Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 05-04-2010, 07:19 PM

Historical Revisionism

In the context of Historical Revisionism (of the non negatory form) it might be claimed that the paradigm of the "Historical Jesus" needs to be entirely overhauled (perhaps even dismantled) in the light of the absence of any unambiguous evidence from a number of contributory fields to the field of Ancient History, including the manuscript tradition and the field of archaeology.

While many people are content to postulate that the "Historical Jesus" either did not exist or was most likely an entirely fictional and/or fabricated character, not too many people are willing to make the attempt to sketch out a replacement or Revisionist [profane political] History that explains how this state of affairs actually came to be.

To what extent is Historical Revisionism relevant to BC&H and the question of the "Historical Jesus"? And in using the term I am referring to the non negatory meaning of the term. (See the disambiguation pages for the differences)

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Historical Revisionism

Within historiography, that is part of the academic field of history, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event. The revisionist assumes the interpretation of a historical event or period, as accepted by the majority of scholars, needs significant change.

Scholarly process

Pulitzer Prize winning historian James McPherson, writing for the American Historical Association, described the importance of revisionism:

The 14,000 members of this Association, however, know that revision is the lifeblood of historical scholarship. History is a continuing dialogue between the present and the past. Interpretations of the past are subject to change in response to new evidence, new questions asked of the evidence, new perspectives gained by the passage of time. There is no single, eternal, and immutable "truth" about past events and their meaning. The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes. Supreme Court decisions often reflect a "revisionist" interpretation of history as well as of the Constitution.[1]

Those historians who work within the existing establishment and who have a body of existing work from which they claim authority, often have the most to gain by maintaining the status quo. This can be called an accepted paradigm, which in some circles or societies takes the form of a denunciative stance towards revisionism of any kind.

aa5874 · 05-05-2010, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Historical Revisionism

In the context of Historical Revisionism (of the non negatory form) it might be claimed that the paradigm of the "Historical Jesus" needs to be entirely overhauled (perhaps even dismantled) in the light of the absence of any unambiguous evidence from a number of contributory fields to the field of Ancient History, including the manuscript tradition and the field of archaeology.

The "Historical Jesus", the notion that Jesus was just a man, just a Jew, who was worshiped as a God by Jews is just a most historically ridiculous idea that cannot be supported by any source of antiquity external of the HANDS of the Church.

The worship of a man as a God was probably the ONLY thing that could NOT have been done by a Jew before the Fall of the Temple in the 1st century.

[B]Philo a Jew from Alexandria a supposed contemporary of the so-called Jesus DESTROYS the notion that Jesus could have just a man, just a Jew, who was worshiped as a God by Jews.

This is found in "On the Embassy to Gaius"XVI

Quote:

XVI. (114) Have we not, then, learned from all these instances, that Gaius ought not to be likened to any god, and not even to any demi-god, inasmuch as he has neither the same nature, nor the same essence, nor even the same wishes and intentions as any one of them;

but appetite as it seems is a blind thing, and especially so when it takes to itself vain-gloriousness and ambition in conjunction with the greatest power, by which we who were previously unfortunate are utterly destroyed, (115) for he regarded the Jews with most especial suspicion, as if they were the only persons who cherished wishes opposed to his, and who had been taught in a manner from their very swaddling-clothes by their parents, and teachers, and instructors, and even before that by their holy laws, and also by their unwritten maxims and customs, to believe that there was but one God, their Father and the Creator of the world;

(116) for all others, all men, all women, all cities, all nations, every country and region of the earth, I had almost said the whole of the inhabited world, although groaning over what was taking place, did nevertheless flatter him, dignifying him above measure, and helping to increase his pride and arrogance;

and some of them even introduced the barbaric custom into Italy of falling down in adoration before him, adulterating their native feelings of Roman liberty.

(117) But the single nation of the Jews, being excepted from these actions, was suspected by him of wishing to counteract his desires, since it was accustomed to embrace voluntary death as an entrance to immortality, for the sake of not permitting any of their national or hereditary customs to be destroyed, even if it were of the most trivial character, because, as is the case in a house, it often happens that by the removal of one small part, even those parts which appeared to be solidly established fall down, being relaxed and brought to decay by the removal of that one thing,

(118) but in this case what was put in motion was not a trifle, but a thing of the very greatest importance, namely, the erecting the created and perishable nature of a man, as far at least as appearance went, into the uncreated and imperishable nature of God, which the nation correctly judged to be the most terrible of all impieties (for it would have been easier to change a god into man, than a man into God), besides the fact of such an action letting in other most enormous wickedness, infidelity and ingratitude towards the Benefactor of the whole world, who by his own power givers abundant supplies of all kinds of blessings to every part of the universe...

See http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com

The historical Jesus where a man, a Jew, was worshiped as a God by Jews has self-destruct by the DIRECT EVIDENCE of Philo.

The historical Jesus has been destroyed by a JEW who was alive at the time of the Emperor Tiberius and the governorship of Pilate.

These are the words of Philo...."it would have been easier to change a god into man, than a man into God...."

Philo has destroyed the historical Jesus forever.

mountainman · 05-06-2010, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Philo has destroyed the historical Jesus forever.

Philo wrote in the 1st century and Eusebius in the 4th. Did Constantine and Eusebius resurrect Philo's destroyed Jesus? Was Jesus existent in the 1st century so that he could be destroyed by Philo, or was Jesus non existent in the first century? If Jesus was non existent in the 1st century how on earth could Philo destroy his "historicity"?

If the Historical Jesus did not exist then it appears to me we need to look around for another historical scenario by which we can explain the appearance of the Jesus cult in the 4th century corresponding to the massive publication of the new testament at that time. And finally, if the genre of the new testament story is to be associated with genre of the stories about "Harry Potter" and "The Lord of the Rings" then who was the behind-the-scene author and publisher, what was the reason for the publication, who stood to gain the most from the publication and what was the detailed history of the epoch in which the publication of the NT story first "hit the streets".

It seems to me that one thing is abundantly clear. If the "Historical Jesus" is a fiction and/or a myth, then someone or some select party of people have gone to a great deal of trouble to twist the ancient historical truth of "Early Christian Origins". What were these "twists" in the historical truth? Can they be perceived from the available evidence and the technological and scientific standpoint of the 21st century?

aa5874 · 05-06-2010, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Philo has destroyed the historical Jesus forever.

Philo wrote in the 1st century and Eusebius in the 4th. Did Constantine and Eusebius resurrect Philo's destroyed Jesus? Was Jesus existent in the 1st century so that he could be destroyed by Philo, or was Jesus non existent in the first century? If Jesus was non existent in the 1st century how on earth could Philo destroy his "historicity"?

Philo has destroyed THE IDEA of the historical Jesus forever.

Philo has destroyed the idea that a man could have been worshiped as a God BY JEWS in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple during the reign of Caligula who also WANTED JEWS TO WORSHIP HIM AS A GOD.

According to Philo it was far easier to change a GOD to a man than a man to a God. And that is exactly what the inventors of Jesus did.

The inventors followed the advice of Philo and fabricated Jesus as a God who became man.

These are the words of Philo. "On the Embassy to Gaius"

Quote:

.....for it would have been easier to change a god into man, than a man into God...

These are the words of the author of John.

Quote:

...In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God ...and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us......

The historical Jesus IDEA is dead. Philo killed it forever.

Now, Eusebius presented a MYTH as history in the 4th century using fiction as his corroborative source.

This a partial list of the writers used by Eusebius or writings probably forged, wholly or in part, under the name of Ignatius, Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Luke, Mark, Matthew, John, Paul, James, Jude, and Origen.

mountainman · 05-06-2010, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, Eusebius presented a MYTH as history in the 4th century using fiction as his corroborative source.

This a partial list of the writers used by Eusebius or writings probably forged, wholly or in part, under the name of Ignatius, Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Luke, Mark, Matthew, John, Paul, James, Jude, and Origen.

Now this represents the kernel of a theory of Historical Revisionism. It must START with the life of Eusebius in the 4th century, and move backwards and then forwards. In order to develop such a theory it appears to me that three separate segments of "history space" need to be analysed.

(1) 000 to 324 CE - what was the actual history which Eusebius perverted?
(2) 324 to 337 CE - the life of Constantine and Eusebius and the dramatic changes that were wrought in this segment.
(3) 337 to 500 CE - the aftermath of the impact of the implementation of Christianity (based on the NT) and the Eusebian "Christian Origins myth".

Most discussions in this forums have concentrated on segment (1). Your summary above refers to this segment.

Segment (2) represents a "Black Hole" of sources - Imperially sponsored orthodox "Christian historians" have claimed this terrain as their own for the last 16 centuries, since their accounts are the only ones extant. (They destroyed all other sources)

Segment (3) is to be characterised by a political history of the 4th and 5th centuries in which the "orthodox imperially sponsored Christian histories" need to be offset by the "pagan and Gnostic sources", and in which the Arian Controversy is to be explicated by means of a simple political model.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.