SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (24200)8/11/1998 1:10:00 AM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
<<If they saw miracles, and reported them then their veracity is "questionable"... makes one wonder how they could ever report a miracle without losing their credibility. Looks to me like just another example of sneaking the conclusion of an argument into its premise.>>

I would be a little more inclined to believe if those who were not followers had written of the miracles in other texts. I hate to get back to investments, but if you read the threads on some penny stocks you'd come away with the impression that they were working miracles. I have a lot more confidence if I can read about it on EDGAR. One seeks independent corroboration before investing, or worshipping.

I've read on a number of occasions that during the first thousand years of Christian history, when manuscripts were copied laboriously by hand, a substantial amount of editing of these manuscripts took place, for personal and ideological reasons (never discounting the probability of simple errors). Could some divergent accounts have developed in that way?

Steve



To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (24200)8/11/1998 1:51:00 AM
From: Skipper  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
 
JF,

Julius Caesar wrote his own material, on the Gallic War, which he led. As far as I know, his authorship is not disputed, and the text reads much more as what one would expect of a historical text than the new testament (although certainly not unbiased). The new testament reads like the religious manual it is (perhaps due to years of editing by the early church).

Skipper



To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (24200)8/11/1998 9:24:00 AM
From: Sam Ferguson  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
 
Here is history of Jesus. From origin of Christianity.

This was written to explain how and why the Roman Piso Family wrote the New testament. The Jews, who
were tired of being ruled over by the Roman Aristocrasy, were lead in their third great revolt against Rome
since 6 C.E., in 60 C.E., by Benjamin the Egyptian of the Pharisaic Party. Though they were defeated by the
Romans, the Romans knew that something had to be done. So, about the year 60, certain people were getting
together a plan to regain control of the Jewish masses. Seneca the Rhetorician, Lucius Piso, Gaius Piso, and
their relatives figured to give the Jews a new rhetorical religion. Lucius Piso, with assistance from Seneca,
wrote 'Ur Markus' there abouts that year. They had much planned around this new religion. With this first
book, they had hoped to start a new Messiahonic Jewish religion. Though the Aristocratic Jewish hierarchy
i.e., the Herodians, were anxious to regain control of the masses through this new religion, Nero had not
approved of it. Nero's mistress was pro-Jewish (meaning 'humanistic'), and he wanted to avoid war with the
Jewish zealots (Pharisees), but most of all he was angry because this side of his family had undertook this
without his knowledge or approval. What happened was in 65 C.E., they conspired against Nero. One of the
conspiritors turned informer. 'Milichus' told Nero who the chief conspiritors were, and Nero quickly
retaliated, ordering the deaths of Seneca and Gaius Piso among others. Nero spared Gaius Piso's son Arrius,
but sent him to Syria to serve in exile. Arrius Piso commanded Syria, gathered forces and support, and
instigated war with the Pharisees. The Jews were not buying his Uncle's story, his father was dead, Nero
didn't approve of it; so, Arrius' Uncle adopted him, and therefore became the father of the person that would
play Jesus. They figured to destroy the Jews, and build Romanized Judaism - without the Jews! And they
would even use Nero to help do it. Until Nero got wise to what they were doing. Nero ordered his apparently
faithful General (and relative) Corbulo to commit suicide. In 66 C.E., Nero exiled Arrius Piso again, for trying
to start war with the 'Jewish zealots' in order that Nero would back him in his attempt to destroy the Temple
in Jerusalem. This time Arrius was exiled to the Roman province of Pannonia in central Europe, away from
Syria and the Jews. Arrius Piso had Epaphroditius, Nero's slave, to kill Nero for him in 68. Galba became
Emperor (Galba was a direct descendant of Augustus Caesar, and father of Otho). Galba named Licinianus
Frugi Piso as his successor instead of his son Otho. Galba was overthrown in that same year by his son Otho,
who was overthrown by another family member Vitellius. Vitellius was the father-in-law of Julius Gnaeus
Agricola. Agricola was the father-in-law of Justus Piso, Claudia Phoebe, Domitia Paulina 1, T. Flavius
Clemens, and Cornelius Tacitus! It was Arrius Piso himself who succeeded in defeating Vitellius, thereby
securing Rome for Vespasian. Vespasian, in turn helped Arrius to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem in the
year 70 C.E.

Vespasian already had his son Titus laying siege on Jerusalem, so Arrius could go with his legions to finish
up the job. But they weren't finished with the Jews yet. For Arrius, it was fairly clear sailing from here; for
he, and the Flavian side of his family owned the entire known world! He inherited title to all of the books in
the Ptolemic Library in Alexandria, Egypt. Circa 100 B.C.E., the total of books in the Ptolemic Library was
over half a million. Arrius also had all of the books in Judea and he started gathering up books in Rome so
that he could re-write history. Once he had obtained all the books he could, either by buying them or
confiscating them, he burned all but certain books. He jokes about this in Acts 19:19.

The Pisos maintained a barrage of slave scribes to churn out propaganda against the Jews. While the first
books of the New Testament were only mildly giving inferences against the Jews, the New Testament
became increasingly Anti-Semitic. Arrius Piso wallowed in rhetorical devices. He played the part of his
enemies by writing as Josephus and at the same time historisizing the Jesus character whom he was also
playing. Both Josephus and the New Testament are full of names and allusions to relatives and ancestors.
They wanted us to be able to re-construct their lineage and the parts in which they played in the great battle.

Gaius Piso, who was put to death (by suicide) by Nero was the father of Arrius Piso. When Arrius' father
died, his Uncle Lucius (Gaius Piso's brother), married his mother Mariamne (Arria the Younger). Arrius'
mother was the daughter of T. Flavius Sabinus 2 (Vespasian's brother) and the Elder Arria. So, Arrius
(Josephus) was already a Flavian! But wait, other 'historians' mention 'Christ' or 'Christians' don't they? Let's
take a look at them. Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Suetonius. Tacitus was married to Flavia Domitilla 3
after T. Flavius Clemens was killed by Domitian. I think that Tacitus was the son (or half-son) of Nerva (a
form of 'Nero'), and a cousin of Trajan (and thereby also a nephew of Otho). If so, then his mother was
Otho's sister Ulpia Plautia Domitia and Trajan's first wife was Tacitus' sister Ulpia, afterwards, Trajan
married Arrius Piso's daughter Claudia Phoebe Pompeia Plotina. Pliny was a friend of Arrius' and had
already been related to the family before he married Arrius Piso's granddaughter - Calpurnia! And Suetonius
was Arrius Piso's grandson by Claudia Phoebe and her first husband Rufus. Later, Suetonius became the
Emperor Antoninus Pius.

Oh yes, and let's not forget that other fellow who could have been Josephus' son (and was!), Justin Martyr.
Justin Martyr was Arrius Piso's son, Fabius Justus Calpernius Piso. All of the knowledge that humanity
would have had to enable it to get past the stumbling block of Christianity was lost when Arrius Piso burned
it. After doing so, Arrius and his family went about building a whole new world centered around Christianity!
They synthesized ideologies for the masses, while they themselves were above the laws that they made.

They did things secretly to enhance their epistemological capacities, while stiffling that of the masses.
Humanity had already known that the Earth revolves around the Sun, instead of visa versa.

But the family was busy setting the clock of wisdom back for the masses. Arrius Piso's grandson who was
the brother of Suetonius/Antonius Pius, wrote as Ptolemy and held our knowledge of astronomy back 1800
years. His real name was Flavius Arrianus, and he also wrote as Arrian and Appian. Within the following
pages, I will give profiles of the various family members along with genealogical charts showing lineage and
their respective places within the family.

Originally, it was agreed to by the family that Christianity would only last a certain amount of time and that
all should be eventually revealed, but then they realized that if they told the masses how they'd been fooled,
there'd be an uprising and the family members who were ruling would be subject to the wrath of the masses,
instead of visa versa. So, Antoninus Pius was careful to treat the masses kindly, lest they found out, and
would kill him and his family.

But I want you to know that what doesn't come through in the references that I may cite; is the familiarity
that I have with the people, motives, psychology, environment, writing style, rhetoric, and everything else that
I know about the writings, time, and people that we are examining. This, you have to confirm for yourself.
And that is the hard part, because I don't want to say; "Look, I know this, just take my word for it." So, what
do I advise you to do? Study, and be objective. Learn how to learn. Leave behind superstition and confusion,
learn to see what you really are, be happy in the many better things that you will be able to give society - for,
in this, the best things will begin with you!

Another thing that ought to raise your suspicion is the illusion that is put out to the general public of how long
ago it was that the New Testament was written, and that the people of that time were stupid, and that there
is little left to us from that time. I will show where to look. When they went about destroying books, they kept
Aristotle, not because of their descent from him alone, but because his rhetorical 'logic' was consistant with
the 'teachings' of Christianity. Also, there were many books that they could not entirely destroy. Even what
was written by their own family was censored by excluding it from the canon if it too boldly hinted at the
synthesis of Christianity. Between Abelard Reuchlin and I, he is the more expert in the feuds within the
family. Part of the family wanted to be lax in pushing Christianity (especially once they had all but destroyed
the Jews). On the scale of control by emotionalism, they set as the new enemies of the emotionally enthralled
Christians, the Stoics. When they first laid the groundwork for Christianity, they cultivated the minds of the
masses with superstition. There are several instances in Josephus, Suetonius, and Ptolemy. Some of the later
bishops (who were family members) omitted 'The Revelation' in retaliation to Julius (who wrote it) for
opposing the family. It was like a thorn in their side. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem in 340 omitted Rev. from his
canon. And in 364, the Council of Bishops assembled in Laodicea and agreed to omit 'Revelations'. In 370, it
was re-enstated in the catalog by Bishop Epiphanius. But five years later, Bishop Gregory Nazianzen omits it
again. And in 380, Bishop Philastrius omits the Revelation from his canon. Why would they want to omit
'Revelations'? It's the perfect ending to the Jesus story, but it contained more hints and allusions concerning
the authorship of the New Testament than any other book. It contained the famous reference to 666, the
mark of the beast, and it had checking numbers, etc. These things will be shown to you and explained in the
following chapters.

I hesitate to say exactly how the Jews of today fit into this, except that I hope that after reading all of what I
have to say here that you will understand. The Jews hold a lot of the answers to this in their literature and
history. The legacy that is left to the Jews of today is to make known the truth as they have within their
power to tell of it, to finally give credit to their ancestors for the brave efforts they made to eliminate slavery
and give a humanistic and ethical way of living to the world. A great responsibility, that the Jews themselves
call 'a duty'. It was noted by Abelard Reuchlin that the dots under the Hebrew letters helped aid in alluding to
the Pisos. In the Talmud, there are many allusions to the Pisos and what they did. This is why the Jews are
the Chosen People. They are the witnesses to what the Pisos did. That is the true reason for the continuance
of their religion. They used it as an excuse to hide and save this information in order that Christianity may
someday come to an end, thereby giving Beth Hillel (Humanism) another chance. In the talmud(s), we find
references like; "The Horse (ippos, Piso) wrote Matthew," and "Rabbi Joseph (Josephus) wrote Matthew."
When you have read this book, these seemingly obscure remarks will start to make sense, and you will see
why the Jews went through all of the things that they did (Ref. 'Jewish Expressions on Jesus', Weiss
Rossarin, KTAV Publishing House, New York, 1977).

The literature of the Jews hold much of what is needed to unravel 'the mystery of the Gospels'. That is, that
the Pisos wrote them! Though the Jews lost the war with the Romans, many of them knew what the Romans
were doing with these 'Gospels'. Much of this information was kept, but hidden. It is present within the
Jewish customs, tradition, literature, commentaries, holidays, and prayer books. Most notibly, in the two
Talmuds; the Jerusalem Talmud (completed in 370 C.E., the Babylonian Talmud (completed during the 400's
C.E.), and the Midrash. Dr. Sigmund Freud would have had a great bit to write about had he had known that
the true origin of society's synthesized ideologies came from a bunch of murderers pretending to be 'holy'
Church Fathers and laying the foundation for laws to keep the masses in their place (a synthesized place
made by the murderers themselves!).



To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (24200)8/11/1998 2:32:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine  Respond to of 108807
 
Hi JF,
We do not have to accept the Gospels on "blind faith." The New Testament should be examined as you would examine any ancient historical document. Apply to them the same criteria historians apply to other ancient documents when they research ancient historical eyewitness accounts. When the New Testament is treated with this historical-critical method, it proves themselves to be authentic and can be trusted to tell us a good deal about the person of Jesus Christ, enought, in fact, to know that God was present in Him and working through Him in a most significant way.
What are the criteria which historians apply to ancient documents in order to ascertain their historical value? Most of the criteria are common sense applied to ancient historical records. These criteria can roughly be divided into two groups: internal and external criteria.
Internal criteria applies to information found within the document itself.
External criteria applies to information found outside the document itself.

Internal Criteria:
A. Was the author in a position to know what he or she is writing about? Does he claim to write an eyewitness account, or is he basing his account on an eyewitness source? Or, is it based on hearsay?
(In historical research, eyewitness accounts or accounts written from eyewitness acccounts are weighed more heavily than hearsay or opinion accounts.)

b. Does the document in question contain specific, and especially irrelevant, material?
(Firsthand sources are typically full of material, especially details, which aren't central to the stroy, whereas fabricated accounts tend to be generalized.)

c. Does the document contain self-dmaging material?
(If a document includes material which could cast a negative image on the author, on the heroes of the story, or especially on the truthfulness of the story, this is typically a good indication that the author had truth as a central motive for writing.)

d. Is the document reasonably self-consistent?
(There is a coherence to truth which fabrications usually lack, though different perspectives on a single historical acount usually include some minor discrepancies. This is also consistent with eyewitness testimonies in our judicial system.)

e. Is there evidence of legendary accretion in the document?
(Fish stories tend to be exaggerated over time. The presence of "larger than life" features in a document suggest a later time of writing, and proportionally diminish the document's historical trustworthiness.)

EXTERNAL CRITERIA:
A. Would the authors of the document have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?
(If a motive can be established for the author fabricatin an account, the trutworthiness of the document is lessened. On the other hand, if the author had nothing to gain, or even something to lose, by writing or reporting the account, the docuemt's trustworthiness is increased.)

b. Are there any other sources which confirm material in the document and which substantiate the authenticity of the document?
(If a document's account can be, to any extent, confirmed by sources outside the document itself, this enhances the document's credibility.)

c. Does archeology support or go against material in the document?
(If archeological findings can substantiate any material found in a document, the document's trustworthiness is increased. Conversely.)

d. Could contgemporaries of the document falsify the document's account, and would they have a motive for doing so?
(If there existed persons who could have exposed the document's account as a fabrication, and had a motive for doing so, but nevertheless did not ---so far as histgory tells--this increases the trustworthiness of the document.

I will try to examine the internal and external evidence that substantiates the New Testaments authenticity as an historical document. Most of the irrational criticism comes from the external, so I might begin by examing the external evidence first.

Emile