Littlejohn

"..And you know this 'fact' how?.."

It's simple: through the search and retrieval of data that can still be recovered: in all available sources and not just those that the 'holy' forger clergy believes, in its 'final' opinion, reliable

In reality, they are just these sources, namely those of the catholic-christian magisterium, to be the least reliable of all, and the proof is the fact that no scholar in the world has managed, until today, to reveal the truth jealously kept hidden by the forger clergy, as all scholars have not done nothing but follow the path prepared 'ad-hoc' by counterfeiters fathers who, some 19 centuries ago, they gave birth to the catholic christian worship!

All of the New Testament literature (or almost all), especially the one evangelical, was NOT composed to provide news about Jesus and the other characters of the Gospel, but to refute, with cheating, to the eyes of the plagiarized christian faithful, what the Jews and Gentiles (the latters properly informed by the first), were saying about Jesus, his mother and their real historical vicissitudes! .. The forger fathers 'offered' to their 'credulous devotees' (pious faithful) their 'truth': absolutely not adhering to what was the real story and the TRUE historical profile of Jesus of Nazareth!

As a secondary purpose, there was even that to provide the doctrinal basis of the new cult, since the material, both written and 'oral' (collected in a confused manner and without temporal order and environmental), certainly did not have. In this way, forger fathers predisposed, perhaps without even realizing that, a pseudo-historical path, intended to deceive entire generations of scholars who have ventured along that path of research...

"..What year was he born ?.."

Jesus of Nazareth was born in 6 AD, at the time of first census of Judea-Samaria, wanted by Emperor Augustus and administered by the imperial legate Quirinius.

".. In what city? .."

Jesus was born in a village of western Galilee, not far from Nazareth. He was born in a cave (see Proto-Evangelium of James), although all this, most likely, was not determined by the urgency of childbirth, but by a precise choice of the Virgin Mary, which, of course, had chose the place some time before the birth.

".. Who was his father?.."

Almost surely (if not certainly) the roman legionary IULIUS TIBERIUS, called 'Abdes', called' Panthera'(*). Obviously, he was also the father of Judas Thomas, twin brother of Jesus

".. What was he doing in the years before he became a preacher?.."

I imagine you are referring to what is reported in the canonical gospels, where it is set a time limit, for what concerns the life 'private' of Jesus and the beginning of that 'public'. It is, in fact, a division of convenience, since it is difficult to determine the type of his preaching and the initial time when it is began.

Probably Jesus began to make his 'homiletic' sermons about the true Torah (the one taught by the Nazarenes) when he was again an 'elect' by the sect of John the Baptist

Surely it was during this period that he was arrested as a result of a murder happened in a square or a street in Jerusalem, where he was, despite himself, an eyewitness. When verified that he was not the author of fact, and also thanks to the intervention in his favor of Herod Antipas (**) at the hated Pilate, Jesus was released. (see the story of Iesoun Barabban: to the century, Jesus of Nazareth!)

After Jesus had finished his course of study at prestigious academies (perhaps that of Hillel and others outside Palestine), since his maternal grandparents were very rich, he became part of the gnostic school of John the Baptist. This probably occurred before of his 20 years of age

".. How did he die?.."

Jesus was stoned to death by the Jews. The event is also mentioned in the canonical Gospels, where, however, it has been mystified by the counterfeiters fathers, which did appear it as a mere 'attempt' of stoning!

[b]".. Where did he die?.."[/b

Jesus died in an agricultural land, where there was an olive grove and a mill ('gath' or 'goth' in Hebrew) for olives, associated with a small well ('gal' or 'gol' in Hebrew) to collect the juice of squeeze by the olives. Almost certainly, this agricultural land was located in the first peripheral by the town of Lydda (now Lud), about 25 miles northwest of Jerusalem. After the stoning, his lifeless body was hanging from a tree branch (surely an olive tree of the place), just as required by Jewish Law to do it: namely, from the Deuteronomy.

"..Where is his tomb?.."

Almost certainly, his tomb was under (or in the proximity) the christian basilica of Lydda, fraudulently dedicated to 'St. George, a saint invented 'ad-hoc' to venerate without suspects the actual site where Jesus was executed! ... What things have gone exactly thus, it is demonstrated by the fact that the name of this saint was removed from the martiriologico of the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, as ever existed! ..

Just do a little research on this saint, to realize that he was none other than the 'stand-in' by Jesus of Nazareth! (Among other things: Jesus was judged by the Bet Din, the justice court by the Sanhedrin composed of 70-72 members; St. George was judged by 72 judges, and, as if this was not sufficient, he risen from the death several times!)

".. Where ever did you find your real 'historical' information? .."

In all sources available today: namely, in those 'canonical' of the catholic magisterium, either of the New Testament and patristics, in those rabbinic, in those heathen, in Josephus, in those Mandaean, in those Manichean, in those Arab, in those hagiographic, etc...

".. Who wrote it? .."

Jesus wrote a lot. However, his works were jealously retained 'secret' by the Catholic clergy, after the conquest of power, thanks to the criminal collaboration of the constantinian dynasty, which has 'gifted' to mankind almost 15 centuries of dark Middle Ages!

Although it may be hard to believe, however a work written by Jesus is today in the public domain. Probably it is not now exactly in the same form as Jesus wrote it and, above all, the work is accredited to one of several characters, both mythological and 'humans', interpreted by the multifaceted Jesus of Nazareth.

".. Have the documents that you gleaned you real 'history' from, been generally proven to be accurate, trustworthy, unbiased, and objective in their reporting?..."

It's an asking, this, rather naive, I'd say ...

If such documents existed, they certainly would not be in the public domain! ..

Surely of these documents there was trace until about the second half of the fourth century (see Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, Julian the Apostate, etc..), then they were systematically made to disappear from circulation.

My historical and characterial reconstructions, are mainly based on the data collected ('diluted' in a large number of texts!), and their logical and rational approach. The greater the number of data collected, the more accurate it is the reconstruction done.

There is currently not other way to get to historical truth, and get to affirm that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, because of the objective lack of data, is the most naive thing you can imagine! ...

Now, my question: is Sheshbazzar for man or woman?..


Greetings

___________________________

Notes:

(*) - the two attributes, namely Abdes and Panthera, were closely correlated between them.

(**) - There were historical and environmental reasons justifying the intervention of Antipas in favor of Jesus The evangelists were 'aseptics' in exposing of the episode about Jesus, Pilate and Herod Antipas, in order don't do ooze out the truth. Surely, the involvement of Antipas was solicited (or 'implored') from the mother of Jesus. The tetrarch Antipas was not at all cruel, as depicted by the evangelists.Was not him, in fact, to do execute John the Baptist, as he you limited only to send him at the fortress of Machaerus, where, almost certainly, will then be made free by Agrippa I, grandson of Antipas, after the latter was sent into exile in Gaul. (Agrippa, at the behest of his friend, the Emperor Gaius Caligula, inherited all the possessions of his uncle Antipas)


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Re-reading more carefully, I'm realizing now that maybe you did not reference to what wrote Jesus of Nazareth, but to the documents that you mentioned earlier ....

I repeat once again that I have not inspired myself to any 'organic' document, ie a document that contained all or part of the true story of Jesus. After all, I have strong doubts that may be circulating such documents! ..


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Sheshbazzar

In other words you screen through multiple ancient documents to pick and choose a sentence here and a paragraph there, and then reassemble these in an order that suits your own opinions, all the while disregarding, rejecting and discarding the remaining 99% of the material contained within those self-same documents.
It seems pre-evident that your 'historical' proofs, if you wish to present them, will be prove to be no more than isolated statements excised from documents whose other contents you reject. Nothing more than a variant strain of the old 'pick and choose Apologetics'.

Just like the Fundamentalist Christians, when you don't know the actual 'facts', and can provide no actual historical evidence, you resort to the inventing of your own imaginary possible scenarios and asserting them as being facts.

You have provided no specific 'historical' references for the multiple assertions that you have made in your above 'answers'.
Please provide such specific references, and then we will then discuss the integrity and 'historical' value of the source and of its claims.
You can be sure that I, and others here, will address and examine the 'historical' basis and source for each and every one of these asserted 'facts'.

Other researchers involved within these forums also do the same thing.....
and significantly, many do not arrive at the same 'facts' and conclusions that you do.

Littlejohn

"..you resort to the inventing of your own imaginary.."

?????!!.......

Please, could you point out to me, and to all those who read your posts, what I would have invented? ...

To make such a statement, it means that you know better than me what it was the historical truth, and you know exactly how things went ....

To know the 'specific references', you must await the publication of my book. Data collection is not yet complete and that is why, even though I started composing in 2005, my work is not finished yet.

I have already said many times that I do not write to convince some of you about 'my' truth, but only to inform, those who are interested in this, that besides the classic path of research, there is another completely unexplored, and it is the only path that can lead to the historical truth! ... Nobody forces you to believe what I write ... However, from here to say that I 'invent', there runs of space!...

And the one, for you, it means that I invent? .. The survey of the books, especially in the U.S., offers a vast difference of opinion between the various authors of books .. What of them, according to your opinion, is telling the truth and who, instead, invent? ...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Sheshbazzar

Let's see....In your previous post above for example you wrote;
Notice the bolded portion? Where did you derive all of this from?
Where is your contemporary 'historical' reference in support of this speculation?
'precise choice of the Virgin Mary?' and you know this how? On what basis are you claiming it as 'likely'?
For that matter how were you able to ascertain that 'Mary' was actually a virgin at the time?
And;
'Surely'? and yet you cannot even provide one single reference from any contemporary source that supports this invented scenario.

There is absolutely NO contemporary evidence that there even was an actual living flesh and blood 'Virgin Mary' or 'Jebus of Nazareth'. If there was, the Church and Christianity would have glommed onto it long ago, and would be trumpeting it from the rooftops. But there simply isn't any such evidence.
No, it does not mean that, it simply indicates that you are making up claims, assertions, and your own imaginary 'just so' situations without one scintilla of contemporary eyewitness historical support.
It will be interesting to see if you can actually produce those contemporary eyewitness writings that support your fabrications. I believe not.
At this point I will stick with my observation that as far as can be determined, 'you screen through multiple ancient documents to pick and choose a sentence here and a paragraph there, and then reassemble these in an order that suits your own opinions, all the while disregarding, rejecting and discarding the remaining 99% of the material contained within those self-same documents.'

Thus far you are neither convincing, or 'informing', except to 'inform' us of your unsubstantiated personal opinions and inventions.
And it is NOT 'historical truth!' when you are inventing it as you go along. ('on the fly' in American parlance.)
Lots of books on religion are published, the majority are by religionists and aren't worth the paper wasted on them, most being nothing but so much recycled garbage.

Littlejohn

Well, I see that thou have entered on the merits, rather than being vague, and this makes me satisfied.

"..Notice the bolded portion? Where did you derive all of this from? Where is your contemporary 'historical' reference in support of this speculation?.."

It's simple: having been able to reconstruct much of the life of the Virgin Mary, thanks to data and information collected in over 14 years of intensive research, it was easy for me to guess all that! .. I believe very hard that my intuition proves wrong. I'm sorry that I can not now to share everything with thou, but it is need a little 'patience yet ..

"..For that matter how were you able to ascertain that 'Mary' was actually a virgin at the time?.."

Listen...the catholic magisterium teachs that Mary was a virgin before giving birth, during childbirth and after partum. As far as it may to be difficult to thou, if not impossible, to believe the one, however, at least on this point, counterfeiters are right! ..

Keep in mind that the catholic-christian literature was produced mainly to MISTIFY what was widely known at that time, and NOT to provide the historical truth, which for the clergy was (and still it is!) absolutely unconfessable! And it is just from this aspect that we must try to extract the historical truth, through constant studies and comparisons with all available sources ...

I did not understand ... you want to know if there are references to the facts surrounding the arrest of Jesus at the time of Pilate, or instead want references about the historicity of Jesus, his mother and the other evangelical characters? ...

I could not check for yourself if the man actually went to the Moon ... In the Internet there are several sites where it is claimed that the story of the moon landing was all a deceit, built by NASA to give prestige to 'U.S. Air Force Space ... Who to believe? ...

Through research and, above all, through the logical approach, and with a minimum of 'grano salis', of the data collected, everyone should be able to get by yourself to the truth .. Just like I did with the data that I managed to recover in the course of my own researches.

The ability to evaluate them in a way rather than in another, depends on the sensitivity of each individual and from their own personal experiences ... It underpins the fact that often there is no uniformity of results in research and studies, between the different people involved in the difficult task of the exegesis of New Testament ..

"...without one scintilla of contemporary eyewitness historical support.."

Who told you that there are no 'sparks of contemporary eyewitness? ... The fact that I do not want, for the moment, to produce details of my reconstructions, for obvious copyright reasons, does not mean that I can not ... This is your personal assessment which it leaves time that it finds ...

About what, after all, there would be no 'sparks of contemporary eyewitness'?... It's always better to be precise rather than being vague ..

"..It will be interesting to see if you can actually produce those contemporary eyewitness writings that support your fabrications. I believe not..."

It's your right not to believe it .. However, you can not push me, by this reason, to prematurely reveal things that will have appear in my book and that, by the moment, they must necessarily remain unpublished. I have revealed many things, since I started writing in this forum. However, there are key aspects that I can not tell now ...

In some Italian sites, I could already make the first discoveries of 'plagiarism'. Entire my articles, published in various forums or blogs, have appeared on certain sites without any indication about the author and the place from which the material was taken ...

".. you screen through multiple ancient documents to pick and choose a sentence here and a paragraph there, and then reassemble these in an order that suits your own opinions..."

This is partly true. However, this was done by me in a strictly logical way, not 'casually', as you seem mean! The entire literature of New Testament, as it was assembled by the counterfeiters fathers, it appears like a halucinating historical false, and certainly it is so..

However, it is profoundly wrong to assume that everything that has been reported is completely false! .. In most cases, in fact, it you deal of disconcerting distortions of historical facts, as well as distortions of the profile of the various characters involved in the Gospel story. At closer look, there is little of completely invented.

As just one example: the episode about the blindness of Paul, following the vision of Jesus (see Acts of the Apostles), as reported it seems absolutely incredible. Yet, something like that really happened, only that have been altered time and place (it is not true that this happened on the road to Damascus!). Moreover, the true story, its true essence, was thoroughly misrepresented.

At this point, therefore, what you would have done? ... Would have you dismissed this as false, or would have you accepted that as entirely true? ... Or, as I did, you'd be limited to 'pick' only those parts that to you, depending on your sensibilities and your previous experiences, you would have considered like reliable? ...

That I'm inventing at the 'fly', it is a your personal opinion, thus as a personal opinion is that of 'mountainman', according to which would have been the Emperor Constantine to invent Christianity! .. Nobody forbids you to have your beliefs, and less than ever I! .. But let it even others have they the possibility of getting their ideas about what I'm exposing ...

For me it is absolutely normal that, together with the appreciation for what I write, I receive also of the confutations... Often these have been very useful, especially in the beginning of my researches, because they allowed me to 'adjust the shot'.

Even this, besides, is a your opinion.

No ancient text, come down to us through a number of recopying on the part of catholic scribes (ie, the monks of various monasteries) it reports the truth about as the things went 20 centuries ago. However, in each of these texts is often possible to gather a nucleus, a fragment of historical truth, although sometimes very small.

Once identified theTRUE historical profile of (and NOT mythologic!) of the character known today as Jesus of Nazareth, you can retrieve a lot of data: either from the context of catholic-christian literature (New Testament and patristic), both from that extra-christian.

Something similar happens also for the recent publications, to which thou show scant appreciation. Very often, in fact, it happens that each of the authors of such works, knock on real aspects about what was the true evangelical story.

For example, lady Acharya sustains a close relationship between the figure of Jesus and the Egypt, which I found to be true also. However, no such relationship is in the terms enunciated by archaeologist researcher and writer also, who you sign Acharya S.

Greetings


Littlejohn

.

show_no_mercy

I suppose since the "catholics" assert it, it must be true, right? What about the 2nd century Ebionites who said that Mary was not a virgin and said that Jesus was born from normal sexual intercourse between Joseph and Mary?

What methodology are you using to conclude that those who eventually became "Catholics" are right and The Poor ("Ebionites") were wrong?

Sheshbazzar

You write a lot of words Littlejohn. Too bad that because of.............. you apparently have never taken the time the time to learn to employ the disciplines of critical thinking and of real historical research and source analysis.
I know that you could do so much better.

It is such sad and pathetic thing to watch you waste your talents in the goal of producing what will be just another worthless tome full of that regurgitated unprovenanced Catholic religious trash-gossip-dogma, when you could do better.

I have read your posts within these forums from the very first one, and it was not, and is not my intent to attack you in this thread, but through questioning, to get you to employ some critical thinking and source critical investigation and analysis.
You have been indoctrinated, and fully fed on the shit of Catholic Christian dogma for an entire lifetime, little wonder then, that when you open your mouth it pours out, and when you write, it flows from your pen, (or in this instance, from your keyboard.)
You still make yourself part and parcel in the defense of that fornicating whore religion that sits upon the seven hills.
You need to hear, to hearken to, understand, and obey that Voice from on High which has down through ages spoken to men through John the Revelator;
"Saying, Come out of her...."
IF you love TRUTH Littlejohn, you will hate and despise every religious lie and fabrication..."IF you do not....." I leave the rest of -that- unstated.

Suffice it to say, your soul, and the true value of your own life, is in your own hands, and your hands will do service to what ever manner of master it is that you serve.

Shalom,
Sheshbazzar the Hebrew

Littlejohn

"..You write a lot of words Littlejohn..."

This is to answer your questions and try to be as comprehensive as possible in what I write ..

"..you apparently have never taken the time the time to learn to employ the disciplines of critical thinking.."

And it is just on this aspect that you're wrong! ... If I had taken ".. the time to learn to employ the disciplines of .." I would have been one of many academics who have ventured, from about three centuries now, in the dificult exegetic task , but without arrive at anything concrete, as facts they prove! ..

Nobody erudite academic, in fact, has been still able to write the 'end' word to the researches on the origins of Christianity, which they have passionate, and still they fascinate, many people in the world ... There will be also a reason for all this, is it no so?

Believe it or not, I'm much sure to be arrived to understand just about everything, about what there is to understand about the true origins of Christianity and who were really Jesus, his mother, Joseph, John the Baptist, Simon 'Peter ', and so gradually all the other characters who interacted with Jesus in the Gospel story! ..

Your skepticism, about this issue, comes simply from the fact that you still do not know everything that I managed to discover in many years (over 14) of intense and penalizing researches. And It is precisely thanks the knowledge of what, that I can say with confidence the one I'm affirming..

"..what will be just another worthless tome full of that regurgitated.."

"Worthless" about WHAT?...your consideration? .. And do you really think all this worry me? ..Surely will not be you to having to deliver official judgments about my work, when it will be published!...

As for 'just another', you grossly mistake, inasmuch the contents of my future book will be totally different from any other written before of my book !.... Those who follow what I'm writing, from about a couple of years in this forum, they can easily imagine ...

There are only a few people, a small group, in this forum who can judge with competence what I write, such as, for example, the optimum Stephan Huller. I never thought you also was part of this group ...

The fact that people, that I exclude from this group, are not able to properly judge what I write, it is not because they lack of literary preparation and of general culture (I seem to have understood that most of those who write here, are in possession of evidence of academic studies), but because they lack of necessary open-mindedness, in order to come to understand things that are diametrically opposed to what they have until now believed.

It is consisting of a truth that is not only baffling, it is also absolutely different from that that each one of us (to stay in the Christian field) was raised to believe from an early age. And It is just from what derive your 'strange' skepticism!

So, for you I'd be a kind of 'pasdaran' of the 'holy' forger priesthood; one that writes to praise the various dogmas and those who conceived them .. I am not surprised at all this, since I have widely understood that you did not understand a 'cazzo' of what I'm writing! ...

"..You still make yourself part and parcel in the defense of that fornicating whore religion that sits upon the seven hills..."

All this is simply halucinating... I do not think it is necessary to refute you: those who have a minimum of 'common sense' (or 'good sense') can realize by itself the enormity of the rubbish that you have piled on each other in this post, and 'explode' then in hilarious and freeing laughs!

"..and obey that Voice from on High which has down through ages spoken to men through John the Revelator..."

Sorry ... but from where are you 'digiting'?.... From a psychiatric hospital ??... And I that had believed of speaking with a 'normal' person ...Mo va' a cagheeer!...

You continue so until the ambulance arrives ... Perhaps it is not something serious ...

I am afraid you have used your hands to masturbate you ... For to masturbate your brain with your hallucinating existential contradictions, which bring you to see 'fireflies for lanterns'; to don't understand exactly what others write: in a word, to see the world in black and white, and also in 'negative'! ..


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

It seems to me that you're reasoning according to model 'Sheshbazzar The Hebrew '....

I wrote that Jesus was a man of exceptional versatility and intelligence ... but I never said that he was, for this motive, an 'incarnate god'! ..

When I affirm that Mary was a virgin before giving birth, during childbirth and after partum, as it does also the forger clergy, it does not mean necessary that I mean what you intend! ...

To understand what I mean, you first must have embarked on a path of historical research similar to what I have 'covered': on the contrary, you will fail to understand anything of what there is to know about the truth which is behind the patristic lies. That this is in such terms, it is widely demonstrates by the fact that no scholar in the world has succeeded, so far, to reveal such a truth!

"...and said that Jesus was born from normal sexual intercourse between Joseph and Mary?.."

When ever I have said that Jesus was born of a "sexual intercourse between Joseph and Mary ??!.....

The elder Joseph was none other that the father of the Virgin Mary !!... How, then, could have had sex with his daughter ??... Why you not read more carefully what I am writing ??... Joseph was none other that the 'Joachim' of the Gospels so-called of the 'childhood' ... He and his wife were very rich: exactly as stated in protoevangelium of James.

At this point, any intelligent person should ask you how can have been possible that parents so rich, have been able to marry their unique, beautiful and very rich daughter, to an old and 'penniless' carpenter, widow and with also of the sons 'to load'?! ..

Believe all that, it is simply halucinating, and it is impossible to understand how of the intelligent people, capable of reasoning, as surely there are on the side of the Christian faith, they can believe everything without say a word ...

I repeat once again, that Jesus and his twin brother Judas Thomas, were born as a result of sexual intercourse between the Virgin Mary and a roman legionary: most likely the archer Tiberius Iulius, called 'Abdes', called 'Panthera', whose tomb was found to Bingerbrück in Germany. (were just the two attributes to convince me that he was proper the roman legionary, to which nodded the stoic philosopher Kelsou in his work "Kata alethes logos").

"..who eventually became "Catholics" are right and The Poor ("Ebionites") were wrong?.."

But who ever said such a thing ??...

But do you know, at least, that the one of the "Ebionites" was by no means a 'univocal' category of faithful, since there were historically TWO ebionite sects?!..( see Eusebius and Abdias of Babylon). But why do not you inform yourself thoroughly before to advance your critical??...


Littlejohn

.