King Jesus

reply to post by LiveForever8


Ah, I haven't heard of Ralph Ellis' work and look forward to watching thanks for this dude star for you.

Curious the name Ellis , El lis ? Another time maybe lol

Originally posted by ralphellis2

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.


.

I don't know what crawled up your...

You're a dangerous breed. AND you're getting stars. People believe you.

Mwahaha!

Does that feel good?

reply to post by ralphellis2


Ah, I see, I had not been paying enough attention to the thread to notice you were just agreeing with or reporting what Ralph Ellis has to say hence the ralphellis2.

I'm curious what are your thoughts (if any) on the works of Knight and Lomas ?

Where do you think the jesus of Talpiot fits in considering the carving at the entrance of the tomb ? Could this be your rebel king ?

If indeed was real and a possible heir to the throne of David coiuld it not be possible that he was laying claim to the crown of akhetaten ?

reply to post by TarzanBeta

You're a dangerous breed. AND you're getting stars. People believe you.

The dudes propositions are no less valid than what xtianity presents to the world, how in the hell is the guy dangerous? please explain .

Ludicrous, How many times have I seen this. Yeshua ben Gamala does not equate to Yeshua ben Nasareth. Jesus was the most comon name in israel besides David. So what if there was a jesus of gamala that sort of parrallels the Christ. Don't mean hes the Christ of the Bible.
I'd be really careful you could make some weak minded person fail in his or her quest for God and that would be on your shoulders.

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

reply to post by digby888



Well I don't think I could say it any better.

reply to post by ralphellis2




I wonder where you came up with all this?

are these your thoughts? or someone elses?

Well, I hate to bust your bubble, but judaism didn't exist til after Christ rose.

So there could never have been a 4th sect.

And Christ was not a jew....in John He told the jews they were not His.

and judaism is what cost the jews their temple!

You're not doing very well so far.....

I never read pages 2-4 but I can understand why you would think Jesus was Egyptian. He was in this sense that he migrated to the land of Egypt for a while with his family when Herod wanted to kill him. So just like someone goes to America and learns the American ways during their time there, Jesus went to Egypt and grew up Egyptian.

Moses also was taught all the wisdom and knowledge of Egypt and Joseph.
It's almost like a necessary step for God's chosen people.

All of them schooled in Egypt but in the end, it was so they could be as wise as Egyptians and see the error of Egyptian ways and lead the way to free their own people from the serpent culture.

As I type this now I can see how they all do fit the bill of masons except they became masons who left freemasonry when it came time to do so.

Come out of her my people?

reply to post by ralphellis2


Good luck to you with your theory, ralph, but I believe that Jesus is the gentle ruler and that He will come again to rescue this world from the horror which fills it now.

Jesus is used to being denied, reviled, mocked, crucified - by ignorant mankind.

If you listen to your spirit/soul, and if you are in a quiet place, you may find that you can talk to Jesus and receive his benevolence.

That is my experience. But others have their own experiences.

reply to post by Barkster

Ludicrous, How many times have I seen this. Yeshua ben Gamala does not equate to Yeshua ben Nasareth.

Jesus son of Nasareth, ? please explain

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by LiveForever8

 

Curious the name Ellis , El lis ? Another time maybe lol

A very ancient name - Queen of Phoenicia, no less.

.

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by ralphellis2

 

a. I'm curious what are your thoughts (if any) on the works of Knight and Lomas ?

b. Where do you think the jesus of Talpiot fits in considering the carving at the entrance of the tomb ? Could this be your rebel king ?

c. If Jesus indeed was real and a possible heir to the throne of David coiuld it not be possible that he was laying claim to the crown of akhetaten ?

a. Interesting books, well researched. As ever, you have to take the good bits with the bad, and decide for yourself what is true.

b. Talpiot is interesting, but not, I fear, the tomb of Jesus and his family. The symbol on the entrance is classical Phoenician. The tomb of Jesus' family lies elsewhere in Jerusalem, but it is all locked up at present.

c. Of course he was. He was of the same family line, through the Ptolemies - a grandson of Queen Cleopatra. This is why he was called the Egyptian False Prophet in both the NT and Josephus - the prophet who led the rebellion from the Mount of Olives but was surprised and foiled by the Roman guard. (Sound like a familiar story?)

Most of Judaism and especially Christianity is the ancient legacy of Pharaoh Akhenaton, the original monotheist, blended with various elements of Greco-Roman theology. And Akhenaton's brother was, of course, called Moses. Thus we have the two pairs of brothers - Aaron and Moses or Akhenaton and Tuth-Moses.

This is why Jesus wanted his disciples to become eunuchs (Math 19:12). Jesus was a Nazarene, and they highly prized the eunuch or the hermaphrodite (the Primaeval Adam - a code name for Akhenaton). The ancient historians called the Nazarene the Tossers of Testicles, as they ran through the streets cutting off their goolies. (Apparently, if some testicles came whizzing through your window, you had to give the Tosser a woman's dress). Pharaoh Akhenaton, as you may know, was always depicted as a eunuch or hermaphrodite.

This is why Judaism will not admit to its Egyptian past, it does not want to be associated with the controversial theology of Akhenaton.


.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by ralphellis2]

Originally posted by Barkster
Ludicrous, How many times have I seen this. Yeshua ben Gamala does not equate to Yeshua ben Nasareth. Jesus was the most comon name in israel besides David. So what if there was a jesus of gamala that sort of parrallels the Christ. Don't mean hes the Christ of the Bible.
I'd be really careful you could make some weak minded person fail in his or her quest for God and that would be on your shoulders.

Sorry, Barkster, we need to go back to basics here.


Jesus did not come from Nazareth, because the town did not exist in the 1st century. Jesus was a Nazarene - a sect allied to the Fourth Sect of Judaism, and also called the Galilean Sect. See Act 24:5



Erm, David a common name? As far as I am aware, there is only ONE person in the whole of the Bible called David, and that was King David. The name was unique.



As to Jesus, well is this a common name or not?

They say the name comes from the Hebrew Joshua, but I don't see that. The Hebrew is pronounced yeh-ho-shoo-ah while the Greek is ee-ay-sooce. I see no commonality in pronunciation, nor meaning.

And the reason for this - well, Jesus is not a Jewish name, it is Persian. (hence the Magi at his birth) It comes from Izates, or its short form, Izas.


So how many Jesuses are there? Well in the Bible, there are three.
Jesus
Jesus Justus (col 4:11). But Jesus Justus may well be a relation, possibly a son.
Jesus Barabas, the man to be crucified with Jesus, but let go. May well be Jesus Justus.

Outside the Bible? In Josephus I know of Jesus of Gamala and Jesus of Sepphias, but these are actually the same character. They are both rebel commanders in Galilee and governors of Tiberias, and they are never mentioned together.
There is a Jesus ben Damnaeus, who became high priest before Jesus of Gamala, but this again sounds like a duplication. There is also Jesus Ananias, but this simply means 'Jesus the Priest', and so may well be Jesus of Gamala himself.


All in all, Jesus is not a very common name in the first century. (Although they would like you to think it is, to deflect any attention away from Jesus of Gamala.)


And I don't bend or recoil to threats. I have several death-threats a year already, thank you. (Mostly from the Religion of Peace.)



.



[edit on 4-1-2010 by ralphellis2]

[edit on 4-1-2010 by ralphellis2]

Originally posted by toasted
reply to post by ralphellis2

 

I wonder where you came up with all this?

a. are these your thoughts? or someone elses?

b. Well, I hate to bust your bubble, but judaism didn't exist til after Christ rose.

c. So there could never have been a 4th sect.

d. And Christ was not a jew....in John He told the jews they were not His.

e. and judaism is what cost the jews their temple!

You're not doing very well so far.....

a. All my thoughts

b. Tell the Jews that. Judaism may have been a different animal back in the days of King David and Solomon, but it was still Judaism - sort of. Still the same people.

c. There was a Fourth Sect, because it is mentioned widely in the texts of Josephus. Take a look at paragraph 6.
www.ccel.org...

d. Jesus not a Jew? - well, yes, you are sort-of right here. Judaism was based upon the teachings of Pharaoh Akhenaton. But it had split into sects somewhat by the 1st century.

You had 'mid-orthodox' Judaism in Jerusalem, the Sadduces and Pharisees.
You had Judaic-Akhenatonism of the Nazarene of Jesus, based in Palmyra. This was authentic ultra-heavy 'Egypto-Judaism'.
You had cerebral-Judaism-Akhenatonism with the Essene at Qumran (this may have been a Yeshiva, or school).
You had the Judaism-Lite of Saul-Josephus. Simple Judaism for Gentiles, with no Judaic Law, no castration, and no circumcision either.

So Jesus himself would have been of the ultra-orthodox Egyptian Jews, the Nazarene, which is why he was called the Egyptian False Prophet. But after the fall of Jerusalem, what we ended up with is Saul-Josephus' Simple Judaism-Lite - which is why Christianity bares no relationship whatsoever to the original Church of Jesus.


e. Actually, according to Josephus it was the Fourth Sect who brought down Jerusalem, so it was all Jesus' fault. But I cannot blame him for trying - it was his birthright after all.

In some respects, we might have been better off with Jesus winning, instead of Vespasian, and becoming Emperor of Rome. At least his Gnostic sect was pro-science, instead of Saul-Josephus' ultra-repressive Christianity. However, the prospect of Jesus-the-hermaphrodite being Emperor of Rome does have its downside.

This is what happened when another Nazarene hermaphrodite (possibly a relation of JC) became Emperor of Rome.

en.wikipedia.org...

He did not last long.





Ralph










[edit on 4-1-2010 by ralphellis2]

reply to post by moocowman

Jesus son of Nasareth, ? please explain

This threads got me head spinnin.
I'm sure just a few more posts and I'll be caught up.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by moocowman

 

Jesus son of Nasareth, ? please explain

This threads got me head spinnin.
I'm sure just a few more posts and I'll be caught up.

Don't worry, Moocowman was just being facetious.

Ben means 'son of'. So you can have Jesus OF Nazareth, but never Jesus BEN Nazareth - even if such a place existed.


This is why we have to be so careful about what we think we know, or what we have been told to know.


.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by ralphellis2]

reply to post by ralphellis2


Hm dude Nazarene ? Nasorene

It would appear that Nazereth was not in existence in the first century so I'm assuming your not referring to this .

By the way I find your posts quite interesting although I must point out there is no more nor less evidence that the jesus that resides at Talipiot is not the jesus referred to in the gospels.

reply to post by ralphellis2


Thanks for the videos great find very provocative

reply to post by Perseus Apex


I am glad for the blue background you use, Perseus. Makes it much easier to scroll.

Originally posted by davidmann
reply to post by Perseus Apex

 

I am glad for the blue background you use, Perseus. Makes it much easier to scroll.

Oooh, that's cruel.
T'is the season of good cheer, you know.


Ralph