Gladius Hispaniensis

Yes, in Judaism, the term meant something figurative, not the "Only begotten son of God" that you find in Christianity

Which is precisely why the Romans wanted him dead. If the charge against Jesus was just blasphemy, the Jews could have stoned him themselves instead of disturbing Pilate at an unearthly hour of the night on the eve of the most important festival in Judaism Wrong. Christos is the Greek translation for Messiah. Messiah was a word the Jews used for "anointed one". It did not mean the same thing to them as it does to Christians. Otherwise explain to me why Cyrus is also called Messiah. Does that imply that Cyrus was a god and started his own religion? Precisely. He was a devout follower of the Torah. Paul, on the other hand, threw the Law out lock, stock, and barrel. So make up your mind, who is right, Jesus or Paul? You cannot have it both ways Really? In that case God has sons BY THE TON in the bible. Adam is called son of god, and so is David or Solomon, can't remember which. There is even a verse "I say to ye, that ye are all sons of God". Does that mean all of us are Messiahs? Messiah was a purely mundane title, it denoted the chosen one of God who was to deliver Israel from the Pagan yoke. Therefore it did not mean Son of God, at least not the way Christains understand it

Well, I for one, have no doubts about "whatever form that took". Jesus and his followers worshipped in the Temple, kept the Sabbath, kept the Passover, kept the Festival of the Tabernacles, kept the dietary laws of the Torah, observed the circumcision, said the Kiddush before a meal etc., in other words they were ORTHODOX JEWS. That, to answer your question, Gaius, is how we know how to define the modern following of Jesus, which is an aberration of everything he taught, and this is what I was emphasising earlier - neither Jesus nor his succesor James the Just nor anyone who knew and followed him while he was alive ever wanted to start a new religion. In fact they would have been appalled at the very thought, regarding it as a horrific blasphemy. All this is not speculation. If you read Jesus's words and study the activities of the early Jerusalem "Church" you would come to the same inescapable conclusions. Acts tries cleverly to obfuscate the fact that there was an underlying tension between Paul and the Apostles, but the evidence is there. By the way Gaius, the conspiracy was not ongoing for four hundred years, it only needed for Pauline Christianity to gain an acceptance in the Greco Roman world and then it had a momentum of it's own, and that momentum is carried on to this day

Good article Primus Pilus. Thanks for posting it

That Jesus did NOT start a new religion, he was a pious Jew That his followers were not just otherworldly, they earnestly desired a Divine Kingdom in Judea rid of Romans and their Herodian puppets That Jesus did not claim to be God, just a worshipper That the word Messiah did not imply Son of God, it was a simple Hebrew word - Ha Mashiach- meaning the anointed, or chosen, one. Even Cyrus is known as Messiah in the Old Testament That Jesus's royal bloodline was a physical threat to Roman rule in Judea that had to be dealt with mercilessly, which it was That Jesus was not put to death for blasphemy, in fact he never blasphemed. If the problem was blasphemy the Jews could have dealt with him themselves The whole story of the Jews turning Jesus over to Pilate for execution is just a cock-and-bull story that attempted to shift blame away from the Roman administration and foist it on the Jews, with the horrendous results that we have witnessed these last 2,000 years That Paul of Tarsus was the true founder of what we know as Christianity, and it was an amalgamation of Judaism, Hellenistic faiths, and Middle Eastern mystery cults That Jesus's immediate family and followers, and their descendents, were hunted down and exterminated ruthlessly

So I suppose a more probable scenario is that Silva's troops simply took Masada and put everyone to the sword the old fashioned way?

To my learned friend Theodora: Note that Eusebius, as you probably know, was a later Church father or the Pauline mould and hence his testimony regarding the reconciliation between Paul and James is not reliable. Of course he is going to show that there was a reconciliation, that is precisely what Acts of the Apostles tries to do. Pauline writers took great pains to show that their mission was not incompatible with what was taught by Jesus and his immediate following. The fact is that Paul was summoned at least twice before the council presided over by James the Just in order to give an account of himself because what he was preaching in Gentile lands did not even remotely resemble the original message of Jesus. Thereafter there was an irreconcilable split which is not totally attested to in the New Testament but does survive in remains of apocryphal works that were banned by the Church establishment. In fact if Dr. Eisenman's hypothesis about the Qumran community being Proto- Christian is true, then those Dead Sea Scroll writings do mention a certain unnamed person, known variously as the Enemy, the Spouter of Lies, and the Deceiver, that supposedly infiltrated the community outwardly professing their faith and inwardly working to undermine it by misrepresenting it to the Gentile community at large. I don't think it takes much second guessing to figure out who this person was Also, if Eusebius does "rely heavily" on Josephus, where in Josephus is there a mention of a reconciliation between the Jerusalem Church and Paul?. I don't even remember Josephus even mentioning Paul in any of his works

I would have thought Josephus would try to give the rebels a bad name just like he always did in the rest of his work . I suppose that showing them as having committed suicide, which incidentally is a heinous sin in Judaism, would have served such a purpose. I suppose we all will have to defer our judgments until something more substantial is unearthed.

You know I too am inclined to be sceptical about the mass suicide, but on the other hand, what motive would Josephus have had to lie about the event?

A few things you will learn from reading Eisenman's books: There was no reconciliation between Paul and the rest of the disciples. That is just a Pauline misinformation. Quite the opposite. The movement started by Jesus did acknowledge him as the Messiah, but their idea of a messiah was very different from the man-god or son of god idea propagated by Paul. The messiah that was expected by the Jews was a sacred figure that was supposed to deliver them from the alien yoke, and the Kingdom of God that he promised was a theocratic rule based on justice here in this world. What Pauline Christianity did was to distort this image and advocate a man-god like Apollo or Dionysius that died for the sins of mankind and whose sacrifice would atone for humanities sins. You are right. Jesus never went against the Law. He conscientiously practiced it and so did his disciples. They kept the Sabbath, kept the dietary laws, and worshipped in the Temple. On top of everything, they were anti Herodian and anti Roman. Paul, on the other hand, tried to ingratiate his ideology with the Greco Roman world by turning Jesus into a deity, something that would have scandalized Jesus himself, and by trying to whitewash his image as a non-political figure, which he certainly was not. It would simply not do to deify a rebel against the empire. After the upheaval of the 60s CE and thereafter, this repackaged form of Christianity survived because of it's apolitical nature while the immediate following of Jesus which was Apocalyptic and Messianic in the true Judaic sense of the word, did not, and for obvious reasons. Anyway this is the gist of Dr. Eisenman's arguments presented in his various works. Agree with it or not, it has many valid points and does rely on thorough research and profound scholarship. Theodora, if you have not the time to go through all his books (I know they are a hard slog) just Google Robert Eisenman and you will get a synopsis of his works and ideas

http://www.vexen.co.uk/books/jesusmysteries.htmlInteresting post Northern Neill. I enjoyed it thoroughly and it confirms a lot of the conclusions I have come to myself after much thought and research

There were other mystery cults which allowed women Like Isis which were popular as well weren't there? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Theodora Re: The Popularity and Rise of Christianity Dr. Robert Eisenman, in his book, Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (1992, Element Books,UK), highlights one of the texts found in the Qumran corpus entitled,

I think one reason why pseudo history is popular is its heterodox appeal. People don't like reading dull, pedantic history books. That's for nutcases like myself and many of my fellow forum members. They like excitement, intrigue, something out of the ordinary. Unfortunately for them, real life is very, very ordinary. However we should also be careful about allowing conventional historicity to have an absolute hegemony, or intellectual tyranny, in the academic field. Remember, as historians, we are interested in historical facts and their interpretation, not with this or that point of view or school of thought. We should allow some leeway for alternative ideas. Whether we accept them or not would depend on how much historical merit these ideas carry

Ottoman army was under command of grand vezir Kara Mustafa. Sultan wasnt there. I think Gaius is referring to the battle of Szigetvar in Hungary in which Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent did die on the battlefield.His body was carried back. That was in 1566 CE

You know, I hate to say this, but all the above mentioned qualities, laudable as they are, wouldn't enable a modern politician to last even one campaigning season

Ave Gaius I just finished the book. I agree with you - the best part is the one about the civil war itself. It is easy to discern the difference between Caesar's writing style and that of others, even in translation. On the whole I did enjoy the book but I esteem Gallic Wars to a much greater extent, that is a book I could pick up over and over again. What is your preference?

IIRC that happened when Hannibal's army appeared outside Rome's walls, or possibly after Cannae. Someone correct me if I am wrong, please

Ave Caesar You may have a point there. I was just saying that because the Bar Kokhba revolt resulted in not only the final diaspora of the Jewish people from the Holy Land, but effectively the changing of Jerusalem into a totally pagan city, as you probably know. There were many Jews in Judea still after the first revolt.

Born in India, grew up in the Maltese Islands, currently residing in Canada, eh?

Ave Gaius I think the question is moot. Remember the ancient historians used to put long winded speeches in the mouths of their protagonists. This was an accepted convention and we need to be careful about taking these speeches too literally. To sum up, we don't know what Curio really said, but if I was there, I would certainly not have sided with Pompey or Juba against Caesar

Ave I finally got my copy of Civil War from the Toronto Public Library. I just read the introduction so far and was surprised to learn that some parts were actually written not by Caesar but by other participants of that war. Anyway I'll share my thoughts about the book after I finish it.

Yeah I know Flavius. That's what happens when you try to respond to a post and deal with two sick, cranky kids in your lap!

I agree the Christians could have a motive, but it would not to be to burn the library and all its contents. Many Christians works and poems were held in the library itself. Also, how dumb would the Christians be to burn the books of their own heritage? Also a lot of Persian and Iraqi works have also been destroyed by Muslims. Your lying biggot, happens to be a bunch of Egyptian intellectuals. Again, you are assuming a biased postion in this matter. BTW, a crew of Polish and Egyptian archeologists are trying to find out the cause so we should find out in time.

Where did I say that? Your taking my reply out of context. QUOTE You asked me "who else could have had a motive in burning the library" - which means you are implying that only the Muslims could have had such a motive. This is obviously wrong. Many other people, including the Christians, could have had a motive for doing so, for the simply reason that many works in that library were of a "heretical" content. So your contention that only the Muslims could have had a motive for burning the librari is WRONG. That was not the answer to my question. You said there is new "research" about Muslims burning the library, I challenged you to produce links and sources, you did not, therefore your contention regarding this new "research" is WRONG There are people who believe in many theories about how the library was burned, so why disclaim this one? Yes I did, and I challenged your stance. the decree of Theophilus in 391; All have explanation, pros and cons.

The same motive that the Muslims would have had - to destroy anything that would go contrary to their faith. Are you seriously suggesting that Christians did not burn "heretical" books and works that did not confirm with their faith? So let's see some links and other sources about this "new research". And just because research has been revived regarding a certain myth does not necessarily mean that myth has been proved as historical fact Oh yes we do. Did you even bother reading the links that I quoted earlier?