Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Adam · 12-30-2012, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And robbers are present at the time of Jesus in the Slavonic text and others. Its just the Greek recension

Yes. So much of Lena Einhorn's time-shifting requires no robbers at the time of Jesus. Lena Einhorn

Josephus gives us The Egyptian at two decades after Pilate. But suppose we change over to the nearest channel--Joseph Raymond's latest blog entries show he is impressed by the comparison of Jesus with The Egyptian, but he elects to regard Josephus as the time-shifter, not the evangelists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRaymond

Conclusion
The solid data points connecting Jesus to the "the Egyptian" lead me to conclude that there is a high probability that they are one in the same person despite Josephus placing the episode in the prefecture of Felix (instead of Pilate).

Joseph Raymond
But "JR" seems to be keeping touch with his previous
Herodian Messiah (2010)
theory that is still carried into his new historical novel Grandson of Herod 2012
standing outhouse and Crossan on their heads (not a pretty image!)

Don't like Jesus as a Hasmonean prince? How about as a Galilean zealot? With a time shift moving Jesus two decades earlier instead of later, reversing Einhorn?
Then you might prefer Judas the Galilean (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Daniel Unterbrink, 2004. Or his second book,
New Testament Lies 2006
His latest on the same theme is
The Three Messiahs (meaning Judas, Jesus, and the mythical Jesus)
This latest 2010 book gets more substantial than the others by incorporating Slavonic Josephus Jewish Wars passages about Jesus and Judas the Galilean. However, the top scholarship out about Slavonic Josephus sees its interpolations as neither from a different edition by Josephus (or his scribes) nor early non-Christian Greek writers, but by the skillful 11th Century translator into the Old Russian. http://books.google.com/books?id=gu5...umanus&f=false Josephus Jewish War Slavonic Synoptic

That's not to mention Carotta's Julius Caesar as Jesus nor Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah. With so many historical Jesuses running around out there based on assuming misrepresentation by either Josephus or the gospel writers (or both, as with Atwill), maybe keeping one's sanity depends on settling for the relative accuracy of Josephus and the gospel eyewitnesses.

mountainman · 12-30-2012, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

The Gospel writers RAIDED many sources

Has anyone put the New Testament through plagiarism software?

It would need to be Greek plagiarism.

They openly robbed Zeus ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Act 17:28

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

gurugeorge · 12-31-2012, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Robert Price has just given a dramatic reading (Dec 9 video on youtube) of Lena Einhorn's SBL paper JESUS AND THE “EGYPTIAN PROPHET”

Einhorn has an older book The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk) (bargain book on Amazon) which appears to have an uncertain relation to her current work. The book is summarized here. Einhorn originally claimed that Jesus survived the crucifixion and turned up as St. Paul; this claim is not part of the 2012 SBL paper.

Einhorn is a Swedish physician who has worked as a scientist, and then turned to filmmaking. She is the child of a Holocaust survivor. The link to the historical Jesus is not clear.

Her thesis is that Jesus was the person described in Josephus as "the Egyptian." She points out that the events described in the gospels are a close fit to the events described in Josephus twenty years after the presumed time of Jesus - assuming that you change the names of key players and assume that events involving violence and rebellion have been reversed to be pacifistic. This time shifting assumption solves a number of problems, including why Jesus might have been 50.

The discussion is fascinating. My only question is whether the Egyptian could be considered to be the historical Jesus if he bears so little resemblance to Jesus of the gospels? There is no apparent link between the Egyptian and the Christian church. It appears more that the gospel story tellers picked up details from Josephus.

This paper does make Joseph Atwill look like a rank amateur.

Her website http://lenaeinhorn.se/

Her Biblical research:
http://lenaeinhorn.se/english-2/rese...lical-studies/

I've always thought that serious historicists should be looking at the other loonies mentioned by Josephus.

Very interesting.

Duvduv · 12-31-2012, 06:36 AM

Which text do you believe was corrupted in the second century??

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No that's not it. The original text was corrupted in the late 2nd century

Duvduv · 12-31-2012, 06:42 AM

It is rather significant that the author of John 4 would specifically use a Samaritan with Jesus to proclaim him the Messiah while simultaneously suggesting the rejection of both Gerizim and Jerusalem. The messiah was of David and Jerusalem, and not of Gerizim, yet the author and the Church saw no contextual problem in all this.
To complicate it more, the woman refers to Samaritan worship in the PAST at Gerizim rather than the present, and has Jesus proclaim "salvation " from the Jews, whatever that means in a context where he also predicts the abandonment of Jerusalem.
The Roman who wrote this story was rather confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Apparently the author of GJohn was unaware that the rejection of Jerusalem by the Samaritans also meant a rejection of a Jewish messiah from the rejected Davidic dynasty. Then we see in John 4 the way Jesus adheres to the concept of the Davidic Jerusalem and claims a new idea, i.e. that in the future it and Gerizim will be ignored by the John savior figure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Hayyim notes that the sections of the Mimar that mention the concept if the Ta'eb are more recent

Steve Weiss · 12-31-2012, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

... Yet I have looked at all the evidence and I don't know how you get to something which could overtake the historical Jesus.

There is no actual evidence of an historical Jesus so overtaking the historical Jesus is really irrelevant.

Please, tell us what is "all the evidence" that you have looked at??

ALL the evidence for an historical Jesus is really NO evidence.

Now, it is completely mind-boggling that even Scholars do NOT understand the term "historical Jesus".

The historical Jesus MUST, MUST be a character that was crucified around the Passover in Jerusalem under Pilate the governor, when Herod was Tetrarch of Galilee, Caiaphas was high Priest and Tiberius was Emperor of Rome sometime between 26-36 CE.

The Egyptian Prophet in Josephus does NOT qualify for the historical Jesus.

1. A prophet is NOT usually a Messiah or Anointed.

2. The Egyptian was NOT crucified.

3. The Egyptian lived during the time of Felix the governor of Judea.

4. Jesus of Nazareth was NOT an Egyptian.

5. Claudius or Nero was Emperor at the time of the Egyptian.

6. The Egyptian was ALIVE up to at least c 52 CE.

Lena Einhorn gets a Big Fat ZERO for finding the historical Jesus.

It is most disturbing that even Scholars do not know the time period for the Quest of their historical Jesus.

The time period for HJ of Nazareth is c 6 BCE-36 CE

Again, the historical Jesus MUST be dead, and Must be a crucified Victim c 26-36 CE in Jerusalem at around Passover, when Caiaphas was High Priest, when Herod was Tetrarch of Galilee , Pilate was governor and Tiberius was Emperor.

Lena Einhorn actually found the sources for the fabrication of Myth Jesus.

This is exactly what was done. Events about numerous characters from the works of Josephus were systematically lifted and re-worked to invent Jesus of Nazareth.

This is what fiction does. The James Bond novels may have some elements of truth to them and may refer to real places and people, but they are fictional and not to be taken seriously. Taking the bible seriously is interesting only from an historical perspective in trying to trace these fictional stories back to their origins in other myths which from a variety of cultures. One should not believe in one's own press releases or worship one's own handiwork.

aa5874 · 12-31-2012, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is most disturbing that even Scholars do not know the time period for the Quest of their historical Jesus.

The time period for HJ of Nazareth is c 6 BCE-36 CE

Again, the historical Jesus MUST be dead, and Must be a crucified Victim c 26-36 CE in Jerusalem at around Passover, when Caiaphas was High Priest, when Herod was Tetrarch of Galilee , Pilate was governor and Tiberius was Emperor.

Lena Einhorn actually found the sources for the fabrication of Myth Jesus.

This is exactly what was done. Events about numerous characters from the works of Josephus were systematically lifted and re-worked to invent Jesus of Nazareth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

This is what fiction does. The James Bond novels may have some elements of truth to them and may refer to real places and people, but they are fictional and not to be taken seriously. Taking the bible seriously is interesting only from an historical perspective in trying to trace these fictional stories back to their origins in other myths which from a variety of cultures. One should not believe in one's own press releases or worship one's own handiwork.

Lena Einhorn seems not to understand the NT Canon is a document that merely shows what people of antiquity BELIEVED.

The NT Canon is NOT an historical account of Jesus of Nazareth but a record of the VERSIONS of the Myth Fables of Jesus which is like the many versions of Romulus and Remus, the Myth Founders of Rome.

It is rather easy to trace the beginning of the Myth Fables of Jesus.

We have recovered dated manuscripts and the Myth Fables of Jesus are ONLY found from the 2nd century and later.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.