Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Words of Christ, lacking sources

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Worldhistory View Drop Down
Knight
Knight

suspended

Joined: 12-Oct-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 80
  Quote Worldhistory Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Words of Christ, lacking sources
    Posted: 13-Nov-2006 at 23:51
Originally posted by Komnenos

Those of us living in the real world will easily recognise the transliteration from the Hebrew Yehoshua, via the Koine Greek Ιησους (IESOUS), via the Latin Iesus, to the Jesus with a J when the letter was introduced into the Vulgar Latin of the Middle ages, and now used  in most IE languages. Simple as that.
Those of us living in an alternative universe, feel free to speculate, but do it in the "Historical Amusement" section of our forum.
 
 

This is the standard text book lie often propagated and it requires one to ignore not only common sense but the basic truth.

 

Whats actually written in the Greek texts is Iyo'ous. The Latin word Iesus doesnt refer to the Yehoshua of the Asiatics and neither does the Greek Iesous. The Latin Iesus and the Greek Iesous of course refers to the Gallic deity Esus, also written as Hesus. Its just that these two words have been hijacked in modern times to describe an alternative Asiatic deity Yeho, instead of its real transliteration Esus the Gallic European deity.

 

The Hebrew-Aramaic word Yehoshua simply does not translate to either Iesous in Greek or Iesus in Latin.

 

However, the Gallic words Esus and Hesus do translate, both literally and phonetically, into the Greek Iesous and the Latin Iesus.

 

All the words Jesus, Esus, Hesus, Iesous and Iesus relate to the same ancient deity Zeus.

 

Ill conclude with an extract of an article I came across and appropriately titled:

 

Judeo-Christian Heritage is a Hoax

 

It appears there is no need to belabor the absurdity and fallacy of the "Judeo-Christian heritage" fiction, which certainly is clear to all honest theologians. That "Judeo-Christian dialogue" in this context is also absurd was well stated in the author initiative religious journal, Judaism, Winter 1966, by Rabbi Eliezar Berkowitz, chairman of the department of Jewish philosophy, at the Hebrew Theological College when he wrote: "As to dialogue in the purely theological sense, nothing could be more fruitless or pointless. Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity; and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism. What is usually referred to as the Jewish-Christian traditions exists only in Christian or Secularist Fantasy."

 

Jewish-Christian traditions exists only in Christian or Secularist Fantasy

 

So true!

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 09:00
Originally posted by JanusRook

As AFAIK Judaism of the time said that a man in death lives on through his descendants, it would have been wrong of God to deny Joseph this.
 
In Jesus's time the Sadducees still held this, but the Pharisees had developed the idea of an afterlife with reward and punishment. The Sadducees saw Jesus as a Pharisaic preacher (which he probably was) and tried to expose him as such with variations on their favourite attacks on the Pharisees - such as dreaming up the 'whose wife would she be' paradox that Jesus answered by saying "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage". (Mark XII 25)
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 09:32
How to become a revisionist historian in two easy steps:
 
1. Take one universally accepted, well researched and documented historical phenomenon, go to the pub, and after a couple of drinks come up with a theory that claims the exact opposite to everyone else's view.
Spend a couple of hours googling and dig out some other poor soul's claims that, with some fanciful interpretation, might support your claims, the more fantastic, the better. (Amateurish attempts on  etymology and slightly racist undertones are optional at this stage.) Find some internet forum to post your claims.
2. Denounce all evidence  that might contradict your new theory as either erroneous or as deliberately falsified, preferably by some sinister global conspiracy. Portray yourself as victim of such conspiracy, especially when you're just about to be banned from said forum. Move on to the next forum.
 
.
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2419
  Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 16:45
In Jesus's time the Sadducees still held this, but the Pharisees had developed the idea of an afterlife with reward and punishment.
 
I believe though that Joseph would have been a Sadducee, based on the visitation of the Temple Jesus experienced as a boy, and as written in the Gospel of Thomas, it says that Mary and Joseph were arranged to married in a temple. Also, I think it would explain why the Pharisees seemed to be so biased against Jesus, and why Jesus would get so offended at the "corruption at the temple incident" of the Bible.
 
Is this thought held by scholars or do they believe Joseph was a Pharisee?
 
 
edit: I had to edit this post because, when I first wrote it I confused the Sadducees with the Essenes. Embarrassed


Edited by JanusRook - 14-Nov-2006 at 16:53
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Worldhistory View Drop Down
Knight
Knight

suspended

Joined: 12-Oct-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 80
  Quote Worldhistory Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 20:58
Originally posted by Komnenos

How to become a revisionist historian in two easy steps:
 
1. Take one universally accepted, well researched and documented historical phenomenon, go to the pub, and after a couple of drinks come up with a theory that claims the exact opposite to everyone else's view.
Spend a couple of hours googling and dig out some other poor soul's claims that, with some fanciful interpretation, might support your claims, the more fantastic, the better. (Amateurish attempts on  etymology and slightly racist undertones are optional at this stage.) Find some internet forum to post your claims.
2. Denounce all evidence  that might contradict your new theory as either erroneous or as deliberately falsified, preferably by some sinister global conspiracy. Portray yourself as victim of such conspiracy, especially when you're just about to be banned from said forum. Move on to the next forum. 
 
 
If quoting the original language of the bible books and providing properly referenced historical texts such as Lucan's Pharsalia is too radical and revisionist for you, then maybe it's you that needs to be looked at more closely.
 
LOL
 
 


Edited by Worldhistory - 14-Nov-2006 at 20:59
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.