Littlejohn

I understand...

Only Josephus was a contemporary historian of Jesus (*)

Although the infamous 'Testimonium Flavianum' is a false sensational (perhaps a gloss 'a latere' inserted in the main text during copying on the part of a Catholic scribe), however Josephus, which met IN PERSON Jesus, wrote widely about the Nazarene, especially in Jewish War. Much of what he wrote was expunged from his texts, because absolutely irreconcilable with the pile of lies and deceptions on which the founding fathers of the catholic-Christianity built such a cult ..

____________________

(*) - for the truth, there was another Jewish historian who was a contemporary of Jesus: Justus of Tiberias. Surely he also knew Jesus, despite the fact that the byzantine bishop Fotius, X-XI century, after reading the work of Justus, present in his library, he was disappointed because Justus, apparently, did not seem to mention Jesus at all. In reality, almost certainly, even Justus wrote about Jesus (it would have been absurd if he had not made it!), but do not in the way like the bishop Fotius had expected!...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Chili

Hi Johnny, for clarity sake you should call it 'occult' since a cult does not include the divine while these Catholics-not-Christian have us scrambling and searching for records all over and all we can find is the bait that they left behind for the curious eyes of an inquisitive mind

Littlejohn

.

«..Please, I am not here to play games....»

Too bad ...I find it really have fun! ....

«... Which one of your sources indicate or confirm that your Jesus was 66 years old?...»

NONE! .. (why my Jesus?..)

It's a data that you get 'extrapolating' the other data! ... It's obvious that, to achieve this, it takes much intuition and mental brillance ... If you continue to 'playing around' the own mind with the hallucinating theories of the mythological origin of Jesus of Nazareth, you never will understand it! ...

I brought a myriad of sources through which it can establish, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus of Nazareth was a man of 'flesh and blood', and NOT a myth !!... However, I seems, you persist to taken not it into account: as saying that "..there are none so deaf as he who does not want to hear .."

However, this does not mean that the New Testament and the Catholic magisterium aren't ACTUALLY 'stuffed' with many pagan elements, which, in the second and third centuries of the Christian era, were presents so much more massive. (see Celsus, who tells us that the Christian missionaries, ie the church fathers who founded the Catholic worship, they had to rewrite their 'books', ie, the Gospels, 4 or 5 times to 'refine' the content. ..)

As an example, to get the data about the 66 years, about age attained by Jesus at the time of his death, you can take the story from the Talmud that I have already mentioned and that I quote below again:

«..The Talmud tells an anecdote in which is said: ".. Balaam (ie the same than Jesus of Nazareth) had the 'half his age', ie 33 years, when Pinchas the bandit (reference to Pilate, n.o.r.) killed him ".. »

It consist of a 'cryptic' information, since the rabbis had the vital need to make not understand to the inquisitors of the catholic satanic inquisition, today still called 'holy' (sic!), that they were referring to Jesus of Nazareth .

In reality, I only reported a summary of the talmudic anecdote, in a passage of which it is said: "..it is written that evil and bloodthirsty men will not live more than half of their years: therefore he (Balaam) was 33 years old when Pinchas, the bandit, killed him...'.

Although it is true that in the Bible there is a quote where you said that evil men will not live more than half their years, the specific content of the anecdote (33 years) does not leave room for doubt, about the fact that the anecdote is refered just to Jesus of Nazareth, often indicated with the 'Balaam' nickname, in the talmudic context (see also 'balaamites' in the Apocalypse of John).

On the other hand, nowhere in the Jewish texts, both the Bible and other rabbinic texts, it is reported that Balaam was a 'bloodthirsty'(*)man and who was killed at age 33. (age which would have reached Jesus when was 'crucified', according to FALSE version of the TRUE story of Jesus, proposed by forgers 'evangelists' )

It's clear that the statement according to which Balaam /Jesus 'would have lived 33 years, and that this number represented 'half of his years', clearly wanted to say that when Jesus was stoned to death, had reached the age of 66 years! .. (2 x 33 = 66)

Before come across this talmudic anecdote, I, with the help of a jew friend who was writing with me in the same forum, I already had come to the conclusion that Jesus was killed in 72, two years after the end of first Judaic War. Since he was born in 6 AD, at the time of the Census (see Josephus), it is evident that Jesus lived 66 years!. The reading of the talmudic anecdote, has only served to comfort me in my convictions.


Greetings

___________________________

(*) - to do a lot of attention to this fact, because if properly developed, can serve to reveal, thanks to its probative ability, a stunning truth, about the last years of the life of Jesus ..


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

.

Are you trying to tell me that we should not investigate and leave things as they are now? ..

.

aa5874

I EXTRAPOLATE Myth from Myth.

You extrapolate history from mythology and then tell people that they are hallucinating.

You are indeed Brilliant beyond belief.

Littlejohn

As I already said, there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear !.....

Do you like to believe that the one is whole 'mythology'?... Get you comfortable, nobody prevents you to believe it! ...

However, among those who read posts on the forum, there will be certainly also those who do not share your 'negationist views', and perhaps they could find useful the one I'm exposing, by now several years on this forum ... Let who reads decide what to him may seem trustworthy, compared to what they do not seem to be ...

«..You are indeed Brilliant beyond belief...»

'beyond belief'???.... I am AGNOSTIC.. you can read it in my personal data! ...

This is a proof, one of many, that your convictions have been transformed into true dogmas, as and worse than those of the believers!... Do you not admit diversity of views, so much you are 'fixed' in your dogmas, mythological and negationist!

NOTE: 'mental brillance' stands for mental openness: exactly what is missing you! ...

Greetings

.

aa5874

Do you understand what DIVERSITY of VIEWS really mean?

It means that there are people who DO NOT agree with YOUR view and can show that YOUR VIEW is RIDDLED with problems.

I do NOT prevent you from presenting YOUR VIEW only that after presentation it is found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED.

You claimed the real Jesus was 66 years old and because you have ZERO sources for your 66 year old Jesus all of a sudden you have problems with DIVERSE views.

I will NOT agree with you about your 66 year old Jesus UNTIL you can provide credible sources.

I have had enough stories about Jesus that people IMAGINE is true. Right now, there are FOUR IMAGINARY stories of Jesus in the Canon.

Four imaginary stories are more than enough.

mountainman

The Gnostics obviously thought differently because they authored an additional two dozen gospels, 29 Acts, 6 Epistles, and another dozen revelations and apocalypses. I wonder why and when they went to all this trouble.

Chili

. . . but if you are going to pick them apart you must also set them apart to see them objectively and here it is abundantly clear that there was something wrong with Judaism as it was then. Just go John 6 and read that the 'children of Israel' (also 'children of religion)' but 'not children of God' were lost in the desert for 40 years where they died nonetheless because they had mana from heaven but was second hand to them, and that we can read in John 5:39-40. So clearly, there was a something wrong and they served a purpose and that is what should be sought in critical view.

So they are not synoptic but objective and that is where you guys are all wrong.

Chili

Yes but that is where gnostics cannot be an -ism as therein they are looking for knowldege and that should mean that they are not gnostic.