The Passion of Jesus of Nazareth According to Utnapisjtim

It was Sunday 15th March, the year year of the Lord 37 A.D. Until this day that date would be remembered as Palm Sunday in memory of a certain renegade rabbi named after the prophet Isaiah. A Jewish teacher and political dissident forever remembered as Jesus of Nazareth since he came from a certain village in Galilee named Nazareth, situated some 10 miles S/W of the Herodian town named Tiberias that was built by Herod Antipas in 20 A.D. Passover was approaching and Jesus and his party were making ready, not for Passover, but to let the Lion of Judah out of the bag, a secret they had kept between themselves for as long as they had served under Jesus.



For several years the health of the sitting emperor had been deteriorating and a year earlier there were rumours about that he was already dead. Emperor Tiberius, or his full name Tiberius Claudius Nero, was dying, and the buzz was all about his final demise. For Jesus and his twelve most loyal followers, this was what they had been waiting for all these years: the well kept secret that Jesus was in fact the grandson of Ha-Eli or translated via Latin to English, The Julius. As in Julius Caesar. The old man given as his father, Joseph, was in fact Caesarion who was about 18 years old in 30 B.C. when his mother Cleopatra IV Ptolemy was killed, and several attempts were made at the young Egyptian prince's life, but even though he was reported dead many times, his body was never accounted for. As the only legitimate heir of Cleopatra and Julius, his full name would be spelled out Ptolemy XV Philopator Philometor Caesar, or as we have come to know him, Caesarion the Prince of Egypt AKA the exiled «Joseph», the Heb. naggar or stone mason, named after Jacob's son who rose to become a prince of Egypt as we may read about in Genesis.

Sunday 15th of March 37 A.D. Jesus parades through Jerusalem as the new and only legitimate heir of Julius Caesar, and the rightful new Emperor of the Roman Empire, including the thrones of the Graeco-Egyptian Ptolamaian dynasty, and by right of birth also the ancient throne of David. The promised Messiah.



During the night of 16th March, 37 A.D., Emperor Tiberius died, and about that time, Jesus and his posse would be occupying a poshy house celebrating their campaign through the night, and at some point after his parade, Jesus would send his most confided servant, Judas Iscariot, to go to the Roman and Jewish authorities to proclaim Jesus' claim to the throne of David and that of the whole of the Roman Empire. What Jesus and his party didn't know was that on Wednesday 18th, on the day of preparation before the High Shabbath of Passover I, Thursday 16th March 37 A.D., Caligula grasped the golden laurel wreath and that day has until this day mistakenly been named Good Friday. For Jesus was crucified on Erev Pesach, 14th Nisan, 3797 according to the Hebrew lunar calendar, a Wednesday, and the following Thursday was Pesach I, or as it is written in John 19:31 «Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.»



On that Wednesday Jesus would be trialed and crucified. Three and a half days later, on 22 March (pesach IV, 18 Nisan) Jesus walked out of the tomb after what must have been one of the greatest displays of love, loyalty and bravory. And medicine. It is said that the soldier who punctured the chest of Jesus on Golgotha releasing hemothorax and initiating the healing of what must have been a collapsed lung-- was according to tradition, later executed for having let Jesus survive the crucifixion. His name was given as Longinus. Jesus on the other hand survived, and a period later Jesus assumably left his followers, heading for the highest heaven, that would be Northwards to any navigator.

«Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.» (John 15:13)

Sources:
==> Date and Time ==> Hebrew calendar for the year 37 A.D.
==> Julius Caesar ==> en.wikipedia.org...
==> Cleopatra ==> en.wikipedia.org...
==> Caesarion ==> en.wikipedia.org...
==> Joseph son of Jacob as prince of Egypt ==> biblehub.com...
==> Map over 1st century Judea ==> Wikipedia image
==> Village of Nazareth ==> en.wikipedia.org...
==> Town of Tiberias ==> en.wikipedia.org...
==> Emperor Tiberius ==> en.wikipedia.org...
==> Emperor Caligula ==> en.wikipedia.org...
==> Gospel of John ==> biblehub.com...
==> «The Death of Tiberias», painted by Jean-Paul Laurens ==> www.wikiart.org...
==> «Christ Crucified» painted by Diego Velázquez ==> upload.wikimedia.org...

Anybody who doesn't read the political machinations clearly written in the Gospels is just not paying attention. Of course Jesus was making a power play. However, I still tend to believe that he died and that would have been the end of it had it not been for some creative storytelling and public relations.

My favorite part of the story was where Jesus screws over his cousin, John the Baptist, so that he can take over his fairly large following.

a reply to: Blue Shift

If you go to John 19:33, the word used to describe Jesus being already dead, Gr. θνῄσκω (Strong's G2348) and you look up every other time that word is used in NT, that the person in question isn't dead but merely unconscious, either by Jesus' words and even in Acts and 1 Tim.

==> John 19:33 ==> biblehub.com...
==> Gr. θνῄσκω or /thnesko/ dead or just unconscious? ==> biblehub.com...

And who other than an emperor could order a legions to commit collective suicide?

==> biblehub.com...

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
If you go to John 19:33, the word used to describe Jesus being already dead, Gr. θνῄσκω (Strong's G2348) and you look up every other time that word is used in NT, Jesus says that the person in question isn't dead but merely unconscious.

Some of the Gnostic texts also indicate that Jesus ducked out of the crucifixion and let Simon take the fall -- symbolized in the Stations of the Cross #5. I'm not sure, but this may have been a case where Jesus, being a wealthy man, paid for somebody else to take his punishment. It's still done in some parts of the world to this day. Even though it's not 100 percent canon (the Veronica's veil story is nowhere to be found in the Gospels), it does make one think.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Another oddity is how nowhere in the original Nicene Creed is Jesus' death mentioned. Just that «He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven» [sic.]

Source ==> en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Blue Shift

You really don't have to be be paying that much attention to understand the political impact on Christianity. The earliest gospel, Mark, made no mention of resurection nor the virgin birth for that matter. And calls Jesus the son of Mary without mentioning Joseph. Rome obviously couldn't base their new religion on a bastard child nor on a criminal they sentenced to death. So they glorified the story by appending the resurrection story to the Gospel of Mark some 200 years after the fact. By turning the new religion into a mythology of a GOD that walked amoung us, they could then appoint themselves as GODs spokesman on earth. Then burn any book (or person) that said otherwise.

If one can decipher the esoteric knowledge within the Gospels without paying homage to the Pseudo-God created by Rome, they can be enlightening. The key in doing so is understanding that many statements like "No one can know the son but the father and the father but the son" are metaphoric. Its not about Jesus but us. Breaking down the barriers of our ignorance so we can awaken.

First off, interesting as heck. The "heresy" around Jesus just makes sense, at least to one not indoctrinated to the common strict control churches exert over their merchandise and branding.

Not to say the assorted and asserted Christianity isn't a useful and wonderful philosophy, when not used as a cudgel... but there's almost certainly more (and less) to the story.

So ... nice thread and alt history addition. Thanks (hunkers down in the bunker w popcorn).

originally posted by: glend
You really don't have to be be paying that much attention to understand the political impact on Christianity.

Yeah, but this is more specifically focused on the active political efforts made by Jesus to establish himself as a king, which is something that a lot of Sunday school classes don't talk a lot about. He's generally presented as a kind of gentle philosopher preaching love, not a hardnosed politician mingling with the elite as much as the poor and downtrodden. They knew him at the Temple since he was a kid. He didn't come out of nowhere. KIngs visited him as a child and gave him spectacular gifts. And why else would they put the mocking "INRI" on his cross? Or the crown of thorns.

Although I wonder about the thorns, because it seems like just the kind of thing people would do to keep the demons inside somebody's head. But that opens up the whole sorcery / necromancy / insanity angle.

When Jesus was mocked before the tribunal they dressed him up in a fancy robe and made an improvised crown for him, a crown of thorns, and also handed him a reed sceptre, that is, royal regalia, the latter they took from hin and broke it over his head, the broken reed sceptre was of course the sceptre of the Egyptian royalty (see Matthew 27:27ff biblehub.com...). Also, the Caesars claimed they had their power given from the gods. The god of war, Mars, and the god of royalty, Jupiter, to be more specific. According to tradition, Julius Caesar was delivered by Caesarian section, that would explain the whole virgin birth thing, and since Jesus' father was old and supposedly died when Jesus was quite young, he would as a Caesar be explained as having returned to the gods of heaven. By the Cross the centurion would greet Jesus, saying «surely, he was a son of the gods.» To be a son of the gods meant he was a king, and not just any king, but the king of kings, Caesar.

Jesus worked hard for reforming Judaism and bring it back from Hillel to Moses, simplifying the law, he drew great crowds of followers, and at some point the crowd wanted to make him king, but it was too early, the son of Augustus was still at the throne, although when his wife Livia died in 29 A.D. Tiberius steeped into what historians seem to explain as some sort of deep depressions. By 31 A.D. «Sejanus held the consulship with Tiberius in absentia» (en.wikipedia.org...). This would explain why Jesus started his campaign for the throne around 30 A.D., since Tiberius' power had been taken over by rivals, while Tiberius himself was absent due to deteriorating health. He was eventually killed by Caligula in 37 A.D., either from being poisoned or smothered by his bedclothes. During Tiberius' last couple of years there were several attempts at killing him:

«Suetonius reports several rumours, including that the emperor had been poisoned by Caligula, starved, and smothered with a pillow; that recovering, and finding himself deserted by his attendants, he attempted to rise from his couch, but fell dead.[Suetonius, "The Life of Tiberius", 73.] According to Cassius Dio, Caligula, fearing that the emperor would recover, refused Tiberius' requests for food, insisting that he needed warmth, not food; then assisted by Macro, he smothered the emperor in his bedclothes.[Cassius Dio, Roman History, lviii. 28.]» (source en.wikipedia.org...)

The fact that Jesus seems to have been omitted by Roman historians until about a generation when Josephus writes about Jesus and his movement and the gospels started circulating, carries witness that Jesus fell victim of what the Romans called Damnatio Memoriae, the act of being «erased from memory» (omitted by historians and official annals and correspondence), which may also account for the gap among the historians for the time of Jesus campaigning during the first of Jesus' seven years campaign from 30-37 A.D. ==> en.wikipedia.org... -- For instance book five of Tacitus is missing, that is, a fragment has survived, see penelope.uchicago.edu...*.html that says nothing much of the rising rivalry to the throne after his wife Livia died, and that book could very well have covered the rise of Jesus and others, campaigning for the throne in the provinces, but that would be mere speculation.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Blue Shift

Another oddity is how nowhere in the original Nicene Creed is Jesus' death mentioned. Just that «He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven» [sic.]

Source ==> en.wikipedia.org...

300 some odd years later though...

All creeds from the church are OF the church...

Like the Athanasius creed, which actually did originate in Nicaea

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Anybody who doesn't read the political machinations clearly written in the Gospels is just not paying attention. Of course Jesus was making a power play. However, I still tend to believe that he died and that would have been the end of it had it not been for some creative storytelling and public relations.

My favorite part of the story was where Jesus screws over his cousin, John the Baptist, so that he can take over his fairly large following.

John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod Antipater because Herod was sleeping with his sister-in-law & John called him on it.

John the Baptist also told his followers that Jesus was the one they should follow, you know, in the "I am unfit even to tie His sandal" bit.

If you got that bit wrong, perhaps you could also have gotten the resurrection bit confused as well?

a reply to: chr0naut

Fair enough, but Jesus and the Baptist were cousins, meaning they were both noble men to the house of David, but Jesus was more that just a Davidian nobleman, as I explained his heritage was that of king David of course, but also the Caesars and the Ptolemaians. All in unbroken lines. Jesus was heir to the Empire, and much more suited than his cousin John who was beheaded by Herod Antipas. Jesus also argued heavily against the house of Herod, the Herodians were target of much of Jesus campaigning, Jesus thus challenged the Roman throne, not just the host of Jewish politicians (the Pharisee and the Sadducee in general) as well as the Jewish and highly Roman friendly elite, the Sanhedrin with their priests, scribes and the other quislings. Jesus was a rabbi, but fought against what he called hypocrisy among the consensus within rabbinical Judaism who clung to Hillel and the dawning of the Babylonian Talmud.

When Jesus is challenged whether to pay taxes to Rome or not, he asks to be handed a Roman denarius (a day's wages), upon Jesus says it belongs to Caesar and that they should give to their god what beloned to him, and Jesus supposedly walks away with it, leaving the audience baffled. The god in question was of course the same as the former, the Roman Emperor. The emperor was worshipped as a god, mind you, and Jesus' opponents were all loyal to Tiberius, the ruling god and emperor.

Bottomline is that Jesus was a politician, not a religious character. His divinity was given by the future pontifices who took over the power of the Roman curia. The word Pontifex was of course a title of the Roman Emperor as seen written on the denarius pictured below, and the Curia was the house of the senate-- later all these titles and offices were taken over by the Catholic Church, and remains until this day.



Pic source

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

When Jesus is challenged whether to pay taxes to Rome or not, he asks to be handed a Roman denarius (a day's wages), upon Jesus says it belongs to Caesar and that they should give to their god what beloned to him,

He says Give Caesar what is his... and the coin has his face on it...

And give God what is his... which has nothing to do with materialism

a reply to: Akragon

Arbitrary conjecture and historical anachronism. That would be your personal interpretation based on Catholic dogma hammered down centuries later, and lasting until the present day. My interpretation (which is also highly personal, but ulike you I take into account contemporary evidence, not future Catholic dogma) says that Jesus identified himself as Caesar, who was both emperor and God.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Nonsense...

that comes only by simply reading what HE said...

Materialism was nothing to Jesus... money was nothing...

Hardly the doctrine of the richest bank on the planet...

Jesus identified himself as Caesar, who was both emperor and God.

His trial with Caiaphas does show otherwise....

a reply to: Akragon

You just refuted your own interpretation made in your former post. You forget that when the Church took over the Curia (the Roman Senate) and Caesar's titles (like Pontifex) centuries later, they acquired also the wealth of Rome, so they were in total accord with Jesus-- at least in the question of taxpaying-- to whom these money and loyalty belonged to. Remember that the Roman Catholic Pontiffs saw themselves as vicars of Christ in his absence thus the taxes would belong to the Pontiff and thereby, the ruling God AKA The Roman Catholic Pope. The Catholic Church probably referred to this verse about the denarius when they stripped the Templars of their immense wealth more than a millennium after the fact. The word that occurs in the Gospel and translated «Church» in our translated bibles, Gr. /kyriakos/ is a Greek derivation of the Latin word Curia, and Gr. /kyriakos/as a word wasn't existent until centuries after Christ was history, then as a Greek (formerly unused genitive) rewriting of Gr. /kyrios/ «Lord» and not Lat. Curia. The Catholic genitive neologism of «Lord» Gr. /kyriakos/ is interpreted as «Belonging to the Lord» with clear reference to Jesus and the verse about the denarius and taxpaying.

Also, the name traditionally given to the soldier who pierced Jesus' chest-- was Longinus, whose name is identical to the person who traditionally lead the assault against Julius Caesar giving him his fatal blows that lead to his death (see en.wikipedia.org...). However, in the story of Jesus' crucifixion, the narrative seems to indicate that Jesus was suffering from a collapsed lung, that is pneumothorax, and the first thing you have to do to heal such a condition, is to pierce the chest to normalise the air pressure surrounding the lungs so the patient may regain his breathing (Gr. /pneuma/ which is translated Spirit in our bibles, simply means breath or lung) and further extract hemothorax, which is water and blood, exactly as in the story of Jesus on Golgotha. In the case of Jesus, the blood and water bursted out showing that either a) that he was still alive since blood stops circulating upon death, thus a dead person won't bleed, or b) that there was an overpressure inside his thorax, releasing trapped air surrounding the lungs (pneuma), as well as blood and water (hemothorax) upon being pieced.

Trust me, I once «gave up my spirit» that is, I stopped breathing due to pneumothorax, a collapsed lung, and was pierced in the side so I could breathe again, regain consciousness and survive, and a catheter was then fitted extracting hemothorax, condensed water and blood. I remained hospitalised for three days, the time it takes to heal properly from such a condition.

Interesting.
You need to acknowledge the 2 seedlines to make sense of it all from the beginning.
There were 2 christs that walked the Earth 2k years ago.

They each came in THEIR Fathers name.

The storylines were merged over the years as the posers do what they do and that is pose.

One came in Yah's name and His name honors and reflects His Father.
The other came in his father zeus's name. The roman church today honors the replacement as god and venerates and honors the mother as well. Pontifus maximus is a title passed down from Babylon to Pergamos when they transfered their power base. It was in Pergamos where Zeus had his statue and throne. It is here where christ#2 lived for awhile and claimed zeus as his father. His name was appolonius of tyana.
The purple robes signify the title of pontifus maximus. It transfered power from Babylon-Pergamos-Rome and continues today.
They pulled a big name switch on the world. The key to understanding is everything is upside down and backwards.
Who's Father is being represented in the name they are known by? The names used so far in this thread honors zeus. Hail zeus caesar xesus


a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Wow the OP goes to a lot of time and trouble to post his opinion.

FACTS are Jesus never proclaimed Himself anything other than the Son of God, King of kings and there is nowhere in His message, at all, to support any of this drivel.

If you'd spend as much time researching your Bible - you might find out the truth. At this point you're so incredibly blinded to the truth anything else just seeps in, devil sent, and you think you're spot on. You're not.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand we are smack in the middle of a spiritual battle that's been going on since the gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. From that moment in time past satan has been doing everything he can to bring down believers. And go to any lengths to do so. It doesn't surprise me at all there's 'records' of this clap trap. It's just another tool of evil.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: glend
You really don't have to be be paying that much attention to understand the political impact on Christianity.

Yeah, but this is more specifically focused on the active political efforts made by Jesus to establish himself as a king, which is something that a lot of Sunday school classes don't talk a lot about. He's generally presented as a kind of gentle philosopher preaching love, not a hardnosed politician mingling with the elite as much as the poor and downtrodden. They knew him at the Temple since he was a kid. He didn't come out of nowhere. KIngs visited him as a child and gave him spectacular gifts. And why else would they put the mocking "INRI" on his cross? Or the crown of thorns.

Although I wonder about the thorns, because it seems like just the kind of thing people would do to keep the demons inside somebody's head. But that opens up the whole sorcery / necromancy / insanity angle.

I doubt Jesus had any political motivations at all. The religious elite at the time were only interested in power and greed. Jesus took the sword to them and was crucified as a result.

Aka Gospel of Thomas...

Gospel of Thomas...
Jesus said, "Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father. And they will stand solitary."

The priest knew Jesus inferred to himself as the son in a spiritual sense (Torah-we are all made in GODs image). But the priests purposely turned it around to infer it was a polical statement to annoit himself as king in our material world, as an excuse to execute him. Thats why Jesus remained silent. They were going to kill him no matter what he said because he threatened their institution.

Sadly Christianity turned into the very instution he was trying to destroy. Rome destroying anyone that threatened the dominance of their institution for centuries thereafter.