Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:37 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:22 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:40 pm
Posts: 24
Actually, it is likely that Jesus was a historical character, and a king too (yes, a real 1st century prince and king). We shall come to the king bit later, but the evidence starts in the works of Josephus Flavius.

The simple answer to this problem has to be that the biblical Jesus was actually Jesus of Gamala, the rebel leader of the Jewish Revolt mentioned by Josephus. If you look at the two characters, there are many points of commonality.

Both were called Jesus.
Both had brothers called Simon and James.
Both were from Galilee.
Both were leaders of new sects (JG was the leader of the Fourth Sect, likely the Nazarenes)
Both were leaders of 'armies' (the disciples of JC were all armed, and JC came to bring a war)
Both became High Priest of Jerusalem (Hebrews 7)
Both were married to Mary Magdalene (Mary Boethus - read Prof Eisenman)
Both were crucified (end of Josephus' 'Life', the crucifixion scene)
Both were taken down early from the cross by Joseph(us) (of Arimatharea)

There are, in fact, innumerable similarities between these 'two' characters. So much so, that they just have to be the same person.

But once we begin to understand that Jesus was a real character, we can find out much more about him. The problem with Jesus of Gamala being that he is not much more historical than the biblical Jesus. He was mentioned in the Talmud and by Josephus, but that is about it. So the next task will be to find Jesus of Gamala in the historical record as a real 1st century character of note.


(Perhaps I should add that this is not a religious crusade to discover Jesus - I am an Atheist.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Hi Ralph -

My work demonstrates that the "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a composite of fictional characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one. When the mythological and midrashic layers are removed, there remains no historical core to the onion.

So, that's where we're at, with thousands of pages of documentation, from the earliest primary sources to the most modern scholarship. There simply is no "historical Jesus of Nazareth" at the core of the New Testament tale. Again, he is a composite character, most of whose attributes come from preceding gods and goddesses.

If you would like to know more about my work, here is a good place to start:

Christ Myth Articles

Regarding the numerous attempts over the centuries to find a "historical" Jesus, Dr. Shaye Cohen ("From Jesus to Christ") put it best:

Quote:
"Modern scholars have routinely reinvented Jesus or have routinely rediscovered in Jesus that which they want to find..."

There is much, much more to this story, including a massive body of literature within the field of Jesus mythicism that dates back centuries.

Cheers.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:06 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:40 pm
Posts: 24
Acharya wrote:
Hi Ralph -

So, that's where we're at, with thousands of pages of documentation, from the earliest primary sources to the most modern scholarship. There simply is no "historical Jesus of Nazareth" at the core of the New Testament tale. Again, he is a composite character, most of whose attributes come from preceding gods and goddesses.

Cheers.



Well, that was true. But I went off on a tangent, and discovered a very good candidate, who has never been explored before.

It started, as I said previously, with the form idea that Jesus was Jesus of Gamala. But who was Jesus of Gamala?

It seemed obvious that Jesus of Gamala was actually King Izas of Adiabene, as mentioned by Josephus. Mainly because both of these characters led the Jewish Revolt. So far, so good. But who was Izas of Adiabene?

The answer lay with the Syriac historians who said that Queen Helena (Izas' mother), married King Abgarus au Kama of Edessa. Abgarus who? Edessa who?


Precisely. They have been largely deleted from the historical record, and for obvious reasons.

The reason why I think this is important, is because a son of King Abgarus was therefore a leader of the Jewish Revolt. And we end up with a whole host of similarities between this prince and the biblical Jesus:

The Biblical Jesus was a king (King of the Jews)
The Edessan prince was a king (of Edessa)

The Biblical Jesus was a Nazarene
The Edessan prince was a Nazarene

The Biblical Jesus was called King Jesus EmManuel
The Edessan prince was called King Izas Manu(el)

The Biblical Jesus wore a Crown of Thorns
The Edessan prince wore a Crown of Thorns.


And so the evidence goes on, and on. There is a very good case that can be made, that the biblical King Jesus Emmanuel was actually King Izas Manu of Edessa.

Ralph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:10 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Hi Ralph,

I think we're looking at a mythical character that has had several attempts at evemerism by many to make Jesus appear more historical. It may be fair to point out that some of Josephus has been used to conflate this character with real people in an attempt to make Jesus appear more historical. Josephus mentions around 20 different Jesus's and none turn out to be the historical Jesus. Your 'Jesus ben Gamala' is one of the listed Jesus's.

I see you've also made your case HERE.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:43 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
Yeah Ralph, this issue is actually pretty well covered as you can see by the long list of many Jesus's in Josephus many of which share similarities to the Jesus myth but none of them are similar in total. What that amounts to is a strong case for how the late to arrive Jesus of Nazareth myth could have been crafted together by people looking through Josephus for bits and pieces here and there and graft together an historical-like angle to what had formerly been a purely celestial primitive form mythology. Probably well into the second century when these historical angle Jesus myths finally begin to appear into the literary and historical record.

The idea that Murdock is getting at is that many different bits and pieces of borrowed material from previous mythologies mixed together with many different historical biographies from Josephus and others amounts to no one person in particular when all is stripped bare.

So basically the path you'd laid out which consists of looking at Jesus Gamala from Josephus is of course merely zeroing in on one aspect of a multi-layered mythology which is by no means the core of a core-less onion, but rather one of the many different layers that can all be stripped away leaving behind a void at the base of it all.

Therefore a composition of many mythological motifs and historical biographies turns out to be no one particular person in the end - as Massey pointed out a century ago and which still rings true even today...

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:57 am 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:40 pm
Posts: 24
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Josephus mentioned around 20 different Jesus's and none turn out to be the New Testament Jesus.

s[/url]



Yes, but many of those Jesuses are duplicates - Jesus of Gamala and Jesus Sapphias being a case in point. And possible Jesus of Gamaliel too. And why could Jesus of Gamala not be the biblical Jesus?

Jesus of Gamala...

He was a Galilean, as was Jesus.
He became high priest, just as Jesus did in Hebrews 7.
Led a Revolt against Judaea and Rome, as did Jesus (the Jewish Revolt).
He was being persecuted by an agent of the Jerusalem authorities (either Saul or Josephus)
He married Mary Magdalene (ie: Mary Boethus), as Prof Eisenman has revealed for us.


And many more similarities that I will explain later.



Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Here's a brief list of those who knew of Josephus and/or his works yet made no mention of the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) or Jesus.


But we are not considering the Testamonium Flavium here, for that is a Eusebian fraud.

However, Josephus wrote a complete history of 1st century Judaea, so unless the biblical Jesus was a complete fiction, then he must be in Josephus's works somewhere. The likely candidate is the leader of the Jewish Revolt, who is alternately called Jesus of Gamala or Izas of Adiabene. It is my contention that Jesus and Izas are one person - the leader of the Revolt - and that this was the biblical Jesus.

This is why, in the Toledoth Yeshu, Jesus was brought to trial before Queen Helena of Adiabene. For of the biblical Jesus was Izas of Adiabene, then Helena was his mother. The Toledoth was a carping ridicule by the Jewish authorities, that they knew the truth of these 1st century events.


.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:30 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:40 pm
Posts: 24
Tat Tvam Asi wrote:

So basically the path you'd laid out which consists of looking at Jesus Gamala from Josephus is of course merely zeroing in on one aspect of a multi-layered mythology which is by no means the core of a core-less onion, but rather one of the many different layers that can all be stripped away leaving behind a void at the base of it all.

Therefore a composition of many mythological motifs and historical biographies turns out to be no one particular person in the end - as Massey pointed out a century ago and which still rings true even today...



But that is only true while Jesus of Gamala himself remains largely fictional (for he is not exactly a part of regular history).

But if you understand that Jesus of Gamala is actually Izas of Adiabene (for they both led the Jewish Revolt), and if you understand that Izas of Adiabane was actually King Manu of Edessa (they had the same mother - Queen Helena), the situation is greatly clarified. Suddenly we have a real historical character to consider - King Manu (Em-Manuel).

Now we know why Josephus was always saying that King Izas was from 'Beyond the Euphrates', because Edessa is indeed Beyond the Euphrates.

Now we know why a family name of the Adiabene monarchy was Monobazus, because this was derived from ManuBazus, or King Manu.

Now we know why King Izas was called the Only Begotten Son, because Jesus was also called the Only Begotten Son.

Now we know why Jesus wore a Crown of Thorns, because the Edessan monarchy always wore a Crown of Thorns.


This identification gives us a complete new vista, a new historical foundation from which we can work from. And it is a foundation that gives similarity after similarity with the gospel stories.

And again, I should point out that I am not a Christian desperate to find Jesus as a real person. I am an Atheist interested in history, who has always wondered why every Old or New Testament hero is missing from the historical record (including the likes of Kings David and Solomon).



.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:48 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:40 pm
Posts: 24
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Hi Ralph,

I think we're looking at a mythical character that has had several attempts at evemerism by many to make Jesus appear more historical. It may be fair to point out that some of Josephus has been used to conflate this character with real people in an attempt to make Jesus appear more historical.



On the contrary, I think Josephus has actually done his best to make a historical character appear fictional.

Look at it from Josephus' point of view. Josephus was in the pay of the Romans, and the Romans wanted to quell the Jewish unrest on their eastern borders. And the Jews were not good Romans either, as they would not eat, pray or bathe with other Romans. Rome needed a new pacifist and Rome friendly form of Judaism.

The leaders of the Jewish Revolt were respected royals, so Josephus' commission was to create a fictional version of the events of the Jewish Revolt - a story that reduced the rich, revolutionary king of Adiabene/Edessa to a pauper prince of peace wjo was only mockingly referred to as a king.

We call that new version of Josephus' Jewish War, the New Testament, and it supported (Saul) Josephus' new Rome friendly form of Judaism Lite - or Christianity. It was an audacious propaganda move - to create a new religion to quell an established one, but it worked, and now some 2 billion people believe in (Saul) Josephus' propaganda.

Thus all the biblical characters are there, in the historical record, and the most obvious of those is Jesus-Izas of Gamala-Adiabene, who is the biblical Jesus. But what Vespasian and Josephus did not want you to know, is that the biblical Jesus started and prosecuted the Jewish Revolt.



Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Hi Ralph,

I see you've also made your case HERE.


Yes, but I was expelled from that site for being too rational and skeptical. Thisnis the problem with new ideas and paradigms, for they are always mocked before they are accepted.


.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:17 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
This discussion reminds me of Mickey Rourke's character in The Wrestler, Randy "The Ram" Robinson. A lot of real-life professional wrestlers served as inspirations for aspects of the character and his story. Jake Roberts, Terry Funk, Mick Foley, Tony Atlas, etc., just to name a few. Even Hulk Hogan chimed in claiming he was an inspiration for the character as well.

All of these men are historical people who actually exist. But it's inaccurate to point at any one of them and say "that guy right there, that's the historical Randy Robinson." There was never a real Randy Robinson. No one person was the historical basis for his legend. He is a work of fiction. And yet his creation was not entirely independent of real history either.

And I think that is, by analogy, the point mythicists are trying to communicate.

Same with Santa Claus. When kids get old enough and we tell them "Santa Claus isn't real" I've never heard anyone respond to the effect of "well, you know, actually Santa was a real person who once lived a long time ago named Saint Nicholas of Myra, but his legend has been blown up to mythical proportions." When we say to kids that "Santa isn't real," we adults understand what that means and it goes without saying that Saint Nicholas is considered a historical man who really lived and served as an inspiration for the Santa Claus character. We're not denying Nicholas or his contributions to the mythos.

The basis for this character existed even before the life of Saint Nicholas, he was just another character who came along whose bio happened to fit the pattern of the archetypal winter gift-giver. He was just another layer the snowball accumulated as it rolled on down the hill of time. It doesn't seem very accurate to point to Nicholas as the real Santa Claus when other such characters already existed prior to Nicholas.

But we acknowledge that Nicholas existed and contributed significantly to the mythos, nonetheless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:43 am 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:40 pm
Posts: 24
GodAlmighty wrote:

All of these men are historical people who actually exist. But it's inaccurate to point at any one of them and say "that guy right there, that's the historical Randy Robinson." There was never a real Randy Robinson. No one person was the historical basis for his legend. He is a work of fiction. And yet his creation was not entirely independent of real history either.

And I think that is, by analogy, the point mythicists are trying to communicate.




Yes, but you will come to a point where your 'fictional' story is based so closely upon the life of a real person, that it actually becomes a biography of that person. And this is exactly what (Saul) Josephus has crafted for us, within the gospel stories. Although I would still maintain that the fictionalisation of this character was done deliberately, so that you would not know who he was talking about.

The problem that mythicists have had, and believers too come to that, is they have never know who this myth-fiction was really based upon. Now we have a real possibility for the real character behind the mythology - King Izas Manu of Edessa.

This is why that verse naming (King) Jesus as Emmanuel (Em-Manu-El) was forced so incongruously into the biblical narrative - because the author knew that the gospel story was based upon the life of King Izas Manu VI of Edessa. But this highly sensitive information was for a few initiates only, and he did not want others to know this.

According to Josephus, it was King Izas Manu who led the Jewish Revolt, and so the minor revolt that (King) Jesus EmManuel was arrested for was actually the Jewish Revolt of AD 70. And do remember that Josephus also says that after the Revolt King Izas Manu was then crucified in the Kidron Valley alongside two other leaders of the Revolt, but that he was then reprieved by Josephus (of Arimatharea??), and survived.**

A familiar story? Of course, because the one was based upon the other.



** Josephus does not say which leader survived the crucifixion, but the gospels are adamant that it was (King) Jesus-Manu(el).


.






.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:13 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Ralph Ellis, you should consider creating a thread at FRDB maybe they will find your ideas more persuasive. Here you'll need to provide credible primary sources and reliable scholar commentary on them to substantiate your claims. There may very well be some truth to your case on the Jesus of Gamala / King Izas of Adiabene concept but, I have yet to see a reason to believe that that is THE New Testament Jesus. You would also have to disprove all the other potential candidates. It has been looked into by many scholars who found no there there.

We can agree that the Jesus of the New Testament was a collage of many characters both real and mythical, but the problem is that a composite of multiple 'people' is no one, for the reasons GodAlmighty explained above. This is all mythicism 101. Again, Josephus mentions around 20 different Jesus's and none turn out to be the historical Jesus. Your 'Jesus ben Gamala' is one of the listed Jesus's.

Quote:
There are two simple principles to keep in mind when it comes to the mythicist position:

1. When the mythological layers of the story are removed, there is no core to the onion.

2. A composite of 20 people, whether historical, mythical or both, is no one.

- Why I am A Mythicist

I see you've published a book entitled, Jesus, King of Edessa

Quote:
Book Description

Publication Date: January 15, 2013

"Ralph Ellis brings us his new book, which he asserts is the book that the Catholic Church has been dreading for the last 1,700 years. Ellis' latest research reveals who Jesus was, where he lived, and who his family were. Visit his city, see the ruins of his citadel, gaze upon his statue, handle his coins. In reality, Jesus was a son of King Abgarus of Edessa, a princeling with a small realm, a large treasury, and even bigger ambitions. But the wise prince of northern Syria came up against an intractable Rome and his many plans crumbled to dust. As readers will discover, the true history of this region undermines much of the biblical fairy-story that the gospel authors crafted, and so Christianity will never be the same. The jacket image shows Jesus wearing his Crown of Thorns, the ceremonial crown of the Edessan monarchy. Chapters include: Antioch, Edessa, Amida, Arbela and Palmyra; Adiabene and Palmyra; The Babylonian Jews; King Monobazus-Izates and Adiabene; Abgarus the Locust; The Parthian Sun-spot; The Doctrine of Addai; Silk Diadema and Tassels; Jesus and Mary in the Talmud; Emmanuel; Manu the Fish; Sarcophagus of Helena; The Fall of Edessa; more. This book is the last in the Trilogy begun with Cleopatra to Christ and King Jesus."

Code:
A New Theory That Jesus Was King of Edessa? Not So Fast, Mr. Ellis!
https://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/a-new-theory-that-jesus-was-king-of-edessa-not-so-fast-mr-ellis/

Ralph Ellis, Jesus, and his Myth of the King Jesus of Edessa
https://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/ralph-ellis-jesus-and-his-myth-of-the-king-jesus-of-edessa/

Speaking on Rook's reviews above you responded:

ralfellis wrote:
He reviewed my book, having not even bothered to read it. He them made a series of laughable errors, due to his not reading the explanations. However, having pointed out his many errors in a very friendly reply, he simply deleted all my postings.

The guy lives in a bubble of pseudo-superiority, based upon censorship. Of course he is always 'right', because all his mistakes and errors are ruthlessly deleted.

The guy is a complete fraud.

Ralph Ellis

From here

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:17 pm 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:40 pm
Posts: 24
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:


Code:
A New Theory That Jesus Was King of Edessa? Not So Fast, Mr. Ellis!
https://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/a-new-theory-that-jesus-was-king-of-edessa-not-so-fast-mr-ellis/

Ralph Ellis, Jesus, and his Myth of the King Jesus of Edessa
https://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/ralph-ellis-jesus-and-his-myth-of-the-king-jesus-of-edessa/



Speaking on Rook's reviews above you responded:

ralfellis wrote:
He reviewed my book, having not even bothered to read it. He them made a series of laughable errors, due to his not reading the explanations. However, having pointed out his many errors in a very friendly reply, he simply deleted all my postings.

The guy lives in a bubble of pseudo-superiority, based upon censorship. Of course he is always 'right', because all his mistakes and errors are ruthlessly deleted.

The guy is a complete fraud.

Ralph Ellis





Yes, because the guy IS a complete fraud. The following link was written about Thomas Verenna four years ago, because he has continually slandered people and then deleted any criticism of himself:

http://thomasverenna.blogspot.gr





In my case, Verenna has reviewed an entire book without even reading it. Thus his review is riddled with very stupid and quite embarrassing errors. But when presented with those errors, Verenna simply deletes them and lives behind a wall of censorship. Of course you can be 'right' every time, if you censor all your mistakes and errors and refuse to debate the real facts.

As I said, Verenna is a complete and utter fraud, who tried to claim he was a veteran of Iraq. And it would appear that dozens of people have fallen foul of his biased and fraudulent reviews.

The following is my repost to his absurd review of my book (written before he deleted all my replies, and hid behind his wall of censorship).

Ralph



Sir,


I am surprised you would be quite so forceful in your rejection, without first reading the evidence I have provided.



Firstly, the conflation of King Monobazus and King Abgarus.

You did not read the book, did you?
I conflate King Abgarus of Edessa and King Monobazus (the elder) of Adiabene, because the Syriac historians like Moses of Chorene and John the Historian say that Queen Helena of Adiabene was the chief wife of King Abgarus of Edessa. For many reasons this is not simply two marriages - this is a conflation of royalty and kingdoms. If Helena was the wife of both Monobazus and Abgarus, then the two kings must be the same person.

And thus Adiabene and Edessa are the same location too. In reality, Adiabene was a Josephusan pseudonym for Edessa. So at last we know where Adiabene was, and this location makes much more sense of the confused Roman reports.

This also explains what 'Monobazus' really means (another Josephusan construct). Monobazus was derived from Mono Bassilus meaning Only King or Forsaken King. But this is merely Josephus' joke. The original name was Manu Bazus, meaning King Manu (of Edessa). So the Adiabene and Edessan royalty really were one and the same.






Secondly, Queen Helena as a Queen of the Jews.

You did not read the book, did you?
As you know, Queen Helena had the largest tomb and the largest palace in Jerusalem, so she was rather important. She also provided the golden menorah for the Temple of Jerusalem, so she was well connected with the priesthood. Also, Jesus of Gamala (a pseudonym for Izas of Adiabene, because they both led the Jewish Revolt), became high priest of Jerusalem in the AD 60s. And this priestly position was bought for Jesus by some 75 kilos of silver, provided by Mary-Martha Boethus (who Prof Eisenman equates with the biblical Mary and Martha of Bethany).

And then, if you read the Toledoth Yeshu, you will see that the biblical Jesus was not brought before Pilate, he was brought before Queen Helena - which elevates Queen Helena into a primary Judaic authority. In effect, she was the Queen of the Jews in the same manner as Jesus was the King of the Jews. And this elevation is doubly likely in this new scenario, and Queen Helena would have been Jesus' mother.




Thirdly the coin on the jacket cover.

You did not read the book, did you?
The explanation for the jacket cover, is on the inside cover. In reality, I know exactly which Abgar the jacket cover coin is of, as this is my coin. The problem I was faced with, is that the real coin of King Manu VI is very rough, and does not display the Edessan plaited Crown of Thorns very well. So I chose to display a later coin, as the image is much clearer. But the profile of the king, and the crown with thorns is exactly the same on all of the Edessan coins, so this is of little consequence. And I explain all of this on the inside cover - which you would have seen if you had actually read the book.

So you give us pages of 'evidence' about my 'mistake', when this is a coin that I own, and all is explained in the book. What kind of reviewer are you? But I note that you do tacitly acknowledge, that all the Edessan monarchs all wore a Plaited Crown of Thorns, just as Jesus wore a Plaited Crown of Thorns??





Fourthly, Josephus at the crucifixion.

You have not read the book, have you?
I think you need to re-read Josephus 'Life'. Josephus Flavius WAS in Jerusalem when the Adiabene (Edessan) royalty surrendered to the Romans. And he was returning from Tekoa when he saw the three leaders of the Revolt (which must have included King Izas-Manu VI of Edessa) being crucified. Josephus petitioned the governor (Titus) to have the three leaders taken down, and he did so. Two of them died, while one survived.

I think you may recall this very same scene from the end of the gospel accounts. In which case, the person who took these three rebels down from the cross was actually Josephus Flavius (of Arimathaea).




Fifthly, the thesis.

This hypothesis is not some wild thought scribbled on the back of a fag packet. It is 35 years of research. And while it may be somewhat revolutionary, it actually explains everything in the New Testament. Each and every aspect, apart from the deliberate disinformation about Pontius Pilate, can be explained by this alternative view of these 1st century events in Judaea.

Try me, and I shall explain.

Thanks,
Ralph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Indeed, we here are all far too familiar with the juvenile tactics of Thomas Verenna/Rook Hawkins when he launched his smear campaign against Acharya writing a 'review' of a book he admits he never read. When folks pointed it out he banned and edited &/or deleted their posts. I'm surprised he didn't delete more of mine for pointing out the obvious:

A Response to Rook Hawkins' review of Acharya S

Rookwatch

Rook loved to proclaim on his blog that he was a "Historian, bible and ancient text expert" with just a mere high school education. He will never be a scholar without a real scholar standing with him holding his hand. I have yet to discover why any scholar would give him the time of day.

What's especially funny is how he used to attack Acharya so maliciously but now he's trying to get the very same credentials she already possessed when he was born! He's obviously jealous of her. It all leads back to Richard Carrier too - that's Rook's "hero!" Carrier is responsible for influencing Rook to toss those hateful smears and defamation at Acharya in the first place. Carrier needs to put a leash on his rabid little taco bell dog. Rook Hawkins/Tom Vern is a scholar wannabe, who's really an embarrassment to all freethinkers and mythicists everywhere.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:59 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Ralph, I see you started a thread at freeratio:

Code:
Mythicists - what if we discover people?

I fully understand the Mythicist position, because at the surface level it would appear that the Old and New Testaments were written on Mars - for little or nothing in these ancient texts tallies with the real historical world.

But has enough effort been applied to finding these biblical characters in the historical record? (I have a feeling that many people don't want to find them, as each side of this debate is more than happy with the status quo.)

Take King David, for example. If I could show you a 10th century BC king of 'Zion', who was identified with a Star and a City, and who may have been called Duad, would that undermine the Mythicist position? Or has Mythicism developed a creed and a doctrine that is every bit as inflexible as Judaeo-Christianity?

Just wonderin'.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=323519

Sadly, that post doesn't look like the best title or post that will help you in your quest at that forum. I would recommend editing your post to better reflect your claims for the Jesus of Gamala / King Izas of Adiabene. Making back-handed jabs at mythicism will never help you in any way. Stick with your claims for the Jesus of Gamala / King Izas of Adiabene.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:26 am 
Offline
Thor

Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:40 pm
Posts: 24
Freethinkaluva22 wrote:
Ralph, I see you started a thread at freeratio:

Sadly, that post doesn't look like the best title or post that will help you in your quest at that forum. I would recommend editing your post to better reflect your claims for the Jesus of Gamala / King Izas of Adiabene. Making back-handed jabs at mythicism will never help you in any way. Stick with your claims for the Jesus of Gamala / King Izas of Adiabene.



Sorry, diplomacy was never my strong point, and the title I wanted to use would not fit. Nevertheless, it is still my experience that Atheists/Agnostics/Mythicists are some of the most vehement opponents to the possibility of discovering biblical characters in the historical record. Let's face it - all of us have a world view that they work within, and we don't like that world view being challenged or modified. Its natural - but it tends to stifle debate.

Regards finding biblical characters in the historical record, I wanted to explore thenUnited Monarchy, and this is what I posted in that other blog.




Quote:
I wanted to explore the historical validity of the United Monarchy (... to explore as an Atheist interested in history, not as a believer interested in substantiating a creed).

As you say, the empire mentioned for the United Monarchy could not have existed in Judaea at this time, as the economy there could not support it. So if the OT account is in any way true, then either:

a. There has been exaggeration.
b. We are looking in the wrong era.
c. We are looking in the wrong location.

I think the problem is point c. - we are looking in the wrong location. Instead of trying to find King David in Zion (Jerusalem) we should be looking in Zoan (Tanis).


And if we explore Tanis we find there a new 'United Monarchy'** whose king may well have been called Duad (Dud or David)*** A king who was closely associated with a Star (the Star of Dud or David) and a City (the City of Dud or David).

This king was, of course, Pa-Seba-Khaienuit (My Star rises over my City), or Psusennes, and this new royal line did indeed end up ruling both Zoan (Tanis) and Zion (Judaea).

This is, of course, a monarchy that would easily suit the descriptionsnof wealth, influence and grandure that are ascribed to the United Monarchy - the kind of monarch who could command tribute from Ethiopia (actually, the Queen of Sheba was from Upper Egypt).

.


And while this association may seem bizare and unlikely, at first, it is the sort of idea that grows on you. Because we then find that:

King David's daughter was Machah Tamar
Psusennes' daughter was Makhare MuTamhat

King David's army commander was Joab
Psusennes' army commander was En Tchoeb En Djed

King David's architect was called Hiram Abif
Psusennes' architect was called Heru'm Atif

King David was associated with a Star and a City
Psusennes was associated with a Star and a City

King David's capital was Zion
Psusennes' capital was Zoan



The question is, therefore, is the big cover-up not the possibility that King David was fictional, but the surprising possibility that he and the rest of the United Monarchy were Egyptian.


** (uniting Upper and Lower Egypt)

*** The star glyph is often translated as Seba, but it can also be Duad.


.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group