• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Historicity Of Jesus
That would mean these jewish "desert runts" had the capacity to attack Romans from the western front, with Persian acquired elephants. Why consolidate under "one and only one god" if that powerful. unless the consolidation itself was a false flag operation. get the enemy to murder their own gods. that would also explain why Balaganganadhara locates normative ethics in Aristotle's Ethica Nicomachea and not the mideast. When the first jewish operation was incomplete, the second christian one was initiated.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hannibal Barca ("grace of Baal"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->p. 148-149, "It does not seem far-fetched to suggest,' [Stanley Rothman and Phillip Isenberg] write, 'that with the publication of The Interpretation of Dreams Freud felt that he had weakened if not fully conquered the Catholic Church and had thus succeeded in doing what his father had feared to do.' Rothman and Isenberg adduce much additional evidence to support their thesis concerning Freud's 'Jewish marginality' as the reason for his disaffection with the he Christian world in which he lived. 'Is it possible, then,' they ask, 'that some of the motives associated with Freud's discovery of psychoanalysis had their sources in the same drives which led other Jews to Marxism, i.e., <b>the desire to end marginality by undermining the basis of the dominant culture?' </b>They answer this somewhat rhetorical question affirmatively, though cautiously: 'There is at least some evidence that it is and that Freud was at least partially motivated by an animus towards the Catholic Church which informed and profoundly influenced his initial discoveries.' I differ from this view only by holding that Freud was more than partially influenced by such an animus and that it influenced not only his earlier writings but all of his work.' Rothman and Isenberg note that 'Freud's successful (if symbolic) conquest of Rome' -- in The Interpretation of Dreams -- did not 'lessen his dislike for the Catholic Church ... It was in Rome, too, that Freud, some years later, put the finishing touches on Totem and Taboo, which he always regarded as one of his most important and satisfying things he had written. The volume ostensibly deals with the origins of religion. Yet it is Christian practice and ritual that are examined in terms of primitive drive and defense mechanisms."

The Myth of Psychotherapy.
Mental Healing as Religion, Rhetoric, and Repression.
by Thomas Szasz; Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York, 1978

the Eskimo and priest:

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"

Priest: "No, not if you did not know.

Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
Cato the Elder was the primary Roman anti-Carthage ideologue. He has some statement like "Carthage must be destroyed."

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For example, Cato in his De Re Rustica said:. "And what do you think of usury?" - "What do you think of murder?"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Isn't it odd that the Phoenecian Canaanites, who are accorded as having an world class economic regime in the middle of empires (formal empire is denied to them), should have Jewish kin/devolutes who ban usury.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Most early religious systems in the ancient Near East, and the secular codes arising from them, did not forbid usury. These societies regarded inanimate matter as alive, like plants, animals and people, and capable of reproducing itself. Hence if you lent 'food money', or monetary tokens of any kind, it was legitimate to charge interest.[1] Food money in the shape of olives, dates, seeds or animals was lent out as early as c. 5000 BC, if not earlier. ... Among the Mesopotamians, Hittites, Phoenicians and Egyptians, interest was legal and often fixed by the state. But the Jews took a different view of the matter.[2]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

When we search the names of anti-usury ideologues, we get a plethora of greek philosophers, including the hellenizing Jew Philo.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Usury (in the original sense of any interest) was denounced by a number of spiritual leaders and philosophers of ancient times, including Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Muhammad, Moses, Philo and Gautama Buddha.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The neo-pythagorean, Apollonius of Tyana is Paul. Apollonius imported/distorted Indic elements into Christianity.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The charismatic teacher and miracle worker Apollonius lived in the first century AD. He was born in Tyana (Bor in the south of modern Turkey) and may have belonged to a branch of ancient philosophy called neo-Pythagoreanism. He received divine honors in the third century. Although the Athenian sophist (professional orator) Philostratus wrote a lengthy Life of Apollonius, hardly anything about the sage is certain. However, there are several bits and pieces of information that may help us reconstruct something of the life of this man, who was and is frequently compared to the Jewish sage and miracle worker Jesus of Nazareth.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Paul has five to four visits to jerusalem. See the relevant wiki page.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi uziyahu:

While I was working through the Jesus/Titus typology I was often frightened. I really did not want to see what I was seeing. When I finished piecing together the basic relationship I put the analysis in a desk drawer for several years while trying to determine if I should take it public. I wish I could say I made a reasoned decision but what happened was the guilt over not producing it simply overcame my fear of the personal and cultural consequences if I did.

Unfortunately there is a lot more to the analysis and many of our dearest cultural treasures will be overturned as their real meaning becomes clear.

As you will see, the Pauline literature decoding that I will post here shortly shows it to be as black and obscene as any literature ever produced. And it is just small potatoes compared to what's coming.

I really do not want to be the bearer of this news and wish other scholars would take up the analysis. But at the moment I seem to be the only one who is reading our literature typologically and the task has somehow has fallen to me. 

Joe  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the small apocalypse of Saint Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, a "man of sin", "the son of perdition" is to take over the temple of God, on the false pretense that he is God himself. Interestingly Antiochus Epiphanes, around 170 BC, commanded Jews to sacrifice pigs on the altar, four times a year on the Shabbat, in tribute to him as the supreme god of the Seleucids.
<!--emo&Smile--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Went to caesarsmessiah.com and read the summaty of Atwill's findings and read the reviews.

Fabulous! <!--emo&:bhappy--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/b_woot.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='b_woot.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:bhappy--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/b_woot.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='b_woot.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:bhappy--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/b_woot.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='b_woot.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:bhappy--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/b_woot.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='b_woot.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Dhu, I think you should create blog of all your posts and get it more traffic. I am sure many members will pitch in. The thing is blogs seem to attract a wider audience and traffic.

Can you tell us in simple terms what this "Cannibal Mary" thing is?

BTW I was also reading

There are many books on the Big Christian Lie, it seems.. (and I am not talking about the 5 19th century books referred to by Sita Ram Goel in his book...I forget the title now.)

<!--emo&Smile--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/156...0021198-1987076 <!--emo&Smile--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
From Joe Atwill's forum:

The four Gospels were needed to hide the hidden message. Go to the chapter on CM regarding the Puzzle of the Empty Tomb to see how the author created meaning that could only be seen by those able to read intertextually. Though I have been critized for stating it, the fact is that the Gospels are a sort of intelligence test. <b>The point the Romans were making is that if the reader does not have the rational ablility to see the connections between texts he or she deserves 'Jesus'.</b>

Rationality? Atwill is humoring himself here. Rather, we should have title of 'Fratboy origins of western civilization'. It would be much closer to the truth.

Sorry for the late reply.

The narrative of Cannibal Mary is included in The Jewish turncoat Josephus' War of the Jews. War of the Jews was actually included with the four canonical gospels as a part of the NT during the entire 1st millenium AD and was taken out by the church for unknown reasons. This confirms that any integrated reading of War with the canonical gospels is historically plausible.

In War, Josephus states that Mary (which means rebellious woman and signifies The Defeated Jews) is caught in the Siege of Jerusalem by Titus. She resorts to roasting and cannibalizing her son, which she offers to other suffering Jews. She is said to belong to the ‘house of hyssop’ (beth-ezob). Hyssop is a plant associated with the Passover feast and her manner of cannibalizing the son is in accord with jewish dietary laws regarding the preparation of a Passover sacrifice of a lamb. So basically Josephus has described a human Passover lamb which is cannibalized by its mother, Mary (the rebellious Jews)

Now Jeebus also has long been recognized as an example of a human Passover sacrifice by the God the father. But Atwill notices that jeebus is dabbed in sour wine with a branch of Hyssop when on the crucifixion and his limbs are not broken (in accordance with jewish dietary laws). What more, Jeebus offers his disciples his body to be cannibalized in a feast preceding the crucifixion. Essentially, atwill claims, this narrative had ended up in getting the rebellious jews to feast on their own messiah, in lieu of the passover lamb. But the irony goes further and this is what links the canonical gospels with their historical mirror, War of the Jews. In atwill’s own words:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And notice that when viewed from such a perspective the passage would certainly be seen as comical, the irony being self-evident of a Messiah who instructs his followers to symbolically "eat of my flesh" actually having his flesh eaten by his mother.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I will post the full except from CM.
Thanks Dhuji..

I have decided to give the Christ Hoax the coveted Biggest Joke of All Time Award.

So far the Award had gone to Muhammad ibn PBUH for his "The Allah Hoax", but his work was rather crude (effective, but crude). Titus has swept the panel of Joke Judges off its feet with his elegant straight drive down the ground with full follow through.

Hail Titus.

<!--emo&:bcow--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/b_cowboy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='b_cowboy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Can some body counter this

Joseph Atwill, who describes himself as a "successful businessman" living in California, has a penned a book which, if true, would render virtually all previous New Testament research useless. According to Atwill, the Gospels were written by intellectuals in the court of the Flavian emperors (Vespasian, Titus and Domitian) some time after the Jewish War (66-73 AD). <b>As Atwill tells it, the Romans were worried about militant Jewish messianic movements and therefore created the Gospels to encourage the Jews to worship a peaceful Messiah, one sympathetic to the Roman government.</b> It also turns out that the account of the Jewish war by the turncoat Jew Flavius Josephus was also written by these same court intellectuals. The alert reader who compares Josephus' account of the Jewish War with the Gospels finds numerous parallels between Jesus' ministry and Titus' military campaigns in the Jewish War. While Jewish-Christians of the first century and Christians today believe they worship the Jewish Messiah, in fact they worship the Roman emperor Titus.

Here are just a few of the problems:
First, there isn't any doubt that Jesus existed and that there was a growing Christian movement in existence long before the Flavian dynasty.</b> Atwill would have the reader believe that Christians for some reason decided to embrace these fraudulent Gospels without this leaving a trace in the historical record. Who wrote the Gospels, how they were introduced into the Christian community, and why they were accepted without leaving any hint of controversy is something Atwill never gets around to explaining.
Second, the alleged parallels between Jesus and events recounted in Josephus are for the most part less than compelling. </b>I didn't have the time to check many in detail, but the ones I did weren't persuasive. For example, Atwill puts great stock in a supposed parallel between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4 and certain Jewish rebels that Josephus records as having died of dehydration in Mount Gerizim. According to Atwill, Jesus' description of himself as providing "living water" would have been recognizable to Roman readers as "dark humor." However, John records the conversation as taking place in Sychar, which is near Mount Ebal, not Mount Gerizim. Water is common theme in John's Gospel and had already been introduced. Even taking many of Atwill's supposed parallels at face value, they aren't persuasive. I don't get the similarity between Jesus calling his disciples to "fish for men" and Titus' soldiers killing Jews in the Sea of Galilee. Nor I do I see the connection between a Mary killing and eating her son in Josephus and the Christian doctrine of the eucharist. That no one saw these alleged parallels until Atwill came on the scene suggests that the Gospels aren't the satirical knee-slappers he believes them to be.
Third, to the extent that there are any parallels between the Gospels and Josephus that can't be explained by coincidence, it is much more readily explained by the Gospel writers borrowing from Josephus or a common source.
Fourth, Atwill is certainly correct to note that certain portions of the NT are pro-Roman, but he goes way beyond the evidence.</b> And it is unlikely that Roman writers would describe Jesus in such exalted terms if encouraging docility to the Roman state was their goal. In fact, Jesus is often presented in a manner setting him in opposition to emperor worship. Readers who are interested in this topic might consult Ethelbert Stauffer's classic CHRIST AND THE CAESARS.
Fifth, Atwill shows virtually no familiarity with any remotely mainstream New Testament scholarship. If he had read such work he would have avoided many of his dubious interpretations of certain New Testament texts. </b>For example, he asserts that the Gospels are anti-Jewish, citing the well-known line in Matthew's Gospel where during the crucifixion certain Jews exclaim "let his blood be on us and our children." (Matt. 27:24.) This most likely means that the Jews are accepting responsibility for their actions, not calling a curse on future generations. Likewise, although much of the language Jesus and Paul use concerning Jewish leaders sounds harsh to modern ears, their denunciations aren't different from that of Old Testament prophets who called Israel to repentance.


The Mysteries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief That Shaped the Christian World (Paperback)
by Payam Nabarz (Author), Caitlin Matthews (Foreword)

# Paperback: 240 pages
# Publisher: Inner Traditions (June 20, 2005)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 1594770271
# ISBN-13: 978-1594770272

From page one, Nabarz showers the reader with dense historical information about the origins of Mithras, an ancient Persian protector god whose worship can be traced as far back as the second millennium B.C.E. The Mithras cult is said to pre-date even Zoroastrianism, and made its way west into the pagan traditions of the Roman Empire. Nabarz, a Mithras revivalist, Sufi and practicing dervish, offers a book that is part history-primer, part practical guide "designed to help the spiritual seeker develop a deeper understanding of the Mithraic mysteries," and perform initiation rites and Mirthraic liturgy. Readers unfamiliar with Persian history, Eastern religions, and Roman paganism may find it difficult to wade beyond the background information packed into the first half of the book. Filled with interesting history, solid research and a range of Mithraic myths from around the world, the initial chapters are slow going. For those interested in the contemporary practice of Mithraism, Nabarz's exploration of this tradition picks up when he tells the Mithraic fairytale of Simorgh, which explains the nature of Mithras's partner, the goddess Anahita, and takes the reader step by step through a series of meditations and initiation rites. Luckily, Payam's chapters are organized so that the reader can choose between practical guidance and Mithraic history.

If you want a definative historical book that covers all aspects of mithraic religious beliefs, this book is probably not scholarly enough for you.

For me, this book was a great recaping of mithraic traditions and an overview of what we know.

One MAJOR advantage of this work is the fact that the author himself is Persian. And more importantly knows the "living mithraic traditions" that are still alive today either in full force or in echos. It's like reading a book about New York written by a Scholar from Bombay, India who's never been to the city but has studied every aspect of the city for years. Versus a native New Yorker who'll tell you how New York is, and what's good or bad about it.

Neither account should be dismissed, they offer different perspectives, this book is more like the native describing what the traditions of mithra are/were and how they play into a living people's traditions. From iconography, to prayers and customs.

I highly recommend this to anyone interested in Religions, ancient history, and Philosophy.

I especially recommend this to dogmatic Muslims, Jews and Christians, as you may find that a lot about where aspects of your religion came from. Good customs and traditions never die, they simply change name.

The unlikely, connections between Ancient Irish and Iranian folklore is also amazing to read. Who knew that both Iran and Ireland mean the same thing......

I do not know where the above criticism came from, but all of Atwill's either don't read what he had written or they assume dates and other things, and then try to disprove what somebody has proven *based on their own unspoken, unproven assumptions* . For examples, from CM forum:

My exchange with Richard Carrier was strange. It began with his posting criticisms of Caesar’s Messiah which were incoherent and indicated that he had not read my book (he later admitted that this was the case). I ask if I could send him a copy “to improve his criticism”. He declined and asked me to send him my “strongest piece of evidence”. I replied that since the Jesus /Titus relationship was a “literary system built incrementally” there was no such thing, but sent him the citations for a few of the parallels to try and encourage him to actually read the book. Instead he began to critique what he thought the relationships were between the parallels – not my analysis (he still has never read Caesar’s Messiah).

After a lengthy and private debate (which he lost badly) he creatively edited our remarks into a format of his choosing and posted them on a public forum without allowing me to first respond. If you read his critique you will see he writes “Atwill posted” in front of my remarks. This a lie, none of these remarks were “posted” but occurred within private emails going back in forth within our exchange.

When I read his edited version I told him that his behavior was unscholarly and unethical and that we should have an unedited and public discussion on my work to allow everyone to see whose analysis can stand scrutiny. He chickened out, of course.

As an example of what Richard edited out, he claimed that parallel human Passover lambs were not linked because the family relationship between ‘Eleazar’ and ‘Mary’ was not the same in each story. I pointed out that in the typological system between Jesus and Moses (the system that the Jesus/Titus typology is built upon) the family relationship between the ‘Josephs who go to Egypt’ is not the same either. Somehow Richard forgot to include my response in his edited version of the exchange and claimed that I was one ignoring his points.

If anyone has communication with Carrier please restate my offer to him of a public exchange.

(1) #157:
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Oct 21 2007, 12:28 AM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 21 2007, 12:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->www.amazon.com/Mysteries-Mithras-Belief-Shaped-Christian/dp/1594770271/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/002-3815757-8338435

The Mysteries of Mithras: The Pagan Belief That Shaped the Christian World (Paperback)
by Payam Nabarz (Author), Caitlin Matthews (Foreword)

The unlikely, connections between Ancient Irish and Iranian folklore is also amazing to read. <b>Who knew that both Iran and Ireland mean the same thing......</b>[right][snapback]74479[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Payam Nabarz crashed and burnt right there. Not that I was interested in a book by a "Sufi who also claims to be a Mithraist". (Wah?) Hey, where's that heap of salt gone to...

The names of Ireland and Iran do NOT mean the same thing. But Oryan fantasists keep thinking that. And such readers as the one who commented on the above and upon reading 'discovered' that Ireland and Iran supposedly mean the same thing shows how some people are incapable of verifying any (absurd) claims. Please tell me the person commenting was not Irish. Most Irish people would know where the name Ireland came from.

(2) #156:
Acharya, that user-like review you pasted on Joseph Atwill's book seems to be something from Amazon. Any books in Amazon critical of jesus, or the gospels or a historical christ tend to attract a bunch of christian spammers who say a lot but turn out never to have read the book in question. Seems like such a fellow, albeit <i>initially</i> more sensible-sounding. Am with Shambhu in his assessment of this. Sounds like the user-reviewer pulled a Richard Carrier.

(3) Shambhu wrote in #155:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have decided to give the Christ Hoax the coveted Biggest Joke of All Time Award.
So far the Award had gone to Muhammad ibn PBUH for his "The Allah Hoax", but his work was rather crude (effective, but crude). Titus has swept the panel of Joke Judges off its feet with his elegant straight drive down the ground with full follow through.
Hail Titus.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Pseudo-Hecataeus on the Jews

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Panchaeans, set on an imaginary island in the Indian Ocean. It included the celebrated Euhemerist religious conception, according to which the gods were actually deified kings and heroes of the past. Less well known is that this idea was expressed earlier by Hecataeus of Abdera with regard to "terrestrial" gods in his Egyptian ethnography (Diod. I.13ff.).[17]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The life, history, and character of autochthonous peoples would be dictated, to a great extent, by geography, especially soil, water, climate, and fauna. Cult and beliefs, which were referred to without comment by earlier ethnographers, received rational explanations. Even the notorious Egyptian animal cult was given a detailed rationalization, pointing out the benefits brought by the animals to the Egyptians (Diod. I.86ff.).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)