My researches

[Horatio Parker]

Interesting stuff.

But was not Marcion a gnostic? Was he a traitor as you put it, or was he converted?

If Gnostics were traitors, why would they be on the team?

 

[none]

.

Hello at all!

I am a 'sui generis' italian scholar that for about 18 years is engaged in the study and research on the origins of Catholic Christianity (and not simply 'Christianity'). Since late 2004, date of my retirement from the work, I spend by the 12-14 hours a day at the computer, engaged in 'hectic' researches! ..

In late 2005, I started writing a book that should summarize the result of my studies and my researches. The work is not yet completed because it is not yet completed the cycle of my researches. I think that within two years the 'draft' should be ready, although I still have a 'sea' of material downloaded from the Internet yet to see.

As for the dichotomy mythical Jesus - historical Jesus, I am clearly for the second 'option': that is, I'm a 'historicist'. From the point of view of religious philosophy, I consider myself a staunch agnostic.

In the previous English-language area (a 'mythicist' group) in which I have written so far, I often I came across with people who are particularly intolerant towards the historicist thesis. The last clash prompted me to desist from continuing to post in that group. I sincerely hope that this does not happen here too ...

Best greeting at all!

Littlejohn S (Giannino in italian)

.

What is the difference between historical Jesus and mythical Jesus?
How do you know there was a historical Jesus if not the reference of mythical Jesus? And vice versa
There must be two accounts for each if the characters are different, what are they?
What are the different accounts?
How do you segregate those accounts?

Giannino_S, hello?

 

[Giannino_S]

.

Hello Schrodinger's Outlaw!

A little 'patience and will reply even to you..

A question: who is the 'Outlaw of Schrodinger'?..

Greetings!

.

 

[Giannino_S]

.

What is the difference between historical Jesus and mythical Jesus?
How do you know there was a historical Jesus if not the reference of mythical Jesus? And vice versa
There must be two accounts for each if the characters are different, what are they?
What are the different accounts?
How do you segregate those accounts?

"..What is the difference between historical Jesus and mythical Jesus?.."

I think for 'mythical Jesus' is meant not a real personage, constructed 'a tavolino' (on project) by referring to the mythological 'models' of the time. On the contrary, for 'historical Jesus' is meant a real character. For the latter, moreover, there is a dichotomy: the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. The latter, built 'to tavolino' with reference to the historical one, is practically nonexistent on the historical level, so much it is different from the real one, that is the historical one.

"..How do you know there was a historical Jesus if not the reference of mythical Jesus? And vice versa.."

Well ... through 360° search is possible to establish that there was actually, in the first century of our era, a character passed into history with the pseudo-name of Jesus of Nazareth. Until about 40 years ago, the research was very difficult, but now, with the powerful computer resources provided by science and technology, it has become feasible, thanks to computers and the Internet network by they supported, which allows us to transform the myriad of libraries around the world in a huge virtual library, accessible to all.

"...There must be two accounts for each if the characters are different, what are they?.."

For the Jesus of history there is only one story. However, no scholar in the world, until now, has managed to build one that was widely shared by the majority of scholars who you are interested, and continue to take an interest in this fascinating subject: namely to reconstruct the dynamics and the events that have led to the birth of the cult 'Catho-Christian', and especially to reveal the TRUE identity of the characters involved in the gospel story.

The reason why even today all this has not yet been revealed, is mainly due to the fact that the Jesus of history was searched there where it was impossible to find it. With the paths followed by scholars from around the world, you can get ONLY the Jesus of faith. To get to the Jesus of history, you need to follow a search path still unexplored until today.

"..What are the different accounts?.."

In late 2005, I started writing a book that, I hope, will make it clear to everyone of how things actually went 20 centuries ago in Palestine, with regard to the 'jesuan' vicissitude. The draft of the book is not yet complete because I have not yet completed the cycle of my researches. I hope that within two years it will be ready.

"..How do you segregate those accounts?.."

I think you should search on Google for the origin of the process which has led some scholars to claim that there wasn't a historical Jesus, but only a 'simulacrum' constructed by taking a mythological model. Obviously I do not share that conclusion, because with my research and with my studies I am absolutely convinced that there was actually a historical figure, although his name was not Jesus. (*)

___________________________________________

(*) - here I would anticipate that the TRUE name of Jesus was the hebraic YESHAY, or Y'shay, pronounced ISA, because the 'Y', when it is in the end of words, it is typically not pronounced in the spoken hebrew language. This allows us to guess that the Arabs pronounce it correctly the true name of Jesus. In the north-western India and north-eastern Afghanistan (ancient greek kingdom of Bactrian) Jesus is called ISSA. It is not derived from the hebrew Yeshay/Y'shay, but by its greek transliteration IESSAI . Y'shay in Western languages has been transliterated with Iesse/Jesse.

.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think you should search on Google for the origin of the process which has led some scholars to claim that there wasn't a historical Jesus, but only a 'simulacrum' constructed by taking a mythological model. Obviously I do not share that conclusion, because with my research and with my studies I am absolutely convinced that there was actually a historical figure, although his name was not Jesus. (*)

___________________________________________

(*) - here I would anticipate that the TRUE name of Jesus was the hebraic YESHAY, or Y'shay, pronounced ISA, because the 'Y', when it is in the end of words, it is typically not pronounced in the spoken hebrew language. This allows us to guess that the Arabs pronounce it correctly the true name of Jesus. In the north-western India and north-eastern Afghanistan (ancient greek kingdom of Bactrian) Jesus is called ISSA. It is not derived from the hebrew Yeshay/Y'shay, but by its greek transliteration IESSAI . Y'shay in Western languages has been transliterated with Iesse/Jesse.

Would that not mean then that any fictional character is historical? Where else do writers get their material except from their thoughts and experiences?

Jesus didn't have to be historical, merely euhemerized into historicity, which in my view is what happened. Jesus is historical like Rhett Butler is historical.

Rhett Butler

 

[Giannino_S]

Would that not mean then that any fictional character is historical? Where else do writers get their material except from their thoughts and experiences?

Jesus didn't have to be historical, merely euhemerized into historicity, which in my view is what happened.

"..Would that not mean then that any fictional character is historical? Where else do writers get their material except from their thoughts and experiences?.."

Why ... do you think that what I write I have invented it? ..

"..Jesus didn't have to be historical, merely euhemerized into historicity, which in my view is what happened..."

It is one of your own opinions and I respect it ...

.

 

[funinspace]

The way I look at it (beyond the many ideas Atheos provided), is somewhat like approaching a discussion of how historical is the movie called ‘Braveheart’. Yeah, there was a William Wallace, an Isabella, a Robert Bruce, an England, France, York, and lots of other towns. There were battles, though dates and people are jumbled when known history and the movie is compared. Wallace was captured, tried, and executed; though not exactly as the movie suggested. There are details that converge, details that are unknowable, and a big helping of bull shit and clear contradictions with the historical record. And it has dreamy magical BS

With Jesus, there is zero corroboration outside of the holy books written and passed on by the True Believers about his life…lots of empty canvas that was available to fill in as one wished. Braveheart most probably has more valid history within the film than is within the New Testament.

See for details:
http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/independence/braveheart.html

 

[none]

.

What is the difference between historical Jesus and mythical Jesus?
How do you know there was a historical Jesus if not the reference of mythical Jesus? And vice versa
There must be two accounts for each if the characters are different, what are they?
What are the different accounts?
How do you segregate those accounts?

"..What is the difference between historical Jesus and mythical Jesus?.."

I think for 'mythical Jesus' is meant not a real personage, constructed 'a tavolino' (on project) by referring to the mythological 'models' of the time. On the contrary, for 'historical Jesus' is meant a real character. For the latter, moreover, there is a dichotomy: the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. The latter, built 'to tavolino' with reference to the historical one, is practically nonexistent on the historical level, so much it is different from the real one, that is the historical one.

"..How do you know there was a historical Jesus if not the reference of mythical Jesus? And vice versa.."

Well ... through 360° search is possible to establish that there was actually, in the first century of our era, a character passed into history with the pseudo-name of Jesus of Nazareth. Until about 40 years ago, the research was very difficult, but now, with the powerful computer resources provided by science and technology, it has become feasible, thanks to computers and the Internet network by they supported, which allows us to transform the myriad of libraries around the world in a huge virtual library, accessible to all.

"...There must be two accounts for each if the characters are different, what are they?.."

For the Jesus of history there is only one story. However, no scholar in the world, until now, has managed to build one that was widely shared by the majority of scholars who you are interested, and continue to take an interest in this fascinating subject: namely to reconstruct the dynamics and the events that have led to the birth of the cult 'Catho-Christian', and especially to reveal the TRUE identity of the characters involved in the gospel story.

The reason why even today all this has not yet been revealed, is mainly due to the fact that the Jesus of history was searched there where it was impossible to find it. With the paths followed by scholars from around the world, you can get ONLY the Jesus of faith. To get to the Jesus of history, you need to follow a search path still unexplored until today.

"..What are the different accounts?.."

In late 2005, I started writing a book that, I hope, will make it clear to everyone of how things actually went 20 centuries ago in Palestine, with regard to the 'jesuan' vicissitude. The draft of the book is not yet complete because I have not yet completed the cycle of my researches. I hope that within two years it will be ready.

"..How do you segregate those accounts?.."

I think you should search on Google for the origin of the process which has led some scholars to claim that there wasn't a historical Jesus, but only a 'simulacrum' constructed by taking a mythological model. Obviously I do not share that conclusion, because with my research and with my studies I am absolutely convinced that there was actually a historical figure, although his name was not Jesus. (*)

___________________________________________

(*) - here I would anticipate that the TRUE name of Jesus was the hebraic YESHAY, or Y'shay, pronounced ISA, because the 'Y', when it is in the end of words, it is typically not pronounced in the spoken hebrew language. This allows us to guess that the Arabs pronounce it correctly the true name of Jesus. In the north-western India and north-eastern Afghanistan (ancient greek kingdom of Bactrian) Jesus is called ISSA. It is not derived from the hebrew Yeshay/Y'shay, but by its greek transliteration IESSAI . Y'shay in Western languages has been transliterated with Iesse/Jesse.

.

I'm not sure the problem is due to a language barrier, not sure what search terms you think I should use in my Google search.
That doesn't matter much to me as I see your deflection as a red herring, that you simply cannot answer
No problem
I'll pare it down a bit:
Who is historical Jesus if not Jesus Christ, and likewise who is mythical Jesus if not Jesus Christ?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Interesting stuff.

But was not Marcion a gnostic? Was he a traitor as you put it, or was he converted?

If Gnostics were traitors, why would they be on the team?

Marcion accepted the epistles of Paul and the gospel of Luke. But Marcion thought that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the new testament. He was seen as a heretic, but not a Gnostic as such.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Would that not mean then that any fictional character is historical? Where else do writers get their material except from their thoughts and experiences?

Jesus didn't have to be historical, merely euhemerized into historicity, which in my view is what happened.

"..Would that not mean then that any fictional character is historical? Where else do writers get their material except from their thoughts and experiences?.."

Why ... do you think that what I write I have invented it? ..

"..Jesus didn't have to be historical, merely euhemerized into historicity, which in my view is what happened..."

It is one of your own opinions and I respect it ...

.

In a very real way Jesus is historical like bigfoot. Until more evidence comes along to document and demonstrate the existence of both, I'm in the camp that neither one is historical in the sense that people talk about history.

So sure, I'm biased presently. But that can change if good evidence comes along.

 

[Giannino_S]

.

I'm not sure the problem is due to a language barrier, not sure what search terms you think I should use in my Google search.
That doesn't matter much to me as I see your deflection as a red herring, that you simply cannot answer
No problem
I'll pare it down a bit:
Who is historical Jesus if not Jesus Christ, and likewise who is mythical Jesus if not Jesus Christ?
.

"..Who is historical Jesus if not Jesus Christ, and likewise who is mythical Jesus if not Jesus Christ?.."

No, the mythical Jesus is the Jesus of 'faith' (ie the one preached by the Catholic teaching: a character substantially fictitious). Jesus 'Christ' of the story is quite another thing ... A character again to be discovered, whose traces are scattered in a large number of ancient texts, difficult to find but not impossible!

".. none judgment on Jesus it is possible and
none real story about he can be reconstructed,
if first you don't makes emerge up his true
historical and human profile .. "

 

[Horatio Parker]

Interesting stuff.

But was not Marcion a gnostic? Was he a traitor as you put it, or was he converted?

If Gnostics were traitors, why would they be on the team?

Marcion accepted the epistles of Paul and the gospel of Luke. But Marcion thought that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the new testament. He was seen as a heretic, but not a Gnostic as such.

The dual God stuff is gnostic, isn't it? I thought it was the gnostic explanation for the imperfection of the material world.

 

[Giannino_S]

.

Interesting stuff.

But was not Marcion a gnostic? Was he a traitor as you put it, or was he converted?

If Gnostics were traitors, why would they be on the team?

.

Hard to say whether Marcion was a gnostic-'jesuan' in origin, or a former member of the Judeo-Christian 'church' of Antioch. The places of worship of the Marcionites were called 'synagogues' (s. the Marcionite 'churches' of Cappadocia). This might suggest that Marcion originally may have been a Judeo-Christian.

No, the Gnostics were NOT traitors. However, among them there were some traitors of the Gnostic 'church' (the TRUE church founded by Jesus of Nazareth!)(*). A traitor, especially (Polycarpo of Smyrna?), was corrupted (perhaps with the promise of being appointed Bishop of the new hierarchical cult catholic-Christian) and, against the wishes of his fellow sect, in secret he brought the cult books (gnostic) at the 'Romans': that is, to those who in Rome were laying the groundwork for the foundation of the new cult catholic-Christian.

Probably, between these 'books' there was a copy of the collection of Sayings of Jesus made by historical Matthew and the 5 volumes of the work of Papias of Hierapolis (gnostic in turn, like John, alleged author of the 4th canonical Gospel), entitled' Explanation of oracles of Jesus' (or Sayings of Jesus). Surely, the collection of the Sayings of Jesus of Matthew, allowed at the 'Romans' to fill, along with other material, the first version of the gospel we now know as 'Matthew': an absolutely pseudepigraphic text.

NOTE: The news about the traitor who gave it to the 'Romans' the books of the sect, they come by the work of an Arab writer-bookseller who lived between the X-XI century. Probably it was a 'Sufi'. He came from Basra and is therefore very likely that he was in touch with the community of the Mandaeans. In the same paper it is said that the composers of the gospel had to rewrite the text several times, gradually that someone of them remembered other things about Jesus. All this seems to mirror the allegation made by Celsus in his work (Aleteia Logos), ie that the '' Christian missionaries (read 'the' church fathers) had to rewrite ex-novo 3 or 4 times their 'books' (read gospels).

___________________________________

(*) - for 'Gnostic Church' you meant the set of the Gnostic sects, a number of which were founded by the same Jesus in the first century. Irenaeus from Lyone says the false, when he argues that to found the gnostic 'church' has been Simon Magus! ... Moreover, in NO Gnostic text, between ones came up to us, we speak of Simon Magus, but ONLY of Jesus!

.

 

[none]

.

I'm not sure the problem is due to a language barrier, not sure what search terms you think I should use in my Google search.
That doesn't matter much to me as I see your deflection as a red herring, that you simply cannot answer
No problem
I'll pare it down a bit:
Who is historical Jesus if not Jesus Christ, and likewise who is mythical Jesus if not Jesus Christ?
.

"..Who is historical Jesus if not Jesus Christ, and likewise who is mythical Jesus if not Jesus Christ?.."

No, the mythical Jesus is the Jesus of 'faith' (ie the one preached by the Catholic teaching: a character substantially fictitious). Jesus 'Christ' of the story is quite another thing ... A character again to be discovered, whose traces are scattered in a large number of ancient texts, difficult to find but not impossible!

".. none judgment on Jesus it is possible and
none real story about he can be reconstructed,
if first you don't makes emerge up his true
historical and human profile .. "

How do you know the "Jesus of the story" is not both historical Jesus and mythical Jesus?

 

[Giannino_S]

.


"..Who is historical Jesus if not Jesus Christ, and likewise who is mythical Jesus if not Jesus Christ?.."

No, the mythical Jesus is the Jesus of 'faith' (ie the one preached by the Catholic teaching: a character substantially fictitious). Jesus 'Christ' of the story is quite another thing ... A character again to be discovered, whose traces are scattered in a large number of ancient texts, difficult to find but not impossible!

".. none judgment on Jesus it is possible and
none real story about he can be reconstructed,
if first you don't makes emerge up his true
historical and human profile .. "

.
How do you know the "Jesus of the story" is not both historical Jesus and mythical Jesus?

"..How do you know the "Jesus of the story" is not both historical Jesus and mythical Jesus?.."

Because those who have invented the "mythical Jesus' you are inspired to the Jesus of 'faith' and NOT to the Jesus of history, which is almost all yet to be discovered! ...

 

[none]

.
How do you know the "Jesus of the story" is not both historical Jesus and mythical Jesus?

"..How do you know the "Jesus of the story" is not both historical Jesus and mythical Jesus?.."

Because those who have invented the "mythical Jesus' you are inspired to the Jesus of 'faith' and NOT to the Jesus of history, which is almost all yet to be discovered! ...

So which Jesus is theoretical, historical Jesus or mythical Jesus?

 

[Horatio Parker]

.

Interesting stuff.

But was not Marcion a gnostic? Was he a traitor as you put it, or was he converted?

If Gnostics were traitors, why would they be on the team?

.

Hard to say whether Marcion was a gnostic-'jesuan' in origin, or a former member of the Judeo-Christian 'church' of Antioch. The places of worship of the Marcionites were called 'synagogues' (s. the Marcionite 'churches' of Cappadocia). This might suggest that Marcion originally may have been a Judeo-Christian.

No, the Gnostics were NOT traitors. However, among them there were some traitors of the Gnostic 'church' (the TRUE church founded by Jesus of Nazareth!)(*). A traitor, especially (Polycarpo of Smyrna?), was corrupted (perhaps with the promise of being appointed Bishop of the new hierarchical cult catholic-Christian) and, against the wishes of his fellow sect, in secret he brought the cult books (gnostic) at the 'Romans': that is, to those who in Rome were laying the groundwork for the foundation of the new cult catholic-Christian.

Probably, between these 'books' there was a copy of the collection of Sayings of Jesus made by historical Matthew and the 5 volumes of the work of Papias of Hierapolis (gnostic in turn, like John, alleged author of the 4th canonical Gospel), entitled' Explanation of oracles of Jesus' (or Sayings of Jesus). Surely, the collection of the Sayings of Jesus of Matthew, allowed at the 'Romans' to fill, along with other material, the first version of the gospel we now know as 'Matthew': an absolutely pseudepigraphic text.

NOTE: The news about the traitor who gave it to the 'Romans' the books of the sect, they come by the work of an Arab writer-bookseller who lived between the X-XI century. Probably it was a 'Sufi'. He came from Basra and is therefore very likely that he was in touch with the community of the Mandaeans. In the same paper it is said that the composers of the gospel had to rewrite the text several times, gradually that someone of them remembered other things about Jesus. All this seems to mirror the allegation made by Celsus in his work (Aleteia Logos), ie that the '' Christian missionaries (read 'the' church fathers) had to rewrite ex-novo 3 or 4 times their 'books' (read gospels).

___________________________________

(*) - for 'Gnostic Church' you meant the set of the Gnostic sects, a number of which were founded by the same Jesus in the first century. Irenaeus from Lyone says the false, when he argues that to found the gnostic 'church' has been Simon Magus! ... Moreover, in NO Gnostic text, between ones came up to us, we speak of Simon Magus, but ONLY of Jesus!

.

It sounds as if Gnosticism was as amorphous as the proto-heterodox.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Giannino_S]

"..How do you know the "Jesus of the story" is not both historical Jesus and mythical Jesus?.."

Because those who have invented the "mythical Jesus' you are inspired to the Jesus of 'faith' and NOT to the Jesus of history, which is almost all yet to be discovered! ...

So which Jesus is theoretical, historical Jesus or mythical Jesus?

Obviously mythical Jesus, ie the Jesus of 'faith'.

.

 

[none]

So which Jesus is theoretical, historical Jesus or mythical Jesus?

Obviously mythical Jesus, ie the Jesus of 'faith'.

.

and where is your evidence of any other Jesus?

 

[Giannino_S]

Obviously mythical Jesus, ie the Jesus of 'faith'.

.

and where is your evidence of any other Jesus?

.
«..and where is your evidence of any other Jesus?..»

First, in rabbinical literature, pagan, Gnostic, Mandaean, Arabic, etc .. However, the most 'generous' source in the 'restitution' of data about the historical Jesus, is the patristic literature, provided you have sufficient insight to understand behind which character (real or fictitious) the forgers fathers of the origins have hidden, from time to time, valuable data just about the historical Jesus.

A trivial example: the father of Church Irenaeus Lyone, states that the 'Gnostic church' was founded by Simon Magus. It is a blatant false, since this church (the TRUE church founded by the Nazarene! ..) was founded by Jesus and NOT by Simon Magus. The proof is that in the Gnostic texts we always refers to Jesus and NEVER to Simon Magus, although the latter was, like Jesus, one GNOSTIC, grew up together at the Gnostic school of John the Baptist. The Gnostic Church of Jesus consisted of a number of sects, or gnostic 'schools' , that Jesus had founded in various cities of the Roman Empire (and also outside its borders) in the course of his life, which lasted 66 years, and NOT 33! ..

.