Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-13-2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Littlejohn,

Perhaps this is related to what Momigliano refers to as the christianisation of literature which he identified as having ocurred in the fourth century, and which appears to be still happening in all the intervening centuries. It may be appropriate to mention that Momigliano writes with heavy irony. He was an Italian Jew who fled Mussolini's regime. He read and wrote in many languages and was considered one of chief ancient historians of last century.

If I understood correctly, this italian-jew, Momigliano, affirm the invention of Christianity by Constantine ...

Nowhere does Momigliano say this.
I would have liked to ask him this question.
But he is no longer with us.

Quote:

This means that he, in practice, disconfess what is reported in Tamul about Jesus.

and

Into Talmud there are a number of occurrences on the figure of Jesus and his mother. These citations were deliberately disguised by the rabbis

This is one conjecture Littlejohn. There have also been a number of authors who have exhaustively examined the Talmudic writings and have concluded that there are no references whatsoever to the new testament Jesus. There were one or two decent threads about this here. I will find these again in time.

I am assuming the position that the Talmud (compiled perhaps c.200 CE)is "deliberately silent" on the historical existence of Jesus + NT for the very same reason that the "Life of Apollonius" by Philostratus (c.220 CE) is "deliberately silent" on the historical existence of Jesus. That reason is that historically Jesus + NT was not invented until the century after these two literature works were compiled. Think of Constantine (the first eventual publisher of Jesus + NT + OT bound together) as a despot like Musolini.

Best wishes,

Pete

Littlejohn · 07-13-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Littlejohn wrote:

To the gallic populations then, John "Marcus" spoke of Jesus as Chrestos and NOT as Christus, a term that John absolutely ignored because unknown to their contemporaries of Jesus (that is, no one knew that Jesus was defined Christus, since such nick was associated with his name in the second century!)

I do not know how many have acquaintance, but "Marcus" is remembered by patristics as a "magician". How to say: buon sangue non mente! (good blood not lies!)

Again: thanks to "Marcus", we know that Jesus, between the infinite attributes with which it was indicated in his day and in later eras, was also called the "duodecimo" (twelfth). This is an extremely important detail, for his witnesses capacity, who was absurdly (and guilty, I would add) ignored by generations of exegetes! ..

Littlejohn

..

Littlejohn · 07-13-2008, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Crimson Glory wrote:

Quote:

In short, the phrase above, attributed to Jesus, was intended to invite the Catholic faithful of the origins, to refrain from to associate the concept of "good" to the name of Jesus, in order to forget at the more soon the mental association Jesus and "good" (Chrestos).

Sorry, but this sounds like pure wishful thinking to me.

Really?.......Why?....What is there of incredible or illogic?

What would you've done in their place in such a situation, assuming that you had had the need to forget to Christian faithful the connection between the word "Chrestos" and the figure of Jesus? ...

I also said that the Jewish religious leaders, after the reform of Josiah, used a trick similar to the Jews, in order to forget the original name of their God, who was AMEN and NOT Yaweh, (*) requiring the faithful of the new Jewish worship (ie the present) to say never again the name of their God, because it connected a their polytheistic past!

______________

Note:

(*) - Yahweh is none other than vocalization of the acronym YHWH, which "sottende" (represent) the phrase "Yod He Waw He" = I Am Who Am, same meaning to the phrase Egyptian NUK PU NUK (NPN), which was indicated AMEN/AMON - RHA!

Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn · 07-14-2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:

mountainman wrote:

Quote:

Into Talmud there are a number of occurrences on the figure of Jesus and his mother. These citations were deliberately disguised by the rabbis

This is one conjecture Littlejohn. There have also been a number of authors who have exhaustively examined the Talmudic writings and have concluded that there are no references whatsoever to the new testament Jesus. There were one or two decent threads about this here. I will find these again in time.

Hi Pete!

One conjecture?... Absolutely not!..All the occurrences into Talmud ed into "Toldoth Yeschu" they are refer to Jesus. I intend to say that "ben Pandira or Pandera" (Panthera, see Celso), "ben Stada" (Stah-tah-da = she who abandoned her husband), the "son of a prostitute", "Pelonì", "Talui", etc., are all attributes referring to Jesus of Nazareth. This is easily seen, comparing this data with what can be found in ancient literature: including that of MANDEANS!

Apart from all this is the same logic that leads us to say that certainly what is stated in the Talmud refers to Jesus of Nazareth. Had it not been so, the Jews of past centuries don't would have suffered persecution because of their Talmud! Not find it? .. All occorenze mentioned above, have found a precise reflected in my research! I hope in the near future to talk about it.

Quote:

I am assuming the position that the Talmud (compiled perhaps c.200 CE) is "deliberately silent" on the historical existence of Jesus + NT for the very same reason that the "Life of Apollonius" by Philostratus (c.220 CE) is "deliberately silent" on the historical existence of Jesus. That reason is that historically Jesus + NT was not invented until the century after these two literature works were compiled. Think of Constantine (the first eventual publisher of Jesus + NT + OT bound together) as a despot like Musolini.

".. that the Talmud........is 'deliberately silent'.."

Silent?... I hope you're joking!

In the frenzy to prove your thesis that everything was invented by Constantine, you trampled all thing and suggest a theory that for me (but not only!) is totally illogical, because it requires absolutely improbable theories, difficult to prove also much, such as alleged 'invention' of gnostic literature and apocrifa, to reveal the invention of Constantine (according to your thesis) as something real ... Sorry, on this road I can not get behind ...

"....as a despot like Musolini"

Hard to say who between the two was the worst!

All best

Littlejohn
.

Toto · 07-14-2008, 12:43 AM

Littlejohn - are you using machine translation software?

Littlejohn · 07-14-2008, 01:15 AM

Hi Toto!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Littlejohn - are you using machine translation software?

Exactly!....Why do you make me this demand?...This is not allowed?....

I use a verbs conjugationer, also (http://www.scientificpsychic.com/cgi-bin/verbconj2.pl)

At the moment, still can not good express my concepts, writing directly in English (I continue thinking in italian!). I hope in the near future to do so.

All my best

Littlejohn

Ps: to read the messages don't use the "machine translation software", as I understand perfectly what is written, except in rare cases ..
.

Toto · 07-14-2008, 01:36 AM

It is allowed, but it is sometimes very difficult to follow you. I don't have a good solution.

Littlejohn · 07-14-2008, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is allowed, but it is sometimes very difficult to follow you. I don't have a good solution.

I understand....

Can you tell me where my exposures are not very comprehensible to a reader english speaking, and, if possible, suggest me an alternative form? ... Tanks in advance!

All best

Littlejohn
.

youngalexander · 07-14-2008, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Can you tell me where my exposures are not very comprehensible to a reader english speaking, and, if possible, suggest me an alternative form? ... Tanks in advance!

Can you tell me where my expositions are not very comprehensible to an english speaking reader, and, if possible, suggest an alternative form to me? ... Thanks in advance.

But the mods will not allow this to continue for long ...

Littlejohn · 07-14-2008, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is allowed, but it is sometimes very difficult to follow you. I don't have a good solution.

Let me clear up possible misunderstanding by:

I DON'T re-propose simply translations proposed from "machine-translation software", but I intervene, sometimes quite dramatically, making the necessary corrections, otherwise what I would be post would it be even less understandable!

Probably, given your comments, my correcting itervenes are not sufficiently accurate or adequately ...

All best

Littlejohn
.

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

07-14-2008, 12:43 AM	#45
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Littlejohn - are you using machine translation software?

07-14-2008, 01:36 AM	#47
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It is allowed, but it is sometimes very difficult to follow you. I don't have a good solution.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.