Sheshbazzar

So that leaves option number
Don't be so humble and shy, just tell us that you are smarter, better educated, more skilled, and better able to interpret all of the available evidence than any other scholar or researcher living, or that has ever lived.

I'm OK with it, if you want to make that claim. (I've heard a whole lot of BS in my life)

Now, all you have to do is convince the rest of the world's History researchers and scholars that you actually know your ass from a hole in the ground.

And as I said earlier, they are going to require proof, not just bombast and an active imagination filling in the blanks.

Littlejohn

I had asked you to reflect on what I posted, as above, but you're showing me what I had understood long time ago: YOU ARE DON'T ABLE TO THINK! ..

E 'useless for me to try to give you all the details you want (and anyway, with your permission, it will remain unpublished until the publication of my book) because you would not understand anything of what I managed to understand in the long years of my searches for...

There were some people in the past that have asked me specific questions, a thing, this, that made ​​me realize that these people had gone very close to the truth, or at least very close to some aspects of the whole truth ... I am afraid that you will not be NEVER be able to do the same ...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Frankly, I don't understand the objective of these provocations of the yours ... What is this? ... Would you peraphs push me to reveal things that I can not reveal for now, since they are qualifying parts of my work? .. And for do thing with they?!... Maybe to assemble a your own work, behind this 'silly boy', as you think be Littlejohn? ..

Much of the material that I posted here in the forum FRDB, has for many years that I published it in several Italian forums: so, the 'tracks' about the authorship of my researches are now 'indelible'!.... The rule of "copyright "has not been abolished nor in Italy nor the United States ... Anyone who decides to make an use of my material that goes beyond the mere personal use, he already knows to what should go meeting ... Therefore you puts your heart at rest ...


Greetings


Littlejohn


PS: anyone can to affirm some 'BS' in the course of his life, however, as many I read in this forum, after you decided to post here, I had never read in my life!


.

Sheshbazzar

Your life. may peace be wth you.

Littlejohn

The Talmud: a work more valuable for historians of Christianity that for Jews themselves.

Like almost all the talmudic passages and others concerning to rabbinic literature concerning Jesus or his mother, even this above has remained incomprehensible to almost all christianism's scholars, both as a hobby for that profession.

All this is not surprising, since the forger clergy, after have prepared, about 19 centuries ago, an "adequate" path of research (of course suitable for its own interests!), on which one is channeled after the secular research, now by various centuries, it has taken measures to establish a ranking of the material which, in its sole discretion, is reliable or not. Of course, the Talmud and other rabbinic material, occupies the bottom of this ranking!

The passage above, taken from the 'Sefer Hagigah', is yet another example of "cryptic" art that the rabbis had to develop, "obtorto collo", in order to divert the attention of the satanic catholic inquisitors, still today defined by the highest authorities of the catholic church "holy inquisitors" (**).

In fact, the passage, like also many others, it is extremely important because it provides solid evidence about some aspects of the figure of the Virgin Mary, that the catholic forgers of all historical ages have always been very careful not to disclose!

Without wanting to do the "fleas" about the merits or demerits of the scholars, a role absolutely inappropriate for me, I would like, however, to stigmatize a very important aspect of the passage of Sefer Hagigah above reported. It is evident, from what is narrated in such a context, that for the Angel of Death Miriam M'gaddelah nashaya and Miriam the teacher of children, were the same person! ... What was the hidden message that the talmudic authors wanted to convey to future generations?.

Until now, the lay scholars, unfortunately, they did 'shrug' and uninterested themselves about the thing, as influenced by the 'holy' opinions of the forger clergy, who has always expressed negative opinions about the Talmud and its reliability, reaffirming shamelessly that the person cited in, namely Yeshua ben Stada or Yeshua ben Pandera, was not Jesus of Nazareth, and this although in past centuries hundreds and hundreds of representatives of the Jewish diaspora, spread all over Europe of the time, were conducted by catholics on the 'purifier' stakes of the 'Holy' Inquisition, because what was written in the Talmud and in the Toldoth Yeshu about Jesus and his mother

This is very serious, since such an attitude on the part of the no-confessional erudite world, has introduced absurd delays in the historical definition of what was really the origin of Christianity and what were the real historical profiles and real identities of the characters involved in the Gospel story ..

___________________

Notes:

(*) - Miriam M'gaddelah is understood, in the Talmud, as Mary, the mother of Yeshu Ben Stada (or 'Ben Pandera'), namely the same Jesus of Nazareth. For the experts in the branch, there is no doubt about the fact that the term 'M'gaddelah', although it has complete meaning in Hebrew (hairdresser), actually had been used as an 'alias' for Magdalene. Moreover, there are written records in coptic of some ancient church fathers, according to which Mary Magdalene was the mother of Jesus. It is not difficult to imagine why the authors of the Talmud decided to use the alias "M'gaddelah" instead of clearly use the word Magdalene ...

(**) - if at least a minority of Catholics had more acumen, then the matters would be different in the 'catholic house', and many of the uncritical followers would be not moral accomplices in the atrocities that their leaders have made ​​over the centuries past. (see "Criminal history of the Church", by Deschner)


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

In the works of Josephus are mentioned characters that are not mentioned in the work of other writers of the first century contemporary of Josephus. What all this means, for you and, of course, for all those who share your 'negationist' point of view, that since there is no historical evidence of these other characters, apart from the quotations of Josephus, they never existed? .. It 's so that one analyzes and assesses the story? .. Frankly I have my doubts ...

It is true that about Jesus of Nazareth are there, 'apparently', few historical evidences, some of which dubious also: however there are! .. What do we want to do, throw them to the 'nettle' just to please the theories of 'deniers'?. ..

The community that is now called 'sect of the Mandaeans', and that live mainly in south-eastern Mesopotamia, is the extreme epigone of the sect that, 2000 years ago approximately, was led by the gnostic teacher John the Baptist.

After the violent death of John, in order to escape the persecutions of the Romans, the survivors of the sect began to move first in the northern course of the river Jordan, and then, to escape persecution unleashed by the Catholics (*) against the whole Gnostic world, guilty, in their eyes, to reveal 'embarrassing' truth about the true story of Jesus and his evangelical 'entourage', they moved further east, bringing themselves in the south-eastern Mesopotamia, near the marshes formed by the Shatt -el-Arab, believing there to be safe from persecution and having, at the same time, sufficient water for their 'aquatic' rites.

In the literature of the Mandaeans, there are extensive quotations of Jesus, John the Baptist and 'Miryai': in the history Mary Magdalene. Now, I wish some denialist to explain to me why the Mandaeans would have to support the historicity of a man who, according to that the 'deniers' say, was invented by the fathers of the church of 19 centuries ago! ..

Obviously, a speculate discourse can be done for the rabbinic world: why the authors of the Talmud would have to talk about Jesus, if it had never existed? ... Maybe to please the Catholics, which have always persecuted them? ... As can one hover over with 'nonchalantly' on these key aspects, to arrive 'triumphantly' to the conclusion that Jesus never existed ??...

In the second century had arisen and developed over 70 gnostic-jesuan sects: all in competition with the catho-christian 'sect'! The deniers, in order to support their argument about the non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, are forced to support absurdly that these sects were invented by the 'eresiologi' (experts of heresies) fathers. But for what motif to invent thus many sects ??... The total absurdity of what, makes of the theory of non-historicity of the character Jesus little more than a mere joke ...

"..Good to know that scholars are going to write books without considering the contents..."

The 'negationist' theory began to appear in the first decades 800. After an initial success so, in a narrow niche of thought, it was practically abandoned, save then recovered later (but always in 'niche' context) after the end of World War II. All of this clearly shows that in the eyes of the vast majority of scholars, who set the trends, this theory denialist appears completely unlikely and therefore not worthy of being taken seriously ...


Greetings

_________________________

Note:

(*) - supported by the forces of the Roman Empire, although it is hard to believe!


Littlejohn

.

Steven Carr

There's a strawman right there.....

We have provenance for Josephus.

There is no provenance for the Gospels.

Littlejohn's logic is like claiming that the New York Times is a newspaper, and so is the National Enquirer, and if you are going to question stories of alien abductions in the National Enquirer, you must also question stories in the New York Times.

Littlejohn

"..There's a strawman right there....."

No one straw man! ... unless one waiver to use the sense of reason ...

There are quotes about Jesus in the New Testament texts and in patristic texts, in those Manichaeans, pagans, Gnostics, rabbinics, Mandaeans and Arabics .. How can we speak of 'strawman'? .. All this seems absurd to me! (and not just me, thankfully!).

"..There is no provenance for the Gospels..."

The Gospels are constructions realized on false arguments, made ​​for the sole purpose of providing support to the cult invented by the forger fathers of the second century, when catholic-christian worship was born.

However, the fact that the gospels are a disconcerting historical false, since facts and figures into they described have been deeply manipulated and distorted, in order to make them compatible with the deceptions wished by the founding fathers, does not necessarily mean that can not be existed a MAN (and NOT a god!) called Jesus, who, thanks to the extraordinary skills of illusion and 'magician', he managed to earn honors in history.

That someone then, exploiting the image and popularity that Jesus was able to earn in a large part of the empire (even if it does not appear in 'clear'), has built around him the hallucinating cult that we know well, that's all another story ...

"..Littlejohn's logic is like claiming..etc..."

No, the logic of Littlejohn is the one that relies on common sense and evaluates the things in a totally realistic way! ..

The evidences in 'clear' for Jesus of Nazareth and its historical presence in the first century of our era, are obvious, unless you dogmatically close your eyes to not see them (as indeed do all the 'deniers'!). However, there is a significant number of evidences, in number far superior to those in clear, which are 'cryptic', because apparently they seem to refer to other characters (*).

Although the so-called 'Testimonium Flavianum' is a hallucinating historical false, however, not only Josephus extensively spoke about Jesus, but he knew the Nazarene in person also!. Thanks to my researches and study of the data collected, I was able to establish even that the famous Joseph of Arimathea was none other that the same Josephus! ... (keep in mind that Jesus did not die in the 30's, but around the year 72!)


Greetings

_________________________

Note:

(*) - a bit as in the Talmud and Toledoth Yeshu, where to refer to Jesus sometimes is used the alias like 'Balaam ',' Talui ',' Peloni ', the 'son of the prostitute',' ben Pandera ',' ben Stada 'etc..


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Exactly!

I do not know if Don Barbaglia, with whom I have spoken at length in my forum, along with other interlocutors, is in bad faith or not. However, things are not at all like he says. IT WAS NOT AT ALL of the error of a copyist, because the nine copies that report, in place of Joseph, the name of John, are certainly the most ancient among those available today, escaped, almost by 'miracle', at the work of the christian scribes 'proofreading'. Of course, when I spoke of 'older' I mean the manuscripts from which these copies were obtained.

"..But they are not the brothers of Jesus..."

Why would not be the brothers of Jesus ?!.....

The table below shows the real relationship of kinship among the brothers of Jesus:

Jesus: Son of the Virgin Mary and of roman soldier Tiberius Julius said Abdes, said Panthera;

Judas Thomas: twin of Jesus and, therefore, the same parents of the Nazarene;

James the 'minor' or the 'just': halfbrother of Jesus, the son of the Virgin Mary and of *********;(*)

Simon and John/Joseph, stepbrothers of Jesus, children of a previous marriage of *********.

From the table it is clear that ONLY Judas Thomas and James the Just had blood ties with Jesus. This is because Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Ecclesiastical History, calls James the Just, "brother of Jesus according to the flesh", because, obviously, Simone and John (and NOT Joseph!) had no blood relationship with Jesus


Greetings

_________________________

Note:

(*) - obviously, he was not at all the Joseph of the Gospels, because, in historical reality, this character was none other that the FATHER of the Virgin Mary, and therefore the grandfather of Jesus! In the infancy gospels this character is fraudulently called 'Joachim', in order to not be traceable to the true genealogy of Jesus of Nazareth.


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

There are rather important aspects concerning the figure of John the Baptist but, strangely, have always been neglected by professional scholars; aspects that I deem worthy to be examined more carefully, and that is why I repropose again the message below, already posted in the thread "Was The Baptism of Jesus by John Likely Historical?", hoping to spark a constructive debate on this subject.

Although John the Baptist was a truly historic figure (see the Mandaeans), however, the flavian passage citing JtB is a resounding historical false: just like the notorious 'testimonium flavianum'!... Probably, considering the descriptive style, the two passages were written by the same counterfeiter hand

John the Baptist, like all the Nazarenes, was disliked by the priests of the temple of Jerusalem, and Josephus, closely related to the priestly world, because of the well-known family relationships, would never have spoken about John the Baptist with those conciliating words!. .


Greetings

Littlejohn

.