Jesus was a communist

[ALB]

Marcos wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

During the biblical time that city did not exist, it was a cemetery, there was a religious sect known as the Nazarenes. Wikipedia is written by peoples who support the mythology of Jesus and they are based on The Bible. The city is not mentioned in the Old Testament and the Talmud, and Josephus does not mention it either.  This is the real history of the city of Nazareth, and Jesus was not born in Israel or Palestine, the mythology comes from Egypt, and he never walked on the city and places mentioned in the Greek writings. The city is not mentioned on the Masoretichttp://ateismoparacristianos.blogspot.com/2010/06/la-ciudad-de-nazaret-no-existia-en-el.html. ( insert it on a digital translator ) http://ateismoparacristianos.blogspot.com/2010/07/las-falsas-evidencias-arqueologicas-de.html.   ( insert it in a digital translator, the city was interpolated in the NT )

It's been known for over a 100 years that there was a problem about Jesus "of Nazareth". Recent research would seem to confirm this:From the blurb about this book:

Quote:

The Myth Of Nazareth presents convincing archaeological evidence that the town of Nazareth was not settled until after the First Jewish War, around 70 CE. Exhaustive reconsideration of ALL artifacts from present-day Nazareth shows that the site was not inhabited at the time Jesus of Nazareth and his family are supposed to have been living there. In this book researcher René Salm proves that a core element of the Jesus story was an invention of the evangelists who wrote their gospels towards the end of the first century CE — as it turns out, at the same time the village of Nazareth was coming into being. Requiring eight years of painstaking research, The Myth Of Nazareth surveys the archaeological record of the Nazareth basin from the Stone Age until modern times. It guides the reader through a stunning odyssey of discovery — one which exposes not only the true history of the site but also a scandalous history of evidentiary suppression reaching back into Early Christian Times. The here-established fact that Nazareth is a literary invention puts Jesus of Nazareth in the same class as the Wizard of Oz and implies that Jesus too is a literary invention. Coming shortly after the claim of Israeli archaeologist Aviram Oshri that Bethlehem in Judea also was uninhabited at the time Jesus is supposed to have been born there, Salm's research seems to be delivering a one-two knockout punch to the character known as The Historical Jesus.

[roman]

Marcos wrote:

The real Nazarenes were the Essenians. They were mentioned by Josephus, and the Rosicrucians, they are not mentioned in the Bible because they were enemies of the Sanhedrin, and Paul was a Pharisee educated by Gamaliel,He was the person who introduced the concept of resurrection, ( the others members of the religious sects believed in the reincarnation like the Essenians ) and he was not the person presented in the New Testament, he was one the biggest liar and crook who has ever  existed in the religious world,  He was not a Hebrew, he was a Syrian, converted to Judaism( proselyte ). he was part of the Herodian family, and Herodian Prince, and he was decapitated ( like a Roman )  because he was one of the participants of the burning of RomeChristianity should be called Paulism, although he did not write many of the so-called epistles. The question is how the so called Peter won the prize instead of Paul ? The mythological Peter made more miracles than Paul, it was needed by the Catholic to create its oligarchy. With the emerge of Paulism and Catholicism the old working class movement known as Christianity died and it became the religion of the Roman slave masters and the religion of the Feudalists and the land owners

Really? Where did Josephus mention the Nazareans with the Esseans (Philo didn't either)? Where did he even mention the Nazareans? Also why is the term "Nazareans" used as synonemous for christians everywhere we find it? (I take it you're channeling Robert Eisenman here … but you do know that his idea has been rejected by scholarship almost entirely, due to the lack of evidence and evidence pointing the other direction right?)What you're talking about is Epiphanus in the fourth century, who was probably confusing sources; since the many of the "Jewish" Christians (later the Ebionites and Nazareans) did come from Essene backgrounds, which makes sense since John was likely associated with the Essenes. But the Essenes didn't exist when Epiphanus was writing and hadn't existed for centuries.The Sanhedrin wasn't Pharisaic, it was run mostly be Suduccees, Paul being a Pharisee doesn't make him anti-Essene, or pro-Sanhedrin, and the reason the Essenes wern't mentioned in the NT is because they wern't a group that was opposing Jesus.Paul didn't introduce the concept of ressurection, ressurection was in Judaism for centuries (see NT Wrights work on the ressurection), and only SOME of the essenes believed in reincarnation, look at the DDS, many believed in traditional pharisaic ressurection; Also Paul recieved his doctrine (at least the basis for it) from the apostles.Being a Syrian doesn't make you a proselyte, he was a Jew from birth, but nontheless, there is no evidence that he was a Syrian, he was from Tarsus in Cilica. Again you're channeling Robert Eisenmann with the Herodian stuff, really all you have here is conspiracy speculation, reading things INTO Josephus that aren't there (Josephus doesn't talk about Paul), and reading into Romans 16:11 something that isn't there (herodiowna is a personal name), and ignoring the rest of the evidence.I suggest you widen your readership of scholarship, rather than just reading fringe quasi-conspiracy theory stuff. (Robert Eisenmann is a good scholar, I'm not saying he isn't, but his theories on the DDS, the Essenes, and Paul have major major holes in them and have been rejected by the vast majority of scholarship.)

[roman]

Marcos wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

During the biblical time that city did not exist, it was a cemetery, there was a religious sect known as the Nazarenes. Wikipedia is written by peoples who support the mythology of Jesus and they are based on The Bible. The city is not mentioned in the Old Testament and the Talmud, and Josephus does not mention it either.  This is the real history of the city of Nazareth, and Jesus was not born in Israel or Palestine, the mythology comes from Egypt, and he never walked on the city and places mentioned in the Greek writings. The city is not mentioned on the MasoreticIf the Bible  is correct,  the Homeric mythology is correct too, we can worship Zeus and all his beautiful  women, and we can also believe the mythology of the Book of the dead

Narzareth did exist at that time, and Archeologists have found coins dating to that era, strucrtures, pottery, etc. etc., the archeology is pretty much set here, no one in modern archeology/near eastern ancient history believes that Nazareth wasn't around in the first century, becuase archeologists have found a ton of artifacts dating from the early first century.https://ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/I don't know what "if the bible is correct" means, the bible isn't a book, it's a collection of different books of different genres.

[alanjjohnstone]

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-nazareth-exist/It should be noted on the thread that this link by Roman offers a direct criticism of ALB's link to Salm's bookEhrman's own credentials as a scholar herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._EhrmanEhrman argues that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher and that his main message was that the end of history was near, that God would shortly intervene to overthrow evil and establish his rule on earth, and that Jesus and his disciples all believed these end time events would occur in their lifetimes and he describes himself as an agnostic atheist.Ehrman cites Ken Dark archaeologist to support the idea of Nazarethhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_DarkSo nothing is ever clear-cut as we hope when studying the periodAnd for a bit off topic trivia, one of my bosses in Royal Mail nick-named Wiggy for obvious reasons used to be the drummer for Nazareth, the Dunfermline-based rock band…He left to pursue his career in the post office thinking they were not going to be successful

[Anonymous]

roman wrote:

Marcos wrote:

The real Nazarenes were the Essenians. They were mentioned by Josephus, and the Rosicrucians, they are not mentioned in the Bible because they were enemies of the Sanhedrin, and Paul was a Pharisee educated by Gamaliel,He was the person who introduced the concept of resurrection, ( the others members of the religious sects believed in the reincarnation like the Essenians ) and he was not the person presented in the New Testament, he was one the biggest liar and crook who has ever  existed in the religious world,  He was not a Hebrew, he was a Syrian, converted to Judaism( proselyte ). he was part of the Herodian family, and Herodian Prince, and he was decapitated ( like a Roman )  because he was one of the participants of the burning of RomeChristianity should be called Paulism, although he did not write many of the so-called epistles. The question is how the so called Peter won the prize instead of Paul ? The mythological Peter made more miracles than Paul, it was needed by the Catholic to create its oligarchy. With the emerge of Paulism and Catholicism the old working class movement known as Christianity died and it became the religion of the Roman slave masters and the religion of the Feudalists and the land owners

Really? Where did Josephus mention the Nazareans with the Esseans (Philo didn't either)? Where did he even mention the Nazareans? Also why is the term "Nazareans" used as synonemous for christians everywhere we find it? (I take it you're channeling Robert Eisenman here … but you do know that his idea has been rejected by scholarship almost entirely, due to the lack of evidence and evidence pointing the other direction right?)What you're talking about is Epiphanus in the fourth century, who was probably confusing sources; since the many of the "Jewish" Christians (later the Ebionites and Nazareans) did come from Essene backgrounds, which makes sense since John was likely associated with the Essenes. But the Essenes didn't exist when Epiphanus was writing and hadn't existed for centuries.The Sanhedrin wasn't Pharisaic, it was run mostly be Suduccees, Paul being a Pharisee doesn't make him anti-Essene, or pro-Sanhedrin, and the reason the Essenes wern't mentioned in the NT is because they wern't a group that was opposing Jesus.Paul didn't introduce the concept of ressurection, ressurection was in Judaism for centuries (see NT Wrights work on the ressurection), and only SOME of the essenes believed in reincarnation, look at the DDS, many believed in traditional pharisaic ressurection; Also Paul recieved his doctrine (at least the basis for it) from the apostles.Being a Syrian doesn't make you a proselyte, he was a Jew from birth, but nontheless, there is no evidence that he was a Syrian, he was from Tarsus in Cilica. Again you're channeling Robert Eisenmann with the Herodian stuff, really all you have here is conspiracy speculation, reading things INTO Josephus that aren't there (Josephus doesn't talk about Paul), and reading into Romans 16:11 something that isn't there (herodiowna is a personal name), and ignoring the rest of the evidence.I suggest you widen your readership of scholarship, rather than just reading fringe quasi-conspiracy theory stuff. (Robert Eisenmann is a good scholar, I'm not saying he isn't, but his theories on the DDS, the Essenes, and Paul have major major holes in them and have been rejected by the vast majority of scholarship.)

The first conspiracy theory is Jesus, his apostles, Paul and Christianity and you are defending those conceptions, so who is the real conspirator? Of course everything in regard to Jesus must be considered as a conspiracy theory, because it is a  lie who has been spread more than 2000 years in the minds of many human beings, and it is a business who have produced billions of dollars to the religious leaders, and it has been used by slavery, feudalism and capitalism to spread their own economical interests. Christianity is the religion of the liarsMost of the so called scholars that you are citing they are defenders of the Bible and the myth of Jesus, and the whole bible is just a collection of myth and fantasies and a load of craps. It does not matter if it is called a collections of books, a little book,  or a book, that is pure semanticChristianity was not born in the Middle East, it was born in Rome and it was an anti-slavery movement, copied from others mythologies, even more, in Rome it used  to be called The Sect, because there were too many Christians sects,  the so called Jesus never walked in the Middle East and he never was in the places that are mentioned in the New Testament, it is all lies.  The founders of the  catholic church who turned it into a mystic idea, and tried to attach to the New Testament, are the one making the claim of the existence of Jesus and the sainthood of a crook known as Paul,  and then the Protestants who are the band boys of the Catholic church continue spreading the same liesMany of those scholars have also said that civilization started with Christianity, it is like saying that there was no civilization before that, and I have others sources like the historians Jennings who has written that there is only one civilization which is the one which started in Africa thousands of years ago. They should have said that the idea of Christ is the inheritance of several myths from different places including Iran, Babylon and the Egyptian, Jesus did not exist as a person, but it existed as a mythologyIn Israel they are always finding archaeological  stuffs to prove their lies too, ( and other archaeologists indicate later on that they are false ) that they are the chosen of God, and that salvation will come thru them, but old documents have proven that the Egyptian said before them that salvation was coming from the Egyptians, they copied this ideas from the Egyptian, as well, the Psalms are verses from the Egyptians, and the so called book of Moises ( a person who never existed either ) is a copy of the book of the dead. They are some scholars in Israel who have discovered that the  Exodus never existed. it is also a fantasy.Jew is not a nationality or an ethnic group it is the person who professes a religion known as Judaism, and they have to say that Paul was a Hebrew because they had to tie Jesus with Judaism, and proselyte was a person who converts himself to Judaism, as well, there were many Ethiopians who were proselyte. Human being has created more than 2500 gods and thousands of religions, and Judaism is not the exclusivity of the universe, it is a pageant religion like Christianity , Voodoo, and witchcraft

[ALB]

I wasn't arguing that the hypothesis in Rene Salm's book that the village of Nazareth didn't exist at the time the Jesus was supposed to have been born was valid, but merely that it was further evidence of a controversy on the subject of Jesus and Nazareth.  I agree that the non-existence of Nazareth would not demonstrate the non-existence of Jesus.When I said that this was the subject of controversy over a hundred years ago I was referring to a 7-page long passage in J. M. Roberston's Christianity and Mythology. The first edition was published in 1900. I read some time ago the second, 1910 edition and have just re-read the passage.It's a detailed discussion of the difference, in Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic,  between the terms for "Nazarite" and "Nazarene".  His view is that the Jesus was originally regarded as a member of the "Nazarite" Jewish sect and that later christians wanted to dissociate themselves from this (and Judaism) and so turned the "Nazar" references to references to his place of birth instead.  The Nazarites, apparently, derived their name from a passage in Isaiah in the "Old Testament" which prophesised that the Messiah would come from a branch (Hebrew "nazir") of the descendants of King David (which of course the "New Testament" tries to make out that their Jesus was). So, whether or not the village of Nazareth existed at the time, the Jesus would not have been born there (had he been born, that is). Roberston's discussion of the question can be found on pages 311-318 here.Incidentally, Robertson mentions in a footnote that

Quote:

It has been several times been urged that there is no trace outside the gospels and the Acts of such a place as Nazareth in the accepted Jesuine period.

So Salm's hypothesis is not new either.

[Anonymous]

Marcos wrote:

roman wrote:

Marcos wrote:

The real Nazarenes were the Essenians. They were mentioned by Josephus, and the Rosicrucians, they are not mentioned in the Bible because they were enemies of the Sanhedrin, and Paul was a Pharisee educated by Gamaliel,He was the person who introduced the concept of resurrection, ( the others members of the religious sects believed in the reincarnation like the Essenians ) and he was not the person presented in the New Testament, he was one the biggest liar and crook who has ever  existed in the religious world,  He was not a Hebrew, he was a Syrian, converted to Judaism( proselyte ). he was part of the Herodian family, and Herodian Prince, and he was decapitated ( like a Roman )  because he was one of the participants of the burning of RomeChristianity should be called Paulism, although he did not write many of the so-called epistles. The question is how the so called Peter won the prize instead of Paul ? The mythological Peter made more miracles than Paul, it was needed by the Catholic to create its oligarchy. With the emerge of Paulism and Catholicism the old working class movement known as Christianity died and it became the religion of the Roman slave masters and the religion of the Feudalists and the land owners

Really? Where did Josephus mention the Nazareans with the Esseans (Philo didn't either)? Where did he even mention the Nazareans? Also why is the term "Nazareans" used as synonemous for christians everywhere we find it? (I take it you're channeling Robert Eisenman here … but you do know that his idea has been rejected by scholarship almost entirely, due to the lack of evidence and evidence pointing the other direction right?)What you're talking about is Epiphanus in the fourth century, who was probably confusing sources; since the many of the "Jewish" Christians (later the Ebionites and Nazareans) did come from Essene backgrounds, which makes sense since John was likely associated with the Essenes. But the Essenes didn't exist when Epiphanus was writing and hadn't existed for centuries.The Sanhedrin wasn't Pharisaic, it was run mostly be Suduccees, Paul being a Pharisee doesn't make him anti-Essene, or pro-Sanhedrin, and the reason the Essenes wern't mentioned in the NT is because they wern't a group that was opposing Jesus.Paul didn't introduce the concept of ressurection, ressurection was in Judaism for centuries (see NT Wrights work on the ressurection), and only SOME of the essenes believed in reincarnation, look at the DDS, many believed in traditional pharisaic ressurection; Also Paul recieved his doctrine (at least the basis for it) from the apostles.Being a Syrian doesn't make you a proselyte, he was a Jew from birth, but nontheless, there is no evidence that he was a Syrian, he was from Tarsus in Cilica. Again you're channeling Robert Eisenmann with the Herodian stuff, really all you have here is conspiracy speculation, reading things INTO Josephus that aren't there (Josephus doesn't talk about Paul), and reading into Romans 16:11 something that isn't there (herodiowna is a personal name), and ignoring the rest of the evidence.I suggest you widen your readership of scholarship, rather than just reading fringe quasi-conspiracy theory stuff. (Robert Eisenmann is a good scholar, I'm not saying he isn't, but his theories on the DDS, the Essenes, and Paul have major major holes in them and have been rejected by the vast majority of scholarship.)

The first conspiracy theory is Jesus, his apostles, Paul and Christianity and you are defending those conceptions, so who is the real conspirator? Of course everything in regard to Jesus must be considered as a conspiracy theory, because it is a  lie who has been spread more than 2000 years in the minds of many human beings, and it is a business who have produced billions of dollars to the religious leaders, and it has been used by slavery, feudalism and capitalism to spread their own economical interests. Christianity is the religion of the liarsMost of the so called scholars that you are citing they are defenders of the Bible and the myth of Jesus, and the whole bible is just a collection of myth and fantasies and a load of craps. It does not matter if it is called a collections of books, a little book,  or a book, that is pure semanticChristianity was not born in the Middle East, it was born in Rome and it was an anti-slavery movement, copied from others mythologies, even more, in Rome it used  to be called The Sect, because there were too many Christians sects,  the so called Jesus never walked in the Middle East and he never was in the places that are mentioned in the New Testament, it is all lies.  The founders of the  Catholic church who turned it into a mystic idea, and tried to attach to the New Testament, are the one making the claim of the existence of Jesus and the sainthood of a crook known as Paul,  and then the Protestants who are the band boys of the Catholic church continue spreading the same liesMany of those scholars have also said that civilization started with Christianity, it is like saying that there was no civilization before that, and I have others sources like the historians Jennings who has written that there is only one civilization which is the one which started in Africa thousands of years ago. They should have said that the idea of Christ is the inheritance of several myths from different places including Iran, Babylon and the Egyptian, Jesus did not exist as a person, but it existed as a mythologyIn Israel they are always finding archaeological  stuff to prove their lies too, ( and other archaeologists indicate later on that they are false ) that they are the chosen of God, and that salvation will come thru them, but old documents have proven that the Egyptian said before them that salvation was coming from the Egyptians, they copied this ideas from the Egyptian, as well, the Psalms are verses from the Egyptians, and the so called book of Moises ( a person who never existed either ) is a copy of the book of the dead. They are some scholars in Israel who have discovered that the  Exodus never existed. it is also a fantasy.Jew is not a nationality or an ethnic group it is the person who professes a religion known as Judaism, and they have to say that Paul was a Hebrew because they had to tie Jesus with Judaism, and proselyte was a person who converts himself to Judaism, as well, there were many Ethiopians who were proselyte. Human being has created more than 2500 gods and thousands of religions, and Judaism is not the exclusivity of the universe, it is a pageant religion like Christianity, Voodoo, and witchcraft

I will challenge anybody who wants to prove that the mythology of Jesus is a reality and my sources are not  from Commentarist, they are atheists, I am not a follower of historical distortions,  and I grew among Jesuits, Salesian and Dominicos listening to the same lies that you are repeating now

[ALB]

roman wrote:

Where did Josephus( …) even mention the Nazareans?

According to the passage from the book by JM Robertson I've just mentioned, it might be: 4 Ant. iv, 4 and 19 Ant., vi,7.

[alanjjohnstone]

The Nazareneshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)The more i try to follow this thread, the more i find just how confusing the study and knowledge isA quick google of Nazereans brought this article and the link to the Ebionites.https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/nazarenes-and-ebionites/The author's credentials are listed herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_TaborIn The Jesus Dynasty, he interprets Jesus as an apocalyptic Messiah whose extended family founded a royal dynasty in the days before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The form of Christianity that grew out of this movement, led by the apostle Paul, was, according to Tabor, a decisive break with the Ebionite-like original teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus.I also found the hypothetical and conjectured Gospel of the Nazerenes. Another inconclusive dead-endhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_NazarenesWhich linked me to the Mandeans and that took me back to John the Baptist Mandaeans maintain that Jesus was a "false messiah" who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MandaeismRemember James Burke's TV series "Connections"….it goes on and on, ending in a dizzy turning of circlesIt seems the more you get into the topic, the less clarity exists.So perhaps we should limit ourselves to just the one aspect which is relevant to ourselves …common ownership in christianity

[Anonymous]

roman wrote:

Marcos wrote:

The real Nazarenes were the Essenians. They were mentioned by Josephus, and the Rosicrucians, they are not mentioned in the Bible because they were enemies of the Sanhedrin, and Paul was a Pharisee educated by Gamaliel,He was the person who introduced the concept of resurrection, ( the others members of the religious sects believed in the reincarnation like the Essenians ) and he was not the person presented in the New Testament, he was one the biggest liar and crook who has ever  existed in the religious world,  He was not a Hebrew, he was a Syrian, converted to Judaism( proselyte ). he was part of the Herodian family, and Herodian Prince, and he was decapitated ( like a Roman )  because he was one of the participants of the burning of RomeChristianity should be called Paulism, although he did not write many of the so-called epistles. The question is how the so called Peter won the prize instead of Paul ? The mythological Peter made more miracles than Paul, it was needed by the Catholic to create its oligarchy. With the emerge of Paulism and Catholicism the old working class movement known as Christianity died and it became the religion of the Roman slave masters and the religion of the Feudalists and the land owners

Really? Where did Josephus mention the Nazareans with the Esseans (Philo didn't either)? Where did he even mention the Nazareans? Also why is the term "Nazareans" used as synonemous for christians everywhere we find it? (I take it you're channeling Robert Eisenman here … but you do know that his idea has been rejected by scholarship almost entirely, due to the lack of evidence and evidence pointing the other direction right?)What you're talking about is Epiphanus in the fourth century, who was probably confusing sources; since the many of the "Jewish" Christians (later the Ebionites and Nazareans) did come from Essene backgrounds, which makes sense since John was likely associated with the Essenes. But the Essenes didn't exist when Epiphanus was writing and hadn't existed for centuries.The Sanhedrin wasn't Pharisaic, it was run mostly be Suduccees, Paul being a Pharisee doesn't make him anti-Essene, or pro-Sanhedrin, and the reason the Essenes wern't mentioned in the NT is because they wern't a group that was opposing Jesus.Paul didn't introduce the concept of ressurection, ressurection was in Judaism for centuries (see NT Wrights work on the ressurection), and only SOME of the essenes believed in reincarnation, look at the DDS, many believed in traditional pharisaic ressurection; Also Paul recieved his doctrine (at least the basis for it) from the apostles.Being a Syrian doesn't make you a proselyte, he was a Jew from birth, but nontheless, there is no evidence that he was a Syrian, he was from Tarsus in Cilica. Again you're channeling Robert Eisenmann with the Herodian stuff, really all you have here is conspiracy speculation, reading things INTO Josephus that aren't there (Josephus doesn't talk about Paul), and reading into Romans 16:11 something that isn't there (herodiowna is a personal name), and ignoring the rest of the evidence.I suggest you widen your readership of scholarship, rather than just reading fringe quasi-conspiracy theory stuff. (Robert Eisenmann is a good scholar, I'm not saying he isn't, but his theories on the DDS, the Essenes, and Paul have major major holes in them and have been rejected by the vast majority of scholarship.)

Therefore, you are contradicting the Bible because it said that he was educated by Gamaliel, ( a Pharisee )  and there is not any evidence that Paul was educated by the Apostles, unless he was able to have speak with ghosts, and spirits,  because they never existed either, the twelve apostles were taken from the Zodiac, there are Christian historians who have said that he never met with  the so called  apostles of Jesus and that Christian is contradicting the claim made by the Jehovah witnessess. Your sources are not definitive because one Christian source contradicts the others sources. The whole thing about Christianity is full of distortions and contradictions like the Bible itself,  and they are very ambiguous, it is a  real mess and lie prevail. The Bible contains more than two thousands contradictionsI did not say that the concept of resurrection did not exist before that ( you are misreading the idea or to desperate in your conclusions ) the concept was inserted in the so called Christianity, and in that time the whole world believed in reincarnation including many Hebrew who copied the same concept from the Babylonian and the Egyptians, and the concept was Jehovah was also copied from the Babylonians. The Christians from Rome did not believe in the resurrection because they copied their conceptions from the Egyptians and the Egyptian never supported the concept of ressurrection.You ask me to read one or two sources, and I can ask you  to read hundred of sources who will negate your allegations

[Anonymous]

roman wrote:

Marcos wrote:

The real Nazarenes were the Essenians. They were mentioned by Josephus, and the Rosicrucians, they are not mentioned in the Bible because they were enemies of the Sanhedrin, and Paul was a Pharisee educated by Gamaliel,He was the person who introduced the concept of resurrection, ( the others members of the religious sects believed in the reincarnation like the Essenians ) and he was not the person presented in the New Testament, he was one the biggest liar and crook who has ever  existed in the religious world,  He was not a Hebrew, he was a Syrian, converted to Judaism( proselyte ). he was part of the Herodian family, and Herodian Prince, and he was decapitated ( like a Roman )  because he was one of the participants of the burning of RomeChristianity should be called Paulism, although he did not write many of the so-called epistles. The question is how the so called Peter won the prize instead of Paul ? The mythological Peter made more miracles than Paul, it was needed by the Catholic to create its oligarchy. With the emerge of Paulism and Catholicism the old working class movement known as Christianity died and it became the religion of the Roman slave masters and the religion of the Feudalists and the land owners

Really? Where did Josephus mention the Nazareans with the Esseans (Philo didn't either)? Where did he even mention the Nazareans? Also why is the term "Nazareans" used as synonemous for christians everywhere we find it? (I take it you're channeling Robert Eisenman here … but you do know that his idea has been rejected by scholarship almost entirely, due to the lack of evidence and evidence pointing the other direction right?)What you're talking about is Epiphanus in the fourth century, who was probably confusing sources; since the many of the "Jewish" Christians (later the Ebionites and Nazareans) did come from Essene backgrounds, which makes sense since John was likely associated with the Essenes. But the Essenes didn't exist when Epiphanus was writing and hadn't existed for centuries.The Sanhedrin wasn't Pharisaic, it was run mostly be Suduccees, Paul being a Pharisee doesn't make him anti-Essene, or pro-Sanhedrin, and the reason the Essenes wern't mentioned in the NT is because they wern't a group that was opposing Jesus.Paul didn't introduce the concept of ressurection, ressurection was in Judaism for centuries (see NT Wrights work on the ressurection), and only SOME of the essenes believed in reincarnation, look at the DDS, many believed in traditional pharisaic ressurection; Also Paul recieved his doctrine (at least the basis for it) from the apostles.Being a Syrian doesn't make you a proselyte, he was a Jew from birth, but nontheless, there is no evidence that he was a Syrian, he was from Tarsus in Cilica. Again you're channeling Robert Eisenmann with the Herodian stuff, really all you have here is conspiracy speculation, reading things INTO Josephus that aren't there (Josephus doesn't talk about Paul), and reading into Romans 16:11 something that isn't there (herodiowna is a personal name), and ignoring the rest of the evidence.I suggest you widen your readership of scholarship, rather than just reading fringe quasi-conspiracy theory stuff. (Robert Eisenmann is a good scholar, I'm not saying he isn't, but his theories on the DDS, the Essenes, and Paul have major major holes in them and have been rejected by the vast majority of scholarship.)

Tarsus in Cilica was located in Turkey I did not know that the Hebrew were from Turkey unless you are following the theory of the Jews ovaries, who ever is born from a Jew is a Jew. It is the same case of myth of  Moses,  in the Bible says that he was stepping in holy ground, and he was in Egypt, ( Sinai mount )  therefore, the holy land is Egypt instead of Canaan or Palestine, and we know that Palestine is a subdivision of the Ottoman empire

[Anonymous]

roman wrote:

Spartacus, for one, has MUCH less evidence for his historicity than Jesus. All second hand accounts, no one from his actual community, and, all accounts after his death. I'm not sure what source criticism has been done on the Sparticus account, but I'm quite sure there are probably only one or two sources which the ancient historians used.The High Priest Ciaphas, Ponteus Pilate, and so on.We would expect MUCH MORE evidence for those guys than we would for Jesus (given that during his lifetime Jesus was just another rabble rousing prophet, most of whome we don't know anything about, and a few who get a passing mention in Josephus).For Jesus we have many indepentant sources (Q, Mark, Paul, John, Matthew and Lukes individual sources) with varying degrees of historicity all of which agree on the basics, and the basics fit with everything else we know about second temple Judaism.

There are pieces of evidence proving that Simbad existed too. We know the names of many Egyptian pharaoh and they are not evidences to claim that Moses existed

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

I'll say it again. Nobody has ever been able to produce the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary account that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of this alleged individual from either unknown authors, people who had never met him, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, they still could not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay* accounts.*Hearsay – noun:i) unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: ii) an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumour:

Let's say that the so called crucifixion took place, but it was a form of  torture used by the Roman against the enemies of the state, and they would be exhibiting the person for more than 7 days and the lower extremities were fractured to motivate them to die for asphyxiation, and this man only spent a few hours in the cross, The Bible says that no parts of his body were fractured, and he only spent a few hours in the tombs instead of three as they claim. Mickey Mouse has much better stories. Others Christians writers indicate that it was not a cross that it was a stick. The cross was a pageant symbol used by the Egyptians like the Swastika, and it was the holy symbols of the Chinese, the Syrians, and the Aztec,  Others writers say that the god that he pronounced in the cross was a pageant god. They all contradict each other.They are like the pieces of evidence of the existence of Moses, the Egyptian kept an accounting of everything and every grain of wheat, but there is not any written document in Egypt indicating that Moses was an Egyptian.The Bible says that he was educated in the tradition of Judaism by his maid, but he got married to a pageant, his children were pageant, and his father in law was a  pageant priest, in the same way, that the father of Abraham was pageant priest, and he was from Ur located in Babylon and Babylon is Iraq and they were Islamic

[Anonymous]

roman wrote:

I appreciate the interest. :)First thing about the historical Jesus: There is no doubt in historical scholarship that Jesus of Nazareth existed and that the basic picture they paint of how people viewed him is correct (an apocalyptic prophet, social agitator, torah polemicist, and exorcist/miracle worker from Nazareth who, while in Jerusalem, got hiimself in trouble by causing trouble in the Temple and got himself killed by the Roman State for sedition with the sanction of the High Priesthood). The sources are there, they agree on the basic outline, and yes Josephus did refer to Jesus of Nazareth, yes there was interpolation, but we know what was interpolated and what wasn't. The evidence for the historicity of Jesus is as good as anyone else in the ancient world, we have more than we would expect. Also yes Paul knew Jesus as a historical figure, but his main argument was that Jesus as a historical figure wasn't as important as the idea of himi (his opponants would argue that he didn't actually know Jesus in the flesh). The opponants of Christianity attacked the Gospels as writing things that were false, but NOBODY questioned the historical Jesus up until around the 19th century, where it ingered for a bit and then died, in scholarship that is.Whether or not Christianity is true or not is a different issue altogether, but if you're going to argue against the historical Jesus to argue that Christianity is untrue you're really up shit creek; it's like trying to argue against evolution to prove that God exists … you're gonna be up shit creek without a paddle.The actual facts in my book I will stand behind 100%, the evidence for Christian communities around the Roman world in the latter half of the first century through the second century that practiced communism to a signifiacnt degree (so much so that it stood out as strange to the outside word) is overwhelming.

The name of Nazareth is not mentioned after the firs centry,,  it was not mentioned in the first century ( an arbitrary date adopted by a Cardinal ) that area was used as a cemetery for the peoples that were killed by the Roman in the wars against Japha, and that historical passage has been mentioned by Josephus.The Old Testament and Josue do not mention the existence of Nazareth, and of the tribes of Israel should have been established in that are and Josue does not mention that place, he mentions twelve places but Nazareth is not mentioned.The Talmud one of the oldest rabbinic document does not mention the city of Nazareth, and the so called Apostle of the Gentiles known as Paul does not mention it either.The city does not appear on any map of that time and it is not mentioned by any Geographer.There is a city known as Sepphoris where they always find archaeological pieces of evidence and it is located near Nazareth and it was never mentioned in the Bible.The name Nazareth is a wrong translation of the word Nazareans. According to the mythology, or the prophecy, Jesus was born in Belen Euphrates, and Mark contradicts the Bible. This thing about Jesus is a real mess

[Dave B]

i I didn’t think Josephus mentioned the Nasoreans or Nazzoreans.  There is some stuff on it that you take or leave in. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis -A Treatise Against Eighty Sects circa AD375 5:3………….Seven Jewish sects as follows: Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Hemerobaptists, Ossaeans, Nasaraeans, Herodians………. ……….Next I shall undertake the describe the sect after the Hemerobaptists, called the sect of the Nasaraeans……..  ……….the sect of Nasaraeans was before Christ and did not know Christ.6:2 But besides, as I have indicated, everyone called the Christians Nazoraeans…… ………In those days everyone called Christians this because of the city of Nazareth—there was no other usage of the name at the time. And so people gave the name of 'Nazoraeans' to believers in Christ, of whom it is written, 'because he shall be called a Nazoraean………..6:8 because of his upbringing in the city of Nazareth (now a village) in Joseph's home, after having been born in the flesh at Bethlehem, of the ever-virgin Mary, Joseph's betrothed. For Joseph had settled in Nazareth after leaving Bethlehem and taking up residence in Galilee. http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm#43. I suppose it is at least interesting as list of the many Christian sects in the 4thcentury? Including mary having sex with Joseph after giving birth to JC  Jesus having been conceived naturally with Joseph; rather than a Roman soldier. Epiphanius opinion that James was the progeny of Joseph by a prior marriage etc. He also talks about an alleged book by Philo on the 'Jessaeans,' which he claims were Christians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae "they are not waited on by slaves, because they deem any possession of servants whatever to be contrary to nature. For she has begotten all men alike free" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naassenes

[Author]

Posts