Littlejohn

"Triumphal March of Jesus toward the Crucifixion

I think Thomas Schmidt to be completely out of the way! ..

Since the crucifixion, as regards the character known to history as Jesus of Nazareth(*), was an event NEVER happened, the one that need to ask yourself is if the story about the march of Jesus toward the cross, was invented out of whole cloth, or the counterfeiters who founded the catho-christianity inspired themselves to a real episode of the same characteristics: although it may seem strange, however it was own the second option the answer to this question.

The episode of the 'death march', involved a priest of the temple of Jerusalem, and the period in which this incident happened, was that concerning the Jewish religious persecution of all those who did not accept the fact that the Hasmoneans, in addition to political power, they had seized also the religious power. There was then a part of the priests who sided with the Hasmonean rulers, while others took a strongly critical position, much dissenting toward the pro-Hasmoneans priests.

One of the dissenting priests(**), which showed more courage and more vigorously his indignation towards his traitor fellows, was forced to leave Jerusalem and take refuge north of Lake Tiberias, along the road leading to Damascus (the same road on which Jesus walked to move himself toward the Mesopotamia: see the first Epistle of Peter). He, however, did not cease to preach against the new 'establishment' of the temple and throw heavy accusations versus the priests 'collaborators' of the Hasmoneans.

Arrived, at the end, the day when the 'measure resulted full', and the dissident priest came made to arrest. As a result, he was tried by the Sanhedrin. Found guilty of slander, the Sanhedrin condemned him to death by crucifixion, and for greater contempt, sentenced him to also drag along the streets of the city, the pole to which was then hung. This was, almost certainly, the REAL episode to which the catho-christian forgers were inspired to build their false story of the crucifixion of Jesus, which was still ALIVE at the time of the First Jewish War (66-70)


___________________________


(*) - called, among the many attributes that were applied to him, even the 'CHRESTOS'.

(**) - can not be excluded that this character may have been the same NASI mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls: namely, the 'Prince of the community' (probably the community dissenting) made to kill by the power of the time.


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

"..When Paul contradicts Jesus, this proves the historical Jesus held that opinion.."

This is an absurdity in the terms. To understand such an absurdity, it is need don't stop to the fact that Paul was the 'apostle' of Jesus, but we must go further.

Of Ehrman you can share the natural acceptance of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth (which is recognized by almost all scholars of the official erudition). However, the rest of his opinions and of his statements about the characteristics of the historical Jesus, they let the time they find, because Ehrman, as all scholars like him, totally ignores the REAL historical profile of the man known to history as Jesus of Nazareth (more correctly 'YESHAY of Nazareth).

NOTE: until you will emerge from the mists of history, the REAL historical profiles of Paul and Jesus of Nazareth, any speculation about their thoughts and their real preaching is devoid of any shred of credibility. The historical reality that surrounds them, is something really amazing, and only those who have applied themselves for a long time in the research and study of the 'visited' texts, can understand this reality.


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

From an italian forum:

"...but, more importantly, arriving to give reason to Littlejohn.....it exist but we do not know anything about him.."

This is simply hallucinating! ... If there is anyone who does not know anything about him, it's you, otherwise, let me say, you don't would continue to write all that nonsense that, I seem to understand, they exalt you so much! ....

Every year they are published, all over the world, tens of thousands of books about the theme Jesus of Nazareth. At least 98% of these new works are written by authors who do not put in doubt the historicity of Jesus, being the thesis miticista, or more generally 'negationist', heavily minority in the world of 'official' scholarship: that is, the one which is trendy! .. As you can see, all in all Littlejohn is in good company among all those 'ameni' supporters of the historicist thesis ...

I have already mentioned several times my views concerning the absolute improbability of negationist theories (including the most important, ie the one 'miticista'), given the absolute tangibility of the evidences represented by mandaeans quotes, rabbinic, pagan, Manichean, Gnostic (over 70 Gnostic sects, absolutely and 'fiercely' antagonists toward orthodox Catholics!), Arabic-Koranic, etc., and you, as a 'rubber wall', continues to bounce in the debates the rejection (hallucinating thing, because there is NOT NOTHING can justify that!), of such irrepressible evidences! ..

Do you wonder that Hard-Rain, at least about the appearance of the historicity of Jesus, is agree with me! ... But why? ... For you Hard-Rain in the past has been a 'negationist'? .. . From what you say, it would seem as if Hard-Rain would counteract 'no-clear' objectives toward which, in your opinion, he should converge .... Why?


_________________________________________

(*) - Hard-Rain, a fideist user of the forum.


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

From an italian forum.


The Gospels have not created any historical Jesus and therefore they not even deny it. The Gospels have created the 'mythological' Jesus, starting by the one historical. If you are not able to understand all this, it is useless to seek refuge in unlikely mythicist theories, intended to prove the unprovable: that is to say, the syncretic construction, based on pre-existing mythological models, of the image of a Jew ever existed, the whose existence, however, has not been NEVER denied by the people directly concerned, namely the Jews of the first century and the following centuries, until today ...


Littlejohn S

.

Sheshbazzar

Of course Jews of the first century would not have any reason to deny a mythical person they had never even heard of.

In the following centuries Jews certainly heard a lot about this mythical Jebus the Jewish god ....at the point of gentile swords, telling them what they were allowed to say, and were not allowed to say about it, if they wished to live to see another day.

Today Jews have more freedom to speak their minds.

aa5874

You seem not to underderstand that there are two fundamental arguments.

1. The Gospels have created the 'mythological' Jesus started by the historical one.

2. The Gospels created the 'mythological' Jesus without an historical Jesus.

Now, if you attempt to defend Argument 1 you must present the evidence or credible sources.

It is without any reasonable doubt that accounts of Jesus of Nazareth were created from thin air--invented--made up.

1. The very conception of Jesus was invented.

2. The Baptism with the Holy Ghost Bird was made up.

3. The Temptation with Satan was made up.

4. The miracles where he instantly healed the Sick was made up.

5. The crucifixion was made up.

6. The resurrection was made up.

7. The Great Commision after the resurrection was made up

8. The ascension was made up.

I will argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a Mythological concept until new evidence surfaces.

outhouse

dont bother

I wanted my 5 minutes back

Sheshbazzar

Any such evidence, if and when it surfaces, will most likely only further confirm that the beginnings of Jebus character and tale are totally fictional and mythological.
Jebus, aka 'Iason Kristos' was never more at all than a mythical papyrus person or god.

aa5874

My argument MATCHES the actual present evidence. I do not speculate about unknown, never found sources.

My argumnent is REVIEWED when new evidence is found.

The present evidence support my argument that Jesus was an ancient Mythological concept.

Jesus was a thing

It was born of a Ghost and a virgin.

Jesus was a Mythological concept.

Born of a virgin and a Spirit.

And later

The author of gJohn claimed he was God the Creator.

Simplyme

How does this explains, denying what is not true only to gain knowledge after the fact?

I mean even with this knowledge we can all understand the start of the revolution assocviated with the past tense of what we believe. Mythicist theories can only truly be accepted if syncretic construction is proven to be scientifically objective to the status quo. With this I agree with LittleJohn.

Chi Chi Anoruma
Simplyme