution. Then what happened ? He just disappears again ? There would have been a serious effort to actually go find him, and determine what was happening, IF they had gone to all the trouble to execute him, and it was unsuccessful, by either the Romans or the Jews. The fact that there was NO effort, proves he was killed, and THAT was the "end of story".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2013, 09:19 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(26-05-2013 04:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-05-2013 03:56 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  All you need to know is:
King Izas was King Jesus (King Iousus).
Josephus Flavius was Joseph(us) of Aramathaea.
End of story.
The reason that Jesus was later seen to be alive, is because he was. He was 'saved' by Joseph(us) of Aramathaea and his wounds tended to by physicians..

Prove it. By generally accepted historical methodology.
I guess I'll decide what I "need to know".
Please provide links and support by at least one legitimately trained and recognized authority on the ancient Near East, and peer reviewed published material/articles for any of your "theories". If there is truth to your "stuff", it would stand up to scrutiny by legitimate historians. Where is it published ?
If this WAS the "end of story" one legitimate Jewish or Roman historian would have reported seeing him, after the execution. Then what happened ? He just disappears again ?

Ralphie just makes shit up - he makes connections that are absurd.

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
28-05-2013, 10:29 AM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2013 10:37 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(26-05-2013 04:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Please provide links and support by at least one legitimately trained and recognized authority on the ancient Near East, and peer reviewed published material/articles for any of your "theories". If there is truth to your "stuff", it would stand up to scrutiny by legitimate historians. Where is it published ?


Eh? Is your rationale for believing something solely based upon someone else mentioning it first?

You seem to forget that your hero theologians and historians are not free from an innate bias. Theologians do not want to find the historical Jesus (because the life of the real Jesus conflicts wildly with the sugar-coated orthodox Jesus). And similarly historian appear to be hell-bend on ensuring that religion does not 'contaminate' the wonderful historical framework that they work within.

So are you going to get an honest opinion from a theologian or a historian? Of course not.




(26-05-2013 09:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Ralphie just makes shit up - he makes connections that are absurd.


Actually, any six-year-old can see the connections. Its just the adults, who have been subjected to years of religious indoctrination, who cannot see the obvious.

This is Josephus Flavius returning from Herodium, and seeing the three leaders of the Jewish Revolt being crucified in the Kidron Valley.

Quote:
And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered. (Life 75.)


Anyone with a fully-functioning faculty of reason can see this account is the basis for the gospel crucifixion scene, especially as the prime leader of the Jewish Revolt was called (King) Jesus-Izas.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(28-05-2013 10:29 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(26-05-2013 04:28 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Please provide links and support by at least one legitimately trained and recognized authority on the ancient Near East, and peer reviewed published material/articles for any of your "theories". If there is truth to your "stuff", it would stand up to scrutiny by legitimate historians. Where is it published ?


Eh? Is your rationale for believing something solely based upon someone else mentioning it first?

You seem to forget that your hero theologians and historians are not free from an innate bias. Theologians do not want to find the historical Jesus (because the life of the real Jesus conflicts wildly with the sugar-coated orthodox Jesus). And similarly historian appear to be hell-bend on ensuring that religion does not 'contaminate' the wonderful historical framework that they work within.

So are you going to get an honest opinion from a theologian or a historian? Of course not.




(26-05-2013 09:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Ralphie just makes shit up - he makes connections that are absurd.


Actually, any six-year-old can see the connections. Its just the adults, who have been subjected to years of religious indoctrination, who cannot see the obvious.

This is Josephus Flavius returning from Herodium, and seeing the three leaders of the Jewish Revolt being crucified in the Kidron Valley.

Quote:
And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered. (Life 75.)


Anyone with a fully-functioning faculty of reason can see this account is the basis for the gospel crucifixion scene, especially as the prime leader of the Jewish Revolt was called (King) Jesus-Izas.




.


Since you seem to be the only person who makes this connection, I will remain skeptical.

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
28-05-2013, 01:00 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(28-05-2013 10:29 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Eh? Is your rationale for believing something solely based upon someone else mentioning it first?

You seem to forget that your hero theologians and historians are not free from an innate bias. Theologians do not want to find the historical Jesus (because the life of the real Jesus conflicts wildly with the sugar-coated orthodox Jesus). And similarly historian appear to be hell-bend on ensuring that religion does not 'contaminate' the wonderful historical framework that they work within.

So are you going to get an honest opinion from a theologian or a historian? Of course not.

(26-05-2013 09:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  Ralphie just makes shit up - he makes connections that are absurd.


Actually, any six-year-old can see the connections. Its just the adults, who have been subjected to years of religious indoctrination, who cannot see the obvious.

This is Josephus Flavius returning from Herodium, and seeing the three leaders of the Jewish Revolt being crucified in the Kidron Valley.

Quote:
And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered. (Life 75.)


Anyone with a fully-functioning faculty of reason can see this account is the basis for the gospel crucifixion scene, especially as the prime leader of the Jewish Revolt was called (King) Jesus-Izas.
.

The point is not "who mentioned it first". The point is whether it stands up to scrutiny after ANYONE "mentions" it. That's all I'm asking for. You seem to be the ONLY one saying this stuff. Why is that ? Show me ONE legitimate professional that buys into any of this "stuff". So EVERYONE is wrong, and YOU, not trained in anything, are right.

Ok. Right. Sure.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2013, 04:34 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(26-05-2013 03:56 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(27-10-2012 12:53 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I propose that what we think today as the "resurrection" event, is misguided, for a number of reasons. They include the facts that :


Err, its much easier to decipher than that, Bucky.

If you look at the end of Josephus' Life, you will see that the leader of the Revolt (King Izas) was crucified along with two others. But that Josephus Flavius petitioned the governor of Jerusalem to take them down from the cross. They were tended to by physicians and while two died, one survived.

All you need to know is:
King Izas was King Jesus (King Iousus).
Josephus Flavius was Joseph(us) of Aramathaea.

End of story.

The reason that Jesus was later seen to be alive, is because he was. He was 'saved' by Joseph(us) of Aramathaea and his wounds tended to by physicians.




.

Thecoa wasn't Jerusalem (where Jeebus was allegedly executed) is it! It's 10 miles south of Jerusalem (http://www.bible-history.com/geography/a...ecoa.html)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 09:07 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(28-05-2013 01:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You seem to be the ONLY one saying this stuff. Why is that ? Show me ONE legitimate professional that buys into any of this "stuff". So EVERYONE is wrong, and YOU, not trained in anything, are right.

Ok. Right. Sure.


Most professionals in their field have careers and reputations to defend - at any cost.

Theologians will not entertain these ideas, as it undermines and destroys their entire wold view, and the very organisation that gives them a career and income. Do you think they would destroy all that? **

Likewise, historians are also reticent to go out on a limb. Note all the mockery and bile thrown in my direction - do you really think a respected historian would risk all that, and possibly the end of their glittering career (even if they were right)??

Academia is naturally conservative, for obvious reasons, and it normally takes the passing of a generation before any new ideas get established.

.

** I congratulated Prof Robert Eisenman on discovering that Mary Boethus was Mary Magdalene. "No, no, he cried, they were not the same person - the life of Mary Mag was merely modeled upon that of Mary Boethus". Why the reticence to admit the obvious? Because if Mary Mag was Mary Boethus, then the gospel events took place in the AD 60s, and not the AD 30s. And this, was a step too far for the professor, and he backed down from the obvious conclusions.

Such are the pressures on academia.

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 09:11 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(29-05-2013 04:34 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thecoa wasn't Jerusalem (where Jeebus was allegedly executed) is it! It's 10 miles south of Jerusalem.


Yes. And?

The text says that Josephus was on the way back from Tekoa when he saw the three leaders of the Jewish Revolt being crucified (obviously including King Izas).

The way back from Tekoa, to the Lion Gate in Jerusalem, takes one through the Kidron Valley, under the Mount of Olives. It was here where King Izas (King Jesus) was crucified (and survived).


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(13-06-2013 09:07 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(28-05-2013 01:00 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You seem to be the ONLY one saying this stuff. Why is that ? Show me ONE legitimate professional that buys into any of this "stuff". So EVERYONE is wrong, and YOU, not trained in anything, are right.

Ok. Right. Sure.


Most professionals in their field have careers and reputations to defend - at any cost.

Theologians will not entertain these ideas, as it undermines and destroys their entire wold view, and the very organisation that gives them a career and income. Do you think they would destroy all that? **

Likewise, historians are also reticent to go out on a limb. Note all the mockery and bile thrown in my direction - do you really think a respected historian would risk all that, and possibly the end of their glittering career (even if they were right)??

Academia is naturally conservative, for obvious reasons, and it normally takes the passing of a generation before any new ideas get established.

.

** I congratulated Prof Robert Eisenman on discovering that Mary Boethus was Mary Magdalene. "No, no, he cried, they were not the same person - the life of Mary Mag was merely modeled upon that of Mary Boethus". Why the reticence to admit the obvious? Because if Mary Mag was Mary Boethus, then the gospel events took place in the AD 60s, and not the AD 30s. And this, was a step too far for the professor, and he backed down from the obvious conclusions.

Such are the pressures on academia.

.

Such is the paranoia and delusion of the fringe.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: