Onias

Josephus identified many messiah aspirants such as Judas the Galilean, his sons and many others you should know.

Huh? First of all Jesus was fictional, but still I do not recall he asked his disciples to kill anybody.

As to the herd of swine, that is Joe Atwill's gig as per his book Caesar's Messiah, which I do agree to. . . but only up to a point.
Onias

aa5874

Judas the Galilean and his sons were not known as messiahs and were not the historical Jesus.

Do you have anyone else?

You are one who is asking if Jesus was a militant but up to now you cannot show that Jesus was armed or that he armed his disciples and gave them orders to kill.

mountainman

But the pagans already had Asclepius, Apollo, Zeus, Venus, Hercules, Romulus, Remus, Isis and a host of other pagan gods.

When did the pagan people of antiquity realize that the Jewish Jesus God story was fiction?

Immediately! As soon as the story was circulated.


The Christian victors suppressed the bad press.

The bad press were the books of the heretics.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Onias

aa,
JC was not a militant or a pacifist because he was fictional.
He is only a theatrical character in the gospel play. But at times he played the part of a militant and more often he played the antithesis of the militant.

Other historical messianic figures could be John the Baptizer, Theudas, Anthronges, etc.

The main thing to consider is that the gospels and the Paulines are a rebuttal to the militant and zealous doctrines of the Dead Sea Scrolls.Onias

mountainman

Buddha was supposed to have achieved enlightenment under a fig tree.

But maybe Jesus was just an impatient S.O.B.?




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

maryhelena

Onias, I'll keep repeating this: You have no historical evidence for the above figures that you want to reference in connection with the gospel figure of JC. Zero, nothing.

Consequently, what you are doing is futile as an avenue for searching for early christian history. Your statement: "historical people like Judas the Galilean or his sons, Simon or James", is factually erroneous. You have to provide evidence for their historicity. You can't simply name them as *historical* until you can provide evidence for their existence.

So, Onias, if you keep this up - I'll keep reminding you that your statements about these figures being historical is nothing but speculation.

And if it's speculation that interests you re Judas the Galilean and his two sons - consider this:

Josephus places Judas in around 6 c.e. This is around 70 years from 63 b.c. What happened in that year?


Aristobulus II

This history indicates, suggests, that the Josephan writer is basing his story about Judas the Galilean and his two sons, Simon and James, on the historical figures of Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus. i.e. the Josephan writer is replaying an earlier historical account within a new, later, time frame - the Josephan writer is replaying the historical tape 70 years after the historical event of 63 b.c.

aa5874

What you say cannot be shown to be true or even plausible.

It was near impossible for people who believed in mythology to have regarded the very same or similar mythology as fiction.

If the Jesus story was composed 300 years after the event that Jesus was the Son of God of the Jews how in the world could people who believed in multiple Myth Gods prove another Myth God did not exist?

It is precisely for the very fact that people of antiquity believed in Myths like Asclepius, Apollo, Zeus, Venus, Hercules, Romulus, Remus, Isis that the Jesus story appeared completely plausible.

It was already believed that the God of the Jews had actual Sons in Jewish Mythology.

Job 1:6 KJV It was not necessary for a 4th century Roman Church to invent stories about the Son of a God but only to Hijack them and claim it was theirs from the beginning.

The Roman Church LIED about the Donation of Constantine, they Forged many documents like the False Decretals and they also LIED about the History of the Jesus cult. There was NO Roman Church in the 1st century with Peter as their bishop. The NT Canon of the Church is compilation of forgeries or false attribution.

The Jesus cult started in the 2nd century and there was NO bishop of Rome until the 4th century or perhaps even later.

mountainman

Temples for one. Worship and belief in gods of all descriptions were sponsored by the Roman Emperors in the form of the construction and maintenance of temples, shrines and figurines to these gods. The largely pagan people who believed in multiple Myth Gods could prove another Myth God did not exist by asking the believers for a temple or a shrine of pilgrimage. But we know that the first pilgrims to the Holy Land were Constantine's mother-in-law and Constantine's mother.

Consider the opening phrase to the Nag Hammadi Codex 7.3 Apocalypse of Peter:

The author goes on to write that: "The Bishops are dry canals". Jesus is presented as laughing about the whole situation ... "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus."


What temple was the Saviour sitting in in the three hundredth (year) of the covenant ?


The pagan Roman Empire was littered with temples and shrines and figurines to Asclepius, Apollo, Zeus, Venus, Hercules, Romulus, Remus and Isis. The only report of a figurine for the Jesus figure before the 4th century appears in the 4th century forgery known as the "Historia Augusta".

It is true that some gods lived in books, such as the canonical books of Plato, and that the philosophical schools preserved these books by means of apostolic lineages.


There is no doubt that the Hebrew Bible Greek LXX was hijacked for its antiquity.

But the only so-called evidence by which the claim that the New Testament was hijacked and not just fabricated in the 4th century is:

1) palaeographical dating attestations on Egyptian papyri fragments,
2) Eusebius monumental "Church History"
3) a handful of dubious entries in Giovanni de Rossi and Pope Pius IX's "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae".
4) the Dura-Europos-Yale "house-church".

Therefore it is not unambiguously certain whether the new and strange nation of Christians was hijacked or invented by Constantine's revolutionary regime.


Note that in the Acts of John the Theologian, the Jews write a book to the Emperor Domitian, complaining about a "new and strange nation". As a result, Domitian flies into a rage an persecutes the "New and Strange Nation of Christians. This term "new and strange nation" is a recognised Eusebian trope. The author of this text thus wrote after Eusebius had coined the phrase.


Sorry about the tangentiation Onias.

IMO the Edward Gibbon quote (post #24) summarises the case for a militant Jesus.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874

I am delighted that you list some of the evidence that the Jesus cult religion was Hijacked.

Once there is evidence that the Romans Hijacked the religion of the Jesus cult of Christians then my argument can be maintained forever--the Romans are NOT the origin of the Jesus cult religion--they Hijacked it and claimed it was their own from the beginning by introducing a massive amount of fraud and forgeries.

This a partial list of writings that are fraudulent whether wholly or in part.

1. Acts of the Apostles.

2. ALL the Pauline letters.

3. The writings attributed to Clement of Rome.

4. The writings attributed to Ignatius.

5. The writings attributed to Polycarp.

6. The writings attributed to Irenaeus.

7. The writings attributed to Tertullian.

8. The writings attributed to Clement of Alexandria.

9. The writings attributed to Origen.

10. The writings attributed to Eusebius.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus of Nazareth was a militant. If Christians were followers of Jesus then it is claimed by Gibbon that they did not engage in any military activities.

See http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/gibbon/01/daf01051.htm

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon.

Sheshbazzar

This is really a quite unusual and interesting quote. (wish you had supplied the context however)

Many years ago, troubled by the apparent unrelenting glumness of Biblegod, I did a search of the Scriptures to see if I could find any of those "you know ...the happy texts" (Pollyanna H.) wherein 'God' or 'Jesus' ever laughed at anything in simple joy and happy humor.

I could post every verse that I found ....but I won't.

The only laughter ever coming from 'God' to be found in the entire Bible is when he mocks or destroys men.
(I didn't try to include old 'apocryphal' texts because they are simply too numerous, the surviving texts too inconsistent, and their content mostly too ridiculous, and either unknown or flat out rejected.)

When you actually look for instances of laughter from the 'God' of the Bible, he comes off looking like nothing more an plotting, evil-minded, insane, gleefully cackling Moloch.

As a believer at that time, I accounted that if there were a 'God' or 'Yahweh', and he wished for mankind to know something, he would place it in texts that were consistent and readily available to anyone who cared to look.
(With his Divine intercession and personal guidance being a daily fact of life ya know.)

'Laughing'....hmm, know of any other instances where God or 'Jesus' is described as being happy, or enjoying a good humored laugh? One that is not at the enjoyment and expense of someone else's suffering loss, misery, or torment?
I don't.

( Found one instance where 'Jesus' is described as being 'glad' (Jn 11:15) but the context certainly suggest he meant something other than joy.)



.