Jesus was a communist

[Anonymous]

Dave B wrote:

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

They claim that Jesus came from King David, but the only related to David was Joseph and he was his stepfather. Most of the so called Ascendant of Jesus were criminals, pimps,  and dictators including David, Esther, Salomon, Abraham was a criminal and paedophile, polygamous,   and he sold his wife for money, Jacob ( Israel ) was polygamous and a cheater. How was the Son of God going to come from a bunch of vagabonds? 

[Anonymous]

There is a new Bible which tries to correct and re insert the interpolation made in the Bible, wrong translation. It is known as the New Israelite Nazarean Bible. The writer worked for 30 years using the original documents ( Masoretic )  and it shows all the lies and interpolation that were inserted in the Bible. The New Testament is called Nazareans scriptures. It is going to create a lot of fight among the Christians sects and God is called as Adonai

[alanjjohnstone]

 

Quote:

It is going to create a lot of fight among the Christians sects

Tell us something new, Marcos…That was the point of my last post….Religion and in particlar Christianity is a Gordian knot to untie. Shall we now add all the other religious sects of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism…One way of looking at it is to try and see the unifying element that exists in all …Some would say the Golden Rule.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_RuleIs this principle something that we as socialists can work with in our propaganda?

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 

Quote:

It is going to create a lot of fight among the Christians sects

Tell us something new, Marcos…That was the point of my last post….Religion and in particlar Christianity is a Gordian knot to untie. Shall we now add all the other religious sects of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism…One way of looking at it is to try and see the unifying element that exists in all …Some would say the Golden Rule.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_RuleIs this principle something that we as socialists can work with in our propaganda?

Well, Christians, Muslim, and Judaic lived together and in peace and harmony for more than 900 years in the Middle East

[alanjjohnstone]

 It wasn't so much the internecine violence i had in mind but the multitude of schisms that have arisen. They have all influenced and divided one another. I simply think we should not in our attempts to understand it all – over-simplify.Our task is to apply what we know of materialist conception of history and try to analyse our current religions and hope we can expose its fallacies but also to "convert" its practitioners not to drive them into some hermit's cave of belief.

[ALB]

I know you are playing the devil's advocate, Alan, but you are coming across more as god's afvocate..

[alanjjohnstone]

Bless you, my son

[roman]

Marcos wrote:

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

You sound like one of those climat-change deniers that say stuff like "all those scientists are lying and paid for" … and then start saying stuff that these scholars supposedly said without giving any examples … you haven't read the material, nor are you giving any arguments, just spouting conspiracy theories.Again, "the bible" is NOT a historical document, it's a collection of many historical documents.Anyway, there's nothing actually here for me to argue, it's just silly conspiracy theories that have no historical basis whatsoever mixing in with anti-religous ranting, which has nothing to do with historical research.

[roman]

ALB wrote:

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.

I would update yourself on the scholarship, many new findings and research have been done in the last 50 years; scholarship from the 19th century and early 20th century is kind of out of date.In Greek, Nazarite, and Nazarene are very difficult to confuse. The Nazarites are mentioned in the mosaic law, and are not a sect of Judaism, but a kind of monastic movement within it.In the New Testament, Matthwe and Luke weave accounts to say he WASN'T born in Nazareth but rather Bethleham … due to a prophsey … why? Because he was actually FROM nazareth.But again, I would read more recent scholarship.

[roman]

Marcos wrote:

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

I don't care what I'm contradicting, I care about historical research.he was educated by Gamaliel … and he also (later) meet with the apostles to have discussison and recive traditions. You claim the apostles were taken from the Zodiac … evidence? That there was a group of 12 people is multiply attested, as is the fact that Paul met them The fact that sources contradict each other in other things doesn't say ANYTHING about the historicity of what is being described … what it says is that they were not relying on each other as a source. EVERY historical account that is attested in mroe than one source will have discrepencies in those sources …The WHOLE WORLD believed in reincarnation??? really?I read ACTUAL scholarship, it seams like you're just reading conspirasy theories.If you're pissed at religion that's fine, but don't pretend you're doing actual history.

[roman]

Marcos wrote:

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

Yes, Paul was a diaspora Jew … that was a historical category.

[roman]

Marcos wrote:

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

The Talmud is from the 6th century. The mishnah from the second.What "maps" of palestine from the first century exist?the OT documents were done being written centuries before jesus. Josephus didn't mention it becuase why would he? it's a tiny hamlet.Acheological diggings have found that there WAS a town there in the first century.Nazareans is taken from Nazareth."the bible" isn't a document.

[roman]

Marcos wrote:

There is a new Bible which tries to correct and re insert the interpolation made in the Bible, wrong translation. It is known as the New Israelite Nazarean Bible. The writer worked for 30 years using the original documents ( Masoretic )  and it shows all the lies and interpolation that were inserted in the Bible. The New Testament is called Nazareans scriptures. It is going to create a lot of fight among the Christians sects and God is called as Adonai

EVERY OT translation uses the Masoratic text as a base (except for the ones based on the LXX, some catholic and orthodox translations).

[ALB]

roman wrote:

I would update yourself on the scholarship, many new findings and research have been done in the last 50 years; scholarship from the 19th century and early 20th century is kind of out of date.In Greek, Nazarite, and Nazarene are very difficult to confuse. The Nazarites are mentioned in the mosaic law, and are not a sect of Judaism, but a kind of monastic movement within it.

I fail to see why analysis of the texts has become outdated unless of course there has been some further tampering with them by christian pious fraudsters, that is.Ok, I was wrong about Jesus being supposed to have been born in Nazareth: according to the myth, he was only supposed to have been brought up there.You may not be able to confuse "Nazarite" and "Nazarene" (but I see you introduce a third variant "Nazarean", presumably to avoid this) but those who wrote the "gospels" were and so were some of their translators. According to JM Robertson's ancient work, one uses "Nazarene" (Mark), another "Nazarite" (John), a third both (Luke) (he must be refrring to early, un-redacted versions). I must confess I'm confused too. I think "Nazarite" is supposed to refer to a Jewish sect (or monastic movement), "Nazarene" to someone from Nazareth (your "Nazarean")? Apparently,  references to either of them in the early original  versions have been changed in Latin and Greek to be "Nazarene" and translated as "of Nazareth".With all your vast knowledge of the matter can you confirm this?

[Dave B]

iI was vaguely aware of the Donaldson argument and counter arguments but still can’t remember them all properly. I have got a memory pro Donaldson person fraudently putting Nazarene in brackets in a Jospehus quote implying I think that when josephus was babbling about the Judaic sects he was referring to the Nazarenes. I remember it because when I read that I went oh shit I don’t remember that bit and went looking for the Joesphus quote and of course it wasn’t there. Lingustics and 1stcentury  phonetics etc isn’t my bag really but it is conceivable to me that people were mixing things up them like we are now. Isn’t it even more of a problem in Hebrew as they don’t have vowels and we are talking about translating Hebrew words into greek? For instance, again this not my area, but JC was supposed to have been crucified on the mount of the skull or something or Golgotha or whatever? Some people I believe that it might have been a miss translation of a Hebrew phrase meaning execution hill? That just sounded like mount of the skull. Then there is there was it a camel or a rope that wasn’t going to pass through the eye of needle? They are similar in Greek or Hebrew I can’t remember. The Quran has rope I think; it is an old debate it was in 19thcentury novel by Trollop I think. There has been some recent developments on that. The old position was that there were no similar literary metaphors but it looks like some more have been found, including old testament ones. I had been a rope person myself but a camel was a relatively large object so it come be a jumbo jet flying through a keyhole thing.  Camels were also regarded as animals who lacked a moral compass unlike smallercommunist sparrows. Can’t take the piss out of communist sparrows too much as I have done Arabian babblers myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_babbler I think sparrows are bourgeois myself. It is of interest that our Salamis ‘Historian’ said Nazzareth was a (now) a village in 375AD. Actually in an interesting quote Celsus doe mention Nazareth in 180AD but he is obviously pulling that out of the gospel material that he has in front of him and isvery familiar with. He doesn’t dispute the existence of the place. Celsums point is more interesting in relation to the excellent point that Marcos made; which was the same. In other words the God in the old testament wasn’t a kind of accumulation of money and making a pile of dosh is shit kind of guy like his supposed son was. Origen goes onto to dodge the question by suggesting that the old testament shouldn’t be taken literally.  ………….Celsus adds:"Will they not besides make this reflection? If the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself did–as Moses says–threatening them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite opposed to these, declaring that no one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory; that men ought not to be more careful in providing food than the ravens; that they were to be less concerned about their raiment than the lilies; that to him who has given them one blow, they should offer to receive another? Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely? Did the Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which he had given to Moses?Or did he change his mind, condemn his own laws, and send forth a messenger with counter instructions?" ………..  Origen replies with; …Celsus, with all his boasts of universal knowledge, has here fallen into the most vulgar of errors, in supposing that in the law and the prophets there is not a meaning deeper than that afforded by a literal rendering of the words… Followed by a load of wriggling around. The idea of small villages not being mentioned anywhere else is normal; you only have to look at a OS map of Britian or the index of a road map to see how many of them there are; or watch timeteam. Not to mention no mention of Hadrians wall. There is also an important celebrated and potentially exaggerated concept in the gospel stuff about non entity low social class of JC himself. It is a bit like us boasting about our real working class roots for those that can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo  So locating JC as part of that as having been brought up in some insignificant back water rather than being a city boy could be looked at in that context. A bit like claiming you went to an inner city comprehensive and lived on a council estate. The political implications of that re the Jesus movement I will leave. The supposed royal line from David etc was possibly introduced later. Although the linking up JC to old testament prophesy was an integral part of the ‘proof’ that JC was the messiah. If you believe that part of the narrative you could argue that JC played up to that like his riding into Jerusalem on a mule etc. It wasn’t just the ‘Jews’ who liked some of the prophetic stuff in the old testament, the romans liked it as well in a Nostradamus kind of way. Thus Josephus, Vespasian’s poodle and post occupation Vichy France collaborator, claimed that Vespasian, who trashed Jerusalem, was the one prophesised in the old testament who would ‘emerge’ from Judea to be the new ruler of the world etc. More to do with being a toady than anything serious presumably. Hence the testimonian stuff by Josephus as we have is an obvious fraud. I think I agree with Roman’s general take on that and Eusebius is in the frame on that ‘interpolation’ as it seems to have Eusebian phraseology written into it. Also Origen said circa 240AD that Josephus didn’t believe JC was the Messiah. Origen clearly had a copy of Josephus’s stuff as he accurately quotes from it citing the correct chapters and books etc. Interpolation isn’t quite the same as fraud and tampering with text. They didn’t have a footnote system then and people when copying stuff down would helpfully provide additional information which was thus included into the text. Like the brackets nazzorean thing if that wasn’t a dream. I don’t think they had brackets either. I have done it myself with Lenin quotes, but with internet links. If we take pliny, philo and  josesphus as read on the communist Essenes, that is a slam dunk on written history. Then we have the gospel stuff not ‘criticising’ and thus not mentioning the Essenes according to Roman.? There are two very strange passages in the gospel stuff one is on the ‘son’s of light in Luke I think that has exercised the minds of greater minds than my own. I couldn’t work it out at the time and internet access hasn’t helped much. And there is the Eunuch passage as well. Like JC is covering all the socio economic bases and starts to talk about Eunuch’s? And there is;  Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. Matthew 5:15 The essenes were celibate and believed that they had secret knowledge and opposed the idea of taking it to the masses.  Kautsky entered into the debate thus which I think is overlooked. Roman is actually not the first person to have dipped into this. There was a American intellectual bod who I think came from the US hutterite community who did it. He was called Friedman or something a read some of his stuff a while ago. Amongst other things he was pulling out or referring to early Christian and thus communist stuff that the Anabaptist claimed to have or ‘pseudo’ early church farther stuff. By the way I don’t think there should be a problem about throwing ‘unsubstantial shit’ around. Let it be washed out or not. I am winging a lot of this myself.

[Author]

Posts