Littlejohn

The Ratzinger's confession: THE POPE KNOWS IT!

For those who understand Italian language or that however know how to read it:

in the WEB page http://www.facebook.com/nazzariog#!/...3?notif_t=like there is a note relative about an aspect of the new book written by Pope Rtzinger about Jesus of Nazareth. It's an aspect that has raised some doubts both in journalism environment, both in the various discussion forums. Hence my desire to write a specific note that, I believe, will not fail to arouse some interest in those who, like me, they are fully convinced of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

As soon as I possibly can, I intend to translate it into English and publish it in this forum also


Greetings


Littlejohn

Littlejohn

.

Always for those who know Italian, I also suggest to visit the following web page:

http://www.deiricchi.it/index.php?docnum=683


Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

From an article of Marco Politi (well known Italian journalist):

Starting from the 65, year of his return to Palestine after having been absent for about 14 years, the life of Jesus radically changed. By preacher (gnostic) sufficiently mild and extrovert, he became first a gang-leader, who, with a small army of about 850 armed young galileans, does run in the area between Tolemais, the west-coast of the Sea of ​​Galilee and north Samaria(*), looting isolated farms (see the description by Josephus) and, subsequently, in a chief-rebel, being jointed, around the 67 year, at the war-front on the part of the anti-Roman rebellion (Jewish War of 66-70), probably because pushed by 'hot' recommendation of the historian Josephus, at the time governor of Galilee on mandated by the revolutionary committee of Jerusalem.

What can one 'advise' to the journalists like Marco Politi? .. well, for example, that when you 'navigate' in the sea of the total misunderstanding of the historical facts of which you would like to occupy to the bitter end, it would be more prudent to remain silent, otherwise one is entitled to think that what the journalist says is due to pure bad faith ...

____________________

Note:

(*) - see the passage of the gospels in which is quoted the story of the samaritan village, on which the 'disciples' of Jesus wanted to do fall down fire from 'sky': an 'evangelical' euphemism for to say 'put it on fire and iron'! ..(an italian locution meaning 'destruction')


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Dear Fred, regardless what he wrote Karlheinz Deschner, who I respect very much, I can assure you that Jesus of Nazareth was a really historical character. If anything it is the so-called 'Jesus of faith, derived 'ad-hoc' from the historical one, that never existed, given the hallucinating manipulation and distortion of its actual historical profile!

As it may seem implausible, however, to the high clergy of the 'holy dome' it goes to them advantage that in the network one discusses on a Jesus never existed, that of an absolutely historical Jesus, but with features and roles almost totally differents from those taught by the Catholic magisterium!.. This is because the clergy is well aware that the theory of non-historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth is rejected by virtually all of the fideistic catholic 'audience', since such an argument does not find any support by the official scholarship, which has always 'snubbed' such a theory, on account of its extreme improbability.

On the contrary, those who are absolutely convinced of the historical existence of Jesus, they go inevitably to 'dig' into clerical 'garden', in order to research for data and convincing evidence, with the very concrete risk of bringing to light 'skeletons' that the clergy thought they were now buried forever in the 'sand' of the history and of Palestinian and Egyptian deserts ...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Sheshbazzar

Hello again Littlejohn

I doubt that your 'Dear Fred' letter succeeded in 'assuring' Fred of the accuracy or veracity of anything that you said.
We, I and you, were previously discussing your utter lack of providing any contemporary evidence for your many claims, assertions, and 'assurances' in a previous thread.
Do you remember? I do.

In a thread that -you- initiated, I recall that I asked you something like this....repeatedly.

Of course, we both know that wasn't the end of our corespondence, as your answers were not forthcoming.
I caught up with you in this -THREAD- and continued our nice little exchange;

On 11/14/10On 11/14/10
And now it is 3/15/11, and you are still asserting and 'assuring' without providing any contemporary evidences, and not even whatever 'sources' you derive your assertions and claims from.
I assure you, that practice -is not- persuasive, convincing, nor assuring.

Above, and previously, I have posed you with TWO -2- quite simple questions, I'll repeat them here.

"Littlejohn, where does your information that 6 AD was 'the true year of Jesus birth' come from?
All of these other Biblical scholars and researchers have discussed all of the known relevant materials extensively, and yet have reached no such consensus or certainty.
In light of this fact, the natural question would be, what is it that makes you so certain of your date?

1. Do you claim to have books and sources that are -unavailable- to these other Biblical scholars and researchers?

Can you identify the location of, the names of, and means of access to these 'unavailable' references, so that other Biblical scholars and researchers may also examine them to confirm your findings?

NOTE. I am NOT asking you to reveal any of them here. (knowing how paranoid you are about the possibility of anyone 'stealing' your 'research')
Only to make a statement as to whether they are available to other Biblical scholars and researchers, OR are unavailable to other Biblical scholars and researchers.

Of course upon the publication of your proposed book, they should be revealed and properly referenced therein.

Or

2. Is it your claim that you are the only one who has been able to correctly interpret the contents of these books and sources that presently -are available- to most other dedicated Biblical scholars and researchers?

Honestly Littlejohn, I am not asking you these questions to mock you, or to 'persecute' you.
I am trying to get across to you the necessity of, and the advantages of submitting your 'evidence' to open discussion and critical peer reviews before efforts at publication, only to have these gaping holes in your methodology pointed out, and your efforts be rejected and ignored by those serious well-known historical researchers that would collaborate and confirm your positions.

No matter how learned and perceptive you think you are, the success of your endeavor lays with its ability to persuade expert scholarship.
Lacking that, no matter how accurate your claims may actually be, your few books would end up being ignored by the scholars and relegated to the back-shelves of a few second-hand bookstores.
Hell man, old bookstores dispose of hundreds of thousands of these types of vanity-published books every year.
Do yourself a favor. Take just one of your claims and fully document every source, and the provenance, integrity, validity, and value of each source in a manner that will stand up to the most intense investigation by critical scholarship.
Bald assertions won't cut it in the field of modern critical scholarship, -everyone has opinions- they are like bellybuttons-
What you need to provide to make any lasting impression, is fully provenanced, irrefutable proofs that the statements that you are making are both the correct, and the only possible conclusion.
Two questions Littlejohn, you can choose to answer them now, or you can answer them latter under more critical circumstance.
Or you can continue to avoid, ignore and never answer them, under the accompanying penalty that you will have permanently compromised the integrity and value of all your work.



.

Littlejohn

Ah!.... Here we go again!

I have posted several messages on this board, where it is clear that belief in non-historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is the most absurd and anachronistic thing you can imagine!

Soon I will translate a new message that I already posted in an Italian forum. However, I think it will do little good if the deniers like you will continue to remain 'clinging' to their absurd negationistic dogma...


Greetings


Littlejohn


PS: Please think carefully about this:

if indeed the figure of Jesus had been built from nothing, 'on table', then only a fool would could imagine it so full of disquieting shadows, which let to glimpse even the profile of a pedophile, with a mother in the 'odor of prostitution' (as in reality it was, since the attribute Magdalene, applied to the mother of Jesus, had the sense of 'prostitute' for the contemporary Jews of Jesus!)

.

Littlejohn

«..Littlejohn, where does your information that 6 AD was 'the true year of Jesus birth' come from? ..»

This we also know the cats of the 'Vicolo Miracoli'! ..(the name of a little street in Venice)

The year of the Census wanted by emperor Octavianus Augustus, was the 37° year (see Josephus) starting from the Battle of Actium, between the army of Octavianus and the one of Mark Antony-Cleopatra. The roman date of that battle was the 722 AUC. Adding to that date the number 37, you get to the 759 AUC, corresponding to 6 AD. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, confirms such a date, calling into cause the same Josephus, for what regards the date of the Census of Octavian. Luke, in his Gospel, tells us that Jesus was born during the Census over said.

The Nativity reported by Matthew, with implied the date of birth of Jesus (before the death of Herod the Great, which took place around 4 BC), is a MIND-BLOWING false history, because the mother of Jesus was born around 12 BC, and at that date her don't could be neither pregnant and nor giving birth! ..


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

This is totally false!!... I NEVER made ​​such a statement!..

The books that I consulted are the ones same available today to the worldwide erudition!

Because of the 'fierce' censorship to which were subjected all the texts useful to the historical researches, and transmitted until us, today you can only retrieve data 'scattered' here and there by those books: data escaped, for the more various reasons, to the censorship by the christian scribes. These data are very 'diluted' in the texts that contain them, because if they had been 'concentrated', these texts would never come down to us: it is this a thing that a small schoolboy of the elementary school would be able to understand! ..

Needless to say, in view of that, that without the invaluable support of computers, the search for such informations would have been virtually impossible, and this is the main reason why researchers of the past years and centuries, which did not possess the extraordinary technological resources, available today to all researchers, have failed miserably in the quest for historical truth, about the real dynamic that led to the birth of the catholic-christianity.

However, you must add that very often not enough to simply retrieve of the data, since to assemble them correctly, is absolutely essential to have a certain degree of intuition and 'exegetical' sensitivity, in order to compare the data collected with the indications scattered throughout the various texts of different nature (Christians, Gnostics, Pagans, Manichaean, Jewish, Arab, Mandaeans, etc.).. To resolve certain issues, it is even necessary to know sufficiently the story connected to the figure of Alexander the Great and the one immediately subsequent to him ...


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Sheshbazzar

Given all of the above, even if factual, that still provides nothing at all to provide proof of any particular child being born in that year.

Outside of the 'imaginative' Gospel tales their is NO contemporary accounts or evidences at all of this alleged 'birth'.

Josephus may confirm the date of the Census, but that is not any proof for the 'birth' of a child that he never even mentions.

Eusebius was inventing an Ecclesiastical History, one especially contrived for the purpose of legitimatizing the claims of orthodox church. Much of it being entirely bogus and fabricated, and again, having NO provenance anywhere outside of Eusebius's claims.

Eusebius's life (AD 263–339) was over Two and one half centuries after these alleged events, he himself was a witness to absolutely none of it. None of the people he quoted were even first hand witness to these claimed events.

What ever that is supposed to mean.
Luke in his 'Gospel' also tells us that 'the angel Gabriel was sent from God'.... 'and said 'blah-blah-blah de blah-blah'
Is that a fact?

Luke also tells us exact word for word conversations between Zechariah and an Angel, between Mary and Elisabeth....
How old do you think the Apostle Luke was when he recorded these 'conversations' that took place in the year one?
Any idea of where Luke was hiding to be so conveniently be privy to any of these private conversations?
Like the one that took place way up 'on the pinnacle of the Temple?
Take 'em away and you don't have any 'Gospel' of Luke.

Luke also latter tells you "the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." is that a fact? How do YOU know?
Ohhh.. that's right, it was 'Luke' that told you.

Luke also tells you, (after a whole lot of made up baloney in between) "he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." Oh Really?
You may believe and accept 'Luke's' account. I do not. Luke's credibility as being a witness to anything at all is self-impeached and utterly untrustworthy.
Even flakier and more preposterous than Luke's and all of the same set of mythology Sorry Johnny boy, Luke's 'history' is just as MIND-BLOWING false as Matthews. I don't buy any of it, including your Mariolatry.

Why don't you just give us the true history of Pinocchio?

Sheshbazzar

No Littlejohn, it is not false because it is not a statement, it is a question and it is integral with the context in which it was asked.