Historicity of Jesus - 2

[ramana]

I thought Moses introduced the practice after out of Egypt.

[dhu]

Moses in the text circumcized himself and the rest of his family.

It is possible that there was a practice prevalent in the ME, onto which the colonizer appended their psyops.

In India/China, there were both shaved head and non-shaved head traditions. British demonized the latter as a sign of regression and normed the former as a sign of liberation, in fact they imported the former tradition into the fascist ranks.

[dhu]

Ramana, The following is my impression of OT (in concept flow)



The movement in the OT is circular in space (not in time, because there is a clear resolution or denoument with time in the OT narrative); the denoument is however not contained in the Pentateuch but in Herodotus. Withholding of the denoument is a key to norming.

This circular movement weaves the Israelite into all formative "stages" of ME history up to the twin abominations of desolations in Maccabees and NT, respectively. The NT desolation corresponds with the Roman power. The other is in Maccabees and thus must be deemed as a similar instance of Greek psyops. A Greek provenance for the OT is demanded by sequence association of NT with the Roman. British revision of Indian history was undertaken with native sources quite extensively before the American latched on at a quite later stage. Similar to the Jews, the Nehruvians claim to represent the native interest and the heathens have been eliminated from the discourse; the (American-sponsored) Communists will spar with the Nehruvian remnants, yet are united in their “perspective” of the heathen native.



Special pleading on part of Josephus, etc, for antiquity of the Jews/Moses is very similar to that undertaken for Christians. It is therefore likely that Israelites are simply the normed projection of (a “revolutionary” faction of) ME society back into time; the massacres attributed to the Jews are thus setting the stage for backwards projection of the blood libel, manifest destiny, victimized-conqueror motifs associated with the colonial discourse: this is very similar to the projected Aryan massacres and Aryan parallel history in India. (the Aryans have “pseudo-relations” with the natives exemplified as “caste system”). (A pseudo-relation has one distinguishing characteristic of assuming false familiarity with the victim). Unified (interpretative) historical narratives were heralded by Herodotus. Wesselius is a key source here for congruence of Pentateuch with Herodotus.



The sequence in the OT is roughly as follows:



1. Abraham and Sarai (which must be Brahma and Saraswati; no doubt about this given the repeated use of transformed Deity names e.g., Mordecai, Ishtar>Esther) are posited at the beginning of the arc in Babylon. Megasthenes' Indika could not be included in the OT/Penta b/c India defied a stage of extended Greek rule and could not otherwise be believably included, leaving Berossus' Babylonkia, Manetho's Aegyptika, the Assyrian and Persian portions of Herodotus [e.g. Sennacharib], and Cstesias’ Persica, as the constituent parts of the Pentateuch. However, it is likely that the original plan was to have Abraham and Sarai from India itself. Gmirkin is a key source for primacy of the Greek white papers and crafting of the Masoretic after these or at least modeled upon these.



2. Babylon: Abraham, to Levant

3. Levant: Babel, Noah; Flood; post-Flood, Shem, Ham, Japheth (the tricontinental setting is framed using Table of Nations); Arpachshad (a period remnant); Ishmael/Isaac, Sodom/Gomorrah, Jacob/Esau, Joseph (s/o Jacob), Aaron/Moses,

4. Egypt: Moses/Aaron to Egypt >> Israelites, Exodus (MOSES: captivity #1: Pharaoh, also in Herodotus)

5. Levant: Israelites enter Canaan, Joshua (conquest of Canaan); Judges (Gideon [300], Samson, Eli, Samuel); Saul (first King); David, Solomon

6. Levant: 1st Temple (Israel/Judah): United Monarchy splits into Israel (N) / Judah (S)

7. Levant: Rehoboam, Jeroboam I, Zimri, Tibni, Omri, Ahab, Jehoshaphat (1st theophorics), Jeroboam II, Uzziah, Zechariah, Hezekiah

8. Assyria: Israel falls to Assyria (ISAIAH: captivity #2: Sennacharib, also in Herodotus)

9. Levant (Judah): Manasseh Amon, Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin (2nd theophorics); Zedekiah

10. Babylon: Judah falls to Babylon. Temple Destroyed (DANIEL: captivity #3: Nebuchadnezzar: also in Herodotus)

11. Persia eclipses Babylon

12. Levant: 2nd Temple under Cyrus

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

13. Unstated: Xerxes, the great King, is missing from the narrative, tangentially implied in Esther where the king gives license to Jews to pillage (!)

14. Unstated (missing climax): Persia (Xerxes) is eclipsed by the Greeks (300) (climax instead placed in Herodotus; the Pentateuch meta-level account misses a key transition straddling the Persian to Greek!; Xerxes’ failure in Herodotus contrasted to predecessor Cyrus)

15. Post biblical begins with Maccabees, ends with another transition to NT; two desolation narratives, one for each western power. (each desolation instance also fulfills the prophecy framed in Daniel; the latter Roman one is physically finalizing with the (2nd) Destruction of the Temple).



From this sequence, a Persian provenance for the OT cannot be maintained; the Persians do have a relationship with the “Jews” but it is similar to the relationship of the Canaanites to the Jews or the Indians to the “Aryans”; Daniel secures Persian obeisance for the Monotheist Deity just as Moses does in the case of the Egyptians and Isaiah for the Assyrians. While the Egyptian and Assyrians are destroyed, Persia is eclipsed by Greece in Herodotus. The textual structure of Herodotus and Pentateuch match (Wesselius) and indeed are coterminous for native prophesizer and alien conqueror.

[sumishi]

[size="3"]O Man, this thread was heavy like a neutron star, and I was just "flippin thru" from start to finish!<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wacko.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':wacko:' />

Believe me, it is not for the lay, and tough enough for an overlay, like me!

Had a sense of the discussion, and my main question to the guru protagonists is (if they would kindly comply) -- What's the bottom line on Jesus as an entity, as of the current state of discussion? Is he a creation of the mind? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />

[/size]

[dhu]

Friends,

I am reserving the detailed reply to this question, but the quick answer is that the jesus is a normed sepoy, while the OT prophets are normed natives or heathens. In modern terms, a normed sepoy is a normed macaulayite ie a communist. While the Macaulayite is unmasked and overt, the communist is masked and covert.

[dhu]

Sumishi,

Basically we have to conceive 2 different instances for monotheism:



1. when the heathen needs to be tamed (or normed) - this is the OT portion of monotheism, and this is primarily a revisionist stage.

Because it is just a revisionist stage and also a stage where the monotheist categories are first generated, often this stage appears to be non-proselytizing or even defunct or retired from proselytizing; such a conception completely misses the “point” of this stage.



2. when the monotheist framework expands into new territory – this is the NT portion of monotheism, and this is primarily an “active” stage.

In this stage, the heathen may or may not be a target; in societies which have been fully monotheized and no residue of heathenism exists, all factions are operative at this level only and they will of course spar among themselves exclusively and without any issues (e.g., shia vs. sunni, liberal vs conservative).



_______________________________________________________________________



1. To problematize monotheism into existence, the basic ‘raw material’ that is the heathen reality must be used initially: Reality gets normed against an ideal oppositely posed; thus, the basic unit of the OT stage is an aspect of reality and its idealized opposite (e.g., the idol-worshipper and the idol-breaker). However, the 2 basic units here (reality versus the ideal) are dependent upon each other, and so the ‘ideal’ categories are not able to be composed in a (self-sustaining and obvious) ‘system’; for this a 3rd category is required which can ‘reconcile’ the 2 units: this is the monotheist Deity, which is Independent and can simply “will” congruence between ‘reality’ and ‘ideal’ instantaneously.

Of course, the monotheist Deity still remains a tertiary level problematization and so, to compensate, all sorts of ruses become necessary: foremost, the reconciliation must be ‘founded’ at the beginning of Time with the (quasi-)dynamic of the 2 basic units used to actuate the periodic revelation of the Reconciliation in time (e.g., revelatory history) as well as to “interpret” all Reality itself (i.e., interpretative history).

It is in this space that the Jewish OT Deity is founded; the Jew himself is concerned with revising the time dynamic as the history of the Revelation of this Reconciliation. The (Jewish) Reconciliatory History is simultaneously conquering (Joshua) and self-taming/self-punishing (Moses), but the Reconciliation is mostly concerned with norming the past.

Again, of note, is that the all-actuating Deity is generated in response to (and is a reconciliation of) 2 more basic units, one of which is the Heathen Reality itself (deemed deficient) and the other is its mirror i.e., the City of God (deemed ideal); thus the Reconciliation is secondary to the City of God, which itself has been problematized from the heathen Reality.

(This OT Trinity is a re-conciliatory dialectic; however, this Trinity is always muted (never manifested) because of the inclusion of the heathen reality as a formative aspect [this is in superficial contrast to the heathen Triguna where Sattva is not a reconciliation of the “problems” of Tamas or Rajas])



2. Once the above frameworks have been formulated, in order to propagate monotheism, a purposive explanation must be postulated that “explains” Reality (explanatory history) or is otherwise liberating, salvational, essential, utilitarian, i.e., that has “meaning” and “purpose”; the interpretation-level baselining of Reality basically demands a explanational “purpose” into the future. This is the NT level stage, in which the Reconciliation is itself taken as the normative ‘ideal’ and it is the Sepoy Reality (the Jew’s Reality) which gets normed as deficient (instead of the heathen Reality) (i.e., the monotheized Jew himself is the villain of the NT and is damned). The (new) Reconciliation thus engendered is a purposive Reconciliation that purportedly ‘saves’ and ‘liberates’ i.e., Jesus. In this instance, however, the reconciliation is sensitive to counter-accusation (?) from the Jew and therefore a mask must be donned; the Savior is masked as the true native voice (of aspiration) and in his affected suffering displaces that of the colonized (heathen) native itself.

(This NT Trinity can yes manifest, because the heathen has been summarily excluded in this NT round)



Mapping the above two instances onto current categories in Desh, we get the following:

* British Macaulay = colonizer

1. Native Macaulayite = Jewish = colonized, concerned primarily with negating the

past, negating the heathen dynamic and Reality

2. Communist = Jesus = masked colonizer and masked colonized, concerned primarily

with expansion by damning the macaulayite/Empire and presuming to assume the

native voice

___________________________________________________________



3. Eventually, even this NT Trinity is deemed problematic for the overall coherence of the “System”: either the 2nd reconciliation is demoted (Arianism), or the 1st reconciliation is promoted (Islam).

[sumishi]

[size="3"]^^

dhu garu, I would like to thank you for your reply even before I digest the above post, which will require a couple of extra readings, and also references to earlier parts of this thread.[/size][size="3"] Also, got your blogs' list from a link given by ramana in a post in BRF[/size].

[ramana]

Dhu, Brilliant summary. So there are forces (Romans, Western Europeans) outside the forces (Abrahmics), which are trying to change History and themselves get subverted(Christianism).*



Now that you have it at a higher level can you dumb it down so it can be understood by common folks?



* What gives or drives the urge for these folks to repeatedly pull this stunt on the new normed people? For example Marx pulled the stunt of calling the Europeans(newly normed by Christianity) as the oppressors/colonists etc and founded new christianity/Communism!



Can you try to look at Hitler and Nazism thru this prism?



*** In ancient Middle East, Egypt stands as a colossus for many centuries from ~3000BC.



Was the monotheism first started to tame/normatize the Egyptians? And then the rest of the Middle East: Assyria, Persia, Greeks and finally Romans? So from Middle East it was actually areas around the Mediterranean Sea? The Arabs jumped in as "me too" much later under Muhammad?

[dhu]

This is the impression (details to follow):



Baselining at a cultural level (e.g. the christian "tradition", the christian "community") is a defensive posture and for post-NT-stage problematizations is equivalent to Arianism: dialectic is disposed off (i.e., the NT-level Trinity is demoted and there is a [relative] deficiency in psyops). Because it is an NT-stage problematization, the heathen can be tolerated.

(This is different than acculturation)



Nazism, appears to be a case of the above, with its infatuation with the Aryan appearing to be a case of heathen toleration: in fact, the heathen is not merely tolerated but is posed as the cultural ancestor. On the other the Jew is despised, the sepoy infiltrator of the East (i.e., the communist) is despised, as well as all liberal colonial modernist Freudian psyops. Of note, the resurrected heathen (i.e., the Aryan) cannot be produced by the Nazi, but is a product of the modernist/Communist.



When Arianism escapes control of the handler, it transforms into Islam: the OT-stage reconciliation is promoted; in fact, there is a “reenactment” of the violence of the OT with respect to the heathen; while with Judaism this had been only revisionist history to produce a self-flagellating sepoy Jew macaulayite. The elements of the NT-stage reconciliation (i.e., the Sepoy [Jew] Reality and the Son of the One True God) are tolerated. It is also possible that there is a passive-aggressive relationship with the Jew which was the product of the OT-stage probelamtization: the Jew is inactive in the pursuit and expansion of the One True God and thus despised. There is a not a despising but rather an inability to form dialectic level problematizations (modernist/communists); the OT Trinity is always hidden due to formative dependence upon the heathen.



Is it possible that handler resurrects Arianism knowing that Islam will result… This is unclear.

[ramana]

Sir Hillaire Beloc in one of his works calls Arianism the first heresy and Islam as a heresy without being Christian. He lumps Communism also as a heresy without being in the Church.



Once again you are on right track.



In Nazism is the Aryan the resurrected/revivied heathen?



Also your description makes it clear the roots of Nazism are in the Church doctrine. Also would explain the US versions in South. IOW we will have such movements periodically and suddenly in disparate places.

[dhu]

[quote name='ramana' date='15 September 2011 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1316097779' post='112887']

the roots of Nazism are in the Church doctrine. Also would explain the US versions in South. IOW we will have such movements periodically and suddenly in disparate places.

[/quote]



Christianity itself is well-capable of brutalizing the heathens; this seems to be part of the project of eliminating/reversing the Jew in the NT: the Jew is followed back into its own territory of the OT where the heathen is located. This can be done because the problematizing rubric of the Trinity is retained.

But this is not seen with Nazism or with the culturally-baselined US South. Again, this seems to be because of defensive baselining at the level of the NT (i.e., culturally christian, a christian cultural community [as opposed to a community of believers]). Breivik seems to be another case of this.



Only Christians retain the Trinity, Communists retain a materialistic trinity in the dialectic; this has significance for psyops generation.

[dhu]

A quick data post illustrating how innocent and quite touching heathen traditions are problematized as monotheisms and proto-monotheisms.

I came across the second inscription below in a children's book by Zahi Hawass, thought it was illustrative of the non-normativity of the Amarna Period, but couldn't find it again in the book to write down. When I looked it up today, I came across the following..

At least one reporter even went so far as to mistranslate a bit of [color="#FF0000"]text inscribed on a mud brick [/color]found in front of the Anubis shrine:



[color="#0000FF"] “I will kill all of those who cross this threshold into the sacred precincts of the royal king who lives forever.”[/color]



In reality, this text reads:



[color="#0000FF"] “I am the one who prevents the sand from blocking the secret chamber.” [/color](Translation by David Silverman, Egyptologist)

And now there is an 80 year history of "speculation" on the "rationality" of Pharaonic curses.

[dhu]

A few quick notes:



The cloak of the Empire (the absent Empire) is differently oriented than the dialectical re-description that results in a category generation of the revolutionary (idol-breaker).

The cloak is present in both NT and OT.

Starting with different raw materials, the end-products of OT and NT normings are different;

In OT, the heathen must me transformed from indifferent to ideological, this is manifested in the reconcilation of the Jealous God (when placed in narrative form)

In NT, the ideological is transformed to activist, this is manifested in the Reconciliation of the Loving God

The OT Reconciliation gives an active appearance to the revolutionary while the NT Reconciliation gives a passive appearance



Also the category genesis of caste system of ideologically grouped peoples is seen in the OT: idol-breaker people versus idol-worshipper people.

[dhu]

direct link: http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/2313/giri1.png

[dhu]

A data post, on Abraham from the North.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur_of_the_Chaldees



Identifying Ur Kaśdim



One of the traditional sites of Abraham's birth is placed in the vicinity of Edessa — Both Islamic tradition and classical Jewish authorities, such as Maimonides and Josephus, placed Ur Kaśdim at various northern Mesopotamian sites such as Urkesh, Urartu, Urfa, or Kutha.



In 1927 Leonard Woolley identified Ur Kaśdim with the Sumerian city of Ur, in southern Mesopotamia, where the Chaldeans had settled around the 9th century BCE;[1] Ur lay on the boundary of the region called Kaldu (Chaldea, corresponding to Hebrew Kaśdim) in the first millennium BCE. It was ....



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Islamic tradition



The traditional site of Abraham's birth according to Islamic tradition is a cave in the vicinity of the ancient Seleucid city Edessa, now called Şanlıurfa. The cave lies near the center of Şanlıurfa and is the site of a mosque called the Mosque of Abraham. The Turkish name for the city, Urfa, is derived from the earlier Syriac ܐܘܪܗܝ (Orhāy) and Greek Ορρα (Orrha). The tradition connecting Ur Kaśdim with Urfa is not exclusive to Islam. The 18th C. anthropologist Richard Pococke noted in his publication Description of the East that this traditional identification of Ur Kaśdim with Urfa was the universal opinion within contemporary Judaism.



Scholars [color="#0000FF"][as usual][/color] are skeptical of the identification of Ur Kaśdim with Urfa. Although the origin of the Greek and Syriac names of the city are uncertain, they appear to be based[original research?] on a native form, Osroe, the name of a legendary founder, the Armenian form of the Persian name Khosrau. Similarity with "Ur" would thus be accidental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haran_%28Biblical_place%29



Ḥaran, Charan, or Charran (Hebrew: חָרָן) is a Biblical place. Haran is almost universally identified with Harran, an Assyrian city whose ruins are in present-day Turkey. In the Hebrew Bible, the name first appears in the Book of Genesis, in the context of Patriarchal times. It appears again in 2 Kings and Isaiah in a late 8th to early 7th century BCE context, and also in the Book of Ezekiel in a 6th century BCE context. In the New Testament, Haran is again mentioned in the Book of Acts, in a recounting of the story in Genesis wherein it first appears.[1]

[dhu]

[quote name='ramana' date='13 September 2011 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1315930724' post='112865']

*** In ancient Middle East, Egypt stands as a colossus for many centuries from ~3000BC.



Was the monotheism first started to tame/normatize the Egyptians? And then the rest of the Middle East: Assyria, Persia, Greeks and finally Romans? So from Middle East it was actually areas around the Mediterranean Sea? The Arabs jumped in as "me too" much later under Muhammad?

[/quote]



Urartu was mittani territory, possibly since India could not be included, the plan was to have mittani as substitutes. The Israelite capitivity/conquest sequence basically follows that of Alexander.

[ramana]

Can you annotate the Israeli/Jewish captivity and conquest path on the same map please?

[dhu]

http://imageshack.us/f/163/giri2.png/

[ramana]

Great job!!!



Now for a two or three line text to supplement your annotation. It can be on the forum here itself and not on the picture.



Once again thanks.

[dhu]

Ramana,



I have posted a diagram which will make clear the 2 successive reconciliations. It is posted above.

(Actually I made this image at the same time as the summary in post #773, so thread integrity is still maintained)



Regarding the ME map, one thing is clear that the primary orientation of the OT is towards Egypt and this is exactly opposite to any that can be posed from the perspective of the Persians.