King Jesus

.

As you may know, my thesis is that Jesus was a royal of Egyptian heritage.


He was not a carpenter, but a tekton, an archi-tect - the masonic variety.
He was a king without a throne, which is why he was called Christ, meaning 'king'.
King Jesus was the leader of the Fourth Sect of Judaism.
He was known as Jesus of Gamala, and we have a complete history of him and his family.
He was the leader of 600 rebel 'fishermen'.
He led the Jewish Revolt against Rome.
He was crucified but survived (we have a historical account of this in Josephus' 'Vita' or 'Life')
As a dangerous rebel, he was exiled as far from Judaea as possible - to Britain.
In Britain, just at this time, a prison fortress was constructed in Chester, England.
It contained a Temple of Pisces - because the symbol of Jesus was the fish
The history of Jesus in Britain was heresy, punishable by death, so an alternative mythology of King Arthur was created.
But King Arthur still retained his 12 knights/disciples of the round Last Supper Table.




.

And what is this based on? Why were so many who knew and heard Him so willing to die rather than say He was not God?

How, for that matter, if He were really a rebel leader revolting against Rome, did He happen to get the most incompetent Roman guards in the empire to be responsible for His execution? In supporting that question, Roman guards were professional soldiers who knew death, and knew it well. Those guards who were responsible for executions, if they said someone was dead and they were not, were, themselves, executed. This would mean those who were in charge of His execution were either in league with Him and planned to die that day, too (there is no record of their execution), or they were the most inept soldiers in the Roman army.

What other rebel leader in Roman history was not killed, but exiled instead? It was not the Roman way. Why make an exception for this rebellious king amongst a rebellious people?

jesus is the son of god like it or loathe it its still the truth

Originally posted by ralphellis2


.

As you may know, my thesis is that Jesus was a royal of Egyptian heritage.


He was not a carpenter, but a tekton, an archi-tect - the masonic variety.
He was a king without a throne, which is why he was called Christ, meaning 'king'.
King Jesus was the leader of the Fourth Sect of Judaism.
He was known as Jesus of Gamala, and we have a complete history of him and his family.
He was the leader of 600 rebel 'fishermen'.
He led the Jewish Revolt against Rome.
He was crucified but survived (we have a historical account of this in Josephus' 'Vita' or 'Life')
As a dangerous rebel, he was exiled as far from Judaea as possible - to Britain.
In Britain, just at this time, a prison fortress was constructed in Chester, England.
It contained a Temple of Pisces - because the symbol of Jesus was the fish
The history of Jesus in Britain was heresy, punishable by death, so an alternative mythology of King Arthur was created.
But King Arthur still retained his 12 knights/disciples of the round Last Supper Table.




.

You referenced Josephus, but did not give provide where in his writings this is found. Would you please provide book, chapter info for this?
thanks

I would have to agree with everyone else. Although it may make sense in the time period sense, you can't just randomly connect things you think are plausible. if you do, then you must do research and present it. If not, then its another theory.

Originally posted by Dr_Suess

You referenced Josephus, but did not give provide where in his writings this is found. Would you please provide book, chapter info for this?
thanks

The history of Jesus of Gamala is mainly given within 'Life', with elements in 'Jewish War'. There are too many quotations to individually reference here, but I have done elsewhere.

In short, Jesus of Gamala was a rebel commander of 600 rebel fishermen. He was also the leader of the Fourth Sect, the group that Josephus blames for the destruction of Jerusalem (they caused the revolt). Jesus of Gamala also became the first elected high priest of Jerusalem according to the Talmud, just as the biblical Jesus did in Hebrews 7.

Thus Jesus was a rebel commander, and a royal who was looking to become king. But the NT confirms this when Jesus said:


But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. Luke 19:27

In other words, Jesus was a ruthless king, just like many before him. This is the real story of the NT, not the fairy-story we are usually sold.


.

....

[edit on 2-1-2010 by ralphellis2]

Originally posted by digby888
jesus is the son of god like it or loathe it its still the truth

Every Egyptian monarch was the son of one god or other, and Jesus was no different - because he was an Egyptian prince (in exile).

Ramesses - son of Ra (Sun)
Ahmoses - son of Moon
Thuthmoses - son of Thoth

So which of the many gods was Jesus the son of eh??


.

Didnt Peter also state somewhere that jesus didnt die on the cross?

reply to post by ralphellis2


Yahweh the one true god not an idol or a planet because he created them

Originally posted by junglejake
And what is this based on? Why were so many who knew and heard Him so willing to die rather than say He was not God?

How, for that matter, if He were really a rebel leader revolting against Rome, did He happen to get the most incompetent Roman guards in the empire to be responsible for His execution?

What other rebel leader in Roman history was not killed, but exiled instead? It was not the Roman way. Why make an exception for this rebellious king amongst a rebellious people?

Jesus had many dedicated followers, like many other leaders before and since.


The soldiers were not incompetent, they did as they were told. Just like in the biblical story, Josephus Flavius says that an influential person who was the favourite of the Roman commander (Titus) requested that the leaders were to be taken down from the cross. Two died, but one survived. See the end of 'Life'.

In 'Life' this person was Josephus himself, while in the NT it was Joseph(us) of Arimathaea.

Why was Jesus taken down?

The commander (Titus) was persuaded that Vespasian (his father) needed an oracle to become emperor, for Vespasian was only a tax collector and army commander. The primary oracle of the era was the Star Prophesy, which said that a star from the east would become emperor of Rome. Now who was born under the Eastern Star?? - Jesus.

The Star Prophesy referred to Jesus, but Titus wanted Jesus to bestow this oracle on his father. This he did, and Vespasian gained the oracle to become emperor, as Suetonius notes. And therefore Jesus got a reprieve.

Besides, the primary supporter of Jesus of Gamala was Queen Berenice, and she was Titus' lover, and able to apply significant influence. Ouch - a love triangle too.



This is the real 'blood and guts' political history, rather than the simplistic fairy-tale we are usually sold.



.

Originally posted by watcher73
Didnt Peter also state somewhere that jesus didnt die on the cross?

Among many manuscripts, the Koran says that they put a twin of Jesus on the cross. The twin was Judas - Thomas Didymus Judas Iscariot.

Not sure if this is so. It is not necessary for this thesis.


.

Originally posted by ralphellis2
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. Luke 19:27

In other words, Jesus was a ruthless king, just like many before him. This is the real story of the NT, not the fairy-story we are usually sold.

Except you took that quote completely out of context to make your point. That statement was the end of a parable where a nobleman spoke those words. If one picks and chooses lines of scripture without keeping their context within the whole, Jesus can be whatever you want Him to be.

I am not familiar enough with Josephus' writings to contest the references you're vaguely eluding to, but I do know that in Josephus' Antiquities XVIII, 33 says this about Jesus:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day

He also references Jesus' brother James in Antiquities XX, 9:

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having acused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

In both cases, he refers to Jesus as Jesus the so-called Christ. However, you speak of Josephus writing of Jesus of Gamala. Considering Josephus was born in either 37 or 38 AD, it is safe to say that the references you're making were written well after Jesus' crucifixion. Why, then, would he call Jesus Jesus the so-called Christ in one place and Jesus of Gamala in another with no reference to the whole Christ thing?

Originally posted by digby888
reply to post by ralphellis2

 

Yahweh the one true god not an idol or a planet because he created them

Oh, do come on, stop being so simplistic.

Who created Yahweh then?


Besides, the Tanakh names four gods** and one of them (Elohim) is in the plural. Which one is your 'one true god'??




** Yahweh, El, Elohim, Shaddai, Adhon.


.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by ralphellis2]

Originally posted by ralphellis2
In 'Life' this person was Josephus himself, while in the NT it was Joseph(us) of Arimathaea.\

Josephus wasn't alive when Christ was crucified. He was born 4 years after the suspected year Christ was crucified.

Considering Josephus is recognized as one of the most reliable historians of his time, I'm going to have to go ahead and suggest your source isn't very reliable. Otherwise, historians somehow missed that Josephus places himself in Israel 4 years before his birth.

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by ralphellis2
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. Luke 19:27

In other words, Jesus was a ruthless king, just like many before him. This is the real story of the NT, not the fairy-story we are usually sold.

Except you took that quote completely out of context to make your point. That statement was the end of a parable where a nobleman spoke those words. If one picks and chooses lines of scripture without keeping their context within the whole, Jesus can be whatever you want Him to be.

Nonsense. No theologian believes that.

Jesus starts talking again in Luke 19:26, so the next verse belongs to him, not the landowner. This is proven in Math 13:12, where Jesus gives the same speech.


Face facts. Jesus was a ruthless royal rebel commander, whose disciples were all armed, and willing to use their weapons. As Jesus said in Luke 19:27, those who would not have him as their king should be killed.


.

reply to post by ralphellis2

mabe the reason i am beeing simplistic is because i am i enjoy a simple life and mabe i am not as well read as yourself that the father is the true god he has been with me all my life not because i was focefed religion from birth because i wasent i did not start going to church antill 3 years ago and thats when i was babtised because my parents didnt even get me baptsed but he has alway been with me even saving me from harm more than once with a phicical presants i have only just finnished reading the bible so i am still learning and probably will always be but if you have never felt that my heart goes out to you because it is amazing

Nonsense. No theologian believes that.

Well, except for a few, such as the theologians who translated the New International Version of the Bible. Oh, and the NASB. Well, actually, every translation I've looked at seems to indicate it is the nobleman who is speaking. Although in your defense, Adam Clarke's commentary says that this was a prophetic utterance in reference to 70 AD when the Romans would put many Jews to the sword and destroy the temple.

You mention Matthew 13:12 as evidence that it was Jesus speaking on behalf of Jesus outside of the parable in Luke 19:27. So tell me, what, exactly, does Jesus say in Matthew 13:12?

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by ralphellis2
In 'Life' this person was Josephus himself, while in the NT it was Joseph(us) of Arimathaea.\

Josephus wasn't alive when Christ was crucified. He was born 4 years after the suspected year Christ was crucified.

Considering Josephus is recognized as one of the most reliable historians of his time, I'm going to have to go ahead and suggest your source isn't very reliable. Otherwise, historians somehow missed that Josephus places himself in Israel 4 years before his birth.

You are not following the story, are you.


The AD 33 date is a fabrication, to separate Jesus from the Jewish Revolt - which was the true era of his ministry. All of the evidence, apart from the Ponteus Pilate bit, points to a date in the late AD 60s.


The election of Jesus to high priest in Hebrews 7 occurred in AD 63 - we know that.
The destruction of Jerusalem described in the gospels occurred in AD 70.
The Bethany sisters (Mary and Martha) were active in the AD 60s, according to Robert Eisenman (read his two books - all 2,000 pages).
Josephus (as Saul) lived in the AD 60s, and was commander of Galilee.
Saul was persecuting 'Jesus' in Acts (as commander of Galilee) in the AD 60s.
Jesus of Gamala was commander of the Fourth Sect in AD 60s
The Fourth Sect has many commonalities with the Church of Jesus
The Teacher of Righteousness in the DSS lived in the AD 60s, according the Eisenman. And displays many Jesus-like traits.
Jesus mentions the death of Zacharias, who actually died in the late AD 60s.
The crucifixion detailed by Josephus happened in AD 70.
Bishop Iraneus says that Jesus died in the third year of the reign of Trajan - or AD 98.
Jesus sending 70 deputies or disciples out is mentioned by Josephus, but this happened in the AD 60s.
The thefts by Zachhaeus are also mentioned by Josephus, and again these occurred in the AD 60s.

etc: etc: etc:



The very reason that we cannot find any mention of Jesus in the historical record, is because someone very deliberately and very cunningly placed his story in the AD 30s. That person was Saul-Josephus (same character). - But if we fast forward 35 years, his entire history CAN be found. He was Jesus of Gamala.


As an aside, the Vulgate Cycle (the books of Arthurian legend) had the same problem. To make their history of Judaea work, they had to make Joseph(us) of Arimathaea fall asleep for 40 years, and only think 3 days had past. Otherwise, the real history of Jesus just does not work.




.

Originally posted by junglejake

You mention Matthew 13:12 as evidence that it was Jesus speaking on behalf of Jesus outside of the parable in Luke 19:27. So tell me, what, exactly, does Jesus say in Matthew 13:12?

He was saying exactly the same as he said in Luke 19:26 - which is why it was Jesus speaking in Luke 19:27, not the landowner.

Jesus was a ruthless rebel.

Do you deny that the disciples were armed?
Do you deny that Jesus said he would set brother against his brother, father against his son - in a civil war?
Do you deny that Jesus said he would bring not peace, but a sword?


Its true that a sugary pacifist coating has been applied to the Gospels, but this was a real political and military revolution.




.