Littlejohn

"..before any "true" account of a fictitious character can be established..."

Because of this 'fictitious' character (Jesus), as you call it, the Jews of the diaspora have suffered persecution by all sorts for over 15 centuries on the part of 'devout' Christians. They were tortured, massacred, burned alive, etc.., because of the fact that were considered 'God-killers'. And yet NONE of these Jews has EVER complained of being persecuted for a 'fictional' character ... Do not you think this deserves a study based on a reflection a bit 'more rational' ?....

If still today the official scholarship does not take any account about the assumption of a fictitious Jesus, not historic, there must be a reason. If the community of the Mandaeans, who lived far from the bloody 'claws' of the Catholic clergy, it wrote of Jesus, there must be a reason ... If we find in the Talmud of the Jews reported that Yeshu ben Pandera (see Celsus) was executed on FRIDAY ', the eve of hebrew Pesach, by stoning, there must be a reason ..

Beyond the catholic-christian 'sect', there were 70 other sects that revolved around the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, and all were against that unique catholic-christian sect. Is it possible that the catholic-christian forgers who 'invented' the figure of Jesus (according to you) will also invented the existence of these 70 gnostic sects? ... And why? ..


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

bacht

It's quite possible that Moses was fictional, also Joshua, Samson, David, Solomon etc. Yet a robust religion was built on this foundation and has survived.

Do modern scholars consider the Talmud references to Jesus to be earlier than the New Testament writings?

I can accept that someone was the model for the gospel Jesus, but as described there he's too good to be true.

Littlejohn

Let me also add that, in the current time, at the Catholic clergy return back more advantageous thesis as your, ie the one of a fictitious Jesus, rather that those like mine, ie a historical Jesus but totally different from the one predicate and taught by the Catholic magisterium! ... Those who bring forward arguments like mine, are fought bitterly and hampered in a thousand ways in their researches, till to arrive even at the complaint for 'contempt of religion of State!... Also for this there must be a reason ..


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Who said that? ... To me it results that in the Gospel of Barnabas is said that Judas Iscariot was crucified ... Once I retraced down the reference, I will publish it through a post ..

As I already said, the real person that forgers wanted to hide behind the ficticious character 'Judas Iscariot', died by crucifixion (see Peter in the Acts of Peter and Acts of Peter and Paul). However, as can be found in the same Talmud, Jesus was arrested because of the betrayal of 'someone' of which he trusted.

This 'someone' was absolutely NOT Simon Peter (aka Judas Iscariot), since he had been dead about 8 years when Jesus came arrested! It's possible also that some of Galileans that certainly had returned to gather around the Nazarene, he decided to avenge him killing by his sword the traitor.

Papias, who certainly knew the truth, could not have written these things: ergo, it was a mere sham of Eusebius that Papias quoted! It is highly probable that Papias did not belong at all to the catholic-christian world, since he was probably a gnostic-jesuan. (His friendship with John 'evangelist', the second son of Jesus, is like a 'cartina al tornasole' (chemical test for acids).

There were a number of characters that the catholic-christian forgers fraudulently 'embarked' in their worship, while they were of entirely different extraction. One of these may have been the same Justin Martyr. Oddly enough, in fact, Hippolytus number among the heretics of his time a 'certain' Justin. The fact that no other father 'heresiologists' has done the same (ie to quote this Justin as a heretic ) raises the level of the suspicion much!


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

aa5874

Please name ONE SINGLE JEW, external of the NT and Church writings, who was tortured, massacred, burned alive, etc...because of the fact that they were considered 'God-killers" in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple at around 70 CE.

Please name a SINGLE non-apologetic source that claimed the Jews were "God-killers" before the Fall of the Temple.

It was NOT Philo, Pliny the elder, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius or Pliny the younger.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Littlejohn,

Here are ancient sources for about 100 temples and shrines to Hercules, another man believed in ancient times to be a son of God, throughout the ancient world, We may consider that each of these cites represents a different cult.

We may accept this as evidence for the existence of Hercules, or we may accept this as evidence that people of that era were unable to tell the difference between historical personages and heroic savior God characters in fictional stories.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mountainman

Multiple attestations in the sense that you have been using the term appears to be questionably characterised by examining the canon and excluding (or ignoring) the attestations from the Gnostics, such as the recently discovered, translated and published Gospel of Judas.

I dont know what else to say.

The issue of any "historicity" is conspicuously absent in gJudas.
Some nasty gnostic heretic created an independent account, but when?
The gJudas was not an asset towards the historicity of Jesus.
The gJudas (like the rest of the Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc) were liabilities towards the historicity of Jesus.
They have been treated as liabilities ever since - and for good reason.
But do we know what that reason was?
The result was authoritative prohibition.

The story of Judas is also paralleled in Athanasius's story of Arius of Alexandria. These stories are unlikely to be the historical truth. These "multiple attestations re: Judas " may be outside the NT canon, but they exist as the fabric of evidence to be explained. Somewhere the NT canon and historical reality intersect and merge. The question is when. Examination of the NT canon alone cannot corroborate these issues - the more expansive field of ancient history needs equal spotlighting.

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Thanks for that Theoi reference to Hercules - such a wealth of evidence!
There are so many archaeological attestations to Greek gods!
Here are a stack to Asclepius, son of Apollo, son of Zeus.
Thousands of well-meaning inscriptions and references.
But where are the same corroborations for our man JC?
This is what I cant seem to understand - Why do we have a "Great Archaeological Silence"?

grip_daddy

I'll appreciate your source!

Littlejohn

I prepared a response to your observation. But it is came rather long and now I have to translate it. You must have some 'patience before you can read it. But I think the wait will be well compensated...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.