Carrier review on Einhorn's 'Shift in Time'

[Richard Stanley]

Counsel is trying to win on a technicality, everybody knows who Isaiah 9:6 is talking about.

Oh dear.

BTW, this reminds me of a great movie idea.

The pope visits NYC, passes by the infamous sycamore tree, stops and peers into the Abyss, and has Isaiah 9 read en Espanol to the American masses. Then he hops back on his plane and watches the blood red moon out his window on the way home.

Jesus says He fulfills the law, which His audience would have interpreted as the Mosaic Law, but He seems to me to be making reference to Holy Law in a more general "laws of G-d's nature" sense than in a "specific laws created within a particular religious context" sense.

Two things I feel compelled to mention: 1) do we need a different font color for discussing ideas as theo-philosophical aspects of the Scriptural story versus things we think have some basis in historical material reality? and 2) for the record, I am only offering my personal perspectives as a student of the Scriptures, and not as a representative of the UMC or any other religious body, thus they should be taken as "spiritual talk" only, and do not constitute "spiritual advice"

This is the 'ambiguous' problem, if one has to use the word 'seem'. This is why we have over 1,000 Xian cults that feel free to interpret the ambiguous divine words any way they see fit. This was one reason the Mother Church insisted that only they can interpret what the words mean. Of course, their translations don't seem to match what the oldest known texts say -- and as usual, in telling fashion.

I don't think we need a different font or color for that, but perhaps we might want to think about pruning such discussions and grafting them into a new thread? These threads are getting very difficult to maintain continuity of thought with.

All I can say with certainty is that they are often mentioned in the same breath as the Pharisees

Per my construction of the False Dialectic the Sadducees would be considered elite and wealthy Hellenizers, aligned with the Herodians and the Romans, and against the various nationalist factions. And therefore they are genteel, but not goy.

As you know, Josephus stated that there were two schools of Pharisees, one which had to be terminated with extreme prejudice, while the other was turned into today's rabbinic Jews, always under the watchful eyes and protection of the Romans, the pope being their Joseph.

So now one has to determine the POV of the moment, as to whether the gospels are representing Pharisees as either nationalists or the opposite.

So here are two more aspects of biblical ambiguity. The proper contextual meaning of 'Gentile', and which Pharisees are being criticized.

May I ask where to find the evidence for this "not fighting too hard" accusation that continues to resurface?

The entire subtext of his generalship is that he is constantly having to defend himself against being accused by his fellow Jews of behaving in a suspicious manner as to his war conduct. This the child prodigy who was sent to Rome to play patty cakes with Nero, Poppaea, and likely the Flavians, before returning home and warning his compatriots not to start the war. Then, he manages to survive a typical fate at the hands of the Romans, by proclaiming that Vespasian will be the next emperor. Much like the high priest that was rolled out in a carpet before Vespasian and announced he was the messiah (from the Talmud).

What does your heart say?

My heart says that law should be reasonable tempered with compassion, and not set in stone in regards to lesser matters. What does 613 laws, most of which were just based upon a pragmatic need to politically invert the culture of one people really have to do with some notion of spiritually? It is all the meddling, social engineering, of elite chimpigs. And the meddling has generally served them well, leaving the rest of us with all the ambiguous mess to clean up.

As I have speculated elsewhere, Xianity sounds like maybe it was meant to be a bastardized form of Buddhism, to enable a less than beneficent caste system (as is the claim by some for at least, the original school of Buddhism) to be advanced into the realms conquered by Rome.

With the Pali school, so I understand, Prince Siddhartha came to understand that he needed to abandon all ego drives first, before he could truly understand how to live properly and fully actualized in the material world, with priorities properly aligned and controlled. From this perspective I can appreciate the message of Jesus in focusing on the spiritual first, but that, as usual there is too much ambiguity left open to interpretation by those with much to gain.

And here I thought the question was, "why couldn't we"

As humans, 'we' have an excuse, needing repeated iterations to get such things right. But, supposedly, He created all this in the first place, gave us free will, and then killed almost everybody for using their free will. Then the first thing Noah does is get naked drunk.

 

[Jerry Russell]

perhaps we might want to think about pruning such discussions and grafting them into a new thread? These threads are getting very difficult to maintain continuity of thought with.

Like mighty rivers at flood time, threads flow where they will, with no respect for established channels or boundaries. Pruning and grafting this out into one (or more?) new threads would be a lot of work, and it would be difficult to maintain continuity. As to a direction where it's going, I have no clue.

But if I have anything more to say about Einhorn and 'A Shift in Time' (which I probably will, since I bought the book), I'll start a new thread for that.

 

[Marcilla Smith]

Counsel is trying to win on a technicality, everybody knows who Isaiah 9:6 is talking about.

Hezekiah?

Jesus is a fictional character. Some real historical person wrote those lines and put them in Jesus' mouth. Are you with us on that?

Totes. Of course my own supposition is that the author(s) of the words of Jesus were serving temporal and spiritual masters, both

Well, you can see what he said in the passage quoted above, "the Gospel authors are making Jesus up." He believes that Christianity originated within some Jewish sect that was expecting a Messiah, and that early Christianity was a mystery religion based on Hellenistic-Judaic syncretism. So, I think he would say that the Gospels must have been written by members of that sect. In his article on Atwill, he wrote:

Christianity was probably constructed to “divert Jewish hostility and aggressiveness into a pacifist religion, supportive of–and subservient to–Roman rule,” but not by Romans, but exasperated Jews like Paul, who saw Jewish militarism as unacceptably disastrous in contrast with the obvious advantages of retooling their messianic expectations to produce the peaceful moral reform of society.​

​

I'm trying to give Mr. Carrier the benefit of the doubt, here. Does he subscribe to an authorship of the Gospels that pre-dates the fall of Jerusalem?

BTW, this reminds me of a great movie idea.

The pope visits NYC, passes by the infamous sycamore tree, stops and peers into the Abyss, and has Isaiah 9 read en Espanol to the American masses. Then he hops back on his plane and watches the blood red moon out his window on the way home.

:: stares blankly while passing hand over top of head ::

This is the 'ambiguous' problem, if one has to use the word 'seem'.

IDK that I'm following you. Everything is up for interpretation, especially in the realm of the Spirit, is it not?

So now one has to determine the POV of the moment, as to whether the gospels are representing Pharisees as either nationalists or the opposite.

So here are two more aspects of biblical ambiguity. The proper contextual meaning of 'Gentile', and which Pharisees are being criticized.

Are you sure you aren't trying to read a political criticism into a religious text where the spiritual interpretation is adequate? Prophets are all the time going on about how everyone has wickedly turned their back on the downtrodden, the mighty, the old ways, and the way ahead, alike. It's kind of a thing with them, isn't it?

It's not surprising to me that Josephus would be critical of everyone in Judea. That is not an uncommon way of dealing with the trauma of loss - to denigrate the thing lost in an attempt to convince oneself "I never really wanted it, and I'm better off without it"

The entire subtext of his generalship is that he is constantly having to defend himself against being accused by his fellow Jews of behaving in a suspicious manner as to his war conduct. This the child prodigy who was sent to Rome to play patty cakes with Nero, Poppaea, and likely the Flavians, before returning home and warning his compatriots not to start the war. Then, he manages to survive a typical fate at the hands of the Romans, by proclaiming that Vespasian will be the next emperor. Much like the high priest that was rolled out in a carpet before Vespasian and announced he was the messiah (from the Talmud).

As a technical note, I believe Nero had banished Vespasian back to his beehives prior to the outbreak of the Jewish revolt.

As for Josephus writing that his men questioned him as evidence that he was intentionally sabotaging the nationalist effort, I can't say that it isn't evidence, but in light of the other explanations available, I can't say it's strong evidence. For me, at least :: shrugs ::

My heart says that law should be reasonable tempered with compassion, and not set in stone in regards to lesser matters. What does 613 laws, most of which were just based upon a pragmatic need to politically invert the culture of one people really have to do with some notion of spiritually? It is all the meddling, social engineering, of elite chimpigs. And the meddling has generally served them well, leaving the rest of us with all the ambiguous mess to clean up.

As I have speculated elsewhere, Xianity sounds like maybe it was meant to be a bastardized form of Buddhism, to enable a less than beneficent caste system (as is the claim by some for at least, the original school of Buddhism) to be advanced into the realms conquered by Rome.

With the Pali school, so I understand, Prince Siddhartha came to understand that he needed to abandon all ego drives first, before he could truly understand how to live properly and fully actualized in the material world, with priorities properly aligned and controlled. From this perspective I can appreciate the message of Jesus in focusing on the spiritual first, but that, as usual there is too much ambiguity left open to interpretation by those with much to gain.

:: looking slightly stunned slash confused :: Sooooo... I take it by the fact that you mentioned Buddhism that you're pro-vegetarian?

As humans, 'we' have an excuse, needing repeated iterations to get such things right. But, supposedly, He created all this in the first place, gave us free will, and then killed almost everybody for using their free will. Then the first thing Noah does is get naked drunk.

We're talking about a myth still, right? I don't know that I follow :: scratches head ::

 

[Jerry Russell]

I'm trying to give Mr. Carrier the benefit of the doubt, here. Does he subscribe to an authorship of the Gospels that pre-dates the fall of Jerusalem?

I think he would argue for a late date of the Gospels, and that the authors were working from Josephus as one of their sources.

We're talking about a myth still, right? I don't know that I follow :: scratches head ::

I think Rick is saying that myths have political as well as religious implications.

 

[Marcilla Smith]

I think he would argue for a late date of the Gospels, and that the authors were working from Josephus as one of their sources.

I guess I agree with him in the sense that the three most likely suspects (Josephus, Berenice, and Tiberius Alexander) are all Jewish in some sense. However, I can't reconcile a late date for the Gospels with any kind of organic/grassroots/non-Roman-endorsed authorship when Rabbinic Judaism would already be filling the bill Mr. Carrier proposes, fulfilling it in a way that more seamlessly relates itself back to Second Temple Judaism, and doing so with the endorsement and support of Rome

I think Rick is saying that myths have political as well as religious implications.

Ok? I don't mean to be rude, but I think I understand even less his point

 

[Richard Stanley]

Hezekiah?

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Hello. Jesus. This was your original question after all. This is the foundational text for the Jesus mythos, the linkage to Augustus.

Totes. Of course my own supposition is that the author(s) of the words of Jesus were serving temporal and spiritual masters, both

If true, then this yet begs the question of the motivations of the temporal and spiritual masters, the Elect so to speak. Jerry and I suspect malfeasant motivations are in the dirty laundry. Tupper Saussey grants that this is of unfortunate necessity, but I am not so completely sure of this, as it appears too easy to grant some and undue free pass at Park Place.

:: stares blankly while passing hand over top of head ::

Where were you newbie? These are all things that happened on the pope's recent visit. I developed this all on the Schmeta thread here.

The 9/11 Memorial Fountain is the Bottomless Pit , the Abyss of Revelation, which the pope stopped and looked down into. They passed by the famous tree that saved the church on 9/11 - just as in Isaiah, they read that a new Savior had been born (in Spanish) and then the pope flew right over your head while looking at the Blood Red Moon that night.

As a technical note, I believe Nero had banished Vespasian back to his beehives prior to the outbreak of the Jewish revolt.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

As for Josephus writing that his men questioned him as evidence that he was intentionally sabotaging the nationalist effort, I can't say that it isn't evidence, but in light of the other explanations available, I can't say it's strong evidence. For me, at least :: shrugs ::

He admits that they did much more than just question him. Also, he felt it was necessary to even address in the first place. Similarly to that he had to admit (and respond to) that there was a competing Jewish historical narrative (that did not survive to this day as far as we know).

:: looking slightly stunned slash confused :: Sooooo... I take it by the fact that you mentioned Buddhism that you're pro-vegetarian?

What are you confused by exactly?

As a great lover of consuming meat, I do feel rather conflicted about the suffering of critters to support this craving. But, of course, there is that saying that vegetarians are those who can not hear a plant scream. But human chimpigs seem to be designed / evolved as omnivores and to eat living things is thus part of life. If all critters were forced to be vegetarians what would happen to those who are strictly carnivores and thus must eat meat?

We're talking about a myth still, right? I don't know that I follow :: scratches head ::

Since I have not yet perfected the context ID system (and likely wont) you'll just have to accept that I am capable of switching in and out of literal, figurative, and metaphorical contexts at will (no pun on Joe's name intended - but maybe Tyrone can have some fun with it?).

And besides which, I'm not sure that we (including --- most everyone) all agree on such seeming basic concepts as 'myth'. Here Fideler had some cogent things to say about the understanding of 'myth' and that of the 'gods' by such as the Classical greats predating Jesus. This as to how they employed the term (the one) 'God' and what we poorly understand by the 'mythic gods' and your Logos (of becoming). I'm thinking of posting it separately.

BTW, the non-state of Becoming is important to Buddhism.

Ok? I don't mean to be rude, but I think I understand even less his point

I have discovered that the further one comes to understand matters apart from common notions, that the more difficult it is to communicate that understanding, without first stopping to painfully elaborate the underlying basics that led to a different understanding. This was why Jesus had his secret society, as did others of his day, like him. Only then can one understand why he got mad at a barren fig tree, or turned away a Greek chimpig.

But in this case, it would seem that we have provided plenty of effort in explaining our views, about the relationship of government to religion (as opposed to perhaps a different notion of 'spirituality'). In this regards, I was just reading one of my books on 'Normans', and the author asserted strongly that the Normans, supposedly rude Vikings only generations before, wielded religion as an arm of government. But I say, so what is new?

I think that what you have related that Mr. Atchity related to you about the narrative of Jesus, is fairly correct. It is a contrived, cynical, and imperfect mythos that is wearing thin, and thus the PTB, are actively planning to replace it with a new paradigm, and one that serves the wider global audience than the culturally limited one two thousand years ago.

While it may indeed have some new enhanced features that make living together in the New small, small world, easier and more pleasant, I have no illusions that for some few Elect the system will still be cynically rigged. "Same as it ever was."

 

[Marcilla Smith]

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Hello. Jesus. This was your original question after all. This is the foundational text for the Jesus mythos, the linkage to Augustus.

I beg of your pardon, but I am quite familiar with the way in which the institutional church has interpreted that line. Are you proposing that this was the intent of the author(s)?

Jerry and I suspect malfeasant motivations are in the dirty laundry. Tupper Saussey grants that this is of unfortunate necessity, but I am not so completely sure of this, as it appears too easy to grant some and undue free pass at Park Place.

If you will excuse the reminder, Jerry is the one who began this line of questioning to you. If you will furthermore forgive my denseness, I can't say as I'm any closer to seeing what you meant about the Jesus of the Gospels being part of a Jewish nationalist movement. Is your comment about "malfeasant motivations" meant to imply that you now believe Zealots wrote the Gospels?

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

So if I'm following your story, despite the fact that Josephus can't even convince his own people that perhaps taking on the might of the global empire should be reconsidered, during a visit to Rome, his hellenization so charms the emperor who had his own mother executed, that Nero conspires with him, furthermore insisting that before Josephus returns in order to play the part of the Benedict General they have concocted, he should take a detour in order to go say howdy to General Sleepyhead as he tends his village apiary

He admits that they did much more than just question him. Also, he felt it was necessary to even address in the first place. Similarly to that he had to admit (and respond to) that there was a competing Jewish historical narrative (that did not survive to this day as far as we know).

Sorry. I'm unfamiliar with what you mean exactly in either of these cases

What are you confused by exactly?

I tried giving literal counsel on adopting a vegetarian diet in response to your question. You responded by going into the "cultural inversion" narrative.

Incidentally, and if you'll excuse me for asking, have you considered changing your wording around sometimes? You have certain phrases - not just "cultural inversion" but also "false dialectic," "cynical," and "cultural degradation," to name a few - which you not only use frequently, but also in what seems to me to be very specific ways, or rather I should say "with a meaning very specific to you."

I fear you missed your calling as a professor of sociology

As a great lover of consuming meat, I do feel rather conflicted about the suffering of critters to support this craving. But, of course, there is that saying that vegetarians are those who can not hear a plant scream. But human chimpigs seem to be designed / evolved as omnivores and to eat living things is thus part of life. If all critters were forced to be vegetarians what would happen to those who are strictly carnivores and thus must eat meat?

Fortunately, I do not have the power to impose such a condition, thus I am relieved of the burden of that decision.

Humans are intelligently designed through the sustained creation of evolution to survive physically and mentally after practicing anthropophagia, but do we offer that on the dollar value menu? What about chimps? Pigs :: raised eyebrow :: ?

Since I have not yet perfected the context ID system (and likely wont) you'll just have to accept that I am capable of switching in and out of literal, figurative, and metaphorical contexts at will (no pun on Joe's name intended - but maybe Tyrone can have some fun with it?).

And besides which, I'm not sure that we (including --- most everyone) all agree on such seeming basic concepts as 'myth'. Here Fideler had some cogent things to say about the understanding of 'myth' and that of the 'gods' by such as the Classical greats predating Jesus. This as to how they employed the term (the one) 'God' and what we poorly understand by the 'mythic gods' and your Logos (of becoming). I'm thinking of posting it separately.

BTW, the non-state of Becoming is important to Buddhism.

:: stares blankly momentarily with a "non-state of being" look :: Sooooooo... did you figure out what law you wanted to get back to?

I have discovered that the further one comes to understand matters apart from common notions, that the more difficult it is to communicate that understanding, without first stopping to painfully elaborate the underlying basics that led to a different understanding. This was why Jesus had his secret society, as did others of his day, like him. Only then can one understand why he got mad at a barren fig tree, or turned away a Greek chimpig.

But in this case, it would seem that we have provided plenty of effort in explaining our views, about the relationship of government to religion (as opposed to perhaps a different notion of 'spirituality'). In this regards, I was just reading one of my books on 'Normans', and the author asserted strongly that the Normans, supposedly rude Vikings only generations before, wielded religion as an arm of government. But I say, so what is new?

I think that what you have related that Mr. Atchity related to you about the narrative of Jesus, is fairly correct. It is a contrived, cynical, and imperfect mythos that is wearing thin, and thus the PTB, are actively planning to replace it with a new paradigm, and one that serves the wider global audience than the culturally limited one two thousand years ago.

While it may indeed have some new enhanced features that make living together in the New small, small world, easier and more pleasant, I have no illusions that for some few Elect the system will still be cynically rigged. "Same as it ever was."

Although we agree on many things, I don't know that we agree on anything quite so much as the idea that you "understand things apart from common notions," as you put it

 

[Richard Stanley]

I beg of your pardon, but I am quite familiar with the way in which the institutional church has interpreted that line. Are you proposing that this was the intent of the author(s)?

Your original question was what was the linkage between the 4th Eclogue invocation by Virgil to Jesus. Boom, there it is!!! This is why such as Virgil were honored as honorary Xians by the Church. Similar, as Joe stated in CM that the early church fathers crowed about the destruction of the temple in 70CE as being the perfect fulfillment of the Second Coming prophecy.

I can only strongly suggest that there was indeed an intent by Virgil, who was being paid by Augustus, to use this work as propaganda to establish a New World Order du jour, and this linkage was the result, one way or the other.

If you will excuse the reminder, Jerry is the one who began this line of questioning to you. If you will furthermore forgive my denseness, I can't say as I'm any closer to seeing what you meant about the Jesus of the Gospels being part of a Jewish nationalist movement. Is your comment about "malfeasant motivations" meant to imply that you now believe Zealots wrote the Gospels?

Yikes. That Paul guy had to make a trip to go visit Jesus's brothers, the disciples, in Jerusalem. His big task, as reported by himself was to argue with the disciples that they needed to have a mission to the Greek pigs, as Jesus would state it. In doing so, he also had to convince them that the Greeks didn't need to get an uncomfortable trim to their male parts. You are discussing 'cultural' documents that claim to be making a 'graft' between the Judaic world and the Greco-Roman one. This is one more consequence of such a graft, at the most basic level. If Jesus was a Hellenizer then what is all the fuss about?

So if I'm following your story, despite the fact that Josephus can't even convince his own people that perhaps taking on the might of the global empire should be reconsidered, during a visit to Rome, his hellenization so charms the emperor who had his own mother executed, that Nero conspires with him, furthermore insisting that before Josephus returns in order to play the part of the Benedict General they have concocted, he should take a detour in order to go say howdy to General Sleepyhead as he tends his village apiary

Your are putting thoughts in my mind that I didn't have or express. I never suggested that Josephus charmed Nero, or that Nero had his mother executed, and that Josephus charming of Nero caused Nero to conspire with Josephus. I don't know who your General Sleepyhead is.

Sorry. I'm unfamiliar with what you mean exactly in either of these cases

Josephus Jewish enemies, his own people, wanted to hunt him down and kill him. I think at one point, a friend named 'Jesus' came to Josephus's aid.

Josephus, had to write a separate work as a rebuttal to claims made by another Jew in his separate history that conflicted with Josephus account.

I tried giving literal counsel on adopting a vegetarian diet in response to your question. You responded by going into the "cultural inversion" narrative.

Incidentally, and if you'll excuse me for asking, have you considered changing your wording around sometimes? You have certain phrases - not just "cultural inversion" but also "false dialectic," "cynical," and "cultural degradation," to name a few - which you not only use frequently, but also in what seems to me to be very specific ways, or rather I should say "with a meaning very specific to you."

I fear you missed your calling as a professor of sociology

You have a problem of extrapolating too much from what I express. If I know something about something, or sympathize with aspects of that something, that doesn't necessarily follow that I am one of those somethings. How does my mentioning Buddhism make me a Buddhist -- or a vegetarian whether I sympathize with the practice or not?

What exactly did I invert?

I'm afraid I am not intelligent enough to comprehend how I have abused these terms and phrases, and therefore how that would qualify me to be a professor.

Humans are intelligently designed through the sustained creation of evolution to survive physically and mentally after practicing anthropophagia, but do we offer that on the dollar value menu? What about chimps? Pigs :: raised eyebrow :: ?

I don't follow.

:: stares blankly momentarily with a "non-state of being" look :: Sooooooo... did you figure out what law you wanted to get back to?

You're answering my question with a question. I asked why that god whose new narrative (via) you (neoJosphus) want to impose on humanity simply couldn't get his laws right the first time out.

Although we agree on many things, I don't know that we agree on anything quite so much as the idea that you "understand things apart from common notions," as you put it

I think that the woman's video that Matt posted on his thread explains it all quite well.

 

[Marcilla Smith]

Your original question was what was the linkage between the 4th Eclogue invocation by Virgil to Jesus.

My recollection is that this discussion of Isaiah was about whether or not there was a logical consistency to the Gospel story. My point was that no part of the NT calls Jesus the "Prince of Peace," and neither does this line from Isaiah which could only refer to Jesus if at least one of the following were true: a) it was written after the Gospels of the first century CE/AD, or b) the author had the capacity to foretell the writing of the Gospels. Otherwise, I tend to side with the Jews that it was written about Hezekiah

Yikes. That Paul guy had to make a trip to go visit Jesus's brothers, the disciples, in Jerusalem. His big task, as reported by himself was to argue with the disciples that they needed to have a mission to the Greek pigs, as Jesus would state it. In doing so, he also had to convince them that the Greeks didn't need to get an uncomfortable trim to their male parts. You are discussing 'cultural' documents that claim to be making a 'graft' between the Judaic world and the Greco-Roman one. This is one more consequence of such a graft, at the most basic level. If Jesus was a Hellenizer then what is all the fuss about?

So you are arguing that the Gospels were written by Zealots?

Your are putting thoughts in my mind that I didn't have or express. I never suggested that Josephus charmed Nero, or that Nero had his mother executed, and that Josephus charming of Nero caused Nero to conspire with Josephus. I don't know who your General Sleepyhead is.

Please excuse my overuse of euphemism. Nero caught Vespasian dozing off during one of his speeches, thus "General Sleepyhead" was sent to pasture to tend to the beehives of his apiary.

Nero had his mother executed - not metaphorically.

If not with his charm, how then was Josephus able to present himself to such as Nero to plead for the release of some priests, and end up with an invitation to turn on his own country in exchange for adoption into the as-yet-not-so-much-but-later-to-be imperial family?

Josephus, had to write a separate work as a rebuttal to claims made by another Jew in his separate history that conflicted with Josephus account.

Are you talking about Against Apion?

You have a problem of extrapolating too much from what I express. If I know something about something, or sympathize with aspects of that something, that doesn't necessarily follow that I am one of those somethings. How does my mentioning Buddhism make me a Buddhist -- or a vegetarian whether I sympathize with the practice or not?

You had asked how you might know if you should be a vegetarian. I asked what your heart said. What you responded with, I could not quite make out as a reply, so I was grasping for something that seemed like a response

I don't follow.

If it logically follows that "since we biologically can eat X, therefore it is morally acceptable to eat X," then since we can digest "long pig," what's the reason not to serve up some chimpig and cheese on rye?

You're answering my question with a question. I asked why that god whose new narrative (via) you (neoJosphus) want to impose on humanity simply couldn't get his laws right the first time out.

What desire do I have to impose anything?

In any event, if we are talking about "that g-d" in a non-literal sense as the personification of reality or as a metaphor for the laws of nature, then your question makes no sense to me, and I stand my my earlier statement to the effect that I think the point is "why couldn't we." If you are asking about a literal anthropomorphic superbeing, I'm going to have to direct you to an evangelical to better address that

I think that the woman's video that Matt posted on his thread explains it all quite well.

For the sake of politeness, I have not asked this previously, but where does she get that there is any word in any kind of latin such as "can" that means anything at all like "serpent"?

 

[Jerry Russell]

neither does this line from Isaiah which could only refer to Jesus if at least one of the following were true: a) it was written after the Gospels of the first century CE/AD, or b) the author had the capacity to foretell the writing of the Gospels.

I'm saying that the Gospels were written with the intent to show that Jesus (the fictional character) was a fulfillment of the prophecy given in Isaiah. Also that various sayings and parables in the Gospels such as going the extra mile with the Roman centurion, charity towards the good samaritan, encouragement of paying taxes, love thy neighbor as thyself, and so forth, were meant to illustrate a peaceful Jesus even if he was not described as such in so many words.

So you are arguing that the Gospels were written by Zealots?

Josephus' character 'The Egyptian' was a leader of the Zealots. There might have been some document written by the Zealots, describing the sayings and actions of 'The Egyptian' and other Zealot leaders. This document then would have been among the sources of the Gospel authors / redactors, who we argue were not Zealots, but Roman sympathizers. As you know, Joe thinks they were members of the Roman court. But they were writing about characters that were recognizably based on Zealot originals, and apparently one of the motivations was to propagandize the Zealots.

 

[Richard Stanley]

My recollection is that this discussion of Isaiah was about whether or not there was a logical consistency to the Gospel story. My point was that no part of the NT calls Jesus the "Prince of Peace," and neither does this line from Isaiah which could only refer to Jesus if at least one of the following were true: a) it was written after the Gospels of the first century CE/AD, or b) the author had the capacity to foretell the writing of the Gospels. Otherwise, I tend to side with the Jews that it was written about Hezekiah

Did the 4th Eclogue exist before Jesus was supposedly born or not?

It is well accepted by pretty much everyone that the gospels made heavy use of OT 'prophecies' (even if they did heavily distort the verses - but what's new?) to justify their existence. Now you're going to tell us that even this isn't true? Or you're going to engage in special pleading that what applies to one case can't apply to the other, or that there was a law that prevented people (like those writing a new cultural narrative) back then from making such associations?

So you are arguing that the Gospels were written by Zealots?

No, you are being ridiculous.

To illustrate the problem, and not to endorse the following solution, James Carroll, in Constantine's Sword, proposes that the original Jewish followers of Jesus wrote the gospels, and were very quickly forced to make massive expedient redactions that made themselves look more politically presentable to the Romans, in contrast to their once allied Jewish sects. In fact, in the process they had to attack their once Jewish friends.

What I am saying is that Josephus, and his team, took the former's broad knowledge of all Jewish sects, or at least the major sects, and grafted the amalgamated narratives of some of his old Jewish 'friends' (aka acquaintances) into an encrypted retelling of Julius Caesar's Civil War narrative. One of these 'friends' may likely have been some Jesus that was a gnostic mystery cult leader following in the footsteps of John the Baptist.

Josephus is much like the American Loyalists, whose descendants later formed the so-called East Coast Liberal Establishment (a deceptive misnomer). These people were nominal Americans, in name only, and whose elite familial ties were back in the old country - where the power resided. The difference being that in Josephus time the global (Hellenic) power was 'forward' based in Rome, no longer residing 'back' in Egypt.

If not with his charm, how then was Josephus able to present himself to such as Nero to plead for the release of some priests, and end up with an invitation to turn on his own country in exchange for adoption into the as-yet-not-so-much-but-later-to-be imperial family?

Maybe he was already going by the cover name of Agent Smith?

Nero had his mother executed - not metaphorically.

OK, if 'somebody' says so. I merely said that I never suggested that.

In any case, 'somebody' also asserted that Nero killed his wife, Poppaea. Maybe Papa Nero, the pope of that day, killed Poppaea because she had been cuckholded by Josephus, as Ralph Ellis conjectures, or maybe he killed her because she was a cryptoChrestian as Bartram suggests? Or maybe he was just cuckcoo as Suetonius and his contemporaries suggested, after the fact.

Or maybe, it was all part of a staged drama and the historians of the day wrote what they were told to, as was the case (then and now)? Maybe Nero got to retire to Greece and happily play the fiddle and act in plays into his old age - under and assumed name that is?

You had asked how you might know if you should be a vegetarian. I asked what your heart said. What you responded with, I could not quite make out as a reply, so I was grasping for something that seemed like a response

If it logically follows that "since we biologically can eat X, therefore it is morally acceptable to eat X," then since we can digest "long pig," what's the reason not to serve up some chimpig and cheese on rye?

It's sounds like the only moral answer then is the Masada solution, since even plants have feelings and brains.

This film investigates the notion that plants are intelligent, evolved biological forms through interviews with researchers across the globe that are exploring the boundaries between animal and plant. Researchers in the Savannah desert find that populations of Kudu are mysteriously dying off, and make a surprising discovery – Acacia trees have developed a survival technique in response to dense herds of Kudu overgrazing.

When the trees sense that they are being overtaxed they defensively release a toxic gas, eliminating the threat to their population. In examining the predatory nature of plants such as the Venus Fly Trap, the narrator explains that plants have learned to adapt to their environments. In the case of the Venus Fly Traps and other carnivorous flora, the plants compensate for nutritional deficiencies by eating insects, further demonstrating that they are capable of reacting to their environment.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/mind-plants/​

Bastard acacias. The only thing they are good for is making Arks of the Covenant and ... well, ... that's enough.

And who would want to kill a poor kudu, just for wanting to eat for its survival?

Hmmm, I wonder if a kudu tastes like chicken?

Christians do eat X, at every Communion. I don't do so, because I have made a conscious decision to eat my own kind. That said, with my having to think about my expiration date every day, I have considered that the best option might indeed be to let some poor bedraggled, drought stricken mountain lion or bear partake of my flesh. The Zoroastrians would lay their dead out on a mountain top, or in a special facility and let the vultures or dogs eat them. The biggest problem is the timing and logistics that might be available at the moment the time comes. I have been to the mountain tops [sic], but I don't think I can do so anymore.

Part 1

 

[Richard Stanley]

Part 2

What desire do I have to impose anything?

In any event, if we are talking about "that g-d" in a non-literal sense as the personification of reality or as a metaphor for the laws of nature, then your question makes no sense to me, and I stand my my earlier statement to the effect that I think the point is "why couldn't we." If you are asking about a literal anthropomorphic superbeing, I'm going to have to direct you to an evangelical to better address that

Well, probably in your zealous mind you have no desire to impose, but certainly, if successful, your disciples will see the new Josephan narrative as a cause to purge all infidels from God's global harmony, because they are dangerous Party Poopers.

For the sake of politeness, I have not asked this previously, but where does she get that there is any word in any kind of latin such as "can" that means anything at all like "serpent"?

And so you are saying that you didn't ask this previously? Why would that be impolite to ask? After everything else you have asked?

Maybe in Latin cultures they would open up cans and snakes would pop out?

Looks like caenophidia or xenophidia a 'recent' name for 'recent' snakes. So you'll just have ask her.

Maybe it really comes from Cain and the Sons of the Serpent, the Canaanites (according to some interpretations)? Sneaky Latin Kittim, keeping that out of their dictionaries.

The story also continues the idea of man’s ability to choose between good and evil. God’s warning to Cain that sin’s “disire is for you, but you must master it” (Gen. 4:7) indicates the presence of a conflict within us between good and evil and the necessity of mastering the latter.
https://knowinginpart.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/the-serpent-and-the-story-of-cain-and-abel-genesis-3-4/
​

Or:

Cain, The Serpent's Seed

But before we get to Esau, let's talk about Cain. In Genesis 3:15a He said, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed." Enmity means mutual hatred. He is saying there is mutual hatred between the seedline of Satan's and the seedline of Eve's. So there are two seedlines. The serpent seed started with Cain and Adam's seed started with Seth. No matter how they have tried to cover it up in the KJV, the Dead Sea Scrolls and even verses such as Gen. 3:15 make it clear that Satan had his own seedline and it started back with Eve.

Many of you are hearing this for the first time. Because if you have sat in church programming all of your lives you haven't heard the truth even though it is right there in the Bible. The apple was figurative for sexual relations masked with the terminology "Eve was beguiled by Satan" and until people accept it as the truth it is, they will stay blind to the real war going on today which is between the serpent seedline and the rest of the human race.

Beguiled used in this text is the same as "seduced." Furthermore, Scripture says Cain "was of that wicked one" he was a son of Satan's through the seduction of Eve. The term "of" is the same that means offspring. Neither is Cain listed anywhere in the descendents of Adam which strongly indicates Cain was not his son. The official beginning of the wheat and the tares began with Eve. The wheat AND the tares.

Most church pastors today will pull out Genesis 4:1 which reads, "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord."

There are many omissions and translation errors throughout the Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that Genesis 4:1 was tampered with. In fact the passage should read:

And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael (Satan), and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like the earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord.​

http://www.sherryshriner.com/sherry/serpent-seedline.htm​

 

[Richard Stanley]

Josephus, had to write a separate work as a rebuttal to claims made by another Jew in his separate history that conflicted with Josephus account.

Are you talking about Against Apion?

Seems I recamembered wrong.

There was indeed another Jew, Justus of Tiberias, who wrote a (now non-extant) history of the Jews of the day, omitting Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Justus and his work was mentioned by the Byzantine Christian, Photius. And Josephus had nothing to do with this, albeit I think Josephus mentioned a man named Justus of Tiberias.

In Valliant and Fahy's Creating Christ. They do a nice job of eviscerating Carrier's positions on Josephus, e.g. the TF. They demonstrate nicely that under the Roman/Flavian Origins theory that Josephus (or his possible 'creator') did indeed have a motive to mention Jesus, ... since the Roman propaganda team spent every effort to present the biblical Jesus in a good light, as opposed to the messianic Jews.

They also did a nice job of discussing the Josephus - Jesus typology, thus letting Josephus share credit with Titus and Vespasian.

 

[Marcilla Smith]

I'm saying that the Gospels were written with the intent to show that Jesus (the fictional character) was a fulfillment of the prophecy given in Isaiah. Also that various sayings and parables in the Gospels such as going the extra mile with the Roman centurion, charity towards the good samaritan, encouragement of paying taxes, love thy neighbor as thyself, and so forth, were meant to illustrate a peaceful Jesus even if he was not described as such in so many words.

I tend to think that the Gospel Jesus was intended to be a fulfillment of the Daniel prophecy (which was actually about the Maccabean revolt, wasn't it?). I thought the connection between the Isaiah prophecy and Jesus was a later innovation of the church. Do we know where this idea of "Prince of Peace" was first proposed?

In any event, yes, the Gospel Jesus was peaceful relative to a Joshua or a bar Kohkba, granted, but from the textual POV, any "peace" of which He is prince is of an inner/individual/spiritual sense, not an external/collective/material sense. The Jews were expecting a Mao Zedong, but instead they got a Dale Carnegie.

Josephus' character 'The Egyptian' was a leader of the Zealots.

I'm still catching up on all this "new" information. Can you point me where to read for myself about "the Egyptian"? I don't want to ask you to basically retell me the story, lol

 

[Marcilla Smith]

What I am saying is that Josephus, and his team, took the former's broad knowledge of all Jewish sects, or at least the major sects, and grafted the amalgamated narratives of some of his old Jewish 'friends' (aka acquaintances) into an encrypted retelling of Julius Caesar's Civil War narrative. One of these 'friends' may likely have been some Jesus that was a gnostic mystery cult leader following in the footsteps of John the Baptist.

I think there are a few (the author of Creating Christ, Josephson, one of the lesser media producers, and possibly others) who have suggested that the real life "Jesus" who followed the real life "John the Baptist" might have been the protagonist of Life who spent time with a desert hermit between his time with the Essenes and his return to the Pharisees.

Also, please excuse me if I'm reading too much in, but are you suggesting that "proto-Mark" was based on that other "JC" as suggested by Mr. Bartram, which was only later massaged to be based on the Flavian campaign?

 

[Richard Stanley]

I think there are a few (the author of Creating Christ, Josephson, one of the lesser media producers, and possibly others) who have suggested that the real life "Jesus" who followed the real life "John the Baptist" might have been the protagonist of Life who spent time with a desert hermit between his time with the Essenes and his return to the Pharisees.

The authorS of Creating Christ (CC), at least, don't claim any knowledge, or seem to care, if there was an actual historic Jesus underlying the gospel Christ. As they, and myself at one point, point out the parallels between Josephus and gospel Jesus, then this might indeed be a possibility. Namely that Josephus was indeed really someone named Jesus (and maybe even descended from Julius Caesar and Miss Cleo). NOW THAT IS FREAKING EXCITING.

However, what you are suggesting runs 180 degrees against the main argument of CC, and what Jerry and I have been trying to tell you. Namely, that the Essenes, Zealots, etc. (i.e. secularatronic, nationalist, messianic Jews) would never, ever, knowingly get in bed with a Hellenistic Josephus type character, or a Hellenistic Jesus of Nazareth.

Why, because, as CC brilliantly frames the issue, 100% of Jesus of Nazareth's, Paul's, and Josephus's messages are pro-Roman, pro-globalist, messages, while the Essenes' and Zealots' et al. are distinctly xenophobic and nationalist. Can you name one thing that Jesus of Nazareth did or said that indicates that he was a normative, non-Hellenized Jew of the day? That he came to fulfill the law doesn't mean that he came to fulfill Moses's Law. He did nothing but to break Moses's Law.

The "grafting" that takes place in the NT is one of textually conflating the globalist characters as being integrally connected in various fashions to the nationalists. The ultimate example being that of globalist Jesus with his supposedly nationalist brothers and other disciples. The disciples that are always being depicted as clueless.

Also, please excuse me if I'm reading too much in, but are you suggesting that "proto-Mark" was based on that other "JC" as suggested by Mr. Bartram, which was only later massaged to be based on the Flavian campaign?

Refresh my memory as to what "JC" Bartram is referencing. So far, my fondness for John Bartram's position extends mainly to his pointing to the participation of the Flavians, now of which the Fish and Anchor symbology is the Smoking Gun massively provided for by CC. Bartram, like Josephson, doesn't grasp the importance of Atwill's CM demonstration that the gospels and Josephus are textually interwound around each other, meaning that they had to have been written programmatically at the same time, as imperial propaganda.

Also, as discussed in CC, we can now understand why Paul doesn't know Jesus of Nazareth and his life story, because he hadn't been invented yet. So if some other real life, rebel Jesus was forced into this later role, then this is still possible, but his real life story was not that of Jesus of Nazareth's. More likely he was the tax farmer (alabarch) Jesus of Gamala discussed by Ralph Ellis (and Josephus), and this one would indeed have descended from Julius and Cleo (and make him a prime candidate to be the 'Egyptian'). This latter one talks and drinks with tax collectors and prostitutes, and is sometimes aligned with the interests of the Herodians and the Romans, but not generally with the nationalists (unless he can co-opt them). His problem is that he is a valid pretender to the throne of the empire, a real 'blood' threat to the Flavians (via Julius - the yet divine father of the divine Augustus).

 

[Marcilla Smith]

Maybe he was already going by the cover name of Agent Smith?

Are you suggesting that Josephus was working for Nero before his first visit to Rome?

if successful, your disciples will see the new Josephan narrative as a cause to purge all infidels from God's global harmony, because they are dangerous Party Poopers.

Foregoing my ego's desire to inquire further as to what my success might be and who might be these disciples, who would be the infidels in such a case? Those who continue to believe in a literal flesh and blood Jesus of the Gospel?

Cain, The Serpent's Seed

Too bad Mr. Z had to leave. I guess it turns out maybe at really is all about serpents

the Essenes, Zealots, etc. (i.e. secularatronic, nationalist, messianic Jews) would never, ever, knowingly get in bed with a Hellenistic Josephus type character

Are you saying Josephus never really spent time with the Essenes as he claims in Life?

Refresh my memory as to what "JC" Bartram is referencing.

I must apologize. I meant Mr. Carotta, not Mr. Bartram. The earlier "JC" in question being, of course, Julius Caesar.

Also, as discussed in CC, we can now understand why Paul doesn't know Jesus of Nazareth and his life story, because he hadn't been invented yet.

Ok, so where are we now on the historicity of Paul? He really wrote the epistles that make up the bulk of the New Testament to the churches he planted, or he's another creation of Flavian Publishing?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Are you suggesting that Josephus was working for Nero before his first visit to Rome?

Consistent with my larger theme at Postflaviana, I am strongly suggesting that Josephus was aligned with elite (globalizing) interests that typically subordinate superficial (or even strong) ethnic interests. This, as I suggested with the late Professor Hadas's suggestion to be the case for Josephus's ancentors, the Hasmonean Maccabees.

This is also consistent with today's dynamic with such as neocon Jews clearly being aligned with Globalism, as opposed to the focus of the nationalist Zealots of Josephus's day. The same runs true with the gentil goy versus the trumpian goy. Like Julius Caesar, who was an elite Populist who played the sympathies of plebians, Trump and Nero are and were the same.

Foregoing my ego's desire to inquire further as to what my success might be and who might be these disciples, who would be the infidels in such a case? Those who continue to believe in a literal flesh and blood Jesus of the Gospel?

This should be obvious. It's the Trumpies and the like. The Race Nationalists. And as well, those other hapless and ignorant foils of the xenophobic Islamic and Zionist persuasions. The latter to be apex exemplars of biblical, globalist life imitating the typological arts. The seed of Jesse will inherit the Earth, but one really needs to be sure who Jesse was in the first place.

No, those who continue to believe in a flesh and blood Jesus will be grandfathered into the new schema. After generations, so as to destroy 'generational memory', their descendants will be re-aligned to such as Space Jesus. Maybe in the tradition of Serapis his/her name will be Jezorg or Jezorga.

Too bad Mr. Z had to leave. I guess it turns out maybe at really is all about serpents

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Are you saying Josephus never really spent time with the Essenes as he claims in Life?

Traditional Roman/American counter-intelligence procedures (Cointelpro) call for covert infiltration of such groups as Essenes and Postflavians. Albeit the latter have no purpose other than to understand the phenomenon. Robert Eisenman is likely correct that the Essenes considered Saul / Paul to be the Spouter of Lies. And Josephus was likely continuing in exactly the same vein as Paul.

As with Josephus having overt ties to the emperors, Paul is not completely quiet in naming his high imperial friends, albeit maintaining plausible deniability.

Ok, so where are we now on the historicity of Paul? He really wrote the epistles that make up the bulk of the New Testament to the churches he planted, or he's another creation of Flavian Publishing?

The CC 'framing' makes a very strong argument that Paul and Josephus are imperial Cointelpro operatives, and therefor likely to be real historical characters. They likely played active roles in the literature of the canon, and as CC states, we should indeed build our case from what they placed directly in front of us. We have only been blinded by the purposeful and brilliant conflation that was built into the literature and via institutional cradle to grave cultural bias.

The reason Paul does not mention Jesus of Nazareth is that Paul is in operation during the time of Papa Nero, before the war. Jesus of Nazareth did not exist till after the gospels were written in the immediate Flavian aftermath of the war.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I should also point out, that Jerry mentioned one of the books referenced by CC, as being co-authored by one with experience in contemporary military intelligence operations. In it she characterizes the behaviors of such as Paul and Josephus as being typical operatives that attempt to gain intelligence and/or co-opt either individuals and/or messaging/branding.

Also, near the end of CC, the authors state that there were no 'good guys' in the conflict, both social systems being tyrannical excesses. This is what Jerry and I have been trying to say all along, and not only that, but that these two sides are two elite sides of one man-made coin. The better to deceive the various flocks of sheep with my dear. This is a perfect example of the Big Lie, one so big that the typical mind can not even think of it, much less entertain it once they have heard of it. And this is exactly what Moses Hadas was pointing to in his introduction that there would be many that did not like what he would reveal in his book. He was inherently safe though, because he made the alert reader connect all the many dots for the most part. Otherwise curious why a book titled Hellenistic Culture spent so much time talking about the Jews.

In the fine print of the New Contract Christ Titus states that the truth will set you free. But as with most such statements they cynically 'gnew' that the offer would not be taken up by many.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Ok, so where are we now on the historicity of Paul? He really wrote the epistles that make up the bulk of the New Testament to the churches he planted, or he's another creation of Flavian Publishing?

There's still quite a diversity of opinion about this. Joe's SSM book points out that the Pauline epistles mention the concept of a "seal" in exactly seven places. He argues that this is a key to a three-way typology between Suetonius, Revelation and the Pauline Epistles. (Now with Josephson's findings, we can look for a four-way typology to the seven books of Josephus War.) So Joe argues for a relatively late origin for the epistles, based on all this typology.

But, my impression is that this material in Paul could represent a late gloss or redaction, based on an earlier core. The reasoning in Creating Christ (and also "Operation Messiah" by Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon) argues that, if supernatural explanations and other unlikely cruft are stripped from the tale, Paul is depicted rather transparently as a Roman intelligence operative in both Acts and the Epistles. In his travels, he generally went first to the synagogue; but he often targeted cities with an established presence for the Imperial cult and / or Mithraism. It seems reasonable to conjecture that such institutions could be part of his support system.

Robert M. Price's recent book "Amazing Colossal Apostle" argues that most of the Pauline corpus must be very late, because it's concerned with theological & organizational topics that seem anachronistic to the first century. But really, who knows what such concerns might have been actually topical if "Chrestianity" was already being planned and organized under central Roman command during the time of Paul's missionary journeys.