R&I – TxPAT ***
Quotes from ‘Did Jesus Live 100 BC?’ Containing Roman, Jewish and Christian
Sources!
Tertullian (160-240 CE) was an early church father and a misogynist in the truer form and disliked Paul the self-made apostle, who called the little man, the ‘Apostle to the Heretics.’ [G.R.S. Mead (1968), Did Jesus Live 100 BC? p. 4o, University Books inc., New York]
‘It has always been an unfailing source of astonishment to the historical investigator of Christian beginnings, that there is not one single word from the pen of any Pagan writer of the first century of our era, which can in any fashion be referred to the marvellous story recounted by the Gospel writers. The very existence of Jesus seems unknown.’ [Ibid, p.49]
The most ancient dated inscription (Oct. 1, 318 A.D.) Reads ‘The Lord and Saviour Jesus the Good.’—Chrestos, not Christos. [Ibid. p.51]
LXX ‘…the day on which the Septuagint translation was made was regarded by the Rabbis as a day of mourning. The Massorah tradition of the text differs widely from the Samaritan and from the original on which the version of the so-called Seventy was made from the third century B.C. onwards, as may be seen from Ginsburg’s monumental work. From all sides, then, we have proof that what we call Judaism to-day was not necessarily what Judaism was in the first century before our era, or even in the first century of our era.’[Ibid., p. 73]
Tertullian In a polemic to the Jews: De Spectaculis, ch. 30. ‘This is your carpenter’s son, your harlot’s son; your Sabbath-breaker, your Samaritan, your demon-possessed! This is whom ye bought from Judas; He who was struck with reed and fists, dishonoured with spittle, and given a draught of gall and vinegar! This whom His disciples have stolen away secretly, that it may be said He Has risen, or the gardener abstracted that his lettuces might not be damaged by the crowds of visitors.’ [Ibid p.281]
On Jesus’ birthplace? The accepted Christian tradition, it need hardly be said, is that Jesus Nazorseus means simply Jesus of Nazareth, his place of origin. It is, however, well known to all scholars that very great difficulties are presented by the contradictory statements of the canonical* accounts, and that so far no generally accepted ground of reconciliation between the rival claims of the traditional Nazareth and the prophetically necessitated Bethlehem has been found.
There is, however, one hypothesis whereby much of the pressure may be relieved, and which is therefore deserving of our closest attention. In the first place it is to be noticed that even in the canonical account there is still preserved the very interesting trace that Nazareth was regarded by some as the ‘native country’ (πατρίς), not the town, of Jesus; and in the second it has lately been argued, not only that Nazareth (or, perhaps, more correctly Nazara) was not a town or village, but a district or country, but, further, most probably this district was Galilee.
*Matthew 2; Luke 2; Micah 5:2
In 63 BC:
A child was born, not any child, but a child who would become Divine in the eyes of his priestly class, and revered by his people. Epithets galore which would be taken up by the Christians to don on their new saviour: ‘It will be shown upon ample evidences that after the submission of the Oriental provinces and consolidation of the empire, Augustus Caesar set himself up for that Son of God whose advent, according to Indian chronology, synchronized with the reappearance of the Oriental Messiah; the date being A.U. 691 (B.C. 63), the alleged year of Augustus birth; that this claim and assumption appears in the literature of his age, was engraved upon his monuments and stamped upon his coins; that it was universally admitted and accepted throughout the Roman Empire as valid and legitimate, both according to Indian and Roman chronology, astrology, prophesy and tradition; that his actual worship as such Son of God Divus Filius was enjoined and enforced by the laws of the empire, accepted by the priesthood and practised by the people; and that both de jure and de facto it constituted the fundamental article of the Roman imperial and ecclesiastical constitution’.
In an exceedingly interesting article, “The Time of the World,” in “The Indian Review” of January 1903, Del Mar writes: “I. If we accept the epoch of the zodions fixed by Godfrey Higgins . . . Alexander the Great altered such epoch to the extent of twenty-eight or thirty years, in order to bring the beginning of Pisces to the year of his Apotheosis. Higgins epoch of Pisces is B.C. 360. The Apotheosis of Alexander took place in the Libyan Temple of Jupiter Ammon, December 25th, B.C. 322. In that temple he found Aries regnant; he left it with Pisces triumphant. He was afterwards known as Ichthys, the Fish, the Great Isskander, etc., titles that are connected with the zodion Pisces.’ [G.R.S. Mead (1968), Did Jesus Live 100 BC? pp. 437-38, University Books inc., New York] Under additional notes.
Enjoy and comment on any or all?
Keep safe!
Cofion
Jero Jones
Article URL : https://breakingnewsandreligion.online/discuss/