Historicity of Jesus - 2

ramana · (This post was last modified: 05-27-2009, 12:14 AM by ramana.)

Deleted in order to stop off topic posts.

ramana

dhu · 05-14-2009, 11:55 PM

I feel that there are master monotheisms and sepoy monotheisms. Christianity and Western grand narrative are master monotheisms. Communism, Islam, Secularism, and Macaulayism are sepoy monotheisms, intended for natives.

a similar theory by Rajeev Srinivasan:

http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2005/08/tot...cism-paleo.html

He also has an expanded article on this...

ramana · 05-15-2009, 01:15 AM

From dhu's link above

QUOTESaturday, August 27, 2005
totaliarianism and semiticism, paleo-, meso- and neo- variants thereof
aug 27

the totalitarian mindset can be summarized in one word: semitic.

all semitic ideologies have two characteristics:
1. the demonization of the Other
2. blind, unquestioning, unreasoning faith

and a meta-characteristic:
3. a faith/ideology of this type is often a cult with an army behind it enforcing adherence

there are several categories of semites based on when they attained semite-hood. but underneath they are almost exactly the same, with some differences based on whether they have power (totalitarian tyrants in that cases) or have been powerless (more mellow). for instance, zoroastrians have been decent since they were overwhelmed by more muscular meso-semites, but zarathustra was the one who initially popularized the idea of absolute good and absolute evil, the basis of Other-ization.

paleo-semitic faiths: zoroastrianism, judaism
meso-semitic faiths: christism, mohammedanism
neo-semitic faiths: marxism, 'dravidianism', nehruvian-stalinism

this is only a sample, there are neo-semitic faiths being created practically daily, and they each have their martyrs -- eg. che guevara, their saints -- eg. ems, their catholic mother church -- eg. soviet union, their protestants -- eg. china, their primate -- eg. whoever is china's strongman, their bible -- eg. marx's books, their schism -- eg. soviet union vs china and cpim vs. cpi, their reformation -- eg. deng's ideas, their missionaries -- eg. cpim, their colonies -- eg. tibet, etc.

in fact it is eerie how similar marxism is to christism.

PS. the word 'semitic' has always been misused. there is no such thing as a 'semitic' race: the people referred to as semites (mostly jews and arabs) are white people. 'anti-semitic' is used to mean anti-jewish, but it actually means anti-jewish and anti-arab. so is an arab who is anti-jewish anti-semitic?

the origin of the word 'semitic' is from the biblical shem and ham; the sons of shem are supposed to enslave the sons of ham. and this, incidentally was the christist mythological justification for slavery, as blacks are supposed to be the sons of ham.

it is appropriate to overload this term to mean a shorthand for the totalitarian mindset that developed most particularly in the west asian desert where semitic languages exist.

Posted by nizhal yoddha at 8/27/2005 08:39:00 PM



Very good thought process. However by using the word semitic to mean all these folks he is going to cause resistance to his ideas. There is a need to separate the potential for mis-perception in this terminology.

In "Moses and Monotheism" Sigmund Freud shows conclusively that Monotheism is an Egyptian construct to facilitate state control over the populations. So it was not inherent to the semitic people. However they adopted it as a way out of their suppression by the Egyptians and others.

One way of understanding is that this monotheism is a political doctrine which changes its image as the situation warrants but the core elements ennumerated above remain and adopt new ideas which fit in with the main political need.

One thing to consider is that these vowel-less languages developed independent of the Indo Sanskrit set of languages. Wonder if these were a product of the bypassing of the out of India migrations over the centuries. And does this have something to do with the development of the brain.

HareKrishna · 05-22-2009, 05:19 PM

QUOTE(ramana @ May 15 2009, 01:15 AM)From dhu's link above

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTESaturday, August 27, 2005
totaliarianism and semiticism, paleo-, meso- and neo- variants thereof
aug 27

the totalitarian mindset can be summarized in one word: semitic.

all semitic ideologies have two characteristics:
1. the demonization of the Other
2. blind, unquestioning, unreasoning faith

and a meta-characteristic:
3. a faith/ideology of this type is often a cult with an army behind it enforcing adherence

there are several categories of semites based on when they attained semite-hood. but underneath they are almost exactly the same, with some differences based on whether they have power (totalitarian tyrants in that cases) or have been powerless (more mellow). for instance, zoroastrians have been decent since they were overwhelmed by more muscular meso-semites, but zarathustra was the one who initially popularized the idea of absolute good and absolute evil, the basis of Other-ization.

paleo-semitic faiths: zoroastrianism, judaism
meso-semitic faiths: christism, mohammedanism
neo-semitic faiths: marxism, 'dravidianism', nehruvian-stalinism

this is only a sample, there are neo-semitic faiths being created practically daily, and they each have their martyrs -- eg. che guevara, their saints -- eg. ems, their catholic mother church -- eg. soviet union, their protestants -- eg. china, their primate -- eg. whoever is china's strongman, their bible -- eg. marx's books, their schism -- eg. soviet union vs china and cpim vs. cpi, their reformation -- eg. deng's ideas, their missionaries -- eg. cpim, their colonies -- eg. tibet, etc.

in fact it is eerie how similar marxism is to christism.

PS. the word 'semitic' has always been misused. there is no such thing as a 'semitic' race: the people referred to as semites (mostly jews and arabs) are white people. 'anti-semitic' is used to mean anti-jewish, but it actually means anti-jewish and anti-arab. so is an arab who is anti-jewish anti-semitic?

the origin of the word 'semitic' is from the biblical shem and ham; the sons of shem are supposed to enslave the sons of ham. and this, incidentally was the christist mythological justification for slavery, as blacks are supposed to be the sons of ham.

it is appropriate to overload this term to mean a shorthand for the totalitarian mindset that developed most particularly in the west asian desert where semitic languages exist.

Posted by nizhal yoddha at 8/27/2005 08:39:00 PM



Very good thought process. However by using the word semitic to mean all these folks he is going to cause resistance to his ideas. There is a need to separate the potential for mis-perception in this terminology.

In "Moses and Monotheism" Sigmund Freud shows conclusively that Monotheism is an Egyptian construct to facilitate state control over the populations. So it was not inherent to the semitic people. However they adopted it as a way out of their suppression by the Egyptians and others.

One way of understanding is that this monotheism is a political doctrine which changes its image as the situation warrants but the core elements ennumerated above remain and adopt new ideas which fit in with the main political need.

One thing to consider is that these vowel-less languages developed independent of the Indo Sanskrit set of languages. Wonder if these were a product of the bypassing of the out of India migrations over the centuries. And does this have something to do with the development of the brain.
[right][snapback]97229[/snapback][/right]
</div>

The semitic movement didnt start among semites but among the absolute monarchies of egyptians and sumerians.
The semitic monotheism is religios imitation of the absolute power that the egyptian pharaoh and akkadian king has.
They ask for total obedince from their subjects and so ask the biblical god.Jehova was the king of Israel(thats why the jews was ruled by judges not kings until Samuel) and he was just like a assyrian king.
The have harems and they was gelous;Jehova was also gelous if the jews "married" whit foreing gods.
Despite the fact that absolutism start developed in Egypt and Sumer it didnt have a singnificant impact on religion.This role will be played by semites.

The is a afro-asiatic culture.Iran and zoroastrism is halfway betwin vedism and afro-asiatic religios mentality.Greece also is halfway especialy that greeks take their conceptions about after-life (sheol-hades for ex.) and temple rituals from afro-asiatics.
Afro-asiatic culture is spread from north-Africa till Midlle -east.
But west-semites has what the egyptians and assyrians didnt -thats it a tribal culture;a member of a tribe is very united whit his tribal fellows but very aversive whit foreigners(especially in areas whit cousin marriages) and this mentality was transfered in the religion.

We can say that semitic monotheism is the combination of egypto-sumerian political absolutism(dictatorship) and tribe mentality(us vs others) of the west-semitics.

ramana · 05-22-2009, 09:31 PM

Can you collaborate with dhu and write this up as a two page essay for wider circulation? I think its a good summary of the situation that explains a lot of missing pieces in the puzzle.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2009, 12:06 AM by dhu.)

quote=ramana,May 21 2009, 04:10 AM
X-posting on BJP's dilemma from BRF by RajeshA

QUOTEMODE ON: Playing the Devil's advocate, here!

What is wrong with Hindu right?

o violence against Christians and Muslims (threat to minority rights and security)
o unsophisticated ham-handed opposition to Conversions (threat to right to practice and preach)
o pushing issues of 'correcting history' by treading on other people's toes like the Ram Mandir issue (aggressive revisionism)
o claim of monopoly on nationalism based on conformant worldview (exclusivism)
o overemphasizing cultural issues, thereby increasing social tensions, and diverting attention from other vital national issues (factor for instability)

Ramana,

take a look at the following that you posted in the Advice to BJP thread. It shows how easily the colonized victim can be made to look as aggressor. this is the monotheist specialty. Egypt, Canaan (ie Semitics) are to be blamed in as much as they are Greek Ptolemaic and Seleucid entities. Just as AIT is revisionist history for India which projects the british colonial project back into earlier Indian history>> in the same way, Judaism is a revisionist history for Canaan and Egypt. So-called Paleosemitic is simply a back projection of a greek colonial sensibility onto the native history. Darius is made to pay obeisance to the Lord God of Daniel. the authors simply went back into history, chose a few prominent figures, and made a revisionist Monotheist timelime (thousand year civil war between a line a monotheist prophets and their erring polytheist cousins)

Interpretative history as opposed to king lists is the greek innovation. Add in a colonial setting and the output is monotheism.

This has nothing to do with desert heat, harems, tribal war, arab blood lust, semitic absolutism, cousin marriage, and other such ad hocs.

ramana · (This post was last modified: 11-18-2009, 02:51 AM by ramana.)

So even if the victim corrects those 'wrongs' new ones will crop up. The solution is to expose the colonizer.

Also how do we make this simple to understand.

I get the picture that INC is the new Romans for India without the overt evangelization.

I also note that Muhammed was talking about a new Rum and silly fools thought he was talking of the Roman Empire in Constantinopole.

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2009, 12:05 AM by acharya.)

QUOTE(ramana @ May 22 2009, 06:13 AM)So even if the victim corrects those 'wrongs' new ones will crop up. The solution is to expose the colonizer.

Also how do we make this simple to understand.

I get the picture that INC is the new Romans for India without the overt evangelization.

I also note that Muhammed was talking about a new Rum and silly fools thoght he was talkingof the Roman Empire in Constantinopole.


Solution is to expose the methodology and how it is done in the past.

Next show how they make the native population follow the same method to make the native religion as the oppressor. Indian intellectuals have to see the pattern from the history.

Indian historians, Indian education is changed to show the violence in the Hindu religion. This grand project is still going on.


I get the picture that INC is the new Romans for India without the overt evangelization.
INC controls the education and the media. This is the true control over the soceity which allows them to win and be the ruling party.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2009, 12:57 AM by dhu.)

http://rajeev2007.wordpress.com/2008/04/...-solution/

The above is Srinivasan's article with expanded version of his paleosemitic categories, etc. I agree with ramana that the terminology is archaic and distract most Hindus. Semitic terminology needs to be replaced with colonizer and colonized terminology. Further insights from this thread need to be added.

In my nonstrategic opinion, the best way is for people to come to their own realization. Post this article along with video of atwill's interview with harold channer, add in gmirkin's note about table of nations in genesis corresponding to seleucid and ptolemaic holdings, and add in summary article of caesar's messiah to give concrete reference for the channer interview. throw in reference to balagangadhara localizing normative ethics and interpretative history to the greeks. throw in contemporary indian and nonindian (native american) example. make sufficient tantrums such that the blind heathens will take notice and turn into awakened heathens.

ramana · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2009, 01:08 AM by ramana.)

Can we have a website setup for this?

Also to moderators: How can we save more than 10 pages of the thread? This is the most important of all threads on IF.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2009, 01:43 AM by dhu.)

I've set up a quick site:

http://ascendantasia.blogspot.com/

ramana · 05-23-2009, 01:33 AM

QUOTE(ramana @ Apr 15 2009, 03:35 AM)So the Persian weapon against the Greeks was turned on themselves!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE"Now when John [Jonathan] had departed this life, his son Jaddua succeeded in the high priesthood" (Book XI, Chapter VII, Paragraph 2).... Now Alexander [the Great], when he had taken Gaza [332/331 B.C.], made haste to go up to Jerusalem; and Jaddua the high priest, when he heard that, was in an agony, and under terror, as not knowing how he should meet the Macedonians, since the king was displeased at his foregoing disobedience.... And when he [Jaddua] understood that he [Alexander] was not far from the city, he [Jaddua] went out in procession, with the priests and the multitude of the citizens.Â The procession was venerable, and the manner of it different from that of other nations.... And when the Book of Daniel was showed him [Alexander], wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he [Alexander] supposed that himself was the person intended" (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, Chapter VIII, Paragraphs 4 and 5).


My ref was to the Persianization of the Jews to take on the Hellenes or the Greeks during the exile period. Here the priest re-strengthened Alexander's resolve to take on the Persians. I think this is a turning point in the Hellenization or Westernization of the jews. In a way it paved the way for future Hellenization of Christians.
[right][snapback]96426[/snapback][/right]
</div>

and Joseph Yahuda says:
QUOTE
This whole matter is, in practice, consistent with the following two proposals: Biblical Hebrew is Greek; and, the Jews are Asian Greeks. In reality, the conclusion of this massive, extended and complicated research can be summarized in the following brief sentence: Hebrew is âGreek wearing a mask.ââ



Would this explain the Jewish Priest's actions wrt Alexander? How does Yahuda's conclusions alter the Hellenization of Jews? Was there a severe loss o f memory in the Egyptian captivity? Or the Septugint was latter write up using Greek as that was the lingu franca of the times? And maybe the Persians captured the Jews and took them away as they were aware of the link to Greece?

When did the Persians capture the Jews from Babylon?

Were the Greek city states already in existence and in opposition to the Persians?

Where did the Greek come from in the Mediterranean?

ramana · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2009, 01:51 AM by ramana.)

Awesome dhu!

Wait in light of Gmirkin's research all my above questions go away as yahuda's work on equvalence of Hebrew and Greek words means that a new form of Old Hebrew was created by the writers of the Pentauch. Since they didnt know old Hebrew they took Greek words and modified them and passed it off as Hebrew. So most likely what they wrote also could be fiction?

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2009, 02:33 AM by dhu.)

I have updated the site with excerpts from Balagangadhara. This completes most of the pieces needed to understand Imperialist Monotheism. I have also added one of my write ups from a different context... need to add atwill's video interview as latest entry. and insert a balagangadhara playlist as a first entry. and add in Srinivasan piece. and one ram swarup piece.

**acharya** · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2009, 03:36 AM by acharya.)

Fantastic !

QUOTECAESAR'S MESSIAH ; A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Our understanding of Jewish and Christian history has changed dramatically with the publication of Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill (Ulysses Press), which had previously been privately published under the title The Roman Origins of Christianity. According to Atwill, the Gospels are not accounts of the ministry of a historical Jewish Jesus compiled by his followers sixty years after his death. They are texts deliberately created to trick Messianic Jews into worshipping the Roman Emperor 'in disguise'. The essence of Atwill's discovery is that the majority of the key events in the life of Jesus are in fact satirical: each is an elegant literary play on a military battle in which the Jewish armies had been defeated by the Romans. This is an extraordinary claim-but supported by all the necessary evidence.

Why would the Romans go to the trouble of writing and disseminating such a text? The Jewish War, culminating in the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, had devastated the Mediterranean economy, and the Romans were anxious to prevent another messianic outbreak, which could easily lead to another 500,000 deaths-as the Bar Kochba revolt would demonstrate a generation later. In order to make any reconstruction of the country lasting, the Romans needed to offer the Jews alternative stories that would distract them from the messianic messages inherent in the Torah, and persuade them to accept Roman values.

According to Atwill, the Romans' solution to these problems was to create a special kind of post-war propaganda. They called it in Greek evangelion, a technical term meaning "good news of military victory." In English, it is translated as "gospel." The name is in fact ironic humor: the Romans were amusing themselves with the notion of making the Jews accept, as the actions of the Messiah Jesus, what were in fact literary echoes of the very battles in which the Romans had defeated the Jews' armies. A further joke was buried in unmistakable parallels between the life of Jesus and that of Titus: in worshiping Jesus, the Jews who adopted Christianity, as it came to be called, were in fact hailing the Emperor of their conquerors as god.

Professor Robert Eisenman of California State University describes Atwill's research as rendering contemporary Christian scholarship so challenged that it is now "looking into the abyss". It is worth noting, in this regard, that the general scholarly consensus that there was a historical, Jewish Jesus is itself largely a recent historical idea, traceable to Abraham Geiger in the 1860's. He persuaded scholars that the Gospels were an account of a historical Jewish Jesus, a typical Pharisee of his day. Since then this view, and with it the notion of Christianity as a development of Judaism, has become the dominant paradigm in Christianity. However, as the new discoveries in Caesar's Messiah make clear, this is not just misleading, but a dangerous concession to a false system of belief. The Romans created this new religion deliberately to humiliate the Jews and to keep them in submission. For contemporary Jewish scholars to collude with this Roman literary invention, and to even pretend that this fictional character had historic reality, is the height of irony.

In the past, evidence had been put forward to suggest that the NT gospels are literary accounts containing mythological accretions. However, Christians have been able to dismiss that evidence on the grounds that underneath it all there 'must' be a Historical Jesus. Atwill's discovery changes all that. There was no historical Jesus and the Gospels were Roman imitations of Jewish sacred texts created by the Flavian Emperors as ironical 'good news' to deceive the Jews. It is one thing for Christians to use works of literature as their sacred documents. It is quite another for them to continue using what have now been discovered to be deliberate Roman fakes about a non existent Messiah.

HareKrishna · (This post was last modified: 05-27-2009, 08:47 AM by HareKrishna.)

QUOTE(dhu @ May 22 2009, 11:28 PM)
This has nothing to do with desert heat, harems, tribal war, arab blood lust, semitic absolutism, cousin marriage, and other such ad hocs.
[right][snapback]97635[/snapback][/right]

...................................

**acharya** · 05-23-2009, 03:54 AM

QUOTE(dhu @ May 22 2009, 07:56 AM)I've set up a quick site:

http://ascendantasia.blogspot.com/
[right][snapback]97642[/snapback][/right]


QUOTEHow can one speak about 'ancient' India, when one is talking about a text composed during the 'middle ages'? Here, 'antiquity' does not have a particular time-frame as its reference. Instead, it is civilizational: compared to the 'ancient Greeks' (of about 2500 years ago), the Indian civilization of about 700 years ago is more 'ancient' (i.e. more primitive). Of course, this is not made explicit but it is the only possible interpretation, especially in light of their conclusions.
http://s-n-balagangadhara.sulekha.com/bl...ssance.htm

What was the reason to post this balu article in the blog.
Can you explain

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2009, 04:55 AM by dhu.)

QUOTEHow can one speak about 'ancient' India, when one is talking about a text composed during the 'middle ages'? Here, 'antiquity' does not have a particular time-frame as its reference. Instead, it is civilizational: compared to the 'ancient Greeks' (of about 2500 years ago), the Indian civilization of about 700 years ago is more 'ancient' (i.e. more primitive). Of course, this is not made explicit but it is the only possible interpretation, especially in light of their conclusions.
http://s-n-balagangadhara.sulekha.com/bl...ssance.htm

What was the reason to post this balu article in the blog.
Can you explain
[right][snapback]97652[/snapback][/right]


It specificlly localizes the problematizing mechanism (normativity) of monotheism to the Greeks, and away from the original native victim (the semitic). It is an independent confirmation of Atwill's narrative. i will add later....

**acharya** · 05-23-2009, 06:24 AM

QUOTE(dhu @ May 22 2009, 11:24 AM)
It specificlly localizes the problematizing mechanism (normativity) of monotheism to the Greeks, and away from the original native victim (the semitic).Â It is an independent confirmation of Atwill's narrative.Â i will add later....
[right][snapback]97654[/snapback][/right]

OK, I am getting it now. Please add details so that this aspect comes out clearly.
Indians have to understand this. Also Greek civilization is used frequently to compare Indian philosophy when it is not applicable.

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2009, 11:34 AM by dhu.)

I think the site is detailed enough for now. Especially, for most people seeing this material for the first time, it would probably be overwhelming. I am not so concerned about Judaism, except that with Indians, you need to show that there are no loose ends, otherwise they will dismiss off-hand. I want to add a table of parallels from CM to give more clarity.

Also, an audio file that I had where atwill discussed the cannibal mary parallel.

There was a balagangadhara audio file which Acharya posted in the Sociology thread (intraforum link). If anyone has this, can they upload to rapidshare or esnips. I no longer have this. This is a full hour talk by Balagangadhara and gives needed perspective about difference between Religions and Traditions. Otherwise, people tend to apply equal equal. Especially believers and seculars.

I don't want to overwhelm with too much information.

Examples to be used:

1. Nonindian :
- Construction of Mormon revisionist history for native americans by British colonizer

2. Indian :
- sanjaychoudhry's writeup on Gandhi as colonial sepoy (this maybe too radical for most Indians).
- Arya Samaj could offend.
- Revisionist Khalistanism is too hard to understand.
- AIT/Martial/Criminal caste psyops too controversial for most.
- Macaulayite Colonial education seems to the only reasonable topic. But very difficult to convey concisely.

The Judaism portion is uninteresting to Indians, Chinese.. Euros are obsessed with it for obvious reasons. Blacks, per my youtube experience, are interested solely because they associate Judaism with the dethroning of Egypt, which is personal for them. I will leave in for now so that Indian seculars cannot cry about loose end.

Need to show connection between modernity, secularism, and all other niceties -with- Christianity.. So if christinaity is war propganda, all downstrean variants automatically become suspect as to stated intent and actual intent... Balagangadhara transcript will work to this end....

Login




Remember me Lost Password?