Littlejohn

Totally agree! ..

Even if Jesus of Nazareth has been a really historical character, however the one described in the Gospels and in New Testament, in general, it is as if never existed, because he is totally different from that storic!..


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

The true link between Jesus and David..

This is an serious exegetical mistake to believe Jesus of Nazareth as the result of a total construction 'syncretic-fictional' mythologically based. It represents a real gift given to current church leaders and, in general, at all the clerical world, since, potentially at least, this would result in waiver to 'dig' in depth in the 'garden' of the Catholic Church, in searching of embarrassing buried 'skeletons'.

In principle, we can say that the Jesus 'marketed' by the forger catholic-christian 'milieu' many centuries ago, has never existed, but this does not mean that Jesus of Nazareth was not really a historical character!

His real name was not Jesus (from the greek-ionic 'Iesous'), and not even the hebraic 'Yehoshuah', as they still try to persuade we the clerical exponents of all levels. In fact, almost certainly his anagraphic name (registred) was YESHAY, transliterated in western languages with Jesse, the name of the mythical father of David: the only thing that the alleged Messiah Jesus has had really in common with David ... (well other from the davidic lineage!)


Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Toto

This book does not appear to be available in English. The Italian title is "Jesu Christo non e mai esistito (or via: amazon.co.uk)" (in Italian) first published in 1905. It shows up in lists of early mythicist scholars.

spin

Utter rubbish.

1. Yeshua and Yeshay are from two different sources. And there is no reason to overlook the fact. Joshua is represented in Greek (LXX) as Ιησους, while Jesse is given as Ιεσσαι.
2. The name Ιησους had existed in Greek for a few centuries before the time when Jesus is reputed to have lived and we only have Greek texts to tell us about Jesus, so there is no way to go beyond Ιησους other than through wishful thinking.

spin

mountainman

I am not referring to "Divine Power" but "Political and Military Power".

You are effectively attempting to argue in the face of historical evidence to the contrary that nobody can possess absolute (political and military) power. That the existence of warlords and military supremacists, malevolent despots and political tyrannies are theoretically impossible. Needless to say, its probably been a while since you read Gibbon's "Rise and Fall". Roman Emperor and "Absolute Power"


During the period generally assumed to contain the evidence and story of "Christian Origins" the Roman Empire was ruled by an absolute power vested in the Roman Emperor (or Emperors). Hence this fraom Gibbon ...

Doug Shaver

I have seen no such evidence.

I never said that.

I never have read all of it. Your quotation from it does not constitute what I regard as evidence contrary to my assertion.

show_no_mercy

Not this garbage again.

You were utterly lost in that other thread that you tried to peddle this stuff in. You were unable to render the Aramaic ישע into Koine Greek. Instead, you appealed to Jerome's Latin for some reason, further cementing your abject confusion about the subject matter.

mountainman

But you have also already admitted you have not digested Gibbon in full. Did Hitler have an "absolute power" in Germany? Did Mao have an absolute power in China? Did the Indian King Ashoka hold an absolure power over his 3rd century BCE empire? Did Ardashir have an absolute power in 3rd century Persia? Did any of the Roman emperors hold an absolute power in the Roman Empire? Did Constantine have an absolute power in 4th century Roman Empire? Just what evidence have you examined in an attempt to address this question?

But surely the history of the rise of this class of tyrants in all ages, not just the epoch commonly ascribed to "Christian Origins" (ie: the 1st 4 centuries) represents concrete evidence in support of the assertion that certain parties assumed (albeit temporarily) with the services of military victory and suppression, the position of an absolute power.

Are you looking at "absolute power" as a philosopher or an historian? It seems to me you are unconcerned with the historical evidence, and very much concerned with a more philosophical view of politics and military supremacy - one which ameliorates the historical political and military realities with a philosophy of an unconcerned bystander.

Doug Shaver

You quoted him, and I assume you used the best quote you could find.

You already have my answer. I said nobody has ever had absolute power. I meant what I said. Nobody. Ever.

I've read a fair amount of history, and I have paid some attention to human nature during my lifetime.

As a philosopher-in-training, as an amateur historian, and as a formerly professional journalist.

mountainman

We can stop right here.


The notion of evidence has different meanings for philosophers, journalists and historians. The notion of evidence for the appearance of various degrees of absolute (military and political) power are not the same in each of these fields. Warlords and malevolent despots have been known to have executed philosophers, journalists and historians without a second thought, but this is not evidence of absolute power - especially to the philosopher. The evidence that I can cite in defence of this statement is a careful reading of Ben Perry's translation of Life of Secundus the Philosopher.

By various degrees of "absolute power" I refer to the various degrees of the power someone has over the apparent life and death of other people, such as the power held by a select few during the Church Inquisitions, to provide yet another historical example.

Moreover your answer seems to be at odds with ACTON's ...

"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases.

Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.