May 2017
could it possibly begin with the well-known question,
as to whether a "histoical" jesus existed?
well... to answer that question, you'd have to ask
an actual historian imbued in the *zeitgest of the times,
and if this zeitgeist was that of: the spreading of a revised
monotheism that was judaism, and judaism alone,
you really have to look up someone who lived
in the stated dates of temperal constraints;
and as such, there is only one reliable source -
josephus ben matthias -
born in ~37a.d., at the time whem emperor nero
ruled the roman empire,
at first one of the leaders of the jewish
revolt, who later "converted",
caputed in galilee by the romans, his life was spared,
and he gained roman citizenship, befriended titus
and vespansian...
more importantly, his surviving work,
the book the jewish war.
now comes the appropriate cascade of
apocalyptic insinuations...
when the greeks wrote the new testament?
they weren't in decline... but in a way were,
in that they held no reasonable conceptualisation
of time, or the passing of time, for that matter decay...
i guess they wrote the new testament in desperation,
in relation to the past, and the present, leading toward what
future they hoped to envision, as byzantines they
would eventually become...
just like the defeated trojans became romans,
in what's recorded in rome's gensis that's virgil's
aeneid.
apologies for the moving backward and forward with the facts...
but it's crucial for some sort of clarity...
a poem can describe a day, i.e. singled out events:
like homer, and the trojan war.
journalism? that goes way beyond a day,
it can be a week, but it can also be a decade...
for example the war in syria, might boil down to last a decade,
but journalism can cope with a decade.
history on the other hand? it can't last a day,
it can't last a decade either, as such...
by historical standards, a decade isn't worth
investigating... unless it is by historicirty enthusiasts -
who will, for example, give you detailed accounts
of the punk decade, or a grunge time-period -
they stress historicity, because they are biographers,
or even autobiographers... but that doesn't make them
historians are as such.
why? because history deals with centuries,
and centuries as such, that need to have some sort of connectivity...
what comes after the historical timescale?
as the above stated question suggestes.. did a "historical"
jesus exist? now we have moved beyond a historical
conceptualisation of time... and into a realm of λoγoς:
which echoes down the ages with the help of φoνoς -
mythology, that is the upper tier of history,
it's the modus operandi for people who want to remember as much,
tell as many stories, as it takes to encode at least
one millennium - hence the need to apply the cocept
of myths, and the logic to that is: you can only hoard so much
in libraries.
so why should mythology be so confused with other modes
of recording time? homer's epic is not misunderstood
as myth, because it takes days into concern, so far removed
by mythology, that they can be taken as reasonable observations
of the times he lived in.
anyway... what needs to be done now is to explain
the greek confusion with time in the period of history that made
them the conquered, rather than the conquering...
thus on this basis, a citation from the historian of the times
josephus ben matthias...
the jewish war, chapter 7, judea under roman rule (page 147),
1981 edition...
'a greater blow than this was inflicted on the jews by the egyptian
false prophet. arriving in the country this man, a fraud
who posed as a seer, collected about 30,000 dupes, led them round
from the desert to the mount of olives, and from there was ready
to force an entry into jerusalem, overwhelm the roman garrison,
and seize supreme power with his fellow-raiders as bodyguard.
but felix anticipated his attempt by meeting him with
the roman heavy infantry, the whole population rallying to
the defence... the egyptian fled with a handful of men and
most of his followers were killed or captured...'
riding on a donkey into jerusalem (30,000 dupes), rings a bell,
the flight of joseph and mary to egypt? rings a bell...
now the timescale problem of the new testament, the precise
hyperbolic aspect of it...
crucially? the unearthing of the nag hammadi library
in the egyptian desert.
hmm... so far so good... i don't buy, for one bit
that jesus was a hippy from the word go!
the whole resurrection story doesn't fit the bill...
he was a war lord... or a false prophet...
seen by jews as an egyptian... the question is... where did
the actual crucifixion take place? on golgotha, or somewhere
in egypt? well... given the historical account... it must have been
in egypt... and after that: he went back to judea as
the hippy described in the new testament...
what puts the pieces together is the above historical account
and where the library was found... but on top of that!
the book of revelation... and the code enclosed in it:
ΧΞΣ - grafitti, against the emepror nero...
you don't get any reference to augustus -
you get anthony and cleopatra... so given when the historical
account was written, and the zeitgeist embedded in
the book of revelations? hmm... ch'e ks'e si.
did the historical jesus exist then?
if the jews didn't see him as an egyptian,
and if they later didn't move the accounts from egypt
and self-lacerated themselves with tales from golgotha?
who knows... maybe the holocaust wouldn't have happened;
on my behalf, that's just wishful thinking;
but the greeks were just as bad... what came last for them
came first... and what actually happened, to them didn't happen...
is that irony that the jews were somehow
grateful for roman occupation? i mean... did any other
babylonian king enslave them, and tell them to oput a garden
on a ******* ceiling, like nebuchadnezzar ii did?
as to whether a "histoical" jesus existed?
well... to answer that question, you'd have to ask
an actual historian imbued in the *zeitgest of the times,
and if this zeitgeist was that of: the spreading of a revised
monotheism that was judaism, and judaism alone,
you really have to look up someone who lived
in the stated dates of temperal constraints;
and as such, there is only one reliable source -
josephus ben matthias -
born in ~37a.d., at the time whem emperor nero
ruled the roman empire,
at first one of the leaders of the jewish
revolt, who later "converted",
caputed in galilee by the romans, his life was spared,
and he gained roman citizenship, befriended titus
and vespansian...
more importantly, his surviving work,
the book the jewish war.
now comes the appropriate cascade of
apocalyptic insinuations...
when the greeks wrote the new testament?
they weren't in decline... but in a way were,
in that they held no reasonable conceptualisation
of time, or the passing of time, for that matter decay...
i guess they wrote the new testament in desperation,
in relation to the past, and the present, leading toward what
future they hoped to envision, as byzantines they
would eventually become...
just like the defeated trojans became romans,
in what's recorded in rome's gensis that's virgil's
aeneid.
apologies for the moving backward and forward with the facts...
but it's crucial for some sort of clarity...
a poem can describe a day, i.e. singled out events:
like homer, and the trojan war.
journalism? that goes way beyond a day,
it can be a week, but it can also be a decade...
for example the war in syria, might boil down to last a decade,
but journalism can cope with a decade.
history on the other hand? it can't last a day,
it can't last a decade either, as such...
by historical standards, a decade isn't worth
investigating... unless it is by historicirty enthusiasts -
who will, for example, give you detailed accounts
of the punk decade, or a grunge time-period -
they stress historicity, because they are biographers,
or even autobiographers... but that doesn't make them
historians are as such.
why? because history deals with centuries,
and centuries as such, that need to have some sort of connectivity...
what comes after the historical timescale?
as the above stated question suggestes.. did a "historical"
jesus exist? now we have moved beyond a historical
conceptualisation of time... and into a realm of λoγoς:
which echoes down the ages with the help of φoνoς -
mythology, that is the upper tier of history,
it's the modus operandi for people who want to remember as much,
tell as many stories, as it takes to encode at least
one millennium - hence the need to apply the cocept
of myths, and the logic to that is: you can only hoard so much
in libraries.
so why should mythology be so confused with other modes
of recording time? homer's epic is not misunderstood
as myth, because it takes days into concern, so far removed
by mythology, that they can be taken as reasonable observations
of the times he lived in.
anyway... what needs to be done now is to explain
the greek confusion with time in the period of history that made
them the conquered, rather than the conquering...
thus on this basis, a citation from the historian of the times
josephus ben matthias...
the jewish war, chapter 7, judea under roman rule (page 147),
1981 edition...
'a greater blow than this was inflicted on the jews by the egyptian
false prophet. arriving in the country this man, a fraud
who posed as a seer, collected about 30,000 dupes, led them round
from the desert to the mount of olives, and from there was ready
to force an entry into jerusalem, overwhelm the roman garrison,
and seize supreme power with his fellow-raiders as bodyguard.
but felix anticipated his attempt by meeting him with
the roman heavy infantry, the whole population rallying to
the defence... the egyptian fled with a handful of men and
most of his followers were killed or captured...'
riding on a donkey into jerusalem (30,000 dupes), rings a bell,
the flight of joseph and mary to egypt? rings a bell...
now the timescale problem of the new testament, the precise
hyperbolic aspect of it...
crucially? the unearthing of the nag hammadi library
in the egyptian desert.
hmm... so far so good... i don't buy, for one bit
that jesus was a hippy from the word go!
the whole resurrection story doesn't fit the bill...
he was a war lord... or a false prophet...
seen by jews as an egyptian... the question is... where did
the actual crucifixion take place? on golgotha, or somewhere
in egypt? well... given the historical account... it must have been
in egypt... and after that: he went back to judea as
the hippy described in the new testament...
what puts the pieces together is the above historical account
and where the library was found... but on top of that!
the book of revelation... and the code enclosed in it:
ΧΞΣ - grafitti, against the emepror nero...
you don't get any reference to augustus -
you get anthony and cleopatra... so given when the historical
account was written, and the zeitgeist embedded in
the book of revelations? hmm... ch'e ks'e si.
did the historical jesus exist then?
if the jews didn't see him as an egyptian,
and if they later didn't move the accounts from egypt
and self-lacerated themselves with tales from golgotha?
who knows... maybe the holocaust wouldn't have happened;
on my behalf, that's just wishful thinking;
but the greeks were just as bad... what came last for them
came first... and what actually happened, to them didn't happen...
is that irony that the jews were somehow
grateful for roman occupation? i mean... did any other
babylonian king enslave them, and tell them to oput a garden
on a ******* ceiling, like nebuchadnezzar ii did?
