Specialized Areas of Interest > History: Modern & Ancient

Tracking Down the Historical Jesus

(1/6) > >>

Diane_:
I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water. ;-)  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.


--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
 

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

41.   The school of Nazara was officially closed
42.   With all nobles and priestly families
43.   Ordered not to send their children
44.   Nazara became a shell of itself
45.   Only the sons of the common people
46.   And the sons of the Zealots remained
47.   Young men like Simon bar Jonah
48.   also known as Simon bar Giora
49.    and St. Peter the Apostle
50.    and John bar Levi also known as John of Giscala
51.    and St. John the Apostle
52.    the author of the Book of Revelation
53.    and Simon ben Eleazar
54.    the son of a former High Priest who opposed
55.    the House of Ananias
56.    These few dozen young men
57.    Remained loyal to Jesus
58.    And they called themselves his disciples
http://one-ireland.org/sacred_texts/clann_glas/clann_glas_0200.htm

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


--- Quote ---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]
--- End quote ---
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. ;-)

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

For our vines have tender grapes.

Song Of Solomon






Len:

--- Quote from: Diane_ on September 22, 2013, 10:13:32 AM ---My focus was on the "big church".
--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: Diane_ on September 22, 2013, 10:13:32 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---

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...


--- Quote from: Diane_ on September 22, 2013, 10:13:32 AM ---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.


--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---


...Jesus didn't want war or bloodshed.

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. ;-)
--- End quote ---

(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...


--- Quote from: The Kolbrin: The Britain Book, Chapter 3: Jesus 2 ---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. Some thought He was the warrior messiah, but He rebuked them, 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 with the rod of His mouth and slay the wicked with the words that issue from His mouth' ".
--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: The Gospel of the Kailedy: Chapter 18 ---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, nor will it bring about a violent change. 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’. 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 God rules in Spirit, but there is that within each man which can extend the Kingdom of Heaven. When this is drawn out of men while they are on Earth and established here, then the Kingdom of Heaven will embrace the Earth. 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.”
--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: The Gospel of the Kailedy: Chapter 23 ---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, “The battle is for the immortal souls of men. 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.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: The Gospel of the Kailedy: Chapter 24 ---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.”
--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: Matthew 22:15-22 ---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.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: Luke 23:3-25 ---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.
--- End quote ---

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?

Diane_:
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?  :-)  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. ;-)  But how far their involvement is in this, I really don't know yet. 

Enkisfreind:
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

Diane_:
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...

--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---


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? 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version