MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
MyBB Internal: One or more warnings occurred. Please contact your administrator for assistance.
Historicity of Jesus - 2 - Printable Version
Forums
Historicity of Jesus - 2 - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian History & Culture (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Indian History (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Historicity of Jesus - 2 (/showthread.php?tid=362)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - Husky - 01-16-2010

About the above -



I find it confusing so ought to correct me if I'm wrong, but the actual text posted (as opposed to the title) only says repeatedly that there were scribes at the time who 1. could write, 2. could write complicated things, 3. in the purported decipherment, seem to have been writing in Hebrew or related similar language and 4. wrote things in a style similar to the Judaic scriptures (Pentateuch and Prophets parts of the TeNaCH, I think). It doesn't seem to state anywhere that it's been proven that any part of the Judaic scriptures themselves existed at the time:

Quote:“It can now be maintained that it was highly reasonable that during the 10th century BC [...] there were scribes in Israel who were able to write literary texts and complex historiographies such as the books of Judges and Samuel.”
The article does not say they found actual contents from the Pentateuch or Prophets (Judges?) there, just that there were people in the region who were capable of writing such material - based on some non-quantified degree of similarity in style with the material people of the time *had* actually written.

The following statement seems to cover that as well:

Quote:He said that this inscription is similar in its content to biblical scriptures (Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, Exodus 23:3, and others), but it is clear that it is not copied from any biblical text.
Again, I am still unable to read into this any implication of actual Judaic scripture being found to have been written at that early time: there's only purported demonstration of text whose style and content are reminiscent of the sort of text found in Judaic scripture, but not such scriptures themselves. How does this then become 'evidence' that the Thora was of that early time? They can't simply QED before showing us the intermediate steps.

Besides, Professor Galil says "it is clear that [the inscription which they *have* found] is not copied from any biblical text" - which:

1. obviously means it is not biblical text (notwithstanding the christist Chindu paper's jubilant title. Chindu overreaches itself in its christian eagerness); and

2. implies they haven't found evidence of existence of any Jewish biblical text at that time, else they would have said so (and they wouldn't have required recourse to such data as is not directly/demonstrably related to the Judaic scriptures).





Quote:He added that the complexity of the text discovered in Khirbet Qeiyafa, along with the impressive fortifications revealed at the site, refute the claims denying the existence of the Kingdom of Israel at that time.
But how does it refute anything (unless there is more to be said on the matter than Prof. Galil has revealed in this interview)? To refute, they would still need to prove that the actual Jewish religious literature in question existed at that time. Else, all they've shown is that the text could possibly be older. (Of course, even were it so, it would not prove that the literature is fact - the truth or falsehood thereof being a separate matter: Ancientry of texts do not make them sources of complete historical or factual information. Nor does a historical setting to narratives prove the truth of the narratives themselves: e.g. the fact that an Egypt existed at the time a text purports to narrate about, does not prove Moses/Exodus. Separate issues.) However, even the geographical and monarchical data contained in some key parts of the Tenach are shown to be seriously suspect by archaeological discoveries in a recent decade - work which apparently draws question marks even over Jewish religious characters like David (in which case, Professor Galil cannot assume "the reign of King David" as if it were a universal given; unless he and his colleagues have found hard data in the interrim - but the Chindu report has made no reference to such).


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 01-16-2010

Judaism as a monotheist religion is not older than the greek period. It was the macaulayist movement of its day. Even our Macaulayites try to project themselves back thousands of years. Gautam Buddha was apparently a macaulayite, and so on...


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - Guest - 01-18-2010

[quote name='dhu' date='16 January 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1263661120' post='103538']

Judaism as a monotheist religion is not older than the greek period. It was the macaulayist movement of its day. Even our Macaulayites try to project themselves back thousands of years. Gautam Buddha was apparently a macaulayite, and so on...

[/quote]





Jewish texts are extremely violent towards the non jews. Should read the history of their prophets. They make th Christians look like saints. Makes one believe that everything happens for the best.

Also read the Old Testament, Talmud etc.

Abraham married Sarai when he was 50 and she was the 3. He was the original.


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 01-18-2010

[quote name='Niki' date='18 January 2010 - 06:32 AM' timestamp='1263776091' post='103561']

Abraham married Sarai when he was 50 and she was the 3. He was the original.

[/quote]



This is most likely because the prophets are mock heroes, ie the muslim protagonist in Slumdog. The monotheists are least ashamed of their litany of crimes (after all they are spreading the truth), but for their prophets and exemplars to be implicated in a mock setup is utterly damning to their 'worldview'. It is like the mafia: they care least about their crimes; in fact, the more crimes the better. But if one is found to be an agent, then the mafia turns against them. If the head himself turns agent, then the entire organization collapses.



With Jesus, they revised the formula, and had him as a prophet of peace, the most he can be blamed for is cursing a fig tree...


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - G.Subramaniam - 01-18-2010

[quote name='dhu' date='18 January 2010 - 07:46 AM' timestamp='1263780515' post='103562']

This is most likely because the prophets are mock heroes, ie the muslim protagonist in Slumdog. The monotheists are least ashamed of their litany of crimes (after all they are spreading the truth), but for their prophets and exemplars to be implicated in a mock setup is utterly damning to their 'worldview'. It is like the mafia: they care least about their crimes; in fact, the more crimes the better. But if one is found to be an agent, then the mafia turns against them. If the head himself turns agent, then the entire organization collapses.



With Jesus, they revised the formula, and had him as a prophet of peace, the most he can be blamed for is cursing a fig tree...

[/quote]



Sarai was also the half sister of Abraham

Moses father married his aunt


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - Guest - 01-18-2010

Also, we Indians don't realize it but we have been colonized by all three monotheistic religions

-Islam - The obvious

- Christianity - Goa, British

- Judaism - East India COmpany (was dominated by them); Mountbatten himself was part Jewish and Edwina Mountbatten was fully. Many say that the partition of India was a precedent to creation of Israel.



Only difference is that Jewish colonisation was for economic benefit and is no different from what the likes of Reliance are doing.

The Christian and Islamic colonisation was for both economic benefit and complete cultural annihilation


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 01-27-2010

from a prophecy/apocalypse/anti-satanic site:
Quote:[size="1"]"An error is the more dangerous the more truth it contains." - Henri-Frederic Amiel 1821-1881

..

"He said likewise

That a lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies,

That a lie which is all a lie may be met and fought with outright,

But a lie which is part a truth is a harder matter to fight." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson 1809-1892

..[/size]

Even the prophets of Islam, are the exact same prophets of Judeo-Christianity (other than Muhammad himself), with the exception of Ishmael, the father of the Arab world, and slave son of Abraham. There is no lineage from Ishmael stated after Ishmael, in fact the descendants of Abraham are revered as prophets including, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, Zacharias, Elijah, right on down to Jesus and John the Baptist. What logical, intellectually honest person could accept an entire lineage of another family, religion, or culture with a single exception as in the case of Ishmael? Ishmael sticks out like a briar limb growing on an olive tree.



It is odd that the muslims are deemed the progeny of the illegitimate child. This is an indication that the author is indeed an agent of Empire. The 'satanic verses' may itself be a garbled tradition of the agent's hand and presents an overwhelming preoccupation for the believer.


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - Guest - 01-27-2010

Fascinating. What is the empire then


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 01-27-2010

Probably the Roman Catholic Church aka the Beast


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - HareKrishna - 01-27-2010

[quote name='dhu' date='27 January 2010 - 07:35 AM' timestamp='1264557440' post='103722']

from a prophecy/apocalypse/anti-satanic site:



It is odd that the muslims are deemed the progeny of the illegitimate child. This is an indication that the author is indeed an agent of Empire. The 'satanic verses' may itself be a garbled tradition of the agent's hand and presents an overwhelming preoccupation for the believer.

[/quote]

Thats why less sentimental ,less ritualistic christians have an atraction for islam.

If arabs belive that Ishmael is their ancestor,mandeans(see mandean religion from Iraq)belive that their ancestor is Aram son of Shem,son of Noah(the jews are not from Aram but from Arphaxad) .They see Abraham,Moses and Jesus as false prophets,yet interestingly recognize John the baptist as a prophet.

Seem there was a competition between different semitic groups,each one whit its own national religion.

Maybe the romans suported some sects and persians other local sects(especially dualistic ones).After all ,the Middle east was the battle ground between romans and persians.


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 01-29-2010

[quote name='HareKrishna' date='27 January 2010 - 10:16 AM' timestamp='1264567129' post='103727']

Maybe the romans suported some sects and persians other local sects(especially dualistic ones).After all ,the Middle east was the battle ground between romans and persians.

[/quote]



Dualism is an interpretation artifact, probably imposed by the modern (or ancient) indologist upon the original experiential tradition; Shukracharya/Rakshasa-Deva "dichotomy" in Dharma can be similarly transformed.



It is important to note that while Christianity cannot be deemed an external colonial force in the (Western) Empire, Persia's encounters the full brunt of Islam as a fully developed colonial force. All the indications are that the (eg) John-Yohannes discourse of the Gospels developed with the Empire, and not within Persia.



It is quite likely that they were ancient inculturation attempts upon Mani's/Zoroaster's teachings and we are only viewing the end result of the effort. Modern Indologist recasting in a theological mold is also likely.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Acharya:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism#Other_related_religions



See how they have grouped "Proto-Indo-Iranian Religions" with the minor Christist sects.


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - HareKrishna - 01-29-2010

[quote name='dhu' date='29 January 2010 - 08:50 AM' timestamp='1264734730' post='103769']

Dualism is an interpretation artifact, probably imposed by the modern (or ancient) indologist upon the original experiential tradition; Shukracharya/Rakshasa-Deva "dichotomy" in Dharma can be similarly transformed.



It is important to note that while Christianity cannot be deemed an external colonial force in the (Western) Empire, Persia's encounters the full brunt of Islam as a fully developed colonial force. All the indications are that the (eg) John-Yohannes discourse of the Gospels developed with the Empire, and not within Persia.



It is quite likely that they were ancient inculturation attempts upon Mani's/Zoroaster's teachings and we are only viewing the end result of the effort. Modern Indologist recasting in a theological mold is also likely.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Acharya:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism#Other_related_religions











See how they have grouped "Proto-Indo-Iranian Religions" with the minor Christist sects.

[/quote]

There was bhagavata doctrine in north-west India which correspond whit the zoroastrian doctrine near-by.In north-east India dominant was sramana doctrine.

There was 3 types of gods corresponding whit 3 planes(earth ,atmosphere,sky) .There was devas,asuras and daevas.In vedic and bhagavata doctrines, they were simplified as devas(mostly good ones) and asuras(uniting asuras and daevas),while in zoroastrianism asuras were united whit devas(good ones) and daevas alone become the bad ones.This is how dualism has spread .

Is false that bhagavata doctrine was born from christian influence;the pillar of Heliodoros dedicated to Vasudeva was 185 years older then christianism.And there are mentions in literature for an least 400BC.

Is not about monotheism or polytheism ,we know that the Absolute is one and many in the same time.

Zoroastrians,just like greeks, were influenced in their after-death belives by the semitic-sumerian believes.

After that the battle among 4 nationalist religions started between iranians,jews,arameans and arabs.From these 4 only arabs belived that all world should be converted(inclusive by force).I didnt include christianism that a greek-roman stuff(though also from semitic religious nationalism-tribalism culture).


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - acharya - 01-30-2010

[quote name='dhu' date='29 January 2010 - 08:50 AM' timestamp='1264734730' post='103769']

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Acharya:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeism#Other_related_religions



See how they have grouped "Proto-Indo-Iranian Religions" with the minor Christist sects.

[/quote]



This hypothesis of the "Proto-Indo-Iranian Religions" is another manufactured one.



Reconstruction of the hypotheses below is based on linguistic evidence using the comparative method.


Linguistic evidence and comparative method are another set of fake process created by the western academics to fool the rest of the world.


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - Husky - 02-07-2010

[quote name='Niki' date='18 January 2010 - 06:32 AM' timestamp='1263776091' post='103561']Jewish texts are extremely violent towards the non jews. Should read the history of their prophets. They make th Christians look like saints.[/quote]There is a major difference. Their (Jewish) texts were apparently fiction despite the boasts of genocide and the dividing of the world into the mosaic and not-mosaic. That means they're not history.

On the other hand, christian criminality is factual history and continues to remain a fact. So there can be no comparison, and there can absolutely be no way in which Jews can be declared "worse" than christians.



Getting boring, but never mind - Repeat on "the 'history' of the prophets" etc:

http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2d.htm

Quote:
Quote:Not only have Adam and Eve and the flood story passed over to mythology, but we can no longer talk about a time of the patriarchs. There never was a 'United Monarchy' in history and it is meaningless to speak of pre-exilic prophets and their writings.

... the Bible's 'Israel' [is] a literary fiction ...

We can now say with considerable confidence that the Bible is not a history of anyone's past.

-- Thomas L. Thompson, Professor of Old Testament at the University of Copenhagen and one of the leading biblical archaeologists in the world
[...]

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein - online summary.

The authors, who are directors of archaeological institutes, are authorities concerning the archaeology of early Palestine.

The book discusses how archaeology has shown that there is no evidence for the existence of:

* Abraham and any of the Patriarchs

* Moses and the Exodus

* The period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon.

Quote:Doubting the Story of Exodus - L.A. Times News, April 13, 2001

The modern archeological consensus over the Exodus is just beginning to reach the public.

...

In a new book this year, "The Bible Unearthed," Israeli archeologist Israel Finklestein of Tel Aviv University and archeological journalist Neil Asher Silberman raised similar doubts and offered a new theory about the roots of the Exodus story. The authors argue that the story was written during the time of King Josia of Judah in the 7th century BC--600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred in 1250 BC--as a political manifesto to unite Israelites against the rival Egyptian empire as both states sought to expand their territory.

Unless one is christian or orthodox Jewish, one's not required to believe in the OT or the Judaic scriptures (respectively), but can instead look to what archaeology and the study of biblical and Judaic religious texts have revealed.



Even if we were to for a moment allow for the possibility that the biblical genocides occurred (but we can actually skip the unlikely Judaic God-ordained smitings, damnings, plagues, locust attacks; Hindus are not required to believe in the never-yet-seen Judaic God either):

1. The scale AND gruesomeness does not compare with christianism: the numbers and downright inhumanity of the christian - and islamic - genocides of others (millions upon millions of the murders are of a nature unmentionable) simply has no competition.

2. When modern Jews are not driven to destroying other (esp. valid) religions on the planet, they do not need to be blamed for crimes described in the OT.



In contrast, christianism and islamism have NEVER changed, WILL NEVER change. Their primary mission is to destroy the Natural Traditions of the world, so they are still massacring people of these traditional religions all over the globe: in some places christoislamism murders one person at a time, elsewhere a village at a time or more. Genocide is all christoislamicommunism - the Ideology ("Religion") of Human Sacrifice - does; it is the essence and sum total of their ideology.



Again: There simply can be no equating the still-fiction of the passages of mass-violence and genocide in the Judaic scriptures with the historical fact of the christian genocides of traditional GrecoRomans, Jews, Native Americans, Africans, Hindus and various other Asian populations.





[quote name='Niki' date='18 January 2010 - 09:14 AM' timestamp='1263785788' post='103566']

- Judaism - East India COmpany (was dominated by them); Mountbatten himself was part Jewish and Edwina Mountbatten was fully.[/quote]Documented references for these claims?

And after that, also need evidence that their *Judaism* is what drove their colonisation (in the vein of the well-documented "By Allah-s" and "Deus Volt-s" of christoislamism's global terrorism.) Else one can leave Judaism out of it.





Quote:The Christian and Islamic colonisation was for both economic benefit and complete cultural annihilation
Cultural annihilation? That word again. Cricket and bollywood are the only "Indian culture" I can think of.

But christianism and islamism are after [color="#0000FF"]religion[/color]: they're after the complete annihilation of all *heathenism*. (Traditional culture is merely the external expression of natural religions.)



The babble and koran make christoislamism's actions very clear: It is a *religious* war from their end - an ideological war. It has always been; from the beginning of christianism. The booty - even the very phenomena of imperialism, colonisation - is a side-effect, a bonus, a reward system to the zombies of christoislamism's ideological war against heathenism, the war against the religions of the "false" Gods. Spoils of war. But the ideology's first and fundamental aim is extermination of Natural Traditions alone. Christoislamism's non-existent gawd wants the heathens converted OR dead (not left in peace to exist anywhere) - starting with the "idolatrous polytheistic" kind. That is *all* that drives christoislamics, because for the zombies too, their gawd - and so its commandments, "the word of gawd" - comes first, even though theirs is a non-existent gawd (a non-existent gawd of genocide moreover).



Christoislamism - the christoclass mindvirus - remains an ideology that Hindus skillfully continue to avoid understanding, even though that ideology spells certain death for Hindus, other Dharmics and all other Natural Traditionalists. Because it intends certain death for all Natural Traditions.

Parrot replay: Christoislamism is not after mere "culture". Not aiming for colonisation and imperialism. It is after the destruction of the religions of the "false" Gods. If one doesn't (want to) know what the enemy's objective is, it remains to wonder how people think to begin to thwart the enemy.



The very dangerous thing that many an eager Indian nationalist engages in is to go about the matter as if there is no Hindu religion. That is essentially conceding the Queen to the christoislamic opponent, while still wanting to continue the (pretence of a) chess game, like someone who doesn't understand the rules.

Understand, the Queen is all christoislamism is after.



The question for modern-day nationalists is whether their Queen means more than merely a chess-piece to them. Because for christoislamics, this is not merely a 'game': they are dead serious; they take *heathenism* (religion) very seriously. And part of christianism's approach to chess is to make their opponent not do so (i.e. to make the opponent forget the value of what they're playing for (with)/what's at stake for them); makes for a far easier - immediate - win.



The analogy is too stretched. Essentially: In an ideological war - which is exactly what christoislamicommunism is proposing - when one side is able to strip the other of ideology, it obviously wins by default. In specific, it would (effortlessly) have won/conquered the opponent at the ideological level (i.e. the fundamental level), which is all the christoclass mindvirus wanted anyway.


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - ramana - 02-07-2010

Husky, You can add Communism or Marxism to the two religions whose goal is to destroy all Natural Traditions. It acts as a softening agent for these two.


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 02-07-2010

[quote name='Husky' date='07 February 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1265521516' post='103960']

There is a major difference. Their (Jewish) texts were apparently fiction despite the boasts of genocide and the dividing of the world into the mosaic and not-mosaic. That means they're not history.

On the other hand, christian criminality is factual history and continues to remain a fact. So there can be no comparison, and there can absolutely be no way in which Jews can be declared "worse" than christians.



Getting boring, but never mind - Repeat on "the 'history' of the prophets" etc:

http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2d.htm

[/quote]



Judaism is an ancient version of "area studies" by the Empire.



Similarly, today we have a colonial narrative brimming with a litany of past Hindu crimes with Buddha, Asoka, Akbar, and Gandhi as the 'prophets of peace'.


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - ramana - 02-09-2010

BTW

Slumdog Millionaire" is worst film Girish Karnad



Quote:Panaji: Padma Bhushan awardee and Jnanpith award winner Girish Karnad Monday called `Slumdog Millionaire` the worst film he has ever seen. Karnad, a towering, multi-faceted creative personality in the field of theatre, literature, acting and academics, was speaking at a lecture on `Colonialism and Culture` at the DD Kosambi lecture series, organised by the government of Goa in Panaji.



"I have never seen anything worse than `Slumdog Millionaire`," Karnad said during a question-answer session which followed his lecture.



He also said the movie had completely failed in India. India`s hunger for Oscars showed "our own inferiority complex", he added.



"I don`t know why we are obsessed with the Oscars or the Grammy (Grammy awards)," Karnad said, adding that the Indian film industry was perfectly healthy in every sense of the word.




Released in 2008, Danny Boyle`s "Slumdog Millionaire" swept the 81st Academy Awards by winning eight Oscars. Out of the eight awards, three were won by Indian artistes - Resul Pookutty, AR Rahman and Gulzar.



Historicity of Jesus - 2 - HareKrishna - 02-12-2010

[quote name='Husky' date='07 February 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1265521516' post='103960']

There is a major difference. Their (Jewish) texts were apparently fiction despite the boasts of genocide and the dividing of the world into the mosaic and not-mosaic. That means they're not

[/quote]

Husky sir,

Its a problem,maybe big maybe not.

Ive heard that beside the usual sionism(jews back to Israel)there are sionists that want everybody to convert to judaism or to have a similar religion for non-jews but containing the basic judaism theology(like exclusive monotheism and so on).

Maybe you heard of the so call Noah laws that are for non-jews.

This supposedly "sionists" have names like iluminati,masons,bildergergers,cfr,ocult pyramid and so one...

What are they? they are really jews,or satanists,or aristocrats?

They are pro-hindu or anti-hindu,pro-freedom or anti-freedom?

What is your opinion about them?


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 02-17-2010

Quote:Gmirkin p258:



.. The idea that Megasthenes anticipated Berossus in popularizing Nebuchadnezzar is untenable. Rather, Megasthenes will have written his Indika no earlier than 278 BCE, incorporating claims made about Nebuchadnezzar in Berossus's Babyloniaca.



The correct chronological sequence appears to have been as follows: the return of Megasthenes from India after 288 BCE; Berossus's Babyloniaca authored in 278 BCE; and Megasthenes' Indika authored some time after 278. It is likely that Megasthenes was commissioned to write the Indika by Antiochus I for the same reasons that Berossus was commissioned to write the Babyloniaca, and not long afterwards.



If Megasthenes had assumed a nativized identity, it would have wrecked true havoc in India. Whichever Chndragupta kicked these jokers out did an immeasurable service to Bharat.


Historicity of Jesus - 2 - dhu - 02-18-2010

Quote:Phoenicians don't seem to have practiced ritual infanticide often



This research seems to largely contradict the propaganda by Jews and Romans, their historical enemies.



Jefferey H. Schwartz et al. Skeletal Remains from Punic Carthage Do Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants. PLoS ONE 2010. Open access.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009177



Anthropological studies may be problematic, but sometimes we need to fight fire with fire. Amazing how the Romans and "Jews" had the same propaganda about the Phoenicians/Carthaginians.