| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Was Jesus a king of Edessa
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Was Jesus a king of Edessa

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
rellis View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Location: Salop
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rellis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Was Jesus a king of Edessa
    Posted: 21 Dec 2012 at 16:17

Was Jesus a king of Edessa?


The answer is complicated, but let us begin with Jesus being a priest-king.  The biblical epistles say that Jesus was not only a rabbi, but became the High Priest of Jerusalem (see Hebrews 7). He was also called the christ and messiah, which both mean 'king'. 


So which 'Jesus' became High Priest of Jerusalem, as the New Testament claims? The answer just has to be Jesus of Gamala, who became high priest in about AD 63. Don't worry about the late date here, as every verse and record similarly point towards this late date.


So does this scenario have legs? Yes indeed, because one of the central claims by Professor Robert Eisenman, in his two vast seminal works on the N.T., says that Mary/Martha of Simon-Boethus were the same as the biblical Mary/Martha who lived at the house of Simon in Bethany. This Mary of Bethany was, of course, Mary Magdalene, as the Catholic Church now admits (they used to admit this, then they did not, and now they do again). Yet this conflation of characters would again place Mary Magdalene in the AD 60s, and not the AD 30s, as Mary/Martha Boethus was an AD 60s character.


The interesting thing here, is that the Talmud says that Jesus of Gamala married Mary Boethus (ie: he married Mary Magdalene). More than that, Mary Boethus (nee Mary Magdalene) was said to have been the richest woman in Judaea.



You get the picture as to the method in which the N.T. has been distorted, to bring a high-born family down to the lowest of low. This was purposely done by Saul, to suit his Roman patrons, but more on that later.



Next, we turn to Edessa, and the story of King Abgarus of Edessa writing letters to Jesus.


Firstly, we need to understand what family this King Abgarus au Kama belonged to. To do this, we need to go back to Jesus of Gamala once more. Note here, that the title 'Gama-la' and 'Kama' are the same in Aramaic, and so we have our first link. Jesus of Gamala (the high priest of Jerusalem who married Mary Magdalene) was possibly related to King Abgarus.


So who was Jesus of Gamala? Well, Josephus Flavius says he was the rebel leader of the Fourth Sect of Judaism, who started and prosecuted the Jewish Revolt in the late AD 60s (note the late date again). However, just to confuse matters, Josephus also claims that it was a King Izas of Adiabene who started and prosecuted the Jewish Revolt in the late AD 60s.


Hmm, it looks like Jesus of Gamala and Izas of Adiabene were the same person (especially since they have the same name). This is why this 'unknown' Jesus of Gamala was so influential, because he was a King (King Izas). But King Izas was a King of the Jews, because his mother, Queen Helena, converted to Judaism. However, the biblical Jesus was also a King of the Jews - he was the 'christ' and 'messiah', which both mean 'king', and he was crucified as the 'King of the Jews'.


So the biblical Jesus, Jesus of Gamala, and King Izas of Adiabene were possibly all the same person. But who was this Jesus-Izas of Adiabene in the historical record? - because Josephus is deliberately obfuscative here. And that kingdom called Adiabene is pretty mythical too, because no historian has ever pinned it down to a precise region, with real supporting evidence. Where was Adiabene?


The answer resides with the Syriac historians, like Moses of Chorene, who say that Queen Helena of Adiabene was the wife of King Abgar au Kama V of Edessa. So the mother of King Izas was married to King Abgarus, which presumably means that King Izas of Adiabene was a son of King Abgarus of Edessa. One of the principle ways we can prove this, is that we have already identified King Izas as being Jesus of Gamala. But the Gama-la and Kama titles are the same, so King Abgar au Kama was actually King Abgar au Gama-la. Of course, there is much more evidence besides this.



So if you are following this logic, then it is axiomatic that King Abgar au Kama of Edessa would have been writing to the biblical Jesus - for Jesus was his son....



.



Edited by rellis - 21 Dec 2012 at 17:22
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Henry Fleischmann View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 24 Nov 2012
Location: Not given
Status: Offline
Points: 29
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Henry Fleischmann Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Dec 2012 at 03:34

Could you source some of this? It sounds very interesting

 
My problem is the date. While it's true enough that most dates from ancient and even medieval sources are a little iffy at best my understanding is that the birth of Christ (or whomever, whatever he may have been, assuming he actually existed at all.) is pretty solidly tied to the period of 4BCE to 30 CE with the predominance going with the earlier date. 60CE is pretty much right out, unless you are saying he was crucified in his 60's. That's possible, of course, or maybe the later dates are better, which would make it spot on.
 
The "every verse and record" you talk of, is, at least by what you've cited, every verse and record which supports the rest of your theory, which, of course, they would (no offense, just saying) 
 
Jesus, as I understand it, was actually not an uncommon name among Jews at the time. (It's not exactly unknown now, but mainly among Christians) and the historians of the time were more propagandists than careful record keepers. It would be easy to get some names and people mixed up.
 


Edited by Henry Fleischmann - 25 Dec 2012 at 04:10
Back to Top
rellis View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Location: Salop
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rellis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Dec 2012 at 13:17
Originally posted by Henry Fleischmann Henry Fleischmann wrote:

Could you source some of this? It sounds very interesting

My problem is the date. 
 


The late date is easily explainable because, as I intimated previously, there are literally dozens of allusions to this later date.  These include:

The gospels contain a description of the siege of Jerusalem (L 19:43)

If Jesus became High Priest of Jerusalem, as in in Hebrews 7, this requires a later date (AD 62 or 63).

Linking the murders of the New Testament's Zacharias of Barachias and Josephus' Zacharias of Baruch (both in the Temple), requires a later date.

If Jesus was Jesus of Gamala, this would require a later date.  And do remember that the wife of Jesus of Gamala was Mary Boethus, who has been linked to Mary Magdalene by Professor Eisenman.

If Mary and Martha of Beothus were the Bethany sisters, as Eisenman implies, then this would require an AD 60s date.

Josephus also narrates Jesus' armed gathering on the Mount of Olives, but Josephus' version takes place in the AD 60s.

The Toledot Yeshu has an account of Jesus' trial before Queen Helena, in the late AD 40s.

The letter of Mara bar Serapion says that Judaea was destroyed just after the death of Jesus - ie, after the Jewish Revolt in AD 70.

The Doctrine of Addai has deliberately changed the name of the Roman Emperor, to fit into the AD 30s date. But if you look at the governors of Judaea and Syria, these letters were written to Jesus in the late AD 40s.

The Talmud claims that Jesus tried to become not simply a king of Judaea, but also Emperor of Rome after Nero (III Sotah 46b), and this would require a later date of the AD 60s.

The Talmud calls Jesus 'bar Kamza' (they went to the same party, plus bar Kamza is Prince Izas). But bar Kamza was blamed for the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The Talmud claims that Phinehas the Robber killed Balaam (ie: Phinehas killed Jesus). (Sanhedrin 106b). But Phinehas the Robber was the Temple treasurer in AD 70, and the person he betrayed was Izas-Jesus of Adiabene-Gamala.

The Vulgate Cycle's account of Joseph of Arimathaea requires a later AD 70s date (the literary solution to this, is that Joseph has to fall asleep for 40 years, to transport himself from the AD 30s to the AD 70s).

The Vulgate Cycle of Arthurian legend says that Joseph of Arimathaea came to England because of the 'storm of persecution' against the Christians and Jews. This has to be a description of the fall of Jerusalem, in AD 70.

The Vulgate cycle says that Josephus Flavius was a 'witness to scripture'. This could only be so if the biblical events happened in the AD 60s, not the AD 30s.


.

And unlike contemporary explanation I think that the name Jesus was actually quite rare.  It was derived from the Persian name Izates, which is contracted to Izas  (the Arabic Essa, meaning Jesus). Thus it was not derived from 'Joshua'.   

And the was quite rare because most of the people using this name were either the same person, or related.  Thus Jesus of Gamala was the biblical Jesus.  Izas of Adiabene was the biblical Jesus (they both started and ended the Jewish Revolt).  And people like Jesus Barabbas were obviously related (it means Son of Jesus).


The details for this argument are taken from King Jesus and Jesus, King of Edessa.


.





Back to Top
rellis View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Location: Salop
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rellis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Dec 2012 at 13:41
.

Also, it is highly likely that this particular King of Edessa was the same as the biblical Jesus, because they had the same names and crowns:


The biblical Jesus was called Jesus-Manuel.

The king of Edessa was called Izas-Manu.


Also 


The biblical Jesus wore a Crown of Thorns.

The king of Edessa wore a ceremonial Crown of Thorns. 



Thus is is likely that these two princes were the same person.


There are many other reasons besides this, of course, but you need to know a lot more about this Edessan royal family before you can see those connections.  We can go through those other reasons point by point, but they will take a lot of explaining. (Some have already been explored in the first posting on this thread.)






King Izas Manu-el of Edessa wearing his Crown of Thorns, just the same as Jesus EmManuel did.



.

Back to Top
Buerebista 12 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Location: Nürnberg
Status: Offline
Points: 24
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buerebista 12 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2013 at 19:05
My question is: was Jesus a jew? In the bible they say that he was a 'galilean' and this come from the gauls that populated that region (Galileea) in that time. That explains also why in all the paintings Jesus is mainly blond or dark-blond with blue or green eyes, and that was very unusual for the jewish people in that time. That explains also why his learnings was so different from the jewish Tora and why the jewish people voted for freeing the rebel and not the 'galilean'and perhaps why the jewish preasts insisted at the roman governor  to convict him without any fault.
These are all with maybe, but what if they are for REAL?
Mind over matter
Back to Top
rellis View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Location: Salop
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rellis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2013 at 21:16

>>My question is: was Jesus a jew? In the bible they say that 
>>he was a 'galilean' and this come from the gauls that populated 
>>that region (Galileea) in that time. 

Actually, he was a Nazarene, which was called the Fourth Sect of Judaism.  Thus Jesus was not 'from Galilee' but 'was a Galli'  -  he was a Nazarene priest, who were called Galli.  And the Galli venerated the Primaeval Adam and the myths of Osiris.  

The Nazarene also revered the cult of the eunuch, which is why Jesus asked his disciples to become eunuchs in Math 19:12.

The new history of this region demonstrates that Jesus had an Egyptian and Parthian heritage, while the traditions of his 'home city' of Edessa was infused with Sabaeanism.  If you pull all these threads together, this was primarily a cosmological religion, with precessional astrology being at its core.

 



>>That explains also why in all the paintings Jesus is mainly blond or dark-blond 
>>with blue or green eyes, and that was very unusual for the jewish people in that time. 

The traditions of this region and this family indicate that Jesus was ginger haired, which is why every painting of Mary Magdalene you see has Mary with flowing ginger hair.  This is why ginger haired people in this region today are called Issa, or Jesus.  This, below, therefore is an image of what Jesus looked like, taken from 1st century coin and sculptural imagery.






An image of "King Jesus of Edessa" wearing his "Crown of Thorns" and his masonic 'apron'.



.

Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3526
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2013 at 01:49
Ah, how blessed we all are to live in the age of the internet.

-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Peacer View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 04 Mar 2013
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peacer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Mar 2013 at 17:48
This sounds very much in alignment with some of the theory now out there by Lena Einhorn identifying Jesus with the "egyptian" ... especially the timeline shift forward 15 to 20 years, instead of the 30s upwards to the 50s/60s.  She talks about the intentional "name changing" of governors etc. I would recommend reading her material on this as another tack to the same potential conclusions about ust who this guy really was.  She's done some helpful graphic timeline comparisons that really demonstrate the facts.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3526
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2013 at 05:52
I would recommend googling the title of this thread. One of the links is to a Roman Catholic web community, where this internet era nonsense is thouroughly and amusingly exposed for the rag-promoting rubbish that it is.
 
By the way (and in all sincerity -- disagreements need not be personal): welcome to the forum! Smile
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
WGN-9 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24 Mar 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WGN-9 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2015 at 09:51
I'd love to know: What does R. ELLIS think the Eucharist is? specifically speaking - all those Eucharistic miracle claims on YouTube! Or better put; - Who really might have instituted such a custom, in the first place? & is it even possible, live heart muscle & fresh human blood! w/ lab tests & all.
WGN-9
Back to Top
rellis View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Location: Salop
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rellis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2015 at 14:13
>>What does R. ELLIS think the Eucharist is?

Whatever it is, it is nothing to do with Jesus.  Jesus was a Nazarene Jew, and Jews are not allowed to eat blood (kosher rules).  Plus Jesus cleansed the Temple of the sellers of sacrificial animals, so he was obviously against sacrifices.

So why would Jesus invent a ritual sacrifice drinking blood?  Answer - he did not.  This was Saul's doing. Saul was creating a new religion based in part on Mithras and other Gentile beliefs, and this new 'Pagan' ritual sounds very Mithratic.

Nothing to do with Jesus.  His religion was cosmic - the veneration of the precessional zodiac.  The new editions of the books have been updated with a lot more material about the precessional zodiac.

Ralph


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2595
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2015 at 18:17
When you say details of this argument are taken from _King_Jesus_, do you mean Robert Graves book?

Are you saying, Jesus king of Edessa=Jesus as recognized in orthodox Christianity?  I take it that you are saying that the Biblical Jesus is different than the one as recognized by orthodox (with a small 'o') Christianity?  If the Jesus king of Edessa is the same as the Biblical Jesus, then how come they look so 
different?

I find this all a little confusing, and perhaps a little confused.
Jf
Back to Top
rellis View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Location: Salop
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rellis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2015 at 21:06

Not Graves' books, but the ones below.

In this case, the 'two' Jesus are exactly the same, and have very similar lives.  The only difference is that the gospel version has fairy-dust on it.  For instance, the gospels call Jesus a pauper carpenter, and then a king.  So come on, which is it - pauper or king?

The answer, of course is that he was a real king, but the gospels don't want to admit that, so they blur the issue.  And they don't want you to know that he was a king, because Jesus (as the king of Edessa) was doing just what kings do - he went to war in Judaea.  A real war. It is called the Jewish Revolt in the historical record, and it was fomented and led by the king of Edessa (King Izas).  Perhaps you can see why the gospels sought to amend that history and turn Jesus into a pacifist.  This is what I mean by a real history with added fairy-dust.

And what do you mean by 'look so different'?  We have no images of Jesus, except for the one on the coin above.  If you refer to the armour and swords, all of the disciples were armed.

RE

The "Gospel of King Jesus Trilogy" includes:

"Cleopatra to Christ"
http://www.amazon.com/Cleopatra-Christ-Jesus-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B00480P9AY
"King Jesus"
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-prince-Judaea-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B004A14TH0
"Jesus, King of Edessa"
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-King-Edessa-Trilogy-Book-ebook/dp/B009Q5F9CO


Back to Top
rellis View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Location: Salop
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rellis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2015 at 21:17
>>Akalouthos
>>I would recommend googling the title of this thread. where this internet era nonsense
>>is thouroughly and amusingly exposed for the rag-promoting rubbish that it is.


If you refer to Tom Verenna, be advised that Verenna is a failed student who did not even read the books; and his so-called 'review' bears no relationship to the books whatsoever.  Frankly, Verenna is probably the most dishonest 'historian' since Eusebius, and that is saying something.  Google 'Verenna idiot'.

This was my analysis of Verenna's bogus 'review'.  Do remember that Verenna is a part of a religious cabal, who are seeking to maintain the status quo by any possible means.

http://www.westcoasttruth.com/the-thomas-verenna-affair-part-one---the-black-heart-series-by-ralph-ellis.html  
(two parts to this essay)

http://www.westcoasttruth.com/a-vacuous-and-petrified-academia---part-one---the-black-heart-series-by-ralph-ellis.html  
(two parts to this essay)






Back to Top
WGN-9 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24 Mar 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WGN-9 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2015 at 00:50
Ralph: You've now piqued my curiosity, utterly. So how does -in your opinion- the Shroud of Turin fit in to this whole mosaic? w/ its pre, peri & post-mortem [fresh] blood, & so many other inexplicable phenomena, all in 3D!

Guy
WGN-9
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3526
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2015 at 03:54
Originally posted by rellis rellis wrote:

>>Akalouthos
>>I would recommend googling the title of this thread. where this internet era nonsense
>>is thouroughly and amusingly exposed for the rag-promoting rubbish that it is.


If you refer to Tom Verenna, be advised that Verenna is a failed student who did not even read the books; and his so-called 'review' bears no relationship to the books whatsoever.  Frankly, Verenna is probably the most dishonest 'historian' since Eusebius, and that is saying something.  Google 'Verenna idiot'.

This was my analysis of Verenna's bogus 'review'.  Do remember that Verenna is a part of a religious cabal, who are seeking to maintain the status quo by any possible means.

http://www.westcoasttruth.com/the-thomas-verenna-affair-part-one---the-black-heart-series-by-ralph-ellis.html  
(two parts to this essay)

http://www.westcoasttruth.com/a-vacuous-and-petrified-academia---part-one---the-black-heart-series-by-ralph-ellis.html  
(two parts to this essay)








Honestly, rellis, I made a mistake when I commented as I did two years ago. I just noticed that this was in the Alternative History subforum, and I should have allowed for a greater degree of latitude. If this were in the Philosophy/Theology subforum, my comments might have been appropriate, but not here. I do, of course, have my own very strong opinions on this matter, which I think you are probably able to guess, but for Alternative History to be done well -- and it can be done well -- the discussion must be allowed to develop before being checked against the opinions of a stodgy old traditionalist like myself. In essence, I tried to shut down a conversation before it had actually taken place, and for that you have my sincere apologies. Mea culpa.

For the record -- since tone is difficult to convey in internet discussions -- I am not being sarcastic, or mocking anything that has been said here. A specific method is required for any sort of history, and I did violence to the method here. I apologize for realizing it two years after that violence was done.

-Akolouthos
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2595
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2015 at 05:13
Well spoken Akolouthos and you're right, alternative history subforum requires a greater degree of latitude.  Good point.  However, I am just a little confused by the equation of the two Jesi.  One is the king of the world and part of the trinity, according to millions of Christians.  The other is the temporal king of Edessa.  One died c. 30, the other was around c. 60.  Even if one is fictional, and the other is not it is still apples and oranges.  You can say that Christians believe in fairy dust, but I am afraid that fairy dust is not really an analytical description, with lots of explanatory power.
I am not saying that the fact that there are millions of Christians, makes them right.  I think it is good to think of the different possibilities weigh them, and consider them.  I'm just not that clear on what you are trying to say.
What is the primary ancient source(s) for viewing Jesus of Edessa as being the Jesus of the Bible?  I prefer engaging with the ancient sources and forming my own opinions.  I have Josephus, is that a good place to start? 
Back to Top
rellis View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Location: Salop
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rellis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2015 at 08:26

Thanks Akolouthos, very considerate of you.

And regards beliefs vs faith, my identification of Jesus Em-Manu-el as King Izas Manu of Edessa does not change the gospel story. In fact it proves that the gospel story is true.  The only differences are:

a.  Jesus was a real king.  But then that is what the gospels say anyway.  There is no point having gospels that say Jesus was a king (both at his birth and his death) and then denying it because it does not conform to the Church's sugar-coated version of this story.

b.  Jesus was involved in a real national and social revolution, not just a religious or spiritual revolution.  But then again that is exactly what the gospels say.  Mr 15:7 says that Jesus was incarcerated with Barabas, who had committed murder in the Revolt. So we know this was not a spiritual revolt, it was a real revolution.  But which one?

c.  This is the biggest change.  The gospel events all happened in the AD 60s, and the Revolt was the Jewish Revolt of AD 66 - 70.  But we know this because:

.... Jesus laments the death of Zacharias in L 11:51.  But Zacharias dies during the Jewish Revolt in the late AD 60s.
.... Jesus laments the trench around Jerusalem in L 19:43. But this trench was dug during the Jewish Revolt in the late AD 60s. 
.... Jesus condems Kalba Shabua in Mt 23:5-6. But Kalba Shabua was an aristocrat during the Jewish Revolt in the late AD 60s.

.

But I do find it strange that Christians are desperate to find Jesus in the historical record, but when he is found they react in horror.  "Oh, but that is not what the Church said..."  Well of course.  Did anyone think that a book that had to conform to the Pax Romana, would be the ultimate truth? 

Of course not.  The gospels had to absolve Rome from any wrong doing (I wash my hands of this);   it had to say that the people should be good Romans (render unto Caesar);   and it had to prevent further revolutions (Jesus the pacifist).  And do note that the three Edessan leaders of the Jewish Revolt (ie: King Izas Manu) were crucified after the Revolt, and one survived. He was taken down by Josephus (of Arimathaea?)

Ralph



Edited by rellis - 25 Mar 2015 at 08:47
Back to Top
rellis View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Location: Salop
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rellis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2015 at 08:46
Quote
Even if one is fictional, and the other is not it is still apples and oranges.  You can say that Christians believe in fairy dust, but I am afraid that fairy dust is not really an analytical description, with lots of explanatory power.



Not really, it is an explanation of Roman history, because this is a Roman political story not a Jewish religious tale. 

The events were the AD 60s.
Nero was a dead man walking, and expired in AD 68.
The Star Prophesy said the next emperor would be a star from the East.
Jesus was born under the Eastern Star.
The Throne of Rome was up for grabs.
Three contenders came and went (Year of Four Emperors)
The Jewish Revolt was just another bid for the Throne of Rome.
So it was really the 'Year of Five Emperors'.
But Jesus lost this war to commander Vespasian.
We know that Jesus made a bid for the Throne of Rome, because they dressed him in a purple cloak.
(They dressed Jesus as an Emperor of Rome, with an Edessan Crown of Thorns'.)
Commander Vespasian took the Star Prophesy from Jesus (as Josephus says), and became Emperor Vespasian.

But Vespasian wanted to quell unrest in Judaea.
The Jews were not good Romans, and Vespasian wanted a Rome-friendly form of Judaism.
So Josephus Flavius (the last Jew standing in Judaea) crafted a new Simple Judaism for Gentiles - Christianity.
Josephus was a Romophile, so he crafted a Romophile form of Judaism.

The new story was based upon the life of Jesus.
But Rome demanded that the story could not include its hero revolting against Rome.
So the story was moved back to the AD 30s.
But all the events the gospels describe, happened in the AD 60s.
Hence, if you want to find the historical Jesus, there is no point looking in the AD 30s.

And the clue to this being correct, is the fact that Josephus Flavius was Saul (St Paul). 
Once you understand this, it all falls into place (again, this is the AD 60s)
So Josephus wrote Jewish War, the Epistles, and perhaps Luke and Acts.

And this is how the gospels were created.





Edited by rellis - 25 Mar 2015 at 08:47
Back to Top
rellis View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Location: Salop
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote rellis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2015 at 09:09
Quote
So how does -in your opinion- the Shroud of Turin fit in to this whole mosaic?


Interesting you should mention the shroud.

The Shroud of Turin is a Medieval copy  of the Mandylion, which was a picture of Jesus painted by Annan and sent with Addai (ie: Thaddius) to King Abgarus of Edessa.  So yes, we are back to the kings of Edessa again.  (And why is it, you may wonder, that you have never heard of the kings of Edessa?)

The only trouble with this history, and the reason the Church will not champion this as evidence that Jesus was a real person, is that Jesus sent this image to Edessa in the AD 50s.  Ooops....

Again, we come back to this being an AD 50s and 60s story.  In reality, Prince Jesus was being educated in Alexandria and Judaea (Math 2:13), and sending his image back to his father in Edessa (as any dutiful son would).  See The Doctrine of Addai.

Ralph



Edited by rellis - 25 Mar 2015 at 09:09
Back to Top
wizdym4aolcom View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06 May 2016
Location: Pittsburgh
Status: Offline
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote wizdym4aolcom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 May 2016 at 08:06
"The Shroud of Turin is a Medieval copy  of the Mandylion, which was a picture of Jesus painted by Annan"

Ralph,
I sincerely appreciate how you shared your research in your books, 'cause I've learned a lot. I'd like to share with you what I learned from "The Hiram Key" by Knight and Lomas. Their reasoning is compelling:
 
The Shroud was discovered by descendants of  Charney,a top aide of Demolay, grandmaster of the Templars who was executed when Demolay was in 1314. Demolay was crucified in a door frame at the Templar headquarters in Paris October 13, 1307. Demolay survived the tortuous experience and the Shroud was grabbed from a closet and placed over his pain-ridden body. The shroud was likely obtained by the Templars during their time in Jerusalem and used by the Templars in their initiation rituals and so was kept in their closet.  
 
 
The Shroud was discovered by decendents of Charney, the top aide of Templar Grandmaster DeMolay. Charney, was executed alongside Demolay was in 1314. DeMolay was crucified in a door frame at the Templar headquarters in Paris October 13, 1307 by Phillip the Fair's henchmen, who mocked DeMolay for his supposed heresies by subjecting him to the same torture Jesus experienced, including the wound on his side.
 
The six foot DeMolay survived the tortuous experience and the Shroud-cloth was grabbed from a closet at the Templar temple and placed over his pain-ridden body, emanating lactic acid which interacted with chemicals in the cloth of the Shroud, creating the image on the cloth. The shroud-cloth was likely taken by the Templars from Jerusalem and used by the Templars in their initiation rituals and so was kept in their closet in Paris.(Thus accounting for the Carbon-14 dating of the Shroud to 1250-1320AD and the pollen from Palestine found on the Shroud).
 
The family of Charney nurtured DeMolay back to health in prison. But several years later, in 1314, DeMolay and Charney were roasted slowly to death for recanting the confessions previously obtained through torture. The shroud-cloth which had been placed over the tortured DeMolay's body had been put away in a closet at the Charney family estate and forgotten. Some 50 years later the shroud-cloth was discovered by descendant's of Charney who had no idea what it was or how it got there and they put it on public display. This is when  the Shroud made its first appearance in history.This explanation survives Occam's razor like no other.
The explanation survives Occam's razor.The Shroud of Turin is often confused with the Mandylion and Veil of Veronica, which have histories of their own..

 
Let There Be Light
Back to Top
Gordon View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Jul 2016
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 23
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gordon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jul 2016 at 23:12
Pretty deceptive title. I thought you were talking about Jesus of Nazareth.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 968
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jul 2016 at 12:50
But surely the connection is a distortion? My reasoning is that Jesus is a latin form of Joshua (whatever his origin), and thus the coincident naming is probably wrong to begin with.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Origenes45 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2016
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Origenes45 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Nov 2016 at 21:58
To Ralph Ellis

You claim that Josephus Flavius took down three crucified men in the valley of Kidron.
Where did you find this information.
Please give me the reference!
Torsten
Always ready to rethink.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 968
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 14:09
Quote We know that Jesus made a bid for the Throne of Rome, because they dressed him in a purple cloak.
(They dressed Jesus as an Emperor of Rome, with an Edessan Crown of Thorns'.)

Odd that the Romans didn't notice. Especially since there was no throne to be had in Tiberian Rome (As Augustus' successor, Tiberius was a political dominator but not a constitutional emperor as is usually assumed. None of the Caesars were). The connection with Edessa based on a 'Crown of Thorns' is not convincing. As much as I detest biblical accounts, the Crown was clearly meant as an insult based on the Roman garland which was not a monarchical crown, but an honourary insignia. Purple was the symbol of high level power but not universal (Caligula had one foreign king executed for wearing a purple cloak that was fashionably superior). Note that senior legionary officers also wore 'fake purple' cloaks made by over-dying with red.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
vijay sagar View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 11 Nov 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote vijay sagar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Nov 2017 at 10:34
thank you very much for the above info Smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.093 seconds.