Littlejohn

"..This is the reason why people can't give up on the historical Jesus.."

You really believe that? .... This may be true for the common people, namely the so-called 'man of the street', but NOT for a scholar accustomed to moving in its field with good-criterion and common sense.

Have you ever wondered why the few evidences of Latin authors speak of 'Christos - Christus' and NEVER of Jesus? ...

If any of the current scholars oriented towards mythical theory, had conducted his research with a minimum of 'grano salis', now he would know that Jesus was NOT popular between romans with the pseudo-name 'Jesus' (a mere attribute and NOT a name!), but with a different name than his official, and, especially, with the attribute Chrestos and NOT Christos!... In fact, before that time (reign of Claudius: see Suetonius) NOBODY had ever called him Christos. This will be for a short period in Palestine, in the period ranging from 66 to 70 (the first Jewish War)

Jesus was appealed with this attribute, meaning 'HEALER' (Iasous / Iesous - Iasoun / Iesoun), in the provinces of 'Asia Minor', where he acquired the most fame. Also in that geographical area, however, he was NOT known by his real name, ie YESHAY (Jesse), the REAL name of the man (and NOT a God!) known at history as 'Jesus of Nazareth', but with a different one.

Outside of Palestine, Jesus never wanted anybody to know his real name. This has evoked 'cryptically' even in the canonical gospels.(*)

Here, then, it is demonstrated why there are so few traces of Jesus in ancient Latin literature. However, both the Jewish world (see the Talmud and Toledoth Yeshu), an eyewitness of his human historical presence, both the one mandaean, they have recorded extensively the historical presence of Jesus! ...

Why Jews and Mandaeans would have to do such a thing, if that character had never existed? ... All this requires a sensible, logic answer.... To deny the historicity of Jesus, for denying his alleged 'divinity', is something no logical sense...


______________________

(*) - Luke - chap. 9:

[18] One day while Jesus was in a secluded place to pray and the disciples were with him, he asked them this question: "Who am I according to the people? '.


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

This goes to show that the three 'synoptic' Gospels were produced in the SAME environment, but at different times. The FIRST to have been composed was the Gospel 'according to Mark'(*), followed, some time later, by the Gospel 'according to Matthew'. The Gospel of Mark was composed around the 140 year.

At the end came the 'Gospel of Luke', who had the particularity, compared to the first two, to have been derived from an earlier text (**), which, in all probability, was composed in the city of Antioch in the period (presumably) from 85 to 90: and however a few years BEFORE that you held the rabbinical Synod of Jamnia.

The first revision of this text was made, almost certainly, by Marcion. The second revision, which produced a nearly equal text to the current Gospel of Luke, was instead made by the same people who produced the gospels of Mark and Matthew. This, probably, infuriated Marcion, which decided to leave his former 'collaborators' and went on his own. It 's likely that the decision to review the text produced by Marcion, is triggered by the fact that it had a strong Gnostic approach.

The last gospel to enter the 'circle' of the canonicals, was that of John. This, too, as the Gospel of Luke, was derived from an earlier text, certainly with Gnostic character, composed by a follower (Cerinthus?) of John called Mark, second son of Jesus and Mary Salome of Magdala.


____________________________

(*) - This has a precise historical and logical explanation. In fact, the material used for such gospel, was already present in the imperial archives. There had been put by a Roman functionary, named MARCUS, at the time of Emperor Nero. Mark had gathered up the 'KERIGMATA PETROU', ie the confession under torture of Simon Peter, before he was executed by crucifixion (see Nero, Simon Magus, Acts of Peter)

(**) - this text, surely the FIRST to use the 'euaggelion' title, it had absolutely NOTHING to do with the world 'Catholic-Christian', such that the character Jesus does not appeared anywhere!


Littlejohn

________________________________________

NOTE: ALL THAT I'M EXPOSING IT HAVE NOT THE PRETENSE TO BE BELIEVED AT ALL COSTS, SINCE THE PURPOSE IS A PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RESEARCH TO THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED TO MAKE USE OF THAT MATERIAL.

.

Littlejohn

"..of John called Mark, second son of Jesus and Mary Salome of Magdala.."

Such a MARK was the Mark of Alexandria: a totally different character from the 'roman' Mark.

Jesus, in the 30s, stayed for about 3 years in Alexandria of Egypt (see Celsus, the Talmud and, although 'cryptically', the nativity of Matthew). It is highly probable that John 'Mark', returning from Gaul, where he had emigrated with his mother, Mary Salome of Magdala, and his elder brother, Joseph said BARNABAS (*) - shamelessly turned into 'Joseph of Arimathea' in the 'legends' of Maddalena in Gaul - surely felt the desire to travel to Alexandria to visit the places where his father, about 35-40 years before, had stayed.

Surely John Mark there found even the old followers of his father, which had founded his community in Alexandria, and became also a charismatic leader. Even John Mark, in Gaul, he founded his own sect, which will be called 'sect of Marcosians' by fathers heresiologists of the second and third centuries.

Hippolytus Roman, citing Mark (John), wrote that he said he knew the REAL name of Jesus: it is all too obvious, since he was his son! .. Furthermore, always according to Hippolytus, Mark added that the real name of Jesus was ancient and 'honored': in fact, such a name was YESHAY (Jesse), the legendary father of David.

What's really amazing is the fact that Augustine, in his treatise Against Heresies, reached the point of having to speak of marcosian 'heresy', apologizes for not being able to speak about it, because knew nothing about the 'eponymous' founder of the sect, ie 'Mark'! ... This is crazy, if you think that Irenaeus, who had to be well known by Augustine, spoke at length about Mark and of the very Marcosians! ...

Why Augustine was compelled to lie so blatantly about Mark? ... Perhaps because he knowing how things were in reality, did not feel, in contrast to other cynical 'heresiologist' fathers, to speak evil of the son of Jesus.

___________________________________

(*) - John Mark and Joseph Barnabas were turned into 'cousins' by the author of the Acts of the Apostles, when in fact they were brothers and both sons of Jesus


Littlejohn S

.

outhouse

sources please



sources please [posted]



sources please

Littlejohn

Responding to your requests, it does mean prematurely disclose the contents of the book I started writing in late 2005, whose writing is going very slowly, consistent with advancing the state of my researches. Within a couple of years, however, I think I will finish my work and, if I will have lucky enough to see it published, then you would have way to satisfy your legitimate curiosity(*)

NOTE: as I demonstrated more than one time, sometimes not even are necessary the sources, since it is sufficient a little common sense ....

Greetings

____________________________

(*) - after more than 16 years of very intense researches (even over 14 hours a day at the computer!) and of sacrifices that NEVER more I would again do, I can not afford to throw 'in air' the whole thing ... I hope you want to understand


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

"..the legend of Simon Magus trying to buy his secrets from Peter.."

It would have been more logical and believable to the contrary! ... However, even this is not the historical truth ... And highly probable, in fact, if not certain, that it was the same Jesus who groped to buy the secrets of 'magic' by John the Baptist, his teacher! ..

Do not forget, in fact, that John, Gnostic teacher and magician in turn, was also master of Dositheus and Simon Magus, two well-known magicians of the first century! .. Surely it was the refusal of John that Jesus took the decision to emigrate to Egypt, to learn from the source the 'magic art' for which the Egyptians were proud in the world (see Celsus).

WARNING: to carefully read the RECOGNITIONES of the pseudo Clement, you easily guess that they were James the Just and the other 'pillars' of the Jerusalem church to depend on Simon Magus, and NOT vice versa! ...

(for outhouse: this is a source!)


Littlejohn S

.

Sheshbazzar

Given Littlejohn's previous threads highly questionable assertions, and his paranoid unwillingness to provide whatever evidence it is that supports his many radical ideas, there is presently little to be gained in any dialog with him.
Evidently, as he alone knows everything, he prefers to provide us with his monologues.

We are either supposed to swallow whatever he puts up here, without him having to provide any of this secret evidence,
Or we have to wait for his book, where at long last he will release all this highly secret amazing information...

I'll wait for the book.



.

Littlejohn

"..and his paranoid unwillingness to provide whatever evidence.."

No one disputes your right to express your reservations about what I write ... As long as everything stays on a plane of substantially 'fair play'....

".. that supports his many radical ideas.."

The circumstances under which I bring forward the rabbinical and mandaean testimonies, about the historicity of Jesus, for you would be "many radical ideas"? ... These are OBJECTIVE testimonies! .. That you, then, and someone else does not want to take they into account, because you are too attached to your 'myticists' dogma, this is another matter, and, rather, it proves that is little useful to bring evidences for those that want not to take this into consideration! ...

"..We have to wait for his book.... this highly secret amazing information.."

Mention me the name of at least one author who revealed the contents of his book before publishing it ... Frankly I do not know anyone ....

If you intervene in the context of what I present in a more 'targeted' form, more specific and not generic, as far as possible I will try to answer ...

"..highly secret amazing information.."

Before closing, I would like to ask you if you've never heard of a Frenchman called Allan Kardec (actually a pseudonym), a 'special' scholar lived in France, mainly in the first half of the nineteenth century ... He said something ... or rather he made a real 'prophecy'. I do not know how he did it, but it is really extraordinary! ...


Littejohn S

.

Huon

Spiritism. :notworthy:

Littlejohn

Yeah ... Spiritism ..... Ça ne va plus?...:constern01:



.