King Jesus

Yeah. I guess it's pretty easy to make blanket statements about what you want to believe without presenting any evidence to support it.

I guess Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon and Mara Bar-Serapion were all either made up or aged another 40 years as well (All Romans, none believers in Christianity, all with written records speaking of Christ).

Trajan, too, was kinda foolish, telling Pliny not to punish those Christians who say Jesus isn't God (thereby renouncing their faith), who could then lend support to this grand, completely undocumented conspiracy of antiquity based off of one passage of scripture taken out of context. Trajan, by the way, was a Roman emperor. Someone you'd expect would want to perpetuate the whole Jesus is God thing if he really wanted to cover up a revolting Jewish king.

And for the record, Matthew 13:12 says:

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.


Not exactly the same as:

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Is it.

[edit on 1/2/2010 by junglejake]

[edit on 1/2/2010 by junglejake]

Originally posted by junglejake

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:

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


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?

Your quotes from Josephus are well-know interpolation(s) that were applied much later (the James quote is not so certain). Eusebius, that prolific Christian forger, could not find any references to his precious Jesus in the books of Josephus, despite Josephus mentioning everyone in Judaea in the first century - so he invented some.

en.wikipedia.org...

Christ simply means 'king' - a secular king. If Jesus of Gamala claimed the throne, which he would have done in AD 68 when he attacked Jerusalem (as did the biblical Jesus), then he would have been called Christ Jesus of Gamala (King Jesus of Gamala).


There is no mystery here.


Kings David and Solomon were both Messiahs - as was King Darius. Christ and Messiah simply mean 'king'.


.

Originally posted by junglejake

And for the record, Matthew 13:12 says:

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.


Not exactly the same as:

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Is it.

Get your quotes right.


Matthew says:
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.


Luke says:
For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and kill them in front of me.


And if Jesus said the first sentence, which we know he did, then he said the second sentence too.


As I said, Jesus was an armed rebel who attempted to storm Jerusalem with a force of 30,000 armed men (in the late AD 60s).



.

Originally posted by ralphellis2

Christ and Messiah simply mean 'king'.

Seriously? I just want a confirmation because this may be significant to something i need to know, thank you.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by adkchamp]

reply to post by adkchamp


From Wikipedia:

Christ is the English term for the Greek word (Christós), which literally means "The Anointed One." The Hebrew word for Christ is מָשִׁיחַ (, usually transliterated Messiah).

The Hebrew definition for Messiah is the savior of the Jews. Often prophesied of throughout the Hebrew scriptures, particularly during the Babylonian occupation.

Originally posted by digby888
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

So you believe something with all your heart, even though you do not understand it and have never researched it properly.


I feel sorry for you. Have you never heard of confidence tricksters?


.

Originally posted by adkchamp

Originally posted by ralphellis2

Christ and Messiah simply mean 'king'.

Seriously? I just want a confirmation because this may be significant to something i need to know, thank you.

It means Anointed One - just like Queen Elizabeth of Britain was anointed at her coronation.


From Adam Clarke - theologian.

Priests and kings, among the Jews, were anointed in order to the legitimate exercise of their respective offices. Hence the word Christ or Messiah became a name of dignity, and often signified the same as king. See Isa 45:1; Ps 105:15; Le 4:3; 6:20; 1Sa 2:10. The words messiah, melec, cristos, basileus, christ and king, are frequently interchanged.



.

Originally posted by junglejake
reply to post by adkchamp

 

From Wikipedia:

Christ is the English term for the Greek word (Christós), which literally means "The Anointed One." The Hebrew word for Christ is מָשִׁיחַ (, usually transliterated Messiah).

The Hebrew definition for Messiah is the savior of the Jews. Often prophesied of throughout the Hebrew scriptures, particularly during the Babylonian occupation.

I beg to differ.

Even in Judaism 'messiah' refers to the anointed priest or king.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com...



.

Originally posted by ralphellis2
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.

Definitely taken out of context. Read: Luke 19:11-28

Gday,

Originally posted by junglejake
Cornelius Tacitus,

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but
merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.

Originally posted by junglejake
Lucian of Samosata,

Nearly one-and-a-half CENTURIES after the alleged events, Lucian satirised Christians, but :
* this was several generations later,
* Lucian does NOT even mention Jesus or Christ by name.
So,
Lucian is no evidence for a historical Jesus, merely late 2nd century lampooning of Christians.

Originally posted by junglejake
Suetonius,

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 45 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Originally posted by junglejake
Pliny the Younger,

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.
So,
Pliny is not evidence for a historical Jesus of Nazareth,
just evidence for 2nd century Christians who worshipped a Christ.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Originally posted by junglejake
Thallus,

We have NO certain evidence when Thallus lived or wrote, there are NONE of Thallus' works extant.
What we DO have is a 9th century reference by George Syncellus who quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, who, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, wrote: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse".
But,
there is NO evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events at all, as there WAS an eclipse in 29. This suggests he merely referred to a known eclipse, but that LATER Christians MIS-interpreted his comment to mean their darkness. (Also note the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is a false reading.)

Richard Carrier the historian has a good page on Thallus:
www.infidels.org...

So,
Thallus is no evidence for Jesus at all,
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

Originally posted by junglejake
Phlegon and

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon actually said anything about Gospel events, he was merely talking about an eclipse (they DO happen) which LATER Christians argued was the "darkness" in their stories.
So,
Phlegon is no evidence for Jesus at all -
merely evidence for Christian wishful thinking.

Originally posted by junglejake
Mara Bar-Serapion

A fragment which includes -
"... What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?",
in the context of ancient leaders like Socrates.
It is NOT at all clear WHEN this manuscript was written, nor exactly who it is referring too, but there is no evidence it is Jesus.


K.

Originally posted by boniknik

Originally posted by ralphellis2
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.

Definitely taken out of context. Read: Luke 19:11-28

Not at all.

Jesus gave the verse in Luke 19:26, as the identical verse in Math 13:12 demonstrates. So Jesus also gave the following verse in Luk 19:27. It can be no other way.

Even my local vicar agrees with that. He said the verse was "one of the more difficult verses to explain".

Theologian Adam Clarke also agrees with me.


.

Originally posted by ralphellis2

Theologian Adam Clarke also agrees with me.

You gonna provide a source for that?

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:

Thanks Kapyong, for a good summary of how LITTLE evidence there is for the biblical Jesus in the historical record.

This is often taken as evidence that Jesus did not exist. However, I don't think this is so. There are a few problems here.


a. Jesus was not this guy's real name. I think this was Izates (a Persian name), or Izas for short.

b. Since the revolt against Rome never really got off the ground, Roman historians were not so concerned about the characters. How many give us full details of the combatants in the Jewish War? Precisely.

c. When the Western Empire collapsed, the Catholic Church was left in charge of Roman history. You can bet that any details about the real Jesus (as a warrior prince) would have been deleted.

d. There were many factions here, and many different versions of the same story.
i. The real Church of Jesus was persecuted and deleted from history. The last thing that the Popes needed, was for a bloodline descendent of Jesus taking their job. By all means, the descendants of Jesus were hunted down and extinguished. Likewise, Rome did not appreciate their revolutionary zeal, nor the bloodline claim to the throne of Rome.
ii. Conversely the new pseudo Church of Jesus (Judaism Lite, invented by Saul, aka Christianity) was actually supported by Rome - but this new version only wanted a pacifist hero, to quell the rebellious Jews. Anything to do with rebellion and nationalism was deleted.


So all we have left, is a few details in Josephus about Jesus of Gamala and the Babylonian Jews who were exiled from Parthia in about AD 4. But like so many of the lesser-known princelings of this area and era, most of his history has been deleted or lost. This was convenient for Saul and his new Christianity, for he could now reinvent a completely new history for Jesus as a pacifist, pauper hero.



.

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by ralphellis2

Theologian Adam Clarke also agrees with me.

You gonna provide a source for that?

Adam Clarke says of verse 27

Those-enemies-bring hither - "the Jews, whom I shall shortly slay by the sword of the Romans." Commentary on the Bible, Adam Clarke 1832 edition.


In other words the 'enemies' were nothing to do with the landowner, they were the enemies of Jesus - the Jews. Ergo, this sentence was delivered by Jesus himself, because he was a rebel warrior engaged in a civil war with the Jews and Romans (although here Clarke tries to put the blame of being a warrior onto the shoulders of the Romans).



.






[edit on 2-1-2010 by ralphellis2]

Gday,

Originally posted by ralphellis2
Thanks Kapyong, for a good summary of how LITTLE evidence there is for the biblical Jesus in the historical record.
This is often taken as evidence that Jesus did not exist. However, I don't think this is so. There are a few problems here.

Thanks :-)

Originally posted by ralphellis2
a. Jesus was not this guy's real name. I think this was Izates (a Persian name), or Izas for short.

You THINK ?
You cite no evidence and make a claim that is completely new - I don't think anyone has ever claimed Jesus was Persian before (let me guess - you're Persian?)

Originally posted by ralphellis2
b. Since the revolt against Rome never really got off the ground, Roman historians were not so concerned about the characters. How many give us full details of the combatants in the Jewish War? Precisely.

What?
We have a lengthy book about the Jewish War, it's called "The Jewish War", written by someone who was IN it.

Originally posted by ralphellis2
c. When the Western Empire collapsed, the Catholic Church was left in charge of Roman history. You can bet that any details about the real Jesus (as a warrior prince) would have been deleted.

What?
The church deleted the history of their OWN God?
Why?

Originally posted by ralphellis2
d. There were many factions here, and many different versions of the same story.
i. The real Church of Jesus was persecuted and deleted from history. The last thing that the Popes needed, was for a bloodline descendent of Jesus taking their job. By all means, the descendants of Jesus were hunted down and extinguished. Likewise, Rome did not appreciate their revolutionary zeal, nor the bloodline claim to the throne of Rome.

ii. Conversely the new pseudo Church of Jesus (Judaism Lite, invented by Saul, aka Christianity) was actually supported by Rome - but this new version only wanted a pacifist hero, to quell the rebellious Jews. Anything to do with rebellion and nationalism was deleted.

So all we have left, is a few details in Josephus about Jesus of Gamala and the Babylonian Jews who were exiled from Parthia in about AD 4. But like so many of the lesser-known princelings of this area and era, most of his history has been deleted or lost. This was convenient for Saul and his new Christianity, for he could now reinvent a completely new history for Jesus as a pacifist, pauper hero.

Crazy stuff.
No evidence, no scholars agree.

Just another crackpot "conspiracy theory".
You fit right in here.


K.

Gday,

Originally posted by ralphellis2
Jesus gave the verse in Luke 19:26, as the identical verse in Math 13:12 demonstrates. So Jesus also gave the following verse in Luk 19:27. It can be no other way.

Even my local vicar agrees with that. He said the verse was "one of the more difficult verses to explain".

Theologian Adam Clarke also agrees with me.

Wow.

Way to get it completely wrong, and show you can't even read the bible correctly.

It's a STORY about a man of noble birth.

HE SAID the offending lines - it's right there IN THE TEXT :


11While they were listening to this, he (Jesus) went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

See -
It's the MAN IN the STORY speaking!

But some ignorant people lift this passage out of context and pretend it's Jesus speaking !

Incredible.



K.

reply to post by ralphellis2


Once again, a single line, taken out of context, to demonstrate your point. However, Adam Clarke goes and says this about John 1:3 in the very same commentary you quoted:

That is, by this Logos. In Genesis 1:1, GOD is said to have created all things: in this verse, Christ is said to have created all things: the same unerring Spirit spoke in Moses and in the evangelists: therefore Christ and the Father are ONE. To say that Christ made all things by a delegated power from God is absurd; because the thing is impossible. Creation means causing that to exist that had no previous being: this is evidently a work which can be effected only by omnipotence. Now, God cannot delegate his omnipotence to another: were this possible, he to whom this omnipotence was delegated would, in consequence, become GOD; and he from whom it was delegated would cease to be such: for it is impossible that there should be two omnipotent beings.

As far as that statement about Christ bringing not peace but the sword, here's what Clark has to say about that (Matthew 10:34):

Verse 34. Think not that I am come to send peace, meaning of this difficult passage will be plain, when we consider the import of the word peace, and the expectation of the Jews. I have already had occasion to remark, 10:12,) that the word shalom, rendered by the Greeks ..., was used among the Hebrews to express all possible blessings, temporal and spiritual; but especially the former. The expectation of the Jews was, that, when the Messiah should come, all temporal prosperity should be accumulated on the land of Judea; therefore ... in this verse, should not be translated the earth, but this land. The import of our Lord's teaching here is this, Do not imagine, as the Jews in general vainly do, that I am come to send forth, ... by forcing out the Roman power, that temporal prosperity which they long for; I am not come for this purpose, but to send forth ... the Roman sword, to cut off a disobedient and rebellious nation, the cup of whose iniquity is already full, and whose crimes cry aloud for speedy vengeance. See also Clarke on "Lu 12:49". From the time they rejected the Messiah, they were a prey to the most cruel and destructive factions; they employed their time in butchering one another, till the Roman sword was unsheathed against them, and desolated the land.

(The parts edited out by me were original languages for which I did not have the fonts for, so they came out as gibberish. To see the passage yourself, you can view it on Studylight.org)

So in context, no, Adam Clarke does not agree with you. Now, what I have to wonder is, was that shoddy scholarship or intentional deception?

[edit on 1/2/2010 by junglejake]

What complicated the task of many researchers along the years, has been the huge amount of false informations regarding who did what at that time...I blame lone monks on mushrooms...ever heard about the mushroom theory btw? ( actually , the Christians were thought to have eaten hallucinogenic mushrooms as a ritual )

Jesus, whoever he was, no matter what Dan Brown says is probably the most mysterious person of the whole History, and that deserves respect.

One thing: don't believe what the Vatican says.

reply to post by ralphellis2


If you are saying that Jesus said the same thing to describe a similar event, then I would say look at it from this angle. Your thinking, because he described to different events with a common phrase that they are linked. Nothing is further from the truth. Common phrase's are often used to describe to different events that would need a certain phrase to describe them.

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by ralphellis2
a. Jesus was not this guy's real name. I think this was Izates (a Persian name), or Izas for short.

You THINK ?
You cite no evidence and make a claim that is completely new - I don't think anyone has ever claimed Jesus was Persian before (let me guess - you're Persian?)

If his name were simply 'Jesus' and he was important, we would find him elsewhere in history. Like Paul (not his real name) you have to look for a historical character who fits precisely. In Paul (aka Saul) I found Josephus himself. Their two lifestories are exact - including both being shipwrecked on the same boat.

With Jesus. Well yes, Josephus used this name but then he was creating the cover-up. The name Jesus could have come from Isis (Mary being an incarnation of Isis). Or, more likely, Jesus was the son of Queen Helena of Adiabene - Izates, or Izas.

The Helena story matches mine and the biblical one very well. Her sons were indeed involved in the Jewish War and captured after the fall of jerusalem. And yes, they were half Persian.

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by ralphellis2
b. Since the revolt against Rome never really got off the ground, Roman historians were not so concerned about the characters. How many give us full details of the combatants in the Jewish War? Precisely.

What?
We have a lengthy book about the Jewish War, it's called "The Jewish War", written by someone who was IN it.

Precisely, we have an account by a Jew (Saul-Josephus) who was responsible for concocting the whole charade in the first place. What we don't have is detailed Roman verification of the characters involved - A complete life-story of Izates, for instance.

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by ralphellis2
c. When the Western Empire collapsed, the Catholic Church was left in charge of Roman history. You can bet that any details about the real Jesus (as a warrior prince) would have been deleted.

What?
The church deleted the history of their OWN God? Why?

Because the real life-story of Jesus conflicted greatly with the story Saul-Josephus had concocted. Saul-Josephus (aka Luke, Acts, Epistles) said Jesus was a pauper pacifist, when he was actually a warrior prince.

By all means, they had to delete Jesus' real history, and concoct another (the new interpolations into Josephus' Antiquities).

Originally posted by Kapyong
Crazy stuff.
No evidence, no scholars agree.

Just another crackpot "conspiracy theory".
You fit right in here.

Well some do agree, but still will not admit it. Robert Eisenman, for instance, spends some 500 pages proving that the Bethany sisters were actually Mary and Martha Boethus from the Talmud. He is very thorough and very persuasive.

However, if they were, then the Bethany episode must have taken place in AD 60s. And since Mary Boethus married Jesus of Gamala (and the NT sort of assumes that the biblical Jesus and Mary of Bethany were married), then Jesus of Gamala must have been the biblical Jesus.

The conclusions of Eisenman's work are blindingly obvious. But will he admit it? No. I have asked why several times, with no reply.

You have to remember that most theologians are religious - they are playing with their own beliefs. Eisenman has discovered positive proof that Jesus lived in AD 60s, but his faith will not allow him to admit it.


That is the problem we face.

Read 'King Jesus'.



.