Littlejohn

I Sorry, I don't think it own!..


"...This apology basically sucks. "

Apology? .. What an apology?..

Support the historicity of Jesus does not mean to make his apology, nor endorse all the lies of the clergy! ... The fact that Jesus was a historical character, does not mean he was necessarily a God ... This supports the clergy, not me!

"..the point is that no one fitting the description of the gospel character living in that time period.."

The point is just that! .. The Gospels were not written to provide information about the historical Jesus, but to deceive the faithful of the time. One of the main reasons why the Gospels were written, was to construct an alternative history of Jesus, compared to what was known by the Jews and pagans, often informed of this directly from Jews of the diaspora.

The story built by the fathers, and which now appears in the canonical gospels, was a reticent and distorted history, which only partly reflects the true jesuan story. This is why today we discuss about the historicity of Jesus: namely that the Jesus of faith is not ever existed! .. The Jesus of history was quite different from that faith.

"..and in that region of the world, was noted by any contemporary historians.."

Who says that? .. Josephus recorded it in various parts of his work. If this is not clear, it is because again today no historian has managed to bring out the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth from the 'fog' of the New Testament, from patristic literature, from that apocryphal, from that 'heretical', from that gnostic, etc..

The rabbis Jesus' contemporaries recorded his figure and part of his human vicissitude.. Their testimony does is not important? ..

The catholic-christian 'sect' was not the only sect that built a religion around the figure of Jesus nazareth, but it developed along with about 70 (seventy) Gnostic sects, all adverse to the catholic one, which produced a literature in sharp contrast with catholics ...

What does this mean for the 'deniers'? .. that fathers of the church also invented the gnostic sects, their literature and their fighting with the catholics also? ... It seems to me that support the non-historicity of Jesus, in the face of all this, it is a 'dogma', which has nothing of different by the dogma of christian believers, namely that Jesus was a God ..

"..To say that the historical Jesus went by some other name and that's why there's no contemporary evidence for a "Jesus" doesn't work out.."

Why?..

"..by whatever name you fancy.."

My fancy?... No, it is story!..

Josephus knew Jesus. First time this has happened, he called him 'Aliturius'. However I doubt that he called him with such a name, as there is a high probability that the original name given by Josephus was another (obviously not the registred name of Jesus, but simply the one with which one had made known by the Romans). In other parts of his works, Josephus calls it differently. To understand it is necessary to refer also to the patristic literature, and especially the quotes made by counterfeiters fathers about the pagan literature and its authors.

"..The Joshua Ben Pandera of the Talmud is an obvious case of Jews creating a story to counter the Christian myth in a time period when the Jews were heavily persecuted by Christians.."

But this is absurd! ... The rabbis finished writing the Talmud in the late second century, in response to 'sacred' literature (the Gospels and other), created by the counterfeiter fathers around the middle of same century (the second). At that time christians were not able to go attack the world of the Jewish diaspora. This will be done, and also heavily, after the first half of the fourth century, when the Catholic clergy be able to put their hands on power.

"..The Jews place this Pandera character about a hundred years earlier than the Jesus of the myth and made him out to be a bastard child.."

About the character Panthera (a Roman soldier) speaks us the heathen writer Celsus. It's obvious that he refers this person to Jesus of the christian faith and not to the characters which apparently in the Talmud seems to have lived 100 years before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. And it is therefore clear that to situate Jesus of Nazareth in the first century BC was an 'escamotage' to escape the bloody catholic inquisition clergy.

With this 'escamotage'' the rabbis tried to pretend that their writings do not refer to Jesus of Nazareth, for not to meet the heavy consequences of this.

Today, thanks to the identification of the true figure of Jesus of Nazareth, is not difficult to understand that behind the figure of Yehoshuah ben Perhachiah, the master of Yeshu (Jesus), lies the figure of Yehochanan ben Zechariah, namely John the Baptist, teacher by Jesus of Nazareth.

"..The Talmud doesn't do a dam thing to provide any type of contemporary evidence for the Jesus of the gospels.."

Believe you really everything that makes sense? ... Again in the last century the Jews were persecuted, accused of killing the God of Christians, and they would due not take care to talk about the Jesus of the Gospels??... We're kidding??... If Jesus was an invented character, why the Jews have never complained of being persecuted by Christians for nearly two thousand years, because of a character ever existed??... Even today it could easily do?! .. Seems it to you really possible all that, if Jesus had never existed? ..

"..So where's your contemporary evidence Little John?.."

The evidences there are, and I also mentioned they (those of the pagans, Jews, Mandaeans, and even arabs). There are even of the literary works attributed to Jesus, though probably not in their capacity as original ...

The position of the 'deniers'(or 'negazionists') has become a dogma more absurd than the faithful one, since who support that he refuses to rationally analyze such an argument: exactly like the christians do!... Such a thing then reaches its maximum of absurdity when is made clear that accepting the historicity of Jesus it means not acceptance of the 'castle' of lies which have served to the founding fathers more than 19 centuries ago, and that Jesus, although a historical character, was never a God and nor a 'son of God'!... So, why persist on the 'negazionist' dogma?...


In summarizing:

a) - beyond the catholic-christian sect, also born about 70 Gnostic sects, revolving around the figure of Jesus of Nazareth;

b) - the Mandaeans, a Gnostic sect that sought refuge in southern Mesopotamia in the first century a. C., it speaks of Jesus of Nazareth;

c) - there are still evidences referring to Jesus of Nazareth in the works of Josephus (not the TF!);

c) - the rabbinic literature contains several references about Jesus of Nazareth;

d) - pagan literature contains references to Jesus of Nazareth (Suetonius, Tacitus, Celso, Hierocles);

e) - Manichaean literature speaks well widely also about Jesus of Nazareth;

d) - Arabic literature speaks of Jesus of Nazareth.

Scramble oneself in trying to prove that Jesus was not a historical, not only does not help the search for truth, but ends up making a 'nice' gift to counterfeiter clergy, who prefers a lot more that you speak of a Jesus never existed (since such an argument will never be accepted by most of the faithful), rather that you digging in his 'backyard' in search of the historical Jesus and more also...


Greetings,


Littlejohn

.

Huon

Which source(s), which author(s), when, where ?
Which source(s), where ?
When ? Before 100 CE ?
Which source(s), which author(s), when, where ?
Before the Qur'an, which source(s), which author(s), when, where ?