On the hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus == Jesus ben Saphat

[Giuseppe]

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 set up a train of events that rolled on to the nuclear horrors of World War 2.

really do you think this? Sorry, I can't imagine a such casual link, only mere pretext useful for war propaganda. My point is banally that, all the time, legends, hearsay, rumors, happen to be born shortly after great wars, rather than the contrary.

[maryhelena]

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 set up a train of events that rolled on to the nuclear horrors of World War 2.

really do you think this? Sorry, I can't imagine a such casual link, only mere pretext useful for war propaganda. My point is banally that, all the time, legends, hearsay, rumors, happen to be born shortly after great wars, rather than the contrary.

'shortly'....... perhaps talk to some Jews - or the Irish for that matter. Memories are long - details may suffer from years of retelling but the sentiment remains - loss of sovereignty, injustice, loss of dignity. However, knowing and understanding the past is one thing - reliving that past in the present is another thing altogether. At some stage the 'stop' sign has to be put up - if only as a safeguard against humanity losing it's moral compass and extinguishing itself.

How the conclusion of WWI led to WWII

WWI was a very big cause of WWII. WWI led to depressions in Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union, and many more places which in turn caused powerful people to rise in many differtent countries.

https://www.sutori.com/story/how-the-co ... xYxcZ5Wj2n

Conclusion.

WW2 was caused by many factors, and most of those were connected to WW1.

https://prezi.com/4tswsnxqikte/links-be ... 6f44cf1313

It's a big historical mistake, not least for any attempt to understand early christian origins, to isolate the Jewish/Roman war of 70 c.e. from the events of 63 b.c. and 37 b.c.

And as for Ireland - on the above argument - the Rebellion of Easter 1916 had no connection to, for instance, Cromwell's conquest of Ireland....................

History of Ireland
During the 17th century, Ireland was convulsed by eleven years of warfare, beginning with the Rebellion of 1641, when Irish Catholics rebelled against the domination of English and Protestant settlers. The Catholic gentry briefly ruled the country as Confederate Ireland (1642–1649) against the background of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms until Oliver Cromwell reconquered Ireland in 1649–1653 on behalf of the English Commonwealth. Cromwell's conquest was the most brutal phase of the war. By its close, around half of Ireland's pre-war population was killed or exiled as slaves, where many died due to harsh conditions. As retribution for the rebellion of 1641, the better-quality remaining lands owned by Irish Catholics were confiscated and given to British settlers. Several hundred remaining native landowners were transplanted to Connacht.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... _rebellion

Cromwellian conquest of Ireland

The Cromwellian conquest of Ireland or Cromwellian war in Ireland (1649–1653) was the conquest of Ireland by the forces of the English Parliament, led by Oliver Cromwell, during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Cromwell invaded Ireland with his New Model Army on behalf of England's Rump Parliament in August 1649.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwelli ... of_Ireland

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBI6ZzaP2Uk&t=1s

[maryhelena]

An earlier thread on the theory that the gospel Jesus = Jesus ben Saphat. (Revolutionary leader in Josephus account of the Jewish/Roman war of 70 c.e.)

Jesus son of Saphat in Josephus and the Jesus of the gospels: one and the same person

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4742&hilit=time

Frans Vermeiren has published a book on his theory. (the only book I'm aware of that proposes this theory)

In the following quote from the book, Frans Vermeiren has linked Jesus ben Saphat with the man Josephus has had taken down from the cross - the man who survived a crucifixion. Linking these two Josephan figures is an assumption, it is speculation. Josephus does not name the man who survived a crucifixion.

A Chronological Revision of the Origins of Christianity

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00 ... UTF8&psc=1



Let us try to make a succinct reconstruction of the fate of Jesus’ group after they fled. They climbed over the wall at night and fell into the hands of the Romans as expected. According to the orders of Titus, the defectors of the final hour were executed. The execution took place the following day on the levelled area – Golgotha – west of the city without any form of trial. No inscription was placed on Jesus’ cross, there were no natural phenomena nor was the veil of the Temple torn in two (the veil had in fact been torn apart by the Romans four weeks earlier). Jesus’ followers watched his execution from the western city wall. Shortly thereafter, Josephus returned from Tekoa with the Roman general Cerealius and passed by the place of execution where many defectors were hanging from the cross, including Jesus and two of his companions. Josephus did not recognise Jesus who had been marked by starvation and hardship. But Jesus did recognise Josephus and called to him. The Epistle to the Hebrews relates this as follows: In the days of his flesh, he [Jesus] offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear.[91] Hearing Jesus son of Saphat, the charismatic Galilean priest with whom he had organised the rebellion up north, call out to him in pangs of death greatly affected Josephus and he hurried to Titus to plead for his life. Titus acceded to his plea. Jesus and his two comrades were taken from the cross, still alive, and treated nearby in Herod’s unused memorial that Titus had given to Josephus as compensation for the property the latter had lost as a result of the acts of war.

Vermeiren, Frans J.. A Chronological Revision of the Origins of Christianity (p. 64). Frans J. Vermeiren. Kindle Edition.

Reading the gospel story into Josephus or reading Josephus into the gospel story is, at best, circular. Hence a never-ending roundabout of theory after theory.....fascinating to be sure but it can make one dizzy after a while......better, methinks, to step down from that roundabout, clear ones head and look for a straight road ahead. History book in hand to enable one to side-step the 'official' Josephan tour of first century Palestine.

Yes, Josephus is where it's at - it's where answers to questions about early christian origins could be found. However, rather than comparing the gospels to Josephus, or vice versa, it's necessary to 'get' Josephus. It's necessary to take his measure, so to speak. Circular methods won't cut it, they don't dig deep, they don't take Josephus to task for what he has written. Ironic really, the gospel stories are dissected in every which way yet the writing of Josephus, the stories he tells, are upheld as supporting the gospel story that's just been dissected. Methinks Josephus is as able to write allegory just has any gospel writer.

It is evident that the narrative of events contained in Josephus's texts should not be taken at face value. The interpretative framework as outlined indicates that to distinguish between the comments and the narration of events is not possible. It is not simply a matter of dismissing Josephus's interpretations, nor a matter of working out which version of an event is accurate. The interpretative process is more fundamental: it controls the entire choice of subject matter and, therefore, the overall picture that is being conveyed. We must now contend with the possibility that although we can make conclusions and observations regarding what Josephus narrates, what we can conclude is, in itself, the product of an interpretation. In other words, the picture being used to understand the first century CE in Judaea may not necessarily provide the reader with a 'full' or 'balanced' representation of what was happening in the territory. In effect, our major resource for examining the period is itself a constructed picture.

James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times ? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE. page 67

The first century CE is like an ancient monument. It is a place of interest with riches that the visitor wants to stand among, their ambience to imbibe. Unfortunately, access to the site is limited to one point of entry. Most of the sources only provide a mere glimpse of the site. The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus. The problem is that, once inside, we are offered the official guided tour of the site. Josephus takes us to the various locations he deems are the highlights. Our excitement at entering the site, therefore, is balanced by the requirement of Josephus that he shows us the official tour. It is time we leave the official tour party. We have been given access to the site by Josephus but to ensure that we are able to explore its contents in detail we must stand apart from him. As such, our visit to the site may take more time than the official programme allows. But who wants to stay on a tour that does not let you stop and take your own pictures ?

James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times ? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE. pages 294-295

''.....we must stand apart from him..'' We cannot allow Josephus to keep our search for early christian origins on a roundabout going nowhere....

[Giuseppe]

The Galilee works in the Gospel as synonimous of "war zone". Just as, today, "Vietnam", "Irak", "Somalia", "Syria", etc.

Any good theory on the Christian origins has to explain why "Galilee" works in this way, in the Gospels.

Mark 1:14 can be rewritten as:

After John was put in prison, Jesus went into the territory of war, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

[maryhelena]

The Galilee works in the Gospel as synonimous of "war zone". Just as, today, "Vietnam", "Irak", "Somalia", "Syria", etc.

Any good theory on the Christian origins has to explain why "Galilee" works in this way, in the Gospels.

Mark 1:14 can be rewritten as:

After John was put in prison, Jesus went into the territory of war, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

Rewrite all you want....it does not make it so....

[Giuseppe]

Are you denying that the mere mention of "Galilee" for a Greek audience didn't evoke per se the horrors of the First Jewish Revolt?

Just as today, saying "Vietnam" or "Irak" evokes immediately the war?

If you concede me this point, then the implication follows: how many theories on Christian origins do you know that explain this curious detail of "Galilee" in relation to preaching (and not merely to the birth)?

Surely NO any theory talking about Asmonean kings.

[maryhelena]

Are you denying that the mere mention of "Galilee" for a Greek audience didn't evoke per se the horrors of the First Jewish Revolt?

Just as today, saying "Vietnam" or "Irak" evokes immediately the war?

If you concede me this point, then the implication follows: how many theories on Christian origins do you know that explain this curious detail of "Galilee" in relation to preaching (and not merely to the birth)?

Surely NO any theory talking about Asmonean kings.

As Roman historian Tacitus writes in his Histories: “Under Tiberius all was quiet.” Tiberius was Roman emperor between 14 and 37 CE.

It is only in the year 44 CE that the followers—in fact heirs—of Judas the Galilean are moved to act once again. And what stirs them seems to be the death of a king, one by the name of Agrippa I. After living under Roman procuratorship for many years, the Jews of Judea had in 41 CE, along with the people of the rest of the Jewish realm, been finally united under a Jewish ruler—and a popular one at that. Herod Agrippa I,......

Einhorn, Lena. A Shift in Time: How Historical Documents Reveal the Surprising Truth about Jesus . . Kindle Edition.

Methinks one can't just view Galilee as a place of war.......it was also a peaceful place under Tiberius - and that is where the gospel writers set down their Jesus story. That is the context for the gospel Jesus story; Pilate and Tiberius.

There is no historical gospel Jesus. From an ahistoricit position the gospel Jesus figure can be viewed as a composite literary figure. Continuing to search for a historical gospel Jesus - and outside the gospel time frame at that - is not only illogical it is nonsensical. This whole time shifting scenario is pointless. If one believed in a historical gospel Jesus then perhaps one might have some sort of argument that the gospel writers have the wrong historical context, that they were historically at fault. It beats me why any mythicist/ahistoricst would be interested in such a time wasting activity.

[Giuseppe]

Methinks one can't just view Galilee as a place of war.......it was also a peaceful place under Tiberius

Tacitus didn't mention Galilee but Judea, and the Roman readers of Mark connected naturally Galilee with a word: WAR.

Frankly, if you think that the last Asmonean King was the Gospel Jesus, then this belief makes you eo ipso a historicist, if the words have a sense here.

[maryhelena]

Methinks one can't just view Galilee as a place of war.......it was also a peaceful place under Tiberius

Tacitus didn't mention Galilee but Judea, and the Roman readers of Mark connected naturally Galilee with a word: WAR.

Frankly, if you think that the last Asmonean King was the Gospel Jesus, then this belief makes you eo ipso a historicist, if the words have a sense here.

How could someone executed by the Romans in 37 b.c. be the gospel Jesus that was executed under Tiberius and Pilate around 30/33 c.e. ??? Your shifting context again......

[Giuseppe]

How could someone executed by the Romans in 37 b.c. be the gospel Jesus that was executed under Tiberius and Pilate around 30/33 c.e. ??? Your shifting context again......

accordingly, you should define historicist who thinks, for example, that the Gospel Jesus was the Samaritan Pretender killed by Pilate.