Tracking Down the Historical Jesus

I’m not throwing the baby out with the bath water. :wink: My focus was on the “big church”. It’s funny in a way because I occasionally post in another forum, and the last time I did it was in the defense of Jesus existence at all. It didn’t go over well. I was asked to prove that he lived. Ever try to do that? I know…'faith". That doesn’t always work as a defense these days in a world looking for truth and facts. It isn’t easy to find him using only proven historical documentation. The closest I’ve come is the work of Josephus and Frank O’Collins. Found a few of Mr. O’s sources too, but he seems to have info that’s not accessible to me.

Back to the timeline:

34 CE Jesus founds the Gnostic philosophy of self-enlightenment and is completely devoted to the overthrow of the Satanic Sadducees and the end of false scriptures of Persia being the Old Testament. Recruits leading guerilla leaders and fighters as his disciples around Galilee as his disciples including Judas the leader of the Sicarii Assassins, the most feared killers of the ancient world.
36 CE Collapse of the military plans of the Nazarene warrior converts of the disciples when Jesus refuses to initiate Civil War. Disciples remain loyal in spite of great loss of face and faith.

There’s been a lot of talk about Jesus being a Zealot. Now when we hear that word, “zealot”, many of us think that it’s a terrible thing to be one of those, and Jesus couldn’t have been one. So I looked into zealotry.

Zealotry was originally a political movement in 1st century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Judaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy Land by force of arms, most notably during the Great Jewish Revolt (66-70). Zealotry was described by Josephus as one of the "four sects" at this time.

I’d say if Jesus was fussing with those Sadducees he would have been considered a zealot too. But we can see from the above timeline section that Jesus didn’t want war or bloodshed. So then I ask myself what was he doing hanging out with these guys? Because they both wanted the same thing, but had two different ways of going about it. I know opinion isn’t the greatest thing to have when dealing with looking for truth. But I don’t think Jesus was very fond of the way the Romans went about controlling everyone, even though during the time of Jesus the Romans seemed to allow everyone to worship as they pleased, that is unless it became a threat to Rome.

It wasn’t until later that they imposed a Mandatory Caesar worship from what I’ve found. That’s when the crap really hit the fan. I have info on that too, but I can’t prove that Domitian ordered it.

This is from section 393, the year 34 of The Book Of The Green Race

  1. The school of Nazara was officially closed
  2. With all nobles and priestly families
  3. Ordered not to send their children
  4. Nazara became a shell of itself
  5. Only the sons of the common people
  6. And the sons of the Zealots remained
  7. Young men like Simon bar Jonah
  8. also known as Simon bar Giora
  9. and St. Peter the Apostle
  10. and John bar Levi also known as John of Giscala
  11. and St. John the Apostle
  12. the author of the Book of Revelation
  13. and Simon ben Eleazar
  14. the son of a former High Priest who opposed
  15. the House of Ananias
  16. These few dozen young men
  17. Remained loyal to Jesus
  18. And they called themselves his disciples

There’s a lot of info online about John of Giscala.

John of Giscala Death date after 70AD When John entered Jerusalem, it was in an uproar, and the people clamored for news. John...went about among all the people, and persuaded them to go to war, by the hopes he gave them. He affirmed that the affairs of the Romans were in a weak condition, and extolled his own power. He also jested upon the ignorance of the unskillful, as if those Romans, although they should take to themselves wings, could never fly over the wall of Jerusalem, who found such great difficulties in taking the villages of Galilee, and had broken their engines of war against their walls. These harangues of John's corrupted a great part of the young men, and puffed them up for the war.[1]
Probably from Wiki

So we have this rather large group from what I’ve seen called “The Zealots”, and they are fighting against Rome and they’re fighting against the Sadducees. Then we have the eventual disappearance of the cult of Divus Julius and the spontaneous emergence of the Christian State. Don’t get me wrong…a lot went down in between. The Romans absorbed the cultures of everyone they conquered, and married into all of the Royal families. So by the time the Christian State came around most of the Royal bloodlines were more than happy to be unified under one title. It was still the Zealots who still had to be dealt with.

And who were they, these zealots? From what I see, and of course as always I could be wrong,…but they’re the original followers of Jesus, the ones that were systematically eliminated all throughout the history of The Christian State. The real Christians? Ok, now you can tell me where I’m all wrong. :wink:

Catch us the foxes,
The little foxes that spoil the vines,

For our vines have tender grapes.

Song Of Solomon

The “big church” as we know it did not begin to really form until the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., nearly 300 years after the death of Jesus (To keep this in perspective, it has only been about 235 years since the founding of the United States, and no one could reckon we are living in “early America”, considering the massive social, political, economic, and technological transformation that has taken place since then.) So, as you see, your focus on early Christianity in regards to a top down, hierarchical practice of human or animal sacrifice really makes no sense when we really study the legacy and diversity of the many early churches, seeded by Jesus’ and his disciples’ Teachings.

Actually, I wouldn’t answer with “faith” at all. But it does sound like I’d have a fun time in that debate. Perhaps that issue will come along here sometime in the future, or you can send your friends this way…

(If “Jesus didn’t want war or bloodshed”, yet you define Zealots as wishing to expel the Romans by “force of arms”, than you admit by your own definition that Jesus was not a Zealot. That really is the end of the debate, but for your sake I will present more material that will hopefully help to clarify matters better.)

There is no evidence that Jesus was a Zealot simply because he quarreled with the Sadducees. The Pharisees and Essenes quarreled with them too, and they weren’t all Zealots.

Also, because Jesus hung out with some Zealots did not make him one. It is understood that he conversed and crossed paths with all walks of life within the Jewish state at that time. This type of logic would say that because he hung out with prostitutes, he must be a pimp! Sorry, but the evidence clearly isn’t there. Rather, there is plenty of evidence indicating he was not a Zealot. (Not arguing that there was necessarily anything wrong with Zealotry, simply that that was not Jesus’ Path.)

Instead of simply arguing my case, I will use source material that contradicts this claim. And as a response, I await yours or O’Collins contrary source material… but alas, he has yet to produce it for you…

The people called Him the Galilean because He was raised in Galilee, and they sought to name Him the Man of Messianic Hope and the Suffering Just One, when Judas the Galilean was dead. [b]Some thought He was the warrior messiah, but He rebuked them[/b], saying, "I am He of whom it is written 'He shall judge the poor rightly and reprove those who oppress them. He shall smite the Earth [b]with the rod of His mouth[/b] and slay the wicked [b]with the words that issue from His mouth[/b]' ".
One of the people who were there said, “We have heard that You teach the coming Rule of God and claim knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven. Tell us about these things.” Jesus said, “The Rule of God is not something which will come suddenly, [b]nor will it bring about a violent change[/b]. [b]It is not a change of surroundings but a change of heart. The changed conditions will be brought about by changes in the heart. No man can say, ‘It is here’ or ‘It is there’.[/b] It is here but waiting recognition. Just as others have heralded My coming so do I herald the coming Rule of God, but its establishment does not depend on anything done by God but on the actions of men. The Kingdom of Heaven is where [b]God rules in Spirit[/b], but there is that within each man which can extend the Kingdom of Heaven. [b]When this is drawn out of men while they are on Earth and established here, then the Kingdom of Heaven will embrace the Earth.[/b] When the Rule of God is established on Earth, then will the Kingdom of Heaven come down so Heaven and Earth are united in one.”
One of the disciples said, “Look, Sire, we have two swords among us.” Jesus said, “That is sufficient.” Peter said, “Sire, are You going to lead us against the kingdom of evil in arms?” Jesus said, “[b]The battle is for the immortal souls of men.[/b] Feast your eyes on Me, for the hour draws near when I shall no longer be with you in body.”

When the Temple Guards seized hold of Jesus, one with Him drew a sword and wounded one of them. Another said, “Shall we smite with our swords?” But Jesus forbade this, saying to the captain of the Guard, “Were My Kingdom of this world I would order my followers to take up arms, but My Kingdom is not of this world and evil cannot be vanquished by evil.” He rebuked them with the words, “Did you expect to find a dangerous criminal who had to be overcome with weapons? I have been among you many days and you left Me alone.

Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew to know these things? Your people have handed You over, for, according to their interpretation you have made kingly claims. What have You done?”

Jesus said, “Is an earthly king most worthy to be called the Son of God? Surely, it is goodness and not kingship that counts. I am a Son of God and this title I rightly claim, but if I have a Kingdom it is not of Earth. Had it been otherwise My followers would not have permitted Me to be taken.” Pilate said, “You are, then, a king of some kind.” Jesus replied, “As you say, I am a king but I do not come to rule, for I was born into the world to testify of the Truth, and all who honour Truth listen to My words.” Pilate said, “Who knows what is Truth or what it means? One man’s Truth is another man’s deception.” Jesus answered, “No man can know Truth, for it is not of Earth, which is a place of deception, but God knows Truth and it is with Him alone.”

Pilate said, “Does not Caesar know Truth?” To which Jesus replied, “No man knows Truth.” Pilate said, “Is the Truth with You or with Caesar? Jesus said, “Caesar’s heart is in fornication not in Truth, and this you know to be true. Would you condemn Me for speaking Truth?” Pilate said “Say no more.” Jesus said, “See how those who uphold Truth are judged by those holding authority.”

Pilate then said, “Have You nothing to say to me who have the power to condemn or release You? What shall I do with One such as You?” Jesus then said, “The power of Rome rests in your hands, but it gives you power over nothing except My body, do with that as you will. It is not you but those distorting the face of Truth who are to blame.” Pilate said, “If I deal with You one way the people will say the authority of Rome supports Your teachings and is not against the things You declare. They will say Your claim to kingship is upheld and may even say You are preferred to Caesar. If I do this I will certainly be called to account, for am I not the hand of Caesar whom You blaspheme and decry?” Jesus said, “I call men to a Kingdom which is not yet of Earth.”

Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk. And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men. Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the tax money.”

So they brought Him a denarius.

And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?”

They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”

And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” When they had heard these words, they marveled, and left Him and went their way.

So Pilate asked Jesus, “Are you the king of the Jews?”

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

Then Pilate announced to the chief priests and the crowd, “I find no basis for a charge against this man.”

But they insisted, “He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here.”

On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean. When he learned that Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.

When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform a sign of some sort. He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer. The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there, vehemently accusing him. Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies.

Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.”

But the whole crowd shouted, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.)

Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.”

But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. So Pilate decided to grant their demand. He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will.

I could go on and on here with these kind of quotes, but I hope you get the point. Jesus was not looking to overthrow Rome per se, but to overthrow the tyranny of wickedness in men’s hearts. The root of which is ignorance among the mass of men, which caused the Jews of that time to be physically ruled over by the Romans, and spiritually starved and dominated over by the Pharisees and Sadducees. The spiritual tyranny of the hypocritical Jewish priestly caste of the time he railed against constantly… hardly a peep against Rome. Which do you think he considered the more important issue to confront here, spiritual or physical tyranny? And which of these reformations would bring about that “Kingdom of God” which is “within you” to finally come rule upon the Earth?

Was hoping to post something a bit more involved tonight…worked today, and I’m letting the little store I work at borrow my Halloween Decorations. But guess who gets to set them up? :slight_smile: Been on a 12 ft. tall ladder for hours hanging fish netting, spider webs, spiders, bats, tombstones, skeletons, lights, and fuzzy toy rats. It’s all good, got to make people laugh with some of the props. I get to be creative for a little while. One of my high points.

I had a post all ready to go this am., and have since hesitated. Sometimes I wonder if it’s best to be quiet about certain things. I’ll have to think about this a little more. I fight with myself about things like that, and that’s probably a good thing. It’s very difficult to be alone with ones thoughts sometimes. Part of you wants to just burst with the info that you’ve found, your conclusions or feelings about the info, and the other part of you wonders if it will just sound crazy to others, or you could even hurt someone in the process. Not my intention…just wonder too sometimes how much time we have left, the clock keeps ticking and people aren’t talking. Then I think I should just share everything I know and found, work it out and discuss it.

Either way, have you ever tried to prove anything about Jesus without using scripture, or and other work influenced by Christians? It gets even harder when you have to find it before 100 AD, worse yet, before 50 AD. Oh, and you’re probably right about the Romans Len. I have a little misdirected anger at them. They might be more in the line with those good and well meaning men, and may or may not have had anything to do with what I’ve been thinking. They’ve done a lot of other things I could get upset about. :wink: But how far their involvement is in this, I really don’t know yet.

Hi Diane,
I’m very much enjoying following your posts, such an honest soul you are, and to put your thoughts out there, very brave indeed.
I’ve never found very much real evidence at all that the “Jesus”, or more correctly, the Y’shua, of N.T fame ever existed at all. There are some writings about a person who cold possibly be him, in different chapters of the Talmud, but even Jewish authorities are unclear as to weather this was the “Jesus” of the Christians or not.
The short sentace that is about Jesus in Josephus, is very likely an addition made sometime well after the alleged crucifixion of said Jesus.
Jesus, itself, is NOT a Hebrew, nor Aramaic name. Jesus, or Ye -Sus, is Greek, and means “like Zeus”, or Son of Zues, wich makes a lot of sense, given that much of the N.T stories are borrowed from the Dionysis mythology of the Greeks, as well as the Pythagorian mysteries. (please excuse spelling). Naturaly, no 1st century Jew of even the mildest religious persuasion, would have called their son by the name of a Greek god.
The Kailedy, has about the most believable depiction of him, as far as I’m concerned, at least a depiction that fits what someone like that might be. If in a Jewish context, Y’shua was Maschiach Ben Yosef, and his job was to “cast a net” as it were, to “catch” the Lost sheep of the house of Israel, then I think maybe he did his job well. Obviously, Y’shua, or Jesus, was no Messiah Ben David.
My reading of History, is that both Pilate, and Herod, were bloodthirsty animals, who tortured and destroyed all who stood in their way, and wouldn’t have shown an ounce of mercy to a rebellious Jew, especialy if they believed he may be a rebel leader. Jewish sources say, and I believe them, that the whole story of Pilate and Jesus, is a concoction of Rome, and its intent was malevolent towards the Jewish people. Like the slaughter of the innocents, a complete fable.
I personly believe, now at least, that that the Kailedy paints a very real picture, but on the other hand, there are pieces of the puzzle that are not there. Like the deal between Yoseph of Aramathia (or whatever his name or tittle) and the Romans, to let Y’shua live. That went awry when at the changing of the watch the new guards didn’t know that Y’shua had been drugged, his legs being left unbroken, noticed Y’shua still breathing, and so stabbed him with his javelon

Hi Enkisfreind! so good to hear from you! Is yeshua bar yosef a Hebrew name? Think that might be the name to be searching for, maybe, maybe not. I’m reading “Antiquities of The Jews” by Josephus right now. He’s quite an interesting fellow. Been poking around about his own life story. O’Collins thinks Josephus is actually St. Luke. He also believes that Josephus was the Architect behind the whole Christian story. Others have remarked about how Josephus and St. Paul’s writings are very similar. Quite the mystery.

In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms parts of the Christ, NT information. Think that’s in book 18 Chapter 3. He sums up in only 127 words Jesus existence, his miracle working, his more than human status, his ministry, the condemnation by the Jewish Priests, his sentence by Pilate, death on the cross, devotions of followers, resurrection on the third day, after death appearance, etc.

Here’s what Josephus had to say…

3. 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 of 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, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) 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. Josephus (2012-10-14). Antiquities of the Jews (Kindle Locations 18953-18954). Vook, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

And yes, there are a lot of issues with those 127 words. It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen’s third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum. No single writer before the 4th century made any reference to this passage by Josephus, not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. Boils down to we can’t even use Josephus 127 words in defense of Jesus, and they more than likely were written in much later. very sad, but probably true. But he quest does not end there!

Josephus really wasn’t in a position to tell the whole truth at the time of his writings either. He was working for Rome wasn’t he?

Correct in all points sister !
Josephus did write a fairly honest account, though no doubt some of the Roman atrocities are glossed over.
Not only as you say, but the non Jewish religious terminology is quite obvious to one schooled in Jewish messianic thought, and prophetic interpretation. Which relies more on exegetical analysis, than on Hellenistic hermeneutics.
As far as a name goes, you would be looking for Y’shua BenYosef, as when he received his name officialy , firstly at his Brit Milah, or cicumscision, and again at his Bar Mitzvah, he would have been given a Hebrew name, as apposed to Aramaic.
Well done sister, keep up the good work !
Love and light to you…

Actually, Josephus references Jesus twice in his Antiquities of the Jews. One of these references to Jesus (Book 20: Chapter 9-1) are “almost universally accepted by scholars as being authentic”. The other mention of Jesus (Book 18: Chapter 3-3), also referred to as the “Testimonium Flavianum”, is considered by most scholars to be partially authentic; meaning that Josephus most certainly did discuss Jesus, but did not himself call him “Christ”. It is mainly the addition of the term “Christ” that is considered to be the interpolation. But that the “Testimonium Flavianum” discusses Jesus the man is these days not so disputed by serious scholars. You may begin your research into this debate with a few links below:

By the way, here is a couple partial lists of other non-Biblical, non-Christian references to Jesus (yes, including the Talmud, which calls Jesus ‘Yeshu’, and claims he was ‘hanged’ on the “eve of Passover”; which precisely affirm the time of crucifixion with the Gospels— quote: “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!” — Babylonian Talmud [“Hanged” on a cross he was] )

(Also see the notes from the various scholars on the Wiki link; atheists, Jews, Christians, agnostics etc. today agree that “Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed” )

It makes a lot of sense considering that the Gospels as we have them are all originally written in Greek, meant for Greek readers. So, what do the Greek language writers of the Gospels do? Instead of confusing their Greek readers with Jewish Theology, or using foreign, uncomfortable sounding Hebrew or Aramaic names to a Grecian tongue, ‘Yeshu’ is given a Title best corresponding their own theology with the Jewish theology, which is… wait for it… “Son of the Most High God”, which in Greece, is Zeus! (I hope you’re hearing thunderbolts by now :o ) Pretty simple really.

Of course we could go to Egypt, and read the Coptic (Gnostic) Gospels of Jesus, which use abbreviations that all Coptic scholars translate to the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Yeshua”. (See translation documentation of the Nag Hammadi)… These both refer to the Greek “Title” of Jesus (Son of the Most High God) Christ (anointed one) and the proper name, Yeshua.

This is a likely story, as every group would rather blame another for their own self created evils. Rome had no need to concoct a story such as this… simply smash the Jews and tare Jerusalem to the ground. But perhaps the Talmud quote I posted above was a sneaky Roman interpolation… ::slight_smile:

(I swear… Jews really need to start owning up to their own crap… same with Christians… and Muslims… and freaking everybody else!!!)

You are looking for someone to blame. Here are a few hints: It was not a national, cultural, or tribal group. Metaphysics and ‘spiritual principalities’ were directly involved. Certain human agents are certainly who you are looking for (in part), but you will be unable to trace direct involvement from these agents that lived some 2,000 years ago through conventional historical research…

I understand what you mean here. I have just added today more private sections to these Forums. Go to the main forum page and scroll down to the last section of forums that are grouped as “Private Forums”. There is a board that is visible only to registered members here (“Forum Members Board”). And there are other boards visible only to those that have posted a certain number of posts. Anyone who has crossed this first threshold will have a title next to their screen-name/profile that reads “Initiate Poster”. Only a handful of registered members here have posted enough to have gained this title, and only they will be able read and post items in that board. (There are further private forums for other purposes that you may see later for different purposes as well, including higher post count title boards.) Feel free to use the “Forum Members Board” or “Initiate Poster Forum” for any discussion you feel more restricted or private due to the sensitivity of the information… or simply Private Message… :slight_smile:

He was a Jewish historian that became a Roman citizen after personally fighting against the Romans. In his later life he denounced both Jewish Zealotry and and the “corrupt and incompetent” Roman administrators over Judea. (See here: )

Sounds like man doing his best to be impartial for the Truth…

Great info here. Regretfully must leave to go to work and decorate some more. :slight_smile: Quick quote for reference…
Believe this is the quote…Josephus Book 20 Chapter 9. I was aware of it. Haven’t dug into really very much yet.

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.

(24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Josephus (2012-10-14). Antiquities of the Jews (Kindle Locations 21251-21255). Vook, Inc… Kindle Edition.

I kept the other Jesus name in there too. I read somewhere that Josephus mentions 20 different men names Jesus? oh my. Until later. :wink:

Your “Most scholars” are probably Christian, and of course they are going to say it was all original.
Most scholars, are usually very wrong, and as for Jews owning up to their own, what was it “crap”, this whole Christian religion was not of our making.
You couldn’t exactly blame Jews for wanting to write “Jesus” out of their history, considering what his bloodthirsty craven lying followers did to the Jewish people for the next two thousand years could you ?
The oldest copies of Josephus don’t have the Jesus texts, and that makes me very suspect.
My Scholar Dr Norman J Austin, who wrote some of the reference books I used when studying Classics at university, made a point of saying that those texts were very likely later additions to the Josephus writings long after the event.
I’m not saying Y’shua BenYosef didn’t exist, I’m not an idiot, how could the Kailedy be true if that was the case ?
But the stories in the NT books are mostly fabrications, and Y’shua is indeed, very hard to find real evidence of if you are looking for something real.
Even King David, another Jew, is very hard to find evidence for outside the T’nahk, though archeologists have found it, but even then, very little, because it was all so long ago, in a place that has been destroyed time and again.
I have been to many of the supposed sites in and around Judea, where Jesus or his disciples “talmudim”, are supposed to have done this or that, and its astounding the claims that are blatant rubbish, and can be proven so.
Nazereth, didn’t even exist at the time of Jesus, he was a Nazerite, taken Nazerite vows, that’s why he was called Ha Natzer, the Nazerite, not the Nazerine.
There are many many, as I’m sure you know, misunderstandings as to Jesus and his life, some deliberate, some not. But he did surely exist, of that there is no doubt. There are also many who attempt to remove him from his Jewish context, he was a Jew, and somewhat of a zealot, though for G-d, not for man. Like all the prophets, he was G-ds man first, a Hebrew second. Though to remove Y’shua out of the Jewish context, is to make the whole event null and void, as without the upbringing and education in the school of Hallel, he wouldn’t have been the man he was. If it is true, that he said “I come for none, save the lost sheep of the house of Israel, I come to find that which was lost”, then he was, in a Jewish context, Mashiach BenYosef, who was supposed to be killed, according to tradition.Why is this important ?
Because the people that Yosef of Aramathia took the message too, were descendants of the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”, as apposed to the house of Judah, who’s sheep were not lost.
Maybe, dear brother, you should take another look at reconsciliation, and apply its meaning to some other faiths, that didn’t murder millions of peaceful non Christians because they wouldn’t accept a different faith, or snuff out whole cultures, because they wanted to forcibly subjugate them for "the glory of god ".
Christianities accusers are mostly dead, having been crucified, burned at the stake, feed to wild animals, drowned, bleed to death, burned alive with their families, or tortured to death because they were Jews, Muslims, or Druids, or some other “pagan” belief.
They even murdered other Christians, who didn’t agree with there interpretations, Catholics killed Protestants, and Protestants killed Catholics. Today it goes on, with the Pastors and so called “scholars” of Christianity propagating the false spirituality and materialism , and mass hysteria of modern Christianity.
I’ll probably be shot down in flames for this, but I too have lions to release !
After all.
Shalom, peace to you brothers and sisters.

Actually, most antiquities scholars are admitted atheists, more than happy to disprove the existence of Jesus, but going by the evidence I have already posted (plus a lot more I didn’t), they would look like fools considering the amount of research, facts, and evidence that has been accumulated in this line of study. Hopefully you’ll take the time to comment on actual research and evidence rather than posit Ad hominem fallacies ( )that are not even accurate to the group you are accusing.

The oldest Josephus texts (original Greek) come from the 11th Century, and yes, they included the Jesus references, so I’m not sure what you’re where you’re getting that information from. As for the scholar you note, it is recognized that there were most likely interpolations, but these had to do with Josephus calling Jesus ‘Christ’, or ‘wise man’, not that Jesus wasn’t mentioned at all, for it is almost unanimusly agreed upon that he was… and even Origen from the third century quotes Josephus’ comments about Jesus. And it is sad that most Jews neither know, nor are willing to even admit the reference to the execution of ‘Yeshu’ in their own Talmud.

(What an interesting quote that is, huh? It even aludes to the Jewish Priests manipulating Pilate into exucuting Jesus, rather than the Jews doing it themselves. As it says His crimes were sorcery and apostasy [Jewish laws, not Roman], and a herald called for Him to be stoned, but instead he was hanged. Hanging by crucifixion was a Roman style execution, not Jewish, while the Jews called to execute by stoning. So, Yeshu was executed Roman style for Jewish transgressions. The Romans would never have done this unless He broke Roman law, which the Talmud does not accuse him of. This is where the Jewish priests, instead of dirtying their own hands by ordering stoning, handed over Yeshu to the Romans to be ‘hanged’, on the eve of Passover, and all as the Biblical Gospels and Kailedy said. Talmud, New Testament, Kailedy agree here…)

Now, it is again interesting to note a kind of national karma in reference to persecution. The original Christians, all Jews, were persecuted and murdered by their own people. Then, centuries later, those calling themselves Christians who were once persecuted, then persecute their former persecutors. Of course, these murderers were not True Christians as measured up by the Teachings of Jesus, but the very fact that they called themselves Christians (the exiled, cast out sons of Judaism and Jewish tradition), exacted a sort of revenge patricide of their once religious fathers, the ones that once tried to kill their ‘infant’ son (early Christianity). (This is played out in older mythology as well… the Father killing the Son, or attempting to, and then the exiled Son returning as a man to murder the old tyrant Father. These are, among other things, karmic and cultural Lessons that are ignored, misunderstood, or rejected to our peril.)

Can’t much disagree here with the rest of this post… :slight_smile:

Humbled again…

If I had to guess today I’d fly with Paul, and Josephus. Maybe a few fellows up in Britain too. But I haven’t really checked into the later ones yet.

Either way I might have to make a separate thread for Josephus. What an interesting fellow he is. I think this is actually about Jesus too…

Moreover, there came out of Egypt (20) about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives, as it was called, which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs. He said further, that he would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised them that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls, when they were fallen down. Now when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons, and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem, and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them, and took two hundred alive. But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but did not appear any more. And again the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews

More references to Christians and or Christ. Just really wish I could find something even earlier, as most of these could have been influenced by later Christianity, and I’m getting to where I don’t even think that Jesus had anything to do with the Christianity that ended up developing under his name.

Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars - Claudius 5.25.4 (120 CE)
“Since the Jews were constantly causing disturbances at the instigation of Christians, he (Claudius) expelled them from Rome.”

Suetonius,Life of Nero (120 CE) 16.2
“Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a body of people addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition.”

Tacitus, Annals 15.44 (112 CE)

"Therefore to squelch the rumor that ‘Nero had started the Great Fire of Rome’, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called ‘Christians’, [a group] hated for their abominable crimes.

Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome, where all sorts of horrendous and shameful practices from every part of the world converge and are fervently cultivated."

Pliny the Younger (L 10:96). (93 CE)

“They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as a to a god, and bound themselves by solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and them then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

Lucian of Samosata (DP,11-13) (165 C.E.)

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…
You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property …”

Babylonian Sanhedrin 107b 250-300 CE

“…Rabbi Joshua was reciting the Shema when Jesus came before him.
He intended to receive him and made a sign to him.
He [Jesus] thing that it was to repel him, when, put up a brick and worshipped it”.
‘Repent’, said Rabbi Joshua to Jesus.
Jesus replied, ‘I have learned this from you: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance’.
And a Rabbi has said, 'Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray."

Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a. Yeb. IV 3; 49a:

“On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going forth to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel.
Let everyone knowing aught in his defence come and plead for him.
But they found naught in his defence and hanged him (on a cross/tree) on the eve of Passover.”

Rabbi Abbahu of Caesarea (270 CE)

“If a man says, ‘I am God,’ he is a liar, if he says I am the Son of Man,’ his end will be such that he will rue it; if he says, ‘I shall ascend to heaven,’ will it not be that he will have spoken and will not be able to perform it?'”

An early Baraita (in which R. Eliezer is the central figure)
(in the Babylonian Talmud’s tractate 'Aboda Zara 16b-17a; cf. Tosefta Hullin 2.24) (250-300 CE)

“He answered, Akiba, you have reminded me! Once I was walking along the upper market (Tosefta reads ‘street’) of Sepphoris and found one [of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth] and Jacob of Kefar Sekanya (Tosefta reads ‘Sakkanin’) was his name.
He said to me, It is written in your Law, ‘Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, etc.’
What was to be done with it - a latrine for the High Priest? But I answered nothing. He said to me, so [Jesus of Nazareth] taught me (Tosefta reads, ‘Yeshu ben Pantere’): ‘For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them, and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return’; from the place of filth they come, and until the place of filth they shall go. And the saying pleased me, and because of this I was arrested for Minuth.
And I transgressed against what is written in the Law; ‘Keep thy way far from here’ - that is Minuth; ‘and come not nigh the door of her house’ - that is the civil government”.

Multiple mentions of Nazareth too. Notice the mention of “Sepphoris”, I found something really amazing there, and in Huqoq, and under the Galilee Sea. Gotta love research! :slight_smile: That might just be a future thread too, hunting for Nazareth, Nazarenes, Nazara. Don’t know if Sepphoris is tied into it just yet, but I’m working on finding Nazara in Galilee. There’s a Nazara in Egypt. Found out Samson was a Nazarite, and so was John The Baptist. Place or group? Were Nazarites really the Gnostics? hmmm

And the hunt for Jesus continues…

This is the papyrus that hinted at the possibility of Jesus being married. I believe he was, and that he had children. Just the fact that he’s mentioned on such an old document is in itself another amazing clue.

A discovery by a Harvard researcher may shed light on a controversial aspect of the life of Jesus Christ.

Harvard Divinity School professor Karen L. King says she has found an ancient papyrus fragment from the fourth century that, when translated, appears to indicate that Jesus was married.

The text is being dubbed “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.” The part of it that’s drawing attention says, “Jesus said to them, ‘my wife’” in the Coptic language. The text, which is printed on papyrus the size of a business card, has not been scientifically tested to verify its dating, but King and other scholars have said they are confident it is a genuine artifact.

“Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was not married, even though no reliable historical evidence exists to support that claim,” King said at a conference in Rome on Tuesday. “This new gospel doesn’t prove that Jesus was married, but it tells us that the whole question only came up as part of vociferous debates about sexuality and marriage. From the very beginning, Christians disagreed about whether it was better not to marry, but it was over a century after Jesus’s death before they began appealing to Jesus’ marital status to support their positions.”

Diane, truly, in Aramaic text of the Talmud it is HaNotzrim", the Nazerite, not B’Nazaret, which would be “from” nazereth. There really was no Nazereth in the 1st Century AD.
You may be interested to know that, even today, Christians are called HaNotzrim, by Hassidic Jews, an indication as to the roots of “real” Christians, who, for the first part, were all Judean Jews, who all were Torah observant, as Y’shua said they must be, and were most likely, the males anyway, partakers of Nazerite vows.
I’m not sure how Shimshon (Samson) could have been a Nazerite, when he comes from a time before such laws were codified. Also, he broke his vow anyway, by making out with Delila, who wasn’t an Israelite woman.
I think the story of Shimshon, is just that, a story, maybe with a grain of truth, but a story used to teach young men about honour, and strange women.

Hi enkisfreind! I started a new topic for Nazarenes, Nazarites, Nazareth etc. Just to keep the searching for Jesus and searching for Nazareth separate. Yes, Samson did break his vows, more than once I’m afraid. But I didn’t include that just yet in the new topic. :slight_smile:

Joseph Atwill wrote, "Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus ". He compared Josephus, “Wars of The Jews”, writings to Caesars, “The Gallic Wars”. The info about Caesar being the possible centerpiece of the NT isn’t really new news, but it seems Atwill has found something else recently in an attempt to cement his theory.

Not sure why Glenn Beck, and “The Blaze”, are putting this out there, unless they’re trying to rile up their Christian Base. It’s all interesting either way.

“Self-Professed ‘Bible Scholar’ Makes Explosive Allegation About Jesus That He Believes Could Rock the Christian Faith to Its Core”

I’ve been researching this theory after being made aware of it in another forum. That the story of Jesus was actually the story of Caesar. There’s a lot of compelling evidence to substantiate that claim. There is a lot of info to relate the NT story to many other ancient stories too. I’ve read about 1/2 of Atwills book, just what was available online. I’ve read “Et Tu Judas, then Fall Jesus” By Gary Courtney, and a few other related books and articles. I see it, I see their point. I see where it could have happened that way. I can also see where I could, if I felt compelled to do so, rip into those theory’s a bit. But honestly, what does it matter, at this point I feel the NT should be scrapped in my opinion and a definite rewrite is in order. Or maybe just a book called “keep it simple stupid”, would be a better option.

So just for a moment I ask myself what was it about this man Caesar that was so good that people thought it was ok and good to turn him into one of the long standing tradition of those who died for us giving something of themselves. Think the term is SS. Sacrificing Savior or something to that effect. You get the picture.

I’ve found a lot of really good things about him. I’ve also found some things that are alarming. Could it be true? Is the NT really about his man? Was he more than we know he was? Would he have wanted this? Did he want this? Or is this just all part of the grand story that was made up and he was just used in some way to add a story within a story?

So…was Caesar Jesus in the NT? What ya think? I still have no real opinion. Nothing in this theory yet has nailed it for me.

Hi Diane,
A book I found very helpful on my search for truth, and that cleared away many misconceptions about spirituality and the past was “The Mystery Religions and Christianity”, by S,Angus PhD,D.Lit, D.D.
A very informative and rare work now, I was very fortunate to find a copy.
It tells the whole tale of where much of Christianity’s spirituality, and many of the stories of Jesus, and even the whole dying messiah idea, came from.
Good luck finding a copy.
Love and light to you sister.

Hi Enkisfreind! Looks like an oldie but goodie my friend! There’s a kindle version out now. I just scooped it up. I think it’s the same one, just made for Kindle.

Review by Brian O’Malley

First published in the 1920s, this work is still the standard on the various mystery religions so popular in Greece and Rome before the establishment of Christianity. (Interesting parallels between the mystery faiths and early Christianity are discussed, without either apology or venom, but with an avid interest.)

While these mystery faiths were extremely popular, they were nonetheless secret societies. Many references to their rites and doctrines exist in surviving ancient sources; these references, however, are necessarily veiled. S. Angus does a beautiful job in arranging these fragments to present an intriguing mosaic.

Another classic on ancient Mediterranean religion would be James George Frazer’s The Golden Bough. For a more recent study, see Michael Grant, Myths of the Greeks and Romans, which includes a discussion of the mystery religions.

I’ve been searching on and off since Joseph Atwill had a “conference” on Oct 19th in London. I cannot find a peep about anything new yet from Atwill that’s come out of that conference. There was some rumors about some letters or something he found. I’m reading Ralph Ellis now, and if what he says about Jesus is true, Caesar might be more the guy who gentiles would have been able to relate to. Caesar’s story actually fits better than Ellis story of who Jesus was. Ellis’s Jesus didn’t like simple Judaism much, nor gentiles, nor Romans, but his brother James seemed a bit more open to the idea to the idea of “Simple Judiasm” /aka Christianity than Jesus ever did. But James was looking for some funding…so the drama continues.

Here’s a quote from Ellis’s Book, that I’m reading now, " King Jesus, Prince of Judea and Rome".

After the fall of Jerusalem the Church of Simple Judaism was spreading throughout the Imperial family, with members becoming highly placed in the new Church; while the Galilean Sect and the family of Jesus was being systematically wiped out. This was the true level of persecution in this early era, and it was certainly not being aimed at the followers of Simple Judaism (Christianity). Ellis, Ralph (2008-08-19). King Jesus, prince of Judaea and Rome (The King Jesus Trilogy) (Kindle Locations 2719-2722). Edfu Books. Kindle Edition.

So he’s saying here that the Nazarene/Galilean Sect of Essenes, that Jesus was the leader of, were the ones being persecuted not the new “Simple Judaism”, ( being drawn up by Paul/Saul/Josephus and Rome), that would become Christianity. Christians weren’t persecuted, Jesus was in Ellis opinion. The reasons for that were that Jesus wanted the separation from Romans, gentiles, etc, he wanted circumcision, he wanted not to pay tax to Rome, (for reasons they were given like a tax free zone previously), wow…it’s a whole different take on the situation.

Looking forward to reading Angus’s work. I still think this will come together and we will find out who he was, and who he was not.

Hi Diane,
Frankly, I would have to agree with Wr Atwils assessment of the “Y’shua” V so called simple Judaism fight.
I always sensed a gulf between what Jesus was saying in the N.T, which seemed pretty standard house of Hillel Essene type spirituality, and the “New Religion” as Sha’ul of Tarsis, and his followers. Sha’ul and his no need for circumscision, and eat it all approach doesn’t really fit with Y’shua’s statement that he didn’t come to change any of the Torah commandments, and the fate of those who do.
Even if most of the N.T text is a cobbled together fairy tale, enough truth remains to get the true seeker curious to dig deeper.
Y’shua, even in the N.T, and certainly in the Kailedy, is not against Judaism, and the Jewish people, but against hypocracy, and corrupt spirituality.
I’ll be downloading that Kindle version of S.Angus book as soon as I have the $
It remains one of the most concise and well researched works I have read about any subject at all, to date. You will no doubt, gain much knowledge from it.
Keep up the good work sister.
We’ll get there together, all of us.
Love and light, V’Shalom.
PS. that “H”, on the clothing in the mosaics, maybe it is a symbol for whatever Emperor was ruling at the time, like the “M”, on coins during the Byzantine rein of Justinian ?

Wow just read through all of this and pretty sure i’m out my depth! All i have to contribute is that he isn’t the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy! :o