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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:43 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 8:24 am The answer to the problem of not finding a Jesus figure crucified in the time of Pilate is not to find a man named Jesus in the war of 70 c.e.
in my view, you are totally unable to consider the following Celsus' words, as reported by Origen (3:7), for their genuine value:

In like manner, as the statement is false that the Hebrews, being (originally) Egyptians, dated the commencement (of their political existence) from the time of their rebellion, so also is this, that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers; for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defense of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For He did not deem it in keeping with such laws as His, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever. Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion, have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion to resist their persecutors. And truly, if we look a little deeper into things, we may say regarding the exodus from Egypt, that it is a miracle if a whole nation at once adopted the language called Hebrew, as if it had been a gift from heaven, when one of their own prophets said, As they went forth from Egypt, they heard a language which they did not understand.

Value ? ....the opinion of a writer writing over 210 years since the end of Pilate's rule in Judea...... :confusedsmiley:

Against C @elsus (Greek: Κατὰ Κέλσου Kata Kelsou; Latin: Contra Celsum), preserved entirely in Greek, is a major apologetics work by the Church Father Origen of Alexandria, written in around 248 AD, countering the writings of Celsus,
[wiki]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_Celsum
[/wiki]

What Celsus was accusing is that the Christianity was born only after the 70 CE, not before.
Celsus can state whatever he likes - the real deal is to provide reasoned argument not assertions.

Therefore there were no Christians before 70 CE, and the only Christiani known before then, docet Laupot, were only mere Messianists.
''mere Messianists'' :popcorn:

This is true totally beyond the existence or not of a historical Jesus.

Hence, the only possible options are two:
  • (1) Christianity was born after the 70 CE and there was a historical Jesus;
  • (2) Christianity was born after the 70 CE and there was not a historical Jesus.
My point in this thread is banally that, given (1), the only best candidate for the role of the Gospel Jesus was: Jesus b. Sapphat.
There are no others and who claims that there were others, is a mere charlatan.
Option 3. There was no historical Jesus - prior to or post 70 c.e. The gospel Jesus is a literary figure.

I have already given the reasons why it is extremely probable that Jesus b. Sapphat was just the man saved by Josephus in extremis and identified by the Gospel writers as their Jesus buried by "Joseph of Arimathea" (=Josephus).
You made a lot of speculative assertions.

If you are so blind that you can't consider correctly the weight of my real argument, then it is a your problem, not mine.
No, not so blind - had cataract removed so now see extremely clearly that your Jesus b. Saphat theory fails the daylight test....
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

The fact remains: Paul didn't know Pilate in the role given to him by the Gospels.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:39 pm The fact remains: Paul didn't know Pilate in the role given to him by the Gospels.
There you go Giuseppe - ditch the gospel story and you can then have a brand new story with Jesus b. Saphat crucified in 70 c.e. Best thing to be doing, methinks, that way you can creator your own Jesus story without that dastardly Pilate to throw a spanner in the works....So, throw out the time-shift of Jesus b. Saphat back to the time of Pilate - not necessary once one ditches the setting of the gospel story - and all you have left to do then is somehow time-shift Paul forward to either post 70 c.e. or post 95 c.e. I can see Aretas might be a problem re dating - but you might be able to come up with another Aretas - just like some Christians have come up with two Lysanias in order to keep Luke looking good.....
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:13 pmsomehow time-shift Paul forward to either post 70 c.e. or post 95 c.e.
Paul is not a problem at all. For him there is always the option 'Detering' available.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:22 pm
maryhelena wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:13 pmsomehow time-shift Paul forward to either post 70 c.e. or post 95 c.e.
Paul is not a problem at all. For him there is always the option 'Detering' available.
OK - so that means, along with Pilate, that Aretas gets ditched as well..(2 Cor.11.32.33.)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Ignoring Maryhelena's criticisms, I read:


And remember, “Theudas,” as in the Nag Hammadi Apocalypses of James, is another version of Thaddeus. Eisenman also makes Theudas a version of Judas Thomas. Was it he who promised to make Jerusalem’s walls collapse? As for the Samaritan Pilate killed, he must have thought himself the Restorer (Taheb), and Eisenman sees a refracted glimmer of this hero when Peter resurrects Tabitha in Lydda, all the more since the Samaritan messiah’s followers rallied at Tirathaba. Speaking of Lydda, Rabbinic tradition tells us of the crucifixion there of a Messiah ben Joseph who was named either Doetus or Dortas (originally perhaps the messianic Dositheus of Samaria), who shows up cross-dressing at Lydda as Dorcas, Tabitha’s other name!

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... t_code.htm (my bold)

Now, what is interesting, is that Couchoud claims that the Acts' story of the resurrection of Tabitha in Lydda by Peter is the source of the Gospel episode about "Talitha kum".

Hence, we have:

Tirathaba ⟶ Tabitha ⟶ Talitha Kum

Hence the original "resurrection" miracle was a sedition by the Samaritan false prophet.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:52 am Ignoring Maryhelena's criticisms, I read:


And remember, “Theudas,” as in the Nag Hammadi Apocalypses of James, is another version of Thaddeus. Eisenman also makes Theudas a version of Judas Thomas. Was it he who promised to make Jerusalem’s walls collapse? As for the Samaritan Pilate killed, he must have thought himself the Restorer (Taheb), and Eisenman sees a refracted glimmer of this hero when Peter resurrects Tabitha in Lydda, all the more since the Samaritan messiah’s followers rallied at Tirathaba. Speaking of Lydda, Rabbinic tradition tells us of the crucifixion there of a Messiah ben Joseph who was named either Doetus or Dortas (originally perhaps the messianic Dositheus of Samaria), who shows up cross-dressing at Lydda as Dorcas, Tabitha’s other name!

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... t_code.htm (my bold)

Now, what is interesting, is that Couchoud claims that the Acts' story of the resurrection of Tabitha in Lydda by Peter is the source of the Gospel episode about "Talitha kum".

Hence, we have:

Tirathaba ⟶ Tabitha ⟶ Talitha Kum

Hence the original "resurrection" miracle was a sedition by the Samaritan false prophet.
Oh well.....it's your thread so you can turn it into whatever takes your fancy.... yep, probably for the best as the theory in the OP re Jesus b. Saphat is dead on arrival.....
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

“Simeon who is called Niger” is probably the ‘Niger of Perea’ from Josephus. Again: 66-70 CE.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

  • According to Hippolytus, Simon claims to have appeared to the Jews “in Judea as ‘Son,’ and in Samaria as ‘Father,’ and among the rest of the Gentiles as ‘Holy Spirit.”
  • Hence, given also his anti-YHWH nature, Simon Magus, appeared in Judea as 'the Son of the Unknown Father' is probably "Bar-Abbas".
  • The Gospel writers betray the insistence to distinguish between the true crucified man (Jesus called Christ) and Barabbas captured during the stasis.
  • Hence, there had to be a "Simon of Samaria" captured and probably crucified during a precise revolt happened under Pilate, and this 'Bar-Abbas' was someway considered as a dangerous disturbing rival of the Christians' claims that their Jesus called Christ was crucified under Pilate.
  • Josephus talks effectively about a Samaritan false prophet 'punished' by Pilate.
    • Is it a coincidence that he was a Samaritan?
    • Is it a coincidence that the only revolt repressed by Pilate was led by a Samaritan false prophet?
    • Is it a coincidence that the Gospel Barabbas was captured during 'the' insurrection, a precise insurrection meant to be happened under the Gospel Pilate?
    • Is it a coincidence that Barabbas and Simon Magus are both 'Son' of an alien unknown Father?
    • Is it a coincidence that the Father of both Barabbas and Simon Magus is a god enemy of YHWH?
    • Is is a coincidence that Simon Magus was connected again and again with Samaria and Mount Gerizim ?
CONCLUSION:
the Samaritan false prophet was probably the only seditious crucified by Pilate.
There are only two historical possibilities:
  • the Gospel writers, in reaction against the Docetism and the Anti-Demiurgism, replaced the crucifixion of the Samaritan false prophet (who was become in whiletime an icon of Docetism and Anti-Demiurgism under the name of 'Simon Magus' and 'Bar-Abbas') with the crucixifion of Jesus b. Sapphat, hence applying deliberately the shift in time from 70 CE to 30 CE.
  • the historical Jesus was the Samaritan false prophet. The Gospel writers deliberately 'judaized' the figure to deny the Samaritan origins of the sect and accuse the Jews, and not the Romans, for his death.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:52 am
  • the historical Jesus was the Samaritan false prophet. The Gospel writers deliberately 'judaized' the figure to deny the Samaritan origins of the sect and accuse the Jews, and not the Romans, for his death.
Wow - so now the gospel writers are deliberately seeking to mislead their readers..... :popcorn:
Post Reply