[split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2013, 09:57 PM
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.

(28-05-2013 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Since you seem to be the only person who makes this connection, I will remain skeptical.

It doesn't really matter how many people believe something is true. A widespread belief doesn't make something true, nor is something false just because it isn't widely held. There have been many beliefs in the past that were held by one person at a time, such as Continental Drift or DNA.

But I'm not disagreeing with you guys... I just want you to remain focused on exactly why we don't believe these ideas of Ralph Ellis; they're like conspiracy theories, entirely too convoluted and based on a huge web of equally unsupported ideas. There may perhaps be an internal consistency, and I like the idea of someone making a novel discovery or argument, but agreeing with any of it requires dismissing ideas that are far better supported. I'm a huge fan of Occam's razor and probability, and I think we all agree (except for Ralph) that these stories aren't the most likely conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 01:06 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(26-05-2013 03:56 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Josephus Flavius was Joseph(us) of Aramathaea.

I'm confused, didn't you say in another thread that Josphus was Saul of Tarsus (Paul)?


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 07:48 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(13-06-2013 09:57 PM)Starcrash 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.

(28-05-2013 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Since you seem to be the only person who makes this connection, I will remain skeptical.

It doesn't really matter how many people believe something is true. A widespread belief doesn't make something true, nor is something false just because it isn't widely held. There have been many beliefs in the past that were held by one person at a time, such as Continental Drift or DNA.

But I'm not disagreeing with you guys... I just want you to remain focused on exactly why we don't believe these ideas of Ralph Ellis; they're like conspiracy theories, entirely too convoluted and based on a huge web of equally unsupported ideas. There may perhaps be an internal consistency, and I like the idea of someone making a novel discovery or argument, but agreeing with any of it requires dismissing ideas that are far better supported. I'm a huge fan of Occam's razor and probability, and I think we all agree (except for Ralph) that these stories aren't the most likely conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.

I had already made the substantive criticism of his little tales.
This comment, directed at him, is to reinforce the fact that they are not taken seriously for those reasons.

You are seeing fallacies everywhere. Sometimes it's just rhetoric. Relax.

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
15-06-2013, 06:15 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(14-06-2013 01:06 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(26-05-2013 03:56 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Josephus Flavius was Joseph(us) of Aramathaea.

I'm confused, didn't you say in another thread that Josphus was Saul of Tarsus (Paul)?


Of course. But the authors of the gospels ** could hardly admit that either Saul or Josephus Flavius were the savior of Jesus.

Saul was supposed to have died in Rome, although there is no evidence for this. In reality when he 'disappeared' in Rome in the mid to late 60s, he actually reappeared in Judaea as the rebel army commander in charge of Galilee. (i.e.: he was Josephus Flavius, the army commander in Galilee).

Saul's (Josephus Flavius') task in Galilee was to attack and curb the activities of Jesus of Gamala (i.e.: the biblical Jesus), who was the leader of the Jewish Revolt. This was the true period when Saul was persecuting Jesus (of Gamala). (Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me... Acts 9:4).

So the gospel writers (and N.T. editor-in-chief, Josephus) has a bit of a problem here.

a. It was very difficult for them to admit that Saul had saved Jesus, as he was known to have been Jesus' enemy and the founder of a completely different Church to Jesus' Nazarene Church. Saul founded Simple Judaism or Christianity, which is why Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever (apart from his icon).

b. It was very difficult to admit that Josephus saved Jesus, as this would admit the huge heresy that these events actually happened in the late AD 60s AD, and not the AD 30s.

Hmm, bit of a problem, this.


Many of the apocryphal gospels also have a problem with this true later date, including:

The Toledoth Yeshu, which has Jesus tried by Queen Helena and not by Pontius Pilate.

The Doctrine of Addai, which has Jesus writing to King Abgarus of Edessa in the late AD 40s.

The Vulgate Cycle of Arthurian Legend (which contains an alternative 'gospel' supposedly written by Joseph of Arimathaea [JoA]). But the problem that JoA has, in his gospel, is that most of his life is concerned with the Jewish Revolt and his meeting with Vespasian and Titus. Bit of a problem this, if he is also supposed to have saved Jesus in AD 33. So the bizarre solution, is that JoA falls asleep for 40 years and awakes to find himself in the court of Vespasian. How convenient.

In addition, the Arthurian Round Table is said to have been a copy of JoA's Round Table, which was said to have been a copy of the Last Supper Table. So the Last Supper Table was a Round Table, with 12 disciples instead of 12 knights. But since all of Jesus' disciples were armed with swords, they too were knights. So the court of King Arthur was based upon or the same as the court of King Jesus - with exactly the same symbology of the Twelve Disciple-Knights of the Round Table.


Going back to JoA ..... the savior of Jesus could not be admitted to have been Josephus Flavius nor to have been Saul (ie: not Saul-Josephus). And so a third pseudonym was created for Saul-Josephus - and this was Josephus of Aramathaea. This is why, in the Vulgate Cycle, the son of Josephus of Aramathaea, who was called Josephus, was mistaken for Josephus Flavius.


The people who wrote these apocryphal gospels knew a great deal, but much of what they knew was a heresy punishable by death, and so their knowledge was perforce written carefully and in code.



** (Luke and Acts were penned by Saul-Josephus Flavius).


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2013, 06:32 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(13-06-2013 09:57 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  There may perhaps be an internal consistency, and I like the idea of someone making a novel discovery or argument, but agreeing with any of it requires dismissing ideas that are far better supported. I'm a huge fan of Occam's razor and probability, and I think we all agree (except for Ralph) that these stories aren't the most likely conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.


Thanks, Starcrash.

But this is the problem detractors have with my theory(s), the consistency. Their initial reaction is: "this is simply not possible" - a gut reaction formed by something so alien to what one has been taught by trusted organisations and people. Trusted people tell the truth, so how can everything they have said be a lie?? Its not possible.

So they set about destroying my arguments. But every element of their deconstruction hits the hard wall of reason, logic and real history (or even unknown parts of biblical history). And their arguments are proved to be baseless.

And the reason I can destroy their every argument is not due to my brilliance, but because my theory is based on the truth. These detractors can even throw in arguments I have never heard of before, but when investigated they can be shown to be baseless. Why? Because my arguments are based on the true events, and thus the history will always eventually support my thesis.

I have had much of this, and here are a few academics who have chosen to try and destroy my thesis, and failed miserably:


Daniel Mr McClellan:
http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/20...mment-3286
http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/20...mment-3302

Steve Caruso:
http://aramaicdesigns.blogspot.nl/2013/0...is-er.html

But Caruso deleted the entire debate, so nobody could see his abject failures. The censored discussion is here:
http://www.edfu-books.com/Caruso.html


And finally there is the Aaron Adair discussion. There are no less than four postings by Mr Adair, where he proceeded to dig himself ever deeper into the mire. The links are here:

http://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2013/04...lph-ellis/
https://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2013/0...omment-895
http://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2013/04...omment-901

The lack of education and understanding displayed by Mr Adair in his postings is quite astounding. Among the dozens of hopeless errors he made in his criticism of my work, are the following:

He did not know that Egyptian language does not display vowels.
He did not know that the word Saba included a 'kite' aleph glyph - turning 'sab' into 'saba'.
He did not know that an 'aleph' is not a vowel.
He did not know that the goddesses Ast (Isis), Astoreth, Ishtar, Aphrodite and Venus were linked.
He did not know that Ast (Isis) and Venus were the same goddess.
He did not know that the name Esther came from the Persian and referred to a star.
Perhaps more importantly:
He did not know that Christianity was based upon the writings of Saul, rather than Peter.
He did not know that Saul and Jesus were adversaries.
He did not know that Saul challenged Peter in Antioch, for not eating with Gentiles.
(If you don't know this, then how can you critique a book on the New Testament?)
He did not know that a Jewish boy becomes a man at the age of 12 or 13, at his barmitsvah.
He did not know that Edessa was called Antioch.
He did not know that Herod the Great had some dominion over Edessa.
He did not know that the Romans sometimes pampered their captives, instead of executing them.
He did not know that Jesus 'came back to life'.
He did not know any of the many links between the goddess Ast or Est (Isis) and Easter.
He did not know that the Egyptians referred to the heavens as a 'sea'.
He did not know why Jesus was called a 'tekton'
He did not know why Saul was called a 'tent maker' (he thought Saul really made tents !!)

However, despite the great acclaim made in academia for Mr Adair's analysis of my work and his so-called rebuttals of my explanations, Mr Adair has once again banned me from his site and thus hidden himself behind censorship. Anyway, my replies to Mr Adair are here:

http://www.edfu-books.com/Adair3.html
http://www.edfu-books.com/Adair4.html




So much for academia.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2013, 08:13 AM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2013 08:16 AM by Starcrash.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(15-06-2013 06:32 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(13-06-2013 09:57 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  There may perhaps be an internal consistency, and I like the idea of someone making a novel discovery or argument, but agreeing with any of it requires dismissing ideas that are far better supported. I'm a huge fan of Occam's razor and probability, and I think we all agree (except for Ralph) that these stories aren't the most likely conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.


Thanks, Starcrash.

But this is the problem detractors have with my theory(s), the consistency. Their initial reaction is: "this is simply not possible" - a gut reaction formed by something so alien to what one has been taught by trusted organisations and people. Trusted people tell the truth, so how can everything they have said be a lie?? Its not possible.

So they set about destroying my arguments. But every element of their deconstruction hits the hard wall of reason, logic and real history (or even unknown parts of biblical history). And their arguments are proved to be baseless.

And the reason I can destroy their every argument is not due to my brilliance, but because my theory is based on the truth. These detractors can even throw in arguments I have never heard of before, but when investigated they can be shown to be baseless. Why? Because my arguments are based on the true events, and thus the history will always eventually support my thesis.

I have had much of this, and here are a few academics who have chosen to try and destroy my thesis, and failed miserably:


Daniel Mr McClellan:
http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/20...mment-3286
http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/20...mment-3302

Steve Caruso:
http://aramaicdesigns.blogspot.nl/2013/0...is-er.html

But Caruso deleted the entire debate, so nobody could see his abject failures. The censored discussion is here:
http://www.edfu-books.com/Caruso.html


And finally there is the Aaron Adair discussion. There are no less than four postings by Mr Adair, where he proceeded to dig himself ever deeper into the mire. The links are here:

http://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2013/04...lph-ellis/
https://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2013/0...omment-895
http://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2013/04...omment-901

The lack of education and understanding displayed by Mr Adair in his postings is quite astounding. Among the dozens of hopeless errors he made in his criticism of my work, are the following:

He did not know that Egyptian language does not display vowels.
He did not know that the word Saba included a 'kite' aleph glyph - turning 'sab' into 'saba'.
He did not know that an 'aleph' is not a vowel.
He did not know that the goddesses Ast (Isis), Astoreth, Ishtar, Aphrodite and Venus were linked.
He did not know that Ast (Isis) and Venus were the same goddess.
He did not know that the name Esther came from the Persian and referred to a star.
Perhaps more importantly:
He did not know that Christianity was based upon the writings of Saul, rather than Peter.
He did not know that Saul and Jesus were adversaries.
He did not know that Saul challenged Peter in Antioch, for not eating with Gentiles.
(If you don't know this, then how can you critique a book on the New Testament?)
He did not know that a Jewish boy becomes a man at the age of 12 or 13, at his barmitsvah.
He did not know that Edessa was called Antioch.
He did not know that Herod the Great had some dominion over Edessa.
He did not know that the Romans sometimes pampered their captives, instead of executing them.
He did not know that Jesus 'came back to life'.
He did not know any of the many links between the goddess Ast or Est (Isis) and Easter.
He did not know that the Egyptians referred to the heavens as a 'sea'.
He did not know why Jesus was called a 'tekton'
He did not know why Saul was called a 'tent maker' (he thought Saul really made tents !!)

However, despite the great acclaim made in academia for Mr Adair's analysis of my work and his so-called rebuttals of my explanations, Mr Adair has once again banned me from his site and thus hidden himself behind censorship. Anyway, my replies to Mr Adair are here:

http://www.edfu-books.com/Adair3.html
http://www.edfu-books.com/Adair4.html




So much for academia.


.

Chaz is right -- I do see fallacies everywhere, because I have a heightened attention for them. So I notice that, if you are in fact arguing that your ideas are right because your detractors are wrong, then you are making an argument from fallacy... "if" you are making that argument, which isn't necessarily the point that you wanted to make.

What you're suggesting is that your opponents are dismissing your arguments because they have already been indoctrinated in another theory from authorities that they trust and so they simply cannot accept a new theory. That's a form of the Semmelweis Reflex (which I cited in my post above), and that does sum up what your detractors have openly stated in this forum (although it doesn't seem to be the case in your citations). I am just as biased towards the old paradigm as anyone else, because my brain operates in the same ways with the same flaws -- but because I'm aware of my own flaws, I can and do avoid these pitfalls. You'll notice that I didn't make the same argument, but instead I tried to put their objections in a better light by saying that they could be arguing for the old paradigm by using them as measures for "weighing" the old evidence against the new.

You see, it's not enough for your interpretation of Jesus' life to make sense. The old stories about Jesus, Saul, and the like made sense as well; your interpretation has to make *more* sense. I remember that, when I argued against your specific interpretations months ago, I pointed out where you were cherry-picking your evidence, ignoring the parts that didn't follow your narrative but using the parts that did -- such as your suggestion that the mass following around Jesus at the sermon on the mount represented an army, while totally ignoring the very lengthy treatment given in the scriptures at that point to Jesus' recommendations of nonviolence. Cherry-picking doesn't necessarily make your interpretation weaker than the old one, because I believe that the old one also contradicted itself in places (Jesus' sermon recommended cutting off one's hand if it does evil, and yet Jesus didn't mention such a thing in response to Peter using his sword to cut off the high priest's ear when it seemed more than appropriate). However, your interpretation makes *more* of these errors than the old view.

Do I think that you couldn't possibly be right? Far from it. Just like anyone, I like the idea of having knowledge that few people have because it makes me feel special, so I wish you were right. But as it is, your views ignore too much evidence in order to "work". I know that you've invested too much time in trying to build your interpretation, and because of the sunk-cost bias it's highly unlikely that you'll go back to the drawing board or admit that your detractors might be right. But they could be.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
15-06-2013, 11:56 AM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2013 12:01 PM by ralphellis.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
.......
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2013, 05:42 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(15-06-2013 08:13 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  What you're suggesting is that your opponents are dismissing your arguments because they have already been indoctrinated in another theory from authorities that they trust and so they simply cannot accept a new theory.

Do note that some of these academics are from the Brigham Young University in Utah. Now if anyone is going to be pre-indoctrinated, it is the output of a Utah education.

Have you tried inviting Mormon evangelists into your home and debating with them? It is impossible to have a debate, because everything is black and white - the Bible is right (in its most literallist of interpretations) and you (or any rational Lutherian Protestant) is wrong.

I am Atheist, BTW, as I have said before.




(15-06-2013 08:13 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  You see, it's not enough for your interpretation of Jesus' life to make sense. The old stories about Jesus, Saul, and the like made sense as well; your interpretation has to make *more* sense.

I remember that, when I argued against your specific interpretations months ago, I pointed out where you were cherry-picking your evidence, ignoring the parts that didn't follow your narrative but using the parts that did -- such as your suggestion that the mass following around Jesus at the sermon on the mount represented an army, while totally ignoring the very lengthy treatment given in the scriptures at that point to Jesus' recommendations of nonviolence.

But I would contend that my ideas do indeed make more sense, and I base this on many years of debate with those who know these subjects well (be they academics or theologians) who proceed to lose the argument and become abusive (or delete the blog and ban me from the site). Sorry, but if you have to resort to abuse or censorship, you have run out of logic and argument, and I win.

And regard your example of Jesus' armed assault on Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, you are as guilty of cherry-picking as myself, if not more so. I have not gone back to see the full debate we had, but in your short excerpt here you fail to mention that:

a. That we have what appears to be another version of this event written by Josephus, and in this version this most definitely was an armed assault on Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives by 30,000 mercenaries. And we know this assault was the same as the biblical account, as it was led by the Egyptian False Prophet, which is a standard Josephusan pseudonym for Jesus (they both led the 5,000 into the wilderness).

b. That just prior to this Mount of Olives event (in the previous verse, no less) Jesus urged his followers to spend every penny they had on purchasing swords. What were the swords for? Divine fencing?? Well, since someone cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest, one would suspect they were for offensive action - for warfare:

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his wallet: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36


c. I did indeed mention why Jesus' words have been turned into sermons of peace. The NT was crafted or edited by Saul-Josephus after the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem. The Romans wanted peace in the East of the Empire, so they commissioned Saul-Josephus - Emperor Vespasian's pet Jewish historian and spin-meister - to write a peaceful and spiritual version of the events of the Jewish Revolt. This version was all about turning the other cheek rather than revolting, about the Jews being nasty rather than the Romans being nasty, about not being circumcised, about eating and praying with those horrible Gentile folks, and about paying Roman taxes. This was the Jewish Revolt with a liberal sprinkling of Roman Fairydust on top, and today we call it the New Testament. This is why Jesus (the leader of the Jewish Revolt according to Josephus) is made to make speeches of peace and reconciliation between Christio-Jews and Romans - Vespasian would have demanded nothing less.


You see, my interpretation does make sense of all the available information, in a much more comprehensive fashion than the original version ever did. As you yourself asked - why was Jesus-the-gospel-peacenik purchasing swords, having secret meetings on the Mount of Olives, being apprehended by an entire speira** of Roman soldiery, and cutting off ears of the high priest's officials?? The traditional explanation makes absolutely no sense, while my interpretation explains everything.



** A speira or cohort is 600 heavy infantry. Why did it need a whole cohort to apprehend a few disciples? Clearly Josephus' version is more believable (if slightly exaggerated). When Josephus says 30,000 mercenaries we might assume this to be 5,000 or perhaps 10,000 men at most; and 600 well-trained and well-armed Roman soldiery can easily deal with such a rag-tag army. (Except for the army of Cestius, of course, which was wiped out by the Jews at the beginning of the Jewish Revolt. And sometimes I see in this account by Josephus an echo of Cestius' ill fated advance on Jerusalem to quell the Jewish Revolt - except, of course, that the Romans lost the battle in this instance and had to wait another two years to win the war.)



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2013, 06:38 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
Ralph, I'm having great trouble following your train of thought.

You say that King Jesus attacked Jerusalem with 30,000 troops. Who, exactly, was he attacking? Hadn't the Roman garrison in Jerusalem already being driven out in 66 CE?

You say that Josephus asked Vespasian to take King Jesus down off the cross, because King Jesus was one of Josephus' mates. How could Josephus and King Jesus be good friends? Surely they were batting for opposing teams?

You say King Jesus survived crucifixion which is the explanation for the Jeebus of the Bible rising from the dead. Do you have any evidence that King Jesus survived, as written up in secular history?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2013, 06:51 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(18-06-2013 05:42 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(15-06-2013 08:13 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  What you're suggesting is that your opponents are dismissing your arguments because they have already been indoctrinated in another theory from authorities that they trust and so they simply cannot accept a new theory.

Do note that some of these academics are from the Brigham Young University in Utah. Now if anyone is going to be pre-indoctrinated, it is the output of a Utah education.

Have you tried inviting Mormon evangelists into your home and debating with them? It is impossible to have a debate, because everything is black and white - the Bible is right (in its most literallist of interpretations) and you (or any rational Lutherian Protestant) is wrong.

I am Atheist, BTW, as I have said before.




(15-06-2013 08:13 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  You see, it's not enough for your interpretation of Jesus' life to make sense. The old stories about Jesus, Saul, and the like made sense as well; your interpretation has to make *more* sense.

I remember that, when I argued against your specific interpretations months ago, I pointed out where you were cherry-picking your evidence, ignoring the parts that didn't follow your narrative but using the parts that did -- such as your suggestion that the mass following around Jesus at the sermon on the mount represented an army, while totally ignoring the very lengthy treatment given in the scriptures at that point to Jesus' recommendations of nonviolence.

But I would contend that my ideas do indeed make more sense, and I base this on many years of debate with those who know these subjects well (be they academics or theologians) who proceed to lose the argument and become abusive (or delete the blog and ban me from the site). Sorry, but if you have to resort to abuse or censorship, you have run out of logic and argument, and I win.

And regard your example of Jesus' armed assault on Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, you are as guilty of cherry-picking as myself, if not more so. I have not gone back to see the full debate we had, but in your short excerpt here you fail to mention that:

a. That we have what appears to be another version of this event written by Josephus, and in this version this most definitely was an armed assault on Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives by 30,000 mercenaries. And we know this assault was the same as the biblical account, as it was led by the Egyptian False Prophet, which is a standard Josephusan pseudonym for Jesus (they both led the 5,000 into the wilderness).

b. That just prior to this Mount of Olives event (in the previous verse, no less) Jesus urged his followers to spend every penny they had on purchasing swords. What were the swords for? Divine fencing?? Well, since someone cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest, one would suspect they were for offensive action - for warfare:

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his wallet: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36


c. I did indeed mention why Jesus' words have been turned into sermons of peace. The NT was crafted or edited by Saul-Josephus after the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem. The Romans wanted peace in the East of the Empire, so they commissioned Saul-Josephus - Emperor Vespasian's pet Jewish historian and spin-meister - to write a peaceful and spiritual version of the events of the Jewish Revolt. This version was all about turning the other cheek rather than revolting, about the Jews being nasty rather than the Romans being nasty, about not being circumcised, about eating and praying with those horrible Gentile folks, and about paying Roman taxes. This was the Jewish Revolt with a liberal sprinkling of Roman Fairydust on top, and today we call it the New Testament. This is why Jesus (the leader of the Jewish Revolt according to Josephus) is made to make speeches of peace and reconciliation between Christio-Jews and Romans - Vespasian would have demanded nothing less.


You see, my interpretation does make sense of all the available information, in a much more comprehensive fashion than the original version ever did. As you yourself asked - why was Jesus-the-gospel-peacenik purchasing swords, having secret meetings on the Mount of Olives, being apprehended by an entire speira** of Roman soldiery, and cutting off ears of the high priest's officials?? The traditional explanation makes absolutely no sense, while my interpretation explains everything.



** A speira or cohort is 600 heavy infantry. Why did it need a whole cohort to apprehend a few disciples? Clearly Josephus' version is more believable (if slightly exaggerated). When Josephus says 30,000 mercenaries we might assume this to be 5,000 or perhaps 10,000 men at most; and 600 well-trained and well-armed Roman soldiery can easily deal with such a rag-tag army. (Except for the army of Cestius, of course, which was wiped out by the Jews at the beginning of the Jewish Revolt. And sometimes I see in this account by Josephus an echo of Cestius' ill fated advance on Jerusalem to quell the Jewish Revolt - except, of course, that the Romans lost the battle in this instance and had to wait another two years to win the war.)





.

I wholeheartedly agree with your point c. This, to my mind, is the guts of the issue. It means the gospels are fabricated propaganda, a product of the Roman government of the time. They had very little to do with a once living character who sprouted wise anecdotes. Wouldn't it be great if the world at large became informed about this!

I am wondering what you think of Atwill's idea that Jesus is, in fact, Titus? Have you read his book?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: