Littlejohn

..always "Cheap Revisionism" by Littlejohn...

The "christians" word was exactly applicable to the "moschahim" rebels (from "moschah", Messiah/Christos, ->" moschahim " = christianoi = christians), either Jewish that Galileans. Ergo, the christians quoted by Tacitus, into originally passage written by him (before "pious" forger hands made a change), others were not that Jewish rebels "moschaim", hated by the Romans (and by the establishment of Jewish power) to cause their frequent acts of revolt and indiscriminate killings, even of Roman soldiers (which is why Tacitus spoke with resentment about them!). The "moschaim" (christians) that Nero did probably to kill by very cruel means, others were not that accomplices that support Simon Peter in an attempt of killing Simon Magus.

The same Peter was atrociously tortured (evidently in order to make him reveal the names of its sending Romans, to be found among the rich Roman senatorial nobility), before being crucified upside down. The fact of torture of Peter is hardly mentioned by the "fathers" of the church, although apparently they pretend to relate to another Simon (or Shimeon)

Quite another thing were the "chrestianoi" (chrestians), cited by the fathers of the church, who complained (the craftydevils!) that the pagans called thus the followers of the Catholic-Christian religion! (*) They were not others that the followers of Jesus "o Chrestos" (Jesus of Nazareth), who have not had anything to do with the "christians" (Galilean-Jewish rebels, known as "zealots" also) of the time of Nero. The "christians" persecuted by Paul/Saul, some tens of years after the Pilate's period, others were not that zealot rebels "moschahim".


________________________

Note:

(*) - Since the "founder" fathers had chosen Jesus of Nazareth as the main figure of their charismatic Catholic-Christian worship, and as the Romans knew that Jesus was called "o Chrestos" (or Chrestus in latin), was normal for them to call his followers "chrestians".


Littlejohn
________________________________________

All of the material posted by Littlejohn, or with other nicknames traceable to him, must be considered in all respects copyright®.
.

Littlejohn

"If the Jesus one had been a true story, if He had been truly
the Son of God incarnate, then the history of the Church
would have been completely different, nor we would have
had a clergy like that the history has recorded, attached
to material goods more any secular and more than any king."


As Jesus of Nazareth was never crucified, nor died in the time of Pilate, as indicated by Irenaeus, who puts the death of Jesus at the time of Claudius (though indeed what happened in the time of Vespasian), it is clear that what we read today in the Annals of Tacitus concerning Jesus (more precisely, "Christ") it is the result of a gross falsification even laughable also.

Jesus had reached 66 years when it was put to death by stoning by the Jews, being he born in 6 AD. In a cryptic passage in rabbinic literature, we learn that "Balaam had reached HALF OF HIS YEARS, ie 33(*), when he was killed by Pinehas". The purpose of the rabbis, namely to maintain the data without arousing the suspicions of the Catholic inquisitors, was successfully achieved, since even today no scholar has been able to decrypt the information, even if all or almost of them agree to recognize in Balaam the same Jesus and in "Pinehas" (a real biblical character) an alias for Pilate. Yet in Irenaeus is also found, indeed, that Jesus reached old age.

Obviously, the juxtaposition of the number 33 to Pinehas (Pilate) it refers to what appears in the Gospels about the years that Jesus would have reached when Pilate, according to the canonical Gospels, did he crucify. However, the complex of the Talmudic passage (Balaam, which would have reached the "half" of his years, that is, 33) allows us to understand, in reading everything with a minimum of "grani salis", that this data, namely that given by the canonical Gospels on age attained by Jesus, is FALSE, since the actual age attained by Balaam/Jesus was 2x33 (being 33 the half ofBalaam's years). There is another way to arrive at number 66, for the years achieved by Jesus when it was executed, and that is exactly what I had followed, before encountering talmudic data.

Another important data, that is obtained from the passage above, is related to adjective "bloody", which in that passage is accompanied at the figure of Balaam. The Bible does not appear that Balaam was a bloodthirsty individual, because he was a famous magician fortune-teller for his words and his prayers to the gods. So it is clear that this adjective was just reported for Jesus. It is probable, therefore, that this picture concerning Jesus, that the Jewish populace of the diaspora had kept in the collective memory, was related to the period (relatively short) in which he held the role of ringleader, between 66 and 68, or the period in which he played the role of chief-rebel, between 68 and 70. This role was by Jesus played almost exclusively in the Jerusalem besieged by Titus' legions.

It is almost certain that one of the many prominent personalities mentioned by Josephus, in the context of Jerusalem under siege, it was Jesus of Nazareth. It is the case only to do accurate research for trying be identified, bearing in mind that he does not dead contextually with the fall of Jerusalem, as he managed to flee from the city shortly before it was conquered by the soldiers of Titus. A couple of years later, probably in the city of Tiberias, he was arrested. Led in Lydda, he was tried by the Sanhedrin, who condemned him to death. Then he was executed by stoning in the town of Lydda, or in the close vicinity. (in a plot of land in which there was a "gol-gath-tah", namely a little well for olives' mill: in hebraic "gath-shemen")

____________________________

Note:

(*) - The construction of this cryptic passage (without arouse the suspicion that everything was referring to Jesus of Nazareth), it was possible to the rabbis for the fact that into Bible there is really a passage which says that evil-men do not reach the half of their years. The 33 years falsely indicated by the New Testament literature, representing exactly half of the years (66) joined by Balaam/Jesus.


Littlejohn
___________________

All of the material posted by Littlejohn, or with other nicknames traceable to him, must be considered in all respects copyright®
.

mountainman

The sources of CHRESTOS and CHRISTOS in Antiquity (DRAFT collation)

Littlejohn

from: http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...20christos.htm

The "Jesus Christ" character, as we know it today, is merely the result of the syncretistic overlap (operated by the counterfeiter founding fathers of the Christianity Catholic worship) of TWO distinct characters: Jesus of Nazareth, said "or Chrestos" (ie "Good", reported in the canonical Gospels as "Good Teacher") and John of Gamla, self-styled Messiah/Christos, made by the Romans to crucify at the times of P. Pilate. It is therefore clear that the term "Christos" (Unctus "in latin) is consistent with the current figure of Jesus Christos proposed by Catholic clergy, but it is not at all with the historical Jesus of Nazareth, who was not only indicated as Chrestos and not as Christos, but it was not even crucified! (died stoned by the Jews) (*)

The term "good" (Chrestos) with which Jesus was indicated by his contemporary Romans and Greeks, had no close relation with its peculiarities moral (not always positive) but rather with its theological choices. Ergo, the term "Chrestes" may, in a certain sense, to refer to Jesus, taking into account, however, that it stands for "priest" (see Theosophical Glossary of E.P. Blavastky) and not for good: a concept which involves an entirely different thing that "priest" (at least for what it regarded Jesus)

______________________

Note:

(*) - to be accurate, you must say that, most likely, towards the last of his life (between 68 and 70) Jesus was actually called "moschah (Christos) from the Jerusalem's populace, possibly on the occasion of his triumphal entry into town, as mentioned, although in mystified form, by the present canonical Gospels, which are quite reticent on the real causes that trigger the euphoria of Jerusalem's inhabitants that acclaimed Jesus. Just for this reason that Origen said, in absolute contrary to the insipid "Testimonium Flavianum", that Josephus NOT believe that Jesus was the Messiah (moschah). It is therefore obvious that if Joseph said not to believe that Jesus had been the Messiah, it means that someone this affirmed and this someone cann't have been others that the Jerusalem's crowd, in delirium for the arrival of Jesus into Jerusalem to the head of his 600 young armed Galileans: because of what it was , although the canonical Gospels do not say it! The arrival of Jesus and his men, helped to exorcise, at least temporarily, the terror that the inhabitants of Jerusalem tried for the approach, inexorable and threatening, of Titus' army to the walls of the city.


Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

Sorry, someone can explain me what does it means?.... (is 'to priest" a verb?... or one must to intend 'Midian' as merely a person's name?... )(*)


Tanks

_______________________

(*) - From Wikipedia:

"...Midian was a land bordered by the Arabah between Moab and Elat and by the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea. Its East had no borders."


Litllejohn
.

Littlejohn

deafening silence ...


.

Toto

It always helps to give your source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenite

The phrase does not make any sense. You might need to ask Wikipedia.

eta: you can check the discussion page - this is an error that has not been fixed.:

Littlejohn

"..The phrase does not make any sense. "

Yes, I had imagined that. However I needed the confirmation ...

Thanks you.

It may seem marginal and everything unimportant also. But for me it's very important and I hope in the next future to explain why.

For the moment, I can just to anticipate that, almost certainly, the statement "Gospel of cainites", given by certain fathers of the church to the Gospel of Judas, there implying that "cainites" term was referring at the negative biblical character called Cain, to have been an insipid attempt to denigrate the sect that made use of that gospel, as the real reference was to the ancient tribe of the "kenites/kainites", and NOT to the biblical figure of Cain!

In practice, though with appropriate "distinction", one can say that the word "cainites", used by counterfeiter fathers about 19 centuries ago, was synonymous with "Naassenes/Ophites", being the latter term the greek rendering of the Jewish 'nahashim': literally "snakes". This makes us understand that the denigration of the followers of the sect one was born in Judea, because the orthodox Jews hated that sect, as well as they hated the Jerusalem's ebionites, led by James the Just, which belonged to the same root of "Nahashim/Ophites" of Phrygia.


Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

"... The two most surprise factors of the scrolls is that it did not contain anything which was claimed in the Gospels"

Your relief is a very interesting, Joseph.

All this could be known to scholars before they began their studies on the scrolls. The same history of studies on the origins of Christianity and the historical Jesus, might have been different if one had taken seriously in consideration the possibility to investigate the true origin of the term "Nazarene" (notzri-notzrim in Hebrew and not "nazarite"). It would have been able to discover things really amazing, not only for what concerns the study on the origins of Christianity, but also to that of the origins of Judaism, as a natural consequence of the first study. This is precisely what has happened to me.

Still, one might have discovered why into Catholic religion are still present so many elements "paganeggianti" (relative to paganism), absolutely NOT in conflict with the true historical Jesus of Nazareth!...

The scholars of Qumran could know, even before starting their studies or shortly after the start, when they began to realize that these writings were produced by a community faithful to Orthodox Judaism (*), that between nazarene world and that of the Jewish observants of Qumran NOT there could be any link, since the "notzrim" were in absolute contrast with the world of Orthodox Judaism!

The Nazarenes, in fact, did not join to the monotheistic reform of Josiah and remained faithful to the primitive Judaism, linked to the figure of Moses (an Egyptian and NOT a hebrew), essentially polytheistic. From this refusal stemmed, almost certainly, retaliation and persecution from part byreligious-political power in Jerusalem, which led the community that will be later called "of the notzrim, leaving Judea and the surrounding areas in which they were allocated for centuries (namely, that of the "Beny-Yah-Min" or Benjamites) and repaired in part beyond the Jordan and in part to north-west, around the Mount Caramel, then under the control of the Phoenician polytheists.

Judaism of the temple instead (at the times of Jesus) and that of the inhabitants of Qumran, were JUDAISM, namely the product of heavy reform of the original hebraism, worked by King Josiah and the religious caste of the high priest Helkya, which transformed the original Judaism in a strict monotheism, by consequent destruction of all religious parallel worships, which until then had lived in Palestine.

Archetype of this reform was that impressed by the Pharaoh Akhenaten and the religious caste of Aton (**) versus to existing Egyptian polytheism. About 10 centuries after the reform of Josiah-Helkya, the example was followed, in the Roman Empire, by Constantine the "Great" (great for the Catholic clergy, of course!). The "high priest" of the moment was Pope Sylvester, worthy "sidekick" of Constantine (as it was for Josiah the high priest Helkya).


_______________________

Notes:

(*) - even if in conflict with the authorities who officially managed such a cult: ie. the religious authorities of the temple of Jerusalem. From this contrast, which also took moments of bloody violence, as it is clear from the same rabbinic writings, part of the clergy of the temple separated in protesting and retired in various places. One of these places was just the site of Qumran. In all likelihood, it was already inhabited by a community of earlier essene monks, with whom the "separates" of the temple joined, giving rise to a community that will be known as that of the Essenes-ossaeanes (by "ossim", Hebrew word for "scrupulous observants" of the Law). Later, during the first century AD, to this community also joined the messianic zealot rebels, whom found in this essene-ossim community, the perfect humus for their irredentist struggle against the "sacrilegious" Roman (the "Kittim"). They, then, will transform the site of Qumran in a real headquarters, where it was planned the armed revolt against the Romans. The so-called "Scroll of Copper" is an extensive testimony.

(**) - To note that just starting by that time, it will start to appear, in the liturgical context of the new hebraism (ie. the reformed one), the rhetoric figure of Aton or Aton-ai (into Jewish texts it figures as "Adon-ai", but it is fully equivalent to "Aton-ai", as in the Semitic languages the letter "t" was perfectly exchangeable with the letter "d", the word without changing the meaning). The analysis of this aspect, could lead very far in the biblic exegesis. Among other things, that also should be noted it is that in the West Semitic (Ugarit), Ba'al Adon (Ba'al being for "Lord"), was an important deity of this social context. It is therefore very likely that Adon, ie. the "Lord Adon", has easy finished with to acquire the concept of "Lord", a synonym for God. Hence, the smart operation of the Jewish "reformists", namely the one of pretending that Aton-ai (ie. Adonaned-ai) simply meansed "My Lord", thus making lose the traces of the original meaning.


Littlejohn

________________________________________

All of the material posted by Littlejohn, or with other nicknames traceable to him, must be considered in all respects copyright®.
.

spin

A person from where you live is called a Reatino. One word for "crime" in Italian is "reato" from which "reatino" is a diminutive. This must obviously be because Rieti is the center of the Mafia laziale. Cazzate pseudo-linguistiche sono sempre cazzate, no?


spin