Littlejohn

"...because Jesus had been a disciple of the gnostic teacher (and 'wizard' in turn!) JOHN the BAPTIST..."

Keep it in mind that in addition to the 'wizard' Jesus, John was also master of the well known magicians Dositheus and Simon Magus, both of the first century. Someone even goes on to suggest that even Apollonius of Tyana was among the followers of John the Baptist. (perhaps to cause of the controversy arose between Hièrocles and Eusebius of Caesarea).

The circumstance according to which John was a well known 'wizard' of antiquity, you easily guesses from the 'sacred' writings of the Mandaeans, where it is stated that ".. John performed 'wonderful works' more powerful than those of Jesus.".

All scholars of common sense knows the real meaning of the locution 'wonderful works', partly because the same Simon Magus, according to the heresiologist fathers, also performed 'wonderful works', namely vulgar 'sideshow' tricks and 'illusionistic' exibitions: art in which Jesus of Nazareth particularly excelled, and that made him deserve, on the part of Jewish, the 'sorcerer' attribute! ..

As we all know (regrettably!), the 'wonderful works' which above, were cynically and childishly transformed by the forger evangelists, in 'transcendental' works, of 'divine' origins (sic!!). How one say 'have a face like the ass'!....

Naturally, the Mandaean statement according to which John performed the 'miracles' (ie 'wonderful works') more powerful than those of Jesus, has a mere 'local pride' character, since Jesus, in his day, he was practically unbeatable in this activity. (otherwise hardly he would have gone down in history!)

NOTE: There are, also, other implications about the 'magic' aspect, concerning the figure of John the Baptist, which constitute, in fact, a powerful exegetic 'key'.



Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

Of course, everyone is free to believe what he wants. However, for people who possibly are interested in the subject, I would like to point out that although at the time of Jesus there were TWO places in Palestine called BETHLEHEM (to ask confirm to the rabbinical world or the contiguous one to it), one in Judea and the other in Galilee, neither of these two places was affected by the event of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

ACTUALLY Jesus was born in a cave, but NOT caused by the urgency of the moment, as it appears in the Gospel of James, but by free choice of the Virgin Mary, which, almost certainly, visited the place some time before you give birth to her twins


This cave was located (and still is!) in a place not far from Nazareth, in the west direction. (I have to thank Edgar Cayce for the acquisition of this valuable data since, thanks to his 'suggestion', I was able to do some research about it, finding PUNCTUAL confirmation)



Littlejohn S

.

outhouse

Boloney

we dont have a clue where he was born. There are no reliable sources about a birth from a family who lived a life below common peasants who probably shuffled around Galilee looking to eek out a means of survival

Sheshbazzar

Baloney

We don't have shred of evidence that this particular family ever even existed outside of the NT's preposterous and obviously contrived religious tale.

Littlejohn

"..Paul knew Jesus' closest disciple..."


There is a fundamental error in this observation of Bart Ehrman: error which, to this day, is commonly made NOT only by Ehrman but by all exegetes and scholars of the erudite world, which occupy itself with researches about the origins of Christianity.

The mistake is to believe James, the brother of Jesus (actually half-brother, since were sons of the same mother but of different fathers) (*) a 'disciple' of the Nazarene: NOTHING OF MORE 'WRONG!!!....

In fact, both James than Jesus were disciples at the sect - gnostic school of John the Baptist. When Jesus decided to leave the Baptist to give life to a own sect - almost certainly one that will be defined, by heresiologists fathers of the second century, of the NAHASHIM, or 'Ophites', or Naassenes - his brother James followed NOT him and he remained in the sect of John the Baptist.

Following the violent death of John, and the rapid dispersal of his followers (the 'nasurei': see the Mandaeans), James was elected unanimously, by the followers survivors, who were remained in Jerusalem (**), as heir of John at the driving the new Ebionite sect, which will continue to orbit, like the previous Nasoreans' sect of John, always around the 'home of Jerusalem' ('people's house' for the Jews of the time): in practice the Essene Temple of Jerusalem, the same place where they found the death Zechariah, father of John and James the Just (or 'minor'), half-brother of Jesus, besides heir to the guide that had previously belonged to the Baptist.

_________________________________

(*) - at some patristic documents (see, for example, Eusebius), we find that James was called "Jesus' brother ACCORDING TO THE FLESH". This particular should have allow to the scolars guess the fact that, obviously, not all the brothers of Jesus, thus as indicated by the lists 'evangelical', were brothers 'in the flesh'. In fact, Judas 'Thomas' (ie 'twin') the twin brother of Jesus, just for the fact of being a twin, shared with Jesus both the mother and the father, while James, born from the second marriage of the Virgin Mary, he shared with the two twins ONLY the mother, the Virgin Mary, having been the father the second husband of Mary. The other two brothers of Jesus, namely Simon and 'Joseph' (actually John) were not absolutely the brothers 'in the flesh' of the Nazarene, since they were sons that the second husband of Mary had had by a previous marriage (see also Proto-evangelium of James)

(**) - which shall be also called 'Ebionites' (see ebionite 'church' of Jerusalem)


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

"..while James, born from the second marriage of the Virgin Mary.."


Even from a patristic information it is possible obtain the important datum according to which the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus and his brothers 'in the flesh', has had TWO husbands (and so two marriages), although none of these husbands was the father of the twins Jesus and Judas Thomas.

Naturally, the datum is NOT 'in clear' but 'encrypted' (otherwise it would NEVER come down to us!), and it is necessary to proceed by intuition, based on other data that have however relation with this aspect, in order to understand at what a Mary is actually refered the datum ...

For the record, the coexistence of the Virgin Mary (who was born in 12 BC), with her first husband(*), lasted almost certainly less than a year, and then the very young Mary, at that time a 15 year old or little more, fled with a mature lover(**), of which she was madly fall in love. For this reason the Jews, his contemporaries, called she STADAH: a contraction of the Hebrew phrase 'Statah dah', which means, "one who has left" (of course the husband!). With that love elopement, you laid the basis for the birth, in the second century of our era, of the cult 'catho-christian' ...

______________________________________

(*) - a young and very rich man: other that the poor and elderly 'Joseph' of the Gospels, which was, in fact, the FATHER of the Virgin Mary and so the very rich maternal GRANDFATHER of Jesus and his brothers!

(**) - see in the 'Sure' of the Qur'an.


Littlejohn S

.

Sheshbazzar

Can you provide the credible 1st century documents and sources that will persuade aa5874 of the veracity of all this?

Littlejohn

I tried a thousand times to make it clear that THERE ARE NOT currently, anywhere in the world (except in the Vatican!), books that tell, 'word for word', how things went about 20 centuries ago.

Of these books are existed exemplary (see Celsus, Porphyry, Hièrocles, Julian, etc..) until about the middle of the fourth century or a little more, then the satanic and murderous fury of the Catholic hierarchy of the time, they gave disposal to their 'pasdarans' to destroy everything that might appear compromising for their hallucinating 'castle' of lies and deceits, through which the catho-christianity was founded.

What remains of these books are 'crumbs' (fragments) of data, 'diluted' in a large number of texts, and often in cryptic form: what, this, that fatally pushes the researcher to experience, from time to time, various 'reading keys', until new data arrive copious.

Assembling data with some logic and with sufficient sensitivity and intuition, making, where necessary, even use of the 'apodictic' method, you can reconstruct the first pieces of virtual 'mosaic', which represents the origins of Christianity. The greater are the 'tiles' of this mosaic (ie, the data required for the various reconstructions), more the various parts of the mosaic become clear. When this process is extended to at least 70% of the virtual mosaic, the truth about almost all aspects becomes easy to understand, thanks also to the various findings that can be found in the extra-christian literature.

Now, in your opinion, what should I do? ... Provide you the 'coordinates' of each individual datum collected? .. Whilst it may be that I did it, to what a thing it might to be useful to you?..., since you prove to be not able to 'agglomerate' such data in a way not only rational, but also adhering to the truth that slowly one ends to guess! ...

It is from a 'life' that I say that Jesus was married and that John Mark and Joseph Barnabas (both migrated to Gaul with his mother Mary Salome of Magdala) were his two sons, and now, as it happens, jumps out a papyrus which leaves it clear that Jesus had a wife! No one has suggested it to me, as it was the result of my intensive research and subsequent reconstructions

I repeat once again that NO ONE forces you to believe what I'm posting, nor I have ever claimed it. The purpose why I continue to post, in spite of everything, lies in my desire to show, for those interested, that in addition to the classical pathway of research (namely the one fraudulently prepared by the forger fathers of the origins, to deceive 'the poor in spirit '), there is another path, pratically unexplored, which runs almost parallel to the first, and is the ONLY PATH which can lead to historical truth. 'Playing around' with improbable and absurd even mythicist theories, you DO NOT goes anywhere! ...


Littlejohn S

.

Sheshbazzar

Many theories are about Jesus' alleged life have been presented in this Forum.
Yours is only one of many.
The question is, how credible and how persuasive -to others here- is your particular 'reconstruction'.

If you post thousands of tidbits lifted from hundreds of (often dishonest) obscure and unidentified religious writings, sticking them together into a 'mosaic' that is apparent only to yourself, you may well only be 'beating against the air'.
Ten words that are evidenced and persuasive, outweigh ten thousand words that in the end, end up changing no one else's views.

If you can persuade such as aa5874 that your version of Jesus' life is a valid and credible reconstruction, many others would come to accept your tale.

I won't call for a vote among the readers of this thread, however I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it rated near a flat zero acceptance as being any 'credible history'.

I love you man, but your convoluted tale is completely failing to persuade me of its historical accuracy or its truthfulness.
I don't believe the accounts given by your sources. Why then should I believe or be persuaded by an imaginative tale constructed by extracting and rearranging tiny pieces of lies extracted from these untrustworthy sources?

.

outhouse

dont think it can be done

the ignore function works