The Passion of Jesus of Nazareth According to Utnapisjtim

a reply to: bulwarkz

That's more or less the way I see it too. There are the rightful Caesars which were Julius, Caesarion, Jesus and his promised son codenamed Immanuel and so on until this day, passing the secret of their divinity and inheritance from father to son over and over. And then you have the other leg. The Augusti and the emperors who ended up ruling the Roman Empire despite Jesus and his father were the true and rightful heirs of Julius Caesar's power and inheritance. The true Christs vs. the Antichrists. The Lamb of God vs. the Hydra-headed beast. Saulus from Tarsos was another such false beast working on behalf of the other beast, a Jewish pseudo-Christ with a split tongue whom John of Patmos calls the False Prophet.

a reply to: silo13

Feel free to carry on fighting your ghosts and demons, but please do so orderly and quietly, you are making a lot of unsolicited noise, even attempting to diagnose blindness and expressing your scepticism towards common research, forcing you to work as a makeshift GP and analyst-- on a Sunday (GMT)! You should probably report these spirits that annoy you so to Jesus, and have him tell them NO Battling on Sundays! and refer them to «The International Date Line» or IDL for short (see below) if they get restless and aren't Jewish (since Saturday is Sabbath). The concept of the date meridian also belongs to the vast world of imaginary things just like your spirits and √-1, it's an option, just trying to help out.

The International Date Line (IDL) is an imaginary line of demarcation on the surface of the Earth that runs from the North Pole to the South Pole and demarcates the change of one calendar day to the next. It passes through the middle of the Pacific Ocean, roughly following the 180° line of longitude but deviating to pass around some territories and island groups.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

And you mention a concept called Truth? What is Truth? What do you use it for?

originally posted by: glend

I doubt Jesus had any political motivations at all. The religious elite at the time were only interested in power and greed. Jesus took the sword to them and was crucified as a result.

Aka Gospel of Thomas...

Well, back in those days people like Jesus couldn't just choose a political career. They were born to their political burden. Both Josephs and mother Mary (and much more importantly Jesus himself) were of noble and royal Davidic descent, in straight unbroken lines back to king David via two of Solomon's 1000 consorts.

Also remember that all the names in the two genealogies are written in Hebrew or Aramaic translated into Greek. Just like we say «Karl den Store» in Norwegian while the French say «Charlemagne», we are all talking of the same person, all the names of the world could be translated into Hebrew or any other language and appear to be all names of people of the given nationality the given languages belonged to.

See the example one the disciples of Jesus, whose likely Hebrew name was /towm/, sounding like the name of the Babylonian god Tammuz in Greek where it becomes /tomas/, and how he was also known by the Greek name of the same meaning as Heb. /towm/, Gr. /didymus/ «The Twin» (John 21:2).

Just because family lines have crossed with Jewish heroes and villains here and there either up or down the line in the two distinct genealogies of Jesus doesn't mean that Jesus was a Jew as such, all we know is that he was related to king David in three genealogies, Mary's, old Joseph's (Luke 3:23ff) and young Joseph's (Matt 1:1ff). Also, remember that nobility and especially royalty-- intermarried, legally confined within the limits of their feudal caste, and also see the possibility that he was the son of a person of quite remarkable royal descent linking him to all known imperial thrones all the way to the top of the known world, heir to the greatest Empire known to men at the time, The Roman Empire. The blood of Jesus was so blue that it supposedly turned black during Passover 37 A.D. He didn't simply choose that.

Jesus was evidently revolutionary-- but also a noble man of royal descent with not entirely undisclosed fortune, inheritance and kingdom, but his «sermon on the mount» and his description of «the kingdom of god» holds a few clues and ought to give you an idea. In addition to being Emperor (you know, the «King of kings» part) and deity (Caesar and most royalty, both domestically and imperially-- are not legally human, but gods and goddesses) and a Patriarch (his son who conquers, his kings and queens ruling the imperial monarch's subjects by proxy); Jesus was also an artisan, political dissident, prophet, medic, therapist, social worker, sailor, orator, magician, entertainer, philosopher and rabbi +++ and other things like people claiming he was a demon possessed Samaritan (John 8:48).



P.S. Sorry for not replying until now.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

We know from the earliest gospel (thought to be gospel of Mark) that the virgin birth, nor the resurrection occurred (Codex Vaticanus) or at the very least, wasn't considered important enough to be recorded.

But it appears more important in Gospels (Matthew and Luke) written at a latter date. Trying to tie Jesus to Isaiah 7:14. To convert Jews to Christianity. Thus Rome as their new Jewish authority.

But Jews weren't buying any of it. The prerequisite for the Jewish Messiah ( Isaiah 7:14) was mistranslated by the Greeks (Greek Septuagint) from young maiden to virgin. So the virgin birth was a misnomer based on a mistranslation. So it matters not if Jesus had any of King Davids gene's or not. He was not the Jewish Messiah according to Jews.

So I see Jesus as preaching spirituality. With Rome trying to usurp that spirituality for materialistic values at a latter date

a reply to: glend

After all it was just a flesh wound, aye?

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

We are all born to die Utnapisjtim. So the birth and death of Jesus is irrelevant. What is relevant is our understanding of his life's message. From Clementine Homilies, it is said that Apostle Peter stated, only those that know the falsehood of the scriptures will prevail.

That's the test.

a reply to: glend

All you said there is irrelevant (his philosophy) for this thread, which is about the historicity including his life and passion. NOT his philosophy or whatever you find important. In order to establish Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person, his philosophy is totally irrelevant.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

You just refuted your own interpretation made in your former post. You forget that when the Church took over the Curia (the Roman Senate) and Caesar's titles (like Pontifex) centuries later, they acquired also the wealth of Rome, so they were in total accord with Jesus-- at least in the question of taxpaying-

No...

The "church" wasn't ever in accord with Jesus... Even into the second century.

it was an evolving entity from his death onto what it became with constantine

the question of taxes was simple... money is material, give it to who owns it

Regardless of if said statement was used to the churches advantage has nothing to do with what HE said

a reply to: Akragon

Again, that is your personal claim. The Church itself and more than a billion Christians disagree with you. As with me I suppose, but I don't speak of liturgy or Catlolig dogma, I am trying to establish Jesus as a historical person, and not just anyone. He was according to my research likely the legal heir to be king of kings, Emperor of the Roman Empire.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

That isn't dogma...

Though of course any christian would disagree...

In any case its fairly clear he was an historical person... though the connection with a Cesar is lacking

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

That isn't dogma...

Though of course any christian would disagree...

In any case its fairly clear he was an historical person... though the connection with a Cesar is lacking

Oh yes. There is lots of evidence of manipulating the texts by translating via Greek and Latin and entering marginalia as part of the main text to agree with Catholic dogma. I agree that Jesus most likely was a historical person, but my OP shows a credible reason why he was omitted and ignored in all relevant contemporary historical sources. A regular doe would not suffer damnatio memoriae. A person in direct opposition to Caligula and a rival to the Throne of Caesar would. When the Senturion says «surely he was the son of god», that meant that he was a Caesar, THE Ceasar.