Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 11-08-2010, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Determining who were the brothers of Simon Peter is extremely important in the exegetical economy ..

Our exegesis will just have to get by without that data the best way it can. The importance of an answer implies nothing about its availability. If no writing from that time tells us who his brothers were, then we do not know and cannot know who his brothers were.

Littlejohn · 11-08-2010, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Who were Peter's brothers?
.

Since no extant document identifies them, there is just no way to know.

My guess would be that the author intended the reference to be to the other disciples, but anyone else's guess would be just as good as mine
.

"..Since no extant document identifies them, there is just no way to know. "

I'm convinced that you are in error! .. The documents there are: just search for them!

Quote:

Our exegesis will just have to get by without that data the best way it can. The importance of an answer implies nothing about its availability. If no writing from that time tells us who his brothers were, then we do not know and cannot know who his brothers were.
.

"..Our exegesis will just have to get by without that data the best way it can..."

Sorry...I did not understand the concept......

"..then we do not know and cannot know who his brothers were. .."

And don't arise you the doubt whether due to reasons, SEEMINGLY dark, the counterfeiters of the origins have had the need to keep it in a state of absolute ambiguity the whole, to prevent that one dated back to the historical truth? ... The task of the TRUE researcher is to discover, in first, what those reasons may have been, and then, in the light of this, groped to reconstruct the historical truth.

Greetings

Littlejohn

_________________________________

".. The truth does must be not researched in what the
priests affirm, but mainly in what they are trying to hide..."

.

Cege · 11-08-2010, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

'Brothers' was used metaphorically, so that the brothers of Peter were not his flesh and blood brothers?

How can we tell when 'brother' being used metaphorically and when it is without doubt the strongest incontrovertible evidence that Jesus had a flesh and bloood brother?
.

Judas Thomas (from the Hebrew 'Toma', meaning 'equal', 'twin') was the twin of Jesus: ergo, there should be no doubt about the fact that he was the brother of Jesus according to the 'flesh and blood' .

James the 'less', also called the Just (but not in exclusive way, as all members of the sect of John the Baptist were also appealed with the attribute 'just') was the son of the Virgin Mary, but of a different father from that of Jesus and Judas Thomas

Speaking of James, Eusebius says of him "brother of Jesus according to the flesh." With such a specification Eusebius tells us, in practice, that there were brothers of Jesus who were not according to the flesh and blood (ie they were stepbrothers). These brothers were Simon and Joseph, as recorded in the lists that appear in the canonical gospels. Their parents were different from those of Jesus and Judas. However, the father of Simon and Joseph was the father of James the Just.

From all this one can argue that it is not completely false as stated by the author of the Protoevangelium by James, that the brothers by Jesus were sons that 'Joseph' had had by a previous marriage with another woman. This was true, but only for two brothers of the Nazarene, ie Simon and Joseph (whose real name was actually John).

Also, keep in mind that James the Less was born about 5 years after Jesus and Judas (hence the nickname 'the Less'): ergo, at the time of the their birth, the twins Jesus and Judas had only two brothers, namely Simone and Judah, born from a previous marriage of 'Joseph', which was absolutely not the father of twins, the latter having been a Roman legionary (see Celso)(*)

To close, I must say that I find very amusing that some people love to emphasize the own intellectual blindness and the own mental dullness ...

Greetings

_________________________________

Note:

(*) - to be more precise also, at the time of their birth the two twins Jesus and Judas Thomas hadn't yet brothers, since their mother, the Virgin Mary, married the man who became the father of James the less when they had reached around the age of 4 or 5 years. There are patristic indications, duly 'masked', which states that the Virgin Mary had two husbands. However, from her first husband she had no children. (She fled with her lover after even less a year of marriage: from which the 'nickname' STADA, or 'Stadea', which the Jews ironically applied to the Jesus' mother)

Littlejohn

.

Please explain why you believe Thomas/Didymus to have been the twin brother of Jesus.

Doug Shaver · 11-09-2010, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

The documents there are: just search for them!

If you're so certain they exist, you search for them. I'll be glad to examine them after you find them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

The task of the TRUE researcher is to discover, in first, what those reasons may have been, and then, in the light of this, groped to reconstruct the historical truth.

I don't know about true researchers, but true scholars don't assume their conclusions and then infer the existence of evidence that will support those conclusions.

bacht · 11-09-2010, 07:15 AM

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry...."

Acts 1.15-17

Apart from Peter's blood brother Andrew, Luke uses brother to refer to the early disciples.

Littlejohn · 11-09-2010, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

The documents there are: just search for them!
.

If you're so certain they exist, you search for them. I'll be glad to examine them after you find them.
.

I've already found them! ... What I'm searching now, it is a more amount of data, in order to set up a solid 'redundancy' of data, because what interests me most is to induce the official world of erudtion, to get care about my work, and not to ignore it as it has in other cases (see the example of Luigi Cascioli)

NOTE:

When I talk about documents, I do not mean pages of text that explain, 'for word and sign' (italian expression) as the events actually took place about 20 centuries ago! .. Such documents, which certainly existed until the first half the fourth century, no longer exist ('lost', according to the forger catholics!), or at least they aren't in the public domain, but concealed with much care in the 'comfortable' vatican archives.

What I mean really, is that there are pages of text from which to retrieve useful data to our historical reconstructions. Such data do EXIST, but are strongly 'diluted' in the various texts. (if they were 'focused', these texts would never come down to us!).

All this means that to retrieve a number of data sufficient to make a 'comfortable' and reliable historical reconstruction, it is absolutely necessary to 'scan' of a very large number of texts. Such a thing you can do so only with the help of computers and the network WEB.

This, and nothing else, is why all the scholars who have preceded us in past centuries, have failed in their objective, and this regardless of their individual technical skills, because they did not have these powerful search tools, availables today to the modern researchers! However, these means are of little use if you do not work with the necessary open-mindedness ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

The task of the TRUE researcher is to discover, in first, what those reasons may have been, and then, in the light of this, groped to reconstruct the historical truth.
.

I don't know about true researchers, but true scholars don't assume their conclusions and then infer the existence of evidence that will support those conclusions.
.

Strange, you do not know who are the 'true' investigators , but, however, you know who the 'true' scholars are ...

"..and then infer the existence of evidence that will support those conclusions..."

All this leaves me simply amazed!... If a scholar, true or not true it be, does not build a first hypothesis, based on data initially collected, as may he proceed after for the collection of new data that help to strengthen its arguments ??... What should search if he have not have a 'frame' of what to look? ...

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Transient · 11-09-2010, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If you're so certain they exist, you search for them. I'll be glad to examine them after you find them.
.

I've already found them! ... What I'm searching now, it is a more amount of data, in order to set up a solid 'redundancy' of data, because what interests me most is to induce the official world of erudtion, to get care about my work, and not to ignore it as it has in other cases (see the example of Luigi Cascioli)

NOTE:

When I talk about documents, I do not mean pages of text that explain, 'for word and sign' (italian expression) as the events actually took place about 20 centuries ago! .. Such documents, which certainly existed until the first half the fourth century, no longer exist ('lost', according to the forger catholics!), or at least they aren't in the public domain, but concealed with much care in the 'comfortable' vatican archives.

What I mean really, is that there are pages of text from which to retrieve useful data to our historical reconstructions. Such data do EXIST, but are strongly 'diluted' in the various texts. (if they were 'focused', these texts would never come down to us!).

All this means that to retrieve a number of data sufficient to make a 'comfortable' and reliable historical reconstruction, it is absolutely necessary to 'scan' of a very large number of texts. Such a thing you can do so only with the help of computers and the network WEB.

This, and nothing else, is why all the scholars who have preceded us in past centuries, have failed in their objective, and this regardless of their individual technical skills, because they did not have these powerful search tools, availables today to the modern researchers! However, these means are of little use if you do not work with the necessary open-mindedness ...

Quote:

I don't know about true researchers, but true scholars don't assume their conclusions and then infer the existence of evidence that will support those conclusions.
.

Strange, you do not know who are the 'true' investigators , but, however, you know who the 'true' scholars are ...

"..and then infer the existence of evidence that will support those conclusions..."

All this leaves me simply amazed!... If a scholar, true or not true it be, does not build a first hypothesis, based on data initially collected, as may he proceed after for the collection of new data that help to strengthen its arguments ??... What should search if he have not have a 'frame' of what to look? ...

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

You go on and on and on and on about nothing at all - you say you research documents but never link to anything that will back up your ideas at all. What on earth do you expect us to think?
With that sort of method I would end up believing in aliens, ghosts, perpetual motion machines, Joseph Smith and his lunatics, Mohamed and his nutty followers, etc etc etc.
I would even believe that the old pope believes in god - so many unsubstantiated things out there - evidence is what it is all about.

Doug Shaver · 11-10-2010, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

The documents there are: just search for them!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If you're so certain they exist, you search for them. I'll be glad to examine them after you find them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

I've already found them!

Well, good for you. Whenever you're ready to share them, I'll be glad to have a look at them for myself, just to see whether they really prove what you say they prove.

Sheshbazzar · 11-10-2010, 07:12 AM

Pick one sentence from this document, and another sentence from that document, and a third sentence from another document, ignore or deny the validity of the other 99.9% of the same documents.
Arrange these carefully collected snippets in whatever order fits in with ones imaginary and paranoid conspiracy theory.

The method of writing such fantasy is quite simple you see, writers seeking fame and fortune have been doing it for millennia.

Ya gotta wait an'na buy'a 'da tell-all BOOK to get 'da 'hole' story.

Littlejohn · 11-12-2010, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Transient

You go on and on and on and on about nothing at all - you say you research documents but never link to anything that will back up your ideas at all. What on earth do you expect us to think?
With that sort of method I would end up believing in aliens, ghosts, perpetual motion machines, Joseph Smith and his lunatics, Mohamed and his nutty followers, etc etc etc.
I would even believe that the old pope believes in god - so many unsubstantiated things out there - evidence is what it is all about.
.

Sorry, what does it mean 'will back up your ideas'?

"..What on earth do you expect us to think?.."

I do not expect anything from your (or 'our', if you prefer) thought, but simply a rational attitude, like it is also trying to do you understand the optimum Stephan Huller!

If in the face of much evidence that I have indicated, both from pagan sources, both from rabbinic sources, either from Gnostic and Manichaean sources, either from Mandee, you continue to remain mired in the negationist 'swamp' (ie, the denial of the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth), and repeating that everything is false and that nothing proves the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, what documents should I to link to convince you?

I have already a number of times said that there are not documents that fully explain the real course of events in Palestine about 20 centuries ago, but only documents from which to retrieve some isolated data, by be then included, like the tiles of a virtual mosaic, in the 'frame' that should give us back, once completed , the image of what was the true story of the origins of Christianity. I have indicated to you this data and I've often said to you (in general way, not specific, for obvious copyright reasons) the source from which I have taken them.

What you want, I seem to understand, are the exact 'coordinates' of the various data, in order to see if what I affirm is true. But what do you intend to do with these 'coordinates', if then you are not able to produce a logical approach of such data in order to go back to a satisfactory reconstruction of the events?

Please also note that very often such data are available in 'cryptic' form, ie that they apparently do not seem to be referring to the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. To reveal the 'key' that allowed me to bring back this informations at the figure of the Nazarene, it would be to say to prematurely disclose the contents of my future book, and this, frankly, I can not afford: neither to please to you nor any other!

Greetings

Littlejohn

.

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

11-09-2010, 07:15 AM	#15
bacht Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,305	In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry...." Acts 1.15-17 Apart from Peter's blood brother Andrew, Luke uses brother to refer to the early disciples.

11-10-2010, 07:12 AM	#19
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Pick one sentence from this document, and another sentence from that document, and a third sentence from another document, ignore or deny the validity of the other 99.9% of the same documents. Arrange these carefully collected snippets in whatever order fits in with ones imaginary and paranoid conspiracy theory. The method of writing such fantasy is quite simple you see, writers seeking fame and fortune have been doing it for millennia. Ya gotta wait an'na buy'a 'da tell-all BOOK to get 'da 'hole' story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.