Was Jesus Celtic? Posibaly a Druid?
ROCKIES303
taint ,or walk on any ones beliefs.But to ask a question I feel history may
support.I do beleave in Jesus,and that he was a great man that did great
things.So haveing said this let me take you on a journey that started with my
own research into my Celtic past.
I knew I was of Irish
decent,but little more than that.I was amazed to find that I was of a race that
once ranged across Europe and into the Middle East.After much research I
started to see a conection between Jesus and the Celts.First off I believe,and
I am finding many others believe,the twelve lost tribes were Celtic.At the time
of Jesus there was a large population of Celts liveing in Turkey,and the
surounding area.Jesus was said to have done many amazeing things(walk on
water,raise the dead ect.).The Celtic druids were said to of been able to do
these things also.The wisest druid always traveled with twelve followers.Jesus
traveled with twelve followers.There is a period in Jesus life that no one
knows where he was at or what he was doing.There is eviedence that he traveled
to the Celtic British Isles during this period.Posibaly to study as a
druid??St. Patrick writes that on his way back to Ierland,he stopped at an
island and was meet buy a couple who was glad to see him.The young couple told
him that many many years before Jesus had stopped at theyer island and gave
them his walking staf to give to Patrick when he came.The couple had not aged
up to that point.There is also evedience that Jesus not only married Mary
M.,but also had three sons with her.And after Jesus death she traveled to
Celtic northern France to live,which the Romans had not yet conqured,and was
considered to be nothing but barbarians.And why did Christianity spread to the
Celtic lands to the west,and not to the other peoples to the east?I realise the
people to the east were stead fast in there belifes and customs,but the Celts
were just as stead fast in there customs and belifes.Some say it took the sword
to bring the Celts to Christianity.I dont believe this,I believe it would take
a Celt to bring a Celt to what we call Christianity today.Last but not
least,the Celtic Cross predates the Christian Cross.
Let me Know what you think.
dltjxx
>I knew I was of Irish decent,but little more than that.I was amazed to
>find that I was of a race that once ranged across Europe and into the
>Middle East.
Turkey, actually. Galatia (central Turkey) was settled by Celts
sometime in the 3rdC BCE. Celts also invaded Macedonia and Greece, but
were driven out.
>After much research I started to see a conection between Jesus and the
>Celts. First off I believe,and I am finding many others believe,the
>twelve lost tribes were Celtic.
What twelve lost tribes?
>At the time of Jesus there was a large population of Celts liveing in
>Turkey,and the surounding area.
Those were the Galatians (see above). The province of Galatia was
bounded on the east by Cappadocia and Cilicia, and on the west by
Bithynia and Phrygia, and on the south by Pisidia and Pamphylia.
>Jesus was said to have done many amazeing things(walk on
>water,raise the dead ect.).
Elijah also raised the dead.
>There is a period in Jesus life that no one
>knows where he was at or what he was doing.
Right, from the time he was a few years old until he was 12 or so, and
from his bar mitzvah til he was about 30, and took up where Yohanan the
Nazirite (John the Baptist) left off.
>There is eviedence that he traveled
>to the Celtic British Isles during this period.
[snip]
>There is also evedience that Jesus not only married Mary
>M.,but also had three sons with her.
What evidence?
>And after Jesus death she traveled to
>Celtic northern France to live,which the Romans had not yet
>conqured,and was considered to be nothing but barbarians.
By the time Jesus was executed, Gaul had been a Roman province for some
time. According to Caesar's Commentaries, the three major tribal
divisions were the Belgae in the north, the Aquitani in the south, with
the Celtae in between; the Aquitani seem to have been ethnically
different from the first two. In 27 BCE, Augustus divided Gaul into
four administrative districts: Gallia Narbonensis, Aquitania, Gallia
Lugdunensis, and Gallia Belgica (this last bounded by the Seine, Rhine,
and North Sea). As to their being barbarians, Roman citizenship was
conferred on inhabitants of Gallia Cisalpina in 49 BCE; the region
produced such notable Romans as Vergil, Catullus, Livy, and the Plinys
Elder & Younger.
>And why did Christianity spread to the
>Celtic lands to the west,and not to the other peoples to the east?
Xianty developed in the Middle East, Egypt and Greece.
>Last but not
>least,the Celtic Cross predates the Christian Cross.
How is that again?
Deborah
Doug Weller
16:57:13 GMT, rocki...@aol.com said...
> I knew I was of Irish
> decent,but little more than that.I was amazed to find that I was of a race that
> once ranged across Europe and into the Middle East
>
that the prehistoric Britons were Celtic. They were Celtic speaking, but they
weren't the same peoples as are referred to as Celts in Europe, ie although
Celtic speaking they were (except probably for a few elites) the same people
that had lived there a thousand years before anyone had heard of the Celts.
Read Simon James' The Atlantic Celts for an interesting analysis of this and
of ethnic identity in general.
You mentnion 12 lost tribes. You need to do a bit of research, as there were
only 10 mentioned! Not that they were lost so much as dispersed. And they
were hill Canaanites who developed a monotheistic religion. Nothing to do
with Celts.
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Stanlay
Ricans
dltjxx <dlt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7nnh6h$5...@dfw-ixnews14.ix.netcom.com...
> (ROCKIES303) writes:
> >I knew I was of Irish decent,but little more than that.I was amazed to
> >find that I was of a race that once ranged across Europe and into the
Zimri
Stanlay <wer...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7noh5h$m7g$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
John Burkholder
>Some one told me that Jesus was Hungarian and he was killed by two Puerto
>Ricans
that Santa Claus was a Finn.
John (Tokola) Burkholder
Schlau
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <19990728125713...@ng-bk1.aol.com>, on 28 Jul
1999
> 16:57:13 GMT, rocki...@aol.com said...
> > decent,but little more than that.I was amazed to find that I was of
> >
> Hate to rain on your parade, but it's a modern myth (from the 19th
> century) that the prehistoric Britons were Celtic. They were Celtic
> speaking, but they weren't the same peoples as are referred to as
> Celts in Europe, ie although Celtic speaking they were (except
> probably for a few elites) the same people that had lived there a
> thousand years before anyone had heard of the Celts.
Exactly how is that differant from most of mainland Europe? Most of
the "Celts" of Europe were just as much a minority who intermarried
with the majority populations that had been there previously. This is
most evident in Spain and Aquatania.
--Oscar Schlaf---
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
paul
Rangers.
Paul
Neanderthalis Americanus
from modern myth.
First a bit of personal belief...
Jesus was God. He was born of a Jewish mother, so he was also jewish
if you must look at it that way.
Yes there were Celts in Britain, SCotland, Wales, Ireland, Northern
France, and any number of other places, including Russia.
Now, they were traders and seafaring adventurers, and they no doubt
mingled with any number of tribess along the way, and tehy may even
have done something to the Picts and the Fir Bolg and the Tuatha de
Danaan if you want to get real deep into the mythology of the british
Isles.
The history of Mary coming to France and the descendents being guarded
by the Knights Templar is also something you can throw into the mix.
--
Don't like war but somehow buddy, I'd rather study shootin' than to stud
being shot.
While I live I mean to make it certain, Freedom is a word that will
never be forgot!
suzanne777
ROCKIES303 wrote in message <19990728125713...@ng-bk1.aol.com>...
>What brings me to this question?Let me first say that,it is not my objective to
>taint ,or walk on any ones beliefs.But to ask a question I feel history may
>support.I do beleave in Jesus,and that he was a great man that did great
>things.So haveing said this let me take you on a journey that started with my
>own research into my Celtic past.
>decent,but little more than that.I was amazed to find that I was of a race that
>started to see a conection between Jesus and the Celts.First off I believe,and
>I am finding many others believe,the twelve lost tribes were Celtic.At the time
>of Jesus there was a large population of Celts liveing in Turkey,and the
>water,raise the dead ect.).The Celtic druids were said to of been able to do
>these things also.The wisest druid always traveled with twelve followers.Jesus
>traveled with twelve followers.There is a period in Jesus life that no one
>knows where he was at or what he was doing.There is eviedence that he traveled
>to the Celtic British Isles during this period.Posibaly to study as a
>druid??St. Patrick writes that on his way back to Ierland,he stopped at an
>island and was meet buy a couple who was glad to see him.The young couple told
>him that many many years before Jesus had stopped at theyer island and gave
>them his walking staf to give to Patrick when he came.The couple had not aged
>M.,but also had three sons with her.And after Jesus death she traveled to
>Celtic northern France to live,which the Romans had not yet conqured,and was
>Celtic lands to the west,and not to the other peoples to the east?I realise the
>people to the east were stead fast in there belifes and customs,but the Celts
>were just as stead fast in there customs and belifes.Some say it took the sword
>to bring the Celts to Christianity.I dont believe this,I believe it would take
>least,the Celtic Cross predates the Christian Cross.
>
>
the Tree of Life. An Irishman told me about this, and I
reasoned, "how could a person be descended from a
tree", but it seems that if there were any truth to it, it would
be that human family tree from the Biblical Garden that
was being spoken of. Christianity did not come by way
of the Celts, but from apparent missionaries, such as
St. Patrick, Patron Saint of Ireland, who wanted to find a
way to explain a triune God to the Irish tribes, and legend
has it, that he reached down and picked up a three leafed
Shamrock, and explained it was three distinct branches,
yet one plant. Then they understood how the Father, Son
and Holy Ghost could be one.
>
It is said in legend that the people who were in the
beginning of Scandinavia were from the tribe of Dan.
It has been said that Denmark is Danmark, which is
of Dan, the tribe from the Children of Israel. It is of
interest due to the fact that the apportionment of land
that was given unto Dan after the Exodus was given
last, and was the smallest apportionment of the 12.
However, it had great natural advantages, was fertile,
and had a line of seacoast which seems to have led
the tribe into seacoast life, which would have included
fishing and commerce. Dan remained in ships
(Judges 5:17). This included the cities of Joppa,
Lydda, and Ekron. The place called Laish was taken
by the Danites, and it was then called "Dan". Dan
was at the Northern border of Canaan (Judges 20:1).
It is said that the tribes that went into captivity did not
all come back, which some think is the origin of the
idea that there are lost tribes of Israel. Jesus clearly
was not a Celt but there are legends that he went to
England, with some evidence. The place called
Glastonbury in England has a church by legend built
by Jesus, who could have learned to build from his
earthly father Joseph, the Carpenter. A stone was
found on the older church, which was under the
newer church which now by legend said on it, "Mary
and Jesus". Supposedly, Mary and Joseph were in
the company of supposedly Joseph of Arimathea,
who it is claimed bought the land that the church was
on." Old legend claims that the "Doomsday Book"
had a record of one Joseph Arimathea purchasing
this land. Up the hill from this was Glastonbury Tor,
which is a tower supposedly on the Isle of Avalon,
of King Arthur fame. Avalon means "apples" and
there were at one time apples growing on this land,
which is no longer an island, but is reputed to have
been long ago. The claim is that Joseph of A. was
the uncle of Mary, and therefore relative of this
family. King Arthur was then supposed to be a
descendant of Joseph of Arimathea. There is a
tree on the grounds of this church which is at
Glastonbury, which is a Hawthorne. There are
hawthorns in England, but they bloom at other
times of the year from this one type at Glastonbury.
Legend has it that Joseph of Ar. thrust his staff into
the ground, and it budded and produced this very
tree that is by Glastonbury's Abby. The thing about
this one is, that only the Hawthorne from the
Holy Land will bloom at Christmas time. Queen
Elizabeth is sent a sprig of this tree every Christmas,
and she in turn gives it ceremonially to others.
It is on this very ground that King Arthur's grave and
that of Guinevere is supposed to have been found.
The grave had two bodies in it, one of a man, and
the other of a woman with long blonde hair. On top
of this grave (yet way down under the ground) was
a shield/sign which said upon it: "Here lies King Arthur,
the Once and Future King." Well, then the sign/shield
was displayed but then was lost again !!!!! (Slippery
rascal !!!) Several locations are claimed for the
famed Knights of the Round Table, but Glastonbury
is possibly it, say some. The Church of England has
a hymn that contains this speculation. Please, if you
read this, realize this is legend mixed with some
history. Some evidence of Arthur was discovered
a few years ago in England. Here are the words to
the hymn about Jesus, and other URL's pertaining
to what we are talking about here, including links to
St. Patrick, and Ireland.
>
English Hymn:
http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/glossary/avalon.html
>
History and Glastonbury:
http://www.britannia.com/history/abbey.html
>
photos of Glastonbury on ground and from air:
http://www.somerset.gov.uk/archives/parish/ph/phglasto.htm
>
THE thornbush (Hawthorne) thought to be either the
original or shoot from original roots, or cutting from:
http://www.somerset.gov.uk/archives/images/postcard/
a30133/a3013357.htm
>
(These were from base URL of http://www.somerset.gov.uk/
and the link immediately above.)
There are lots and lots more pictures located under URL given
under #1 under (type in between "in" and "go") Archives &
Records (which is a selection next to the word "go" in slot).
>
Jesus was not a Druid, and he was not a Celt. He was a Jew.
Elijah "raised the dead" to the state of predeath. Jesus raised
the dead after the state of life. Jesus and some of "those who
slept" were raised to immortal bodies, and not their predeath
corruptible bodies. Elijah's power came from Jesus, and was
not his own. Jesus is part of the Godhead and preexisted
before being born in the form of a man on the earth.
>
Suzanne
>
MKinley845
Oxhead
Jesus was Irish, just look at the evidence.
1. He didn't leave home until he was 30.
2. He had a dozen drinking buddies.
3. His mother thought he was God.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
ROCKIES303
taught buy a Celt ,or Celt not taught by a Jew.After Jesus death there seems to
have been a demand by the Romans and Greeks for Celtic teachers and
Druids.------
ROCKIES303
Martin X Pufnstuf Hancock van der Rohl
Martin X Pufnstuf Hancock van der Rohl
dltjxx
>This reminds me of a joke:
>Jesus was Irish, just look at the evidence.
>1. He didn't leave home until he was 30.
>2. He had a dozen drinking buddies.
>3. His mother thought he was God.
The way I heard it was: Jesus was a Jew. The proof:
--He lived at home until he was 30.
--He thought his mother was a virgin.
--His mother thought he was god.
Deborah
PhilWoch
as God the Son, but from God the Father, by His Hand and His grace, and Through
the power of the Spirit of God.
HE Is GOd, who became a zygote, grew to be a baby, grew to be a Man, and died
for us. He was the Incarnation of GOd Himself. But while on Earth He was a Jew.
It is silly to believe that He was Celtic. The Celts ranged far and wide, but
they didn't range into Palestine. Some Celtic ancestry may have trickled down
to Him. But He was overwhelmingly a bronzeskinned, swarthy, hawknosed, black
haired, Palestinian Jew.
I don't know about the legend that Jesus ever made it to Britain, but I don't
believe it. What was He doing there? And how could the carpenter Joseph get the
money, and even with Joseph of Arimithea, the time, for such a trip. And why
did they go back to Palestine? As for Mary Magdelene, If she and Jesus were
married, the Gospel writers would have told us, and probably "the Jews."
Northern Gaul had been conquered by Caesar two generations before. As for why
the people became Christians, this happened over the centuries, of the peoples
own free will.(Later on, of course, that changed.)
Pouria Molavi
A man from the great persia will come and rescue the judes, this man is
called korosh....the persian king....
Christopher B Siren
That would be Xerxes/Cyrus the Persian, who took over the region from the
Babylonians in the mid 500's BCE, thus ending the Babylonian Captivity.
Chris Siren ICQ# 17091740
cbs...@hopper.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren
Myths and Legends: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/myth.html
UNH Observatory: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/observatory.html
dspe...@earthlink.net
Hebrew. The Hebrews are a Semitic people, Persians are an
IndoEuropean people.
dan
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:25:17 +0200, Pouria Molavi
Doug Weller
08:18:15 GMT, rocki...@aol.com said...
them was to surrender.
dltjxx
>jesus was persien, as you can read in the old testament it says:
>A man from the great persia will come and rescue the judes, this man
>is called korosh....the persian king....
Where exactly in the "old testament" is this statement?
Deborah
Trevor Zion Bauknight
(dltjxx) wrote:
> >jesus was persien, as you can read in the old testament it says:
> >A man from the great persia will come and rescue the judes, this man
> >is called korosh....the persian king....
>
> Where exactly in the "old testament" is this statement?
On a more serious note, I have seen some suggestions that perhaps Jesus
was able to travel about the world with his wealthy uncle Joseph of
Arimathea who may have been a tin trader. Possibly between his twelfth
year and his 30th, he was able to study under some of the great sages of
the world from India to Ireland.
Trev
Doug Weller
23:28:05 -0400, tr...@sc.edu said...
>
> On a more serious note, I have seen some suggestions that perhaps Jesus
> was able to travel about the world with his wealthy uncle Joseph of
> Arimathea who may have been a tin trader. Possibly between his twelfth
> year and his 30th, he was able to study under some of the great sages of
> the world from India to Ireland.
>
>
fam Johansson
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> skrev i inlägg
<MPG.1221a992e...@news.btinternet.com>...
> In article <trev-15089...@nas-p18.usc.net>, on Sun, 15 Aug 1999
> 23:28:05 -0400, tr...@sc.edu said...
> >
> > On a more serious note, I have seen some suggestions that perhaps Jesus
> > was able to travel about the world with his wealthy uncle Joseph of
> > Arimathea who may have been a tin trader. Possibly between his twelfth
> > year and his 30th, he was able to study under some of the great sages
of
> > the world from India to Ireland.
> >
> >
> This myth emerges only in about the 13th century.
>
> Doug
> --
Doug,
I too do believe it to be a myth, but a older myth than you estamate since
a friend of mine belonging to a group of Scholars who study Jesus's life
more carefully using ordinary Historical valuations methods on the
different sources keep telling me that the myth existed during the 4th
Century.
I do believe in Christ, and I do believe that he could have travelled a bit
around, but India I think is a myth.
Inger E
Jonathan W Hendry
> I too do believe it to be a myth, but a older myth than you estamate since
> a friend of mine belonging to a group of Scholars who study Jesus's life
> more carefully using ordinary Historical valuations methods on the
> different sources keep telling me that the myth existed during the 4th
> Century.
> I do believe in Christ, and I do believe that he could have travelled a bit
> around, but India I think is a myth.
It most likely *is* a myth, but India doesn't strike me as being
teribly unlikely. If he did travel, I'd think he'd go East.
Ken Down
Bauknight) wrote:
> On a more serious note, I have seen some suggestions that perhaps Jesus
> was able to travel about the world with his wealthy uncle Joseph of
> Arimathea
In the absence of *any* information about the years between 12 and 30, the
human mind is free to speculate as much as it likes. Unfortunately there are
people who seem unable to differentiate between speculation and historical
fact.
Ken Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news from
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| the Middle East with David Down and
================================= "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Trevor Zion Bauknight
<digg...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > On a more serious note, I have seen some suggestions that perhaps Jesus
> > was able to travel about the world with his wealthy uncle Joseph of
> > Arimathea
>
> In the absence of *any* information about the years between 12 and 30, the
> human mind is free to speculate as much as it likes. Unfortunately there are
> people who seem unable to differentiate between speculation and historical
> fact.
I agree, of course. But it's certainly a reasonable speculation. Moreso
than some others I've seen.
Trev
ROCKIES303
said to have originated in????We are creating our own myths right now,and most
myths are based on fact,,,,are they not????If not then surely at least 50% of
history and the bible are in question.
ROCKIES303
>there are
>people who seem unable to
>differentiate between speculation
>and historical
>fact.
If there is any
one alive today who can claim to know the true historical facts(and dont quote
from the bible because it has been re-writen so many times and the true
historical facts covered up)of Jesus life,then Id really like to meet him.But
Im not going to hold my breath.
Ken Down
Bauknight) wrote:
> I agree, of course. But it's certainly a reasonable speculation. Moreso
> than some others I've seen.
Only reasonable if you accept that Joseph of Arimathea *was* Jesus' uncle -
but that in itself is pure speculation!
Besq
<37b4a59c...@news.earthlink.net>...
>Jesus could not have been Persian, as he was of the house of David, a
>Hebrew. The Hebrews are a Semitic people, Persians are an
>IndoEuropean people.
>
oriental? A theory floating around about the Scythains and Cimmerians is
that they were first found in NW Iraq and could be the "lost Israelites".
If so, and the Scythians migrated into Europe and became the Celts, wouldn't
that make the druids, Israelite?
Like Deborah, I can't find the statement, "a man from the great persia etc"
in the old testament either. Tell us where that is written Pouria, please.
>dan
>
>On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:25:17 +0200, Pouria Molavi
Besq
>In article <trev-15089...@nas-p18.usc.net>, tr...@sc.edu (Trevor
Zion
>Bauknight) wrote:
>
>> On a more serious note, I have seen some suggestions that perhaps Jesus
>> was able to travel about the world with his wealthy uncle Joseph of
>> Arimathea
>
>In the absence of *any* information about the years between 12 and 30, the
are
>people who seem unable to differentiate between speculation and historical
>fact.
>
Perhaps the information existed at one time but those who chose what to
include in the Bible decided it was not important enough and unnecessary.
Maybe it is something we really don't need to know, wasn't the message more
important than the messenger?
ROCKIES303
>into Europe and became the Celt
>wouldn't
>that make the druids, Israelite
And Jesus posibally a Celt???Or druid???
ROCKIES303
>one time but those who chose wha
>to
>include in the Bible decided it was
>not important enough and
>unnecessary.
Important enough for who???Think about what you just said.If you are one of
those that look to the bible as an instruction manual to spiritculality,do you
really want some of the instructions left out???And I dont think it was a
matter of what they thought was important or necessary,but a question of what
they did and didnt want us to know.
WesFox
> >On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 14:25:17 +0200, Pouria Molavi
> ><pou...@goteborg.utfors.se> wrote:
> >
> >>jesus was persien, as you can read in the old testament it says:
> >>
> >>A man from the great persia will come and rescue the judes, this man is
> >>called korosh....the persian king....
>
Even if this was in the old testament, which I'm not at all sure about, it
would fit better to refer to Darius, emperor of Persia who did in fact allow the
displaced hebrew people to return to judea after their forced removal to
Babylon. At the time some in fact believed that Darius was the messiah being
that he allowed them to migrate back to their native land after he conquered
their previous captors. It wasn't the case, but more from Darius's intent to
have a friendly culture and kingdom indepted to him in the levant region to
further his ambitions in the region.
Pouria Molavi
chapter one and forward, I found it in an old (120 years old) swedish
bible.....
Doug Weller
04:05:55 GMT, rocki...@aol.com said...
(I've obviously missed the bit that explains the relationship between a
migration into Europe and some people in the Ancient Near East).
Ah, found it, it was a suggestion that the ISRAELITES were the
Scythians/Celts. Not the other way around.
Doug Weller
Besq*ns*@rmi.net said...
> In the context of Semitic, wouldn't the "IndoEuropeans" be Japhetic or
> oriental? A theory floating around about the Scythains and Cimmerians is
> that they were first found in NW Iraq and could be the "lost Israelites".
> that make the druids, Israelite?
>
Ah, this is it. There probably weren't any 'lost Israelites'. In any case,
the original numbers of hill Canaanites weren't that large. Let alone the
other problems.
seb...@ibm.net
ROCKIES303 wrote in message
<19990819002502...@ng-bd1.aol.com>...
Don't forget that it is only in the last several hundred years that the
Bible has been published in the vulgar. Prior to that, it was only
available in Latin, Greek and Church Slavonic; the purpose being
to restrict access to priests, who delivered approved, set-piece sermons...
And of course much was left out; all you have to do is read some of the
Apocrypha to realize how disturbing to orthodoxy some of those excluded
works were. How else would one rid oneself of the influence of the
Nestorians, Gnostics, Monophysites, etc.?
Regards,
Steve
seb...@ibm.net
WesFox wrote in message <37BC3195...@email.unc.edu>...
>
> Even if this was in the old testament, which I'm not at all sure about,
it
>would fit better to refer to Darius, emperor of Persia who did in fact
allow the
>displaced hebrew people to return to judea after their forced removal to
>Babylon. At the time some in fact believed that Darius was the messiah
being
>that he allowed them to migrate back to their native land after he
conquered
>their previous captors. It wasn't the case, but more from Darius's intent
to
>have a friendly culture and kingdom indepted to him in the levant region to
>further his ambitions in the region.
>
Don't you mean Cyrus? Darius' cup was full with the Greek wars
(Dorian vs. Ionian vs. Persian) and he was already Lord of Egypt
and all the pumpernickel principalities along the coast. Cyrus is
normally credited with the release of the Jews (after conquering
Babylon and deposing Nabonidius, its last king). Cambyses his
son went on to take the coastal lands and Egypt...
Regards,
Steve
ROCKIES303
>Don't forget that it is only in the last
>several hundred years that the
>Bible has been published in the
>vulgar. Prior to that, it was only
>available in Latin, Greek and
>Church Slavonic; the purpose
>being
>to restrict access to priests, who
>delivered approved, set-piece
>sermons...
>And of course much was left out; all
>you have to do is read some of the
>Apocrypha to realize how
>disturbing to orthodoxy some of
>those excluded
>works were. How else would one
>rid oneself of the influence of the
>Nestorians, Gnostics
>Monophysites, etc.?
That about says it all!!!
ROCKIES303
>weren't any 'lost Israelites'. In any
>case,
>the original numbers of hill
>Canaanites weren't that large. Let
>alone the
>other problems.
> Doug Weller Moderator,
>sci.archaeology.moderated
Oh! Ok Doug you know it all.Schools back on,time to go back to teaching 6th
grade history.
dltjxx
"Old" should be in context here. When referring to biblical literature,
120 years is hardly "old".
Where is the chapter and verse which refers to Jesus as a Persian?
Deborah
Doug Weller
03:58:10 GMT, rocki...@aol.com said...
Feeling Bad
Testament as such....
Pouria Molavi <pou...@goteborg.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:37BC5027...@goteborg.utfors.se...
Pouria Molavi
dltjxx
>Isn;t the book of Esra part of the Apocrypha? So, not actually in the
>old Testament as such....
Ezra-Nehemiah is very much a part of the Hebrew Scriptures. You may be
thinking of Esdras, which seems to have been composed sometime in the
late 2ndC BCE.
The original poster still has yet to provide chapter and verse for the
original claim.
Deborah
dltjxx
<pou...@goteborg.utfors.se> writes:
>I wrongly said darius, i meant cyrus/koros/xerxes
Cyrus=Kyros=Kurash is not the same as Xerxes=Khsrish. Unlike Cyrus, the
latter is not mentioned in the bible.
What is the chapter and verse of the original claim about "Darius"?
Deborah
dltjxx
>old Testament as such....
Ezra is part of the "old testament". The confusion may be due to the
"aprocryphal" books of Esdras, written some time in the late 2ndC BCE.
dltjxx
>I wrongly said darius, i meant cyrus/koros/xerxes
Cyrus (Kyros, Kurash) is not the same person as Xerxes (Khsrish).
The biblical reference is in Ezra 1.2-3: "Thus says Cyrus king of
Persia: 'The Lord the God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of
the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem,
which is in Judah [Persian "Yehud"]. Whoever is among you of all his
people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which
is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord the God of Israel, he is
the God who is in Jerusalem."
Deborah
colect_or
for exchange
>
PhilWoch
From: dlt...@ix.netcom.com (dltjxx)
Date: Sat, 21 August 1999 12:10 PM EDT
Message-id: <7pmj17$b...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
In <37BDD6D5...@goteborg.utfors.se> Pouria Molavi
<pou...@goteborg.utfors.se> writes:
>I wrongly said darius, i meant cyrus/koros/xerxes
"Cyrus=Kyros=Kurash is not the same as Xerxes=Khsrish. Unlike Cyrus, the
latter is not mentioned in the bible.
"What is the chapter and verse of the original claim about "Darius"?
Deborah"
Ahaseaurus, in the Book of Esther, is a Xerxes, I believe.
PhilWoch
Date: Thu, 19 August 1999 11:48 PM EDT
Message-id: <19990819234846...@ng-fj1.aol.com>
>Church Slavonic; the purpose
>being
>delivered approved, set-piece
>sermons...
>Apocrypha to realize how
>those excluded
>Nestorians, Gnostics
>Monophysites, etc.?
There was a conference in I believe the 400's AD, in which they decided which
books and letters whould be considered canonical. Their criteria was historical
and theological accuracy, and being written by one of he early Apostles, or by
another very early Christian. several books, by Polycarp, Irenaus, a few
clements, and various others, were highly thought of by the early Christians,
but were not writtenby the first apostles, or otherwise by people born soon
enough.
PhilWoch
Message-id: <19990818022230...@ng-fz1.aol.com>
>Unfortunately
>there are
>people who seem unable to
>differentiate between speculation
>and historical
>fact.
If there is any
one alive today who can claim to know the true historical facts(and dont quote
from the bible because it has been re-writen so many times and the true
historical facts covered up)of Jesus life,then Id really like to meet him.But
Im not going to hold my breath."
The earliest copies of the Gospels were probablywritten in the first century,
regardless of what you have heard(two or more surviving copies, or fragments,
have been dated back that far.) All surviving early copies are very similar to
what we have in our English Bibles today.
It is remarkable how to many people all ancient books and documents are
considered reliable, except for this one (putting the whole Bible together.)
Michael
PhilWoch wrote:
> Subject: Re: Was Jesus Celtic? Posibaly a Druid?
David MacAdam,Sr.
Albert J. Del-Rosario
Jesus from ages 12 to 30? It appears that the omission was deliberate.
Why? Could it be that the authors of the books knew where and what Jesus
was doing during those missing years, and that they just didn't want the
people to know? Maybe if the people knew, Jesus wouldn't be worshipped as
some kind of a god today.
Jesus was a great healer, and no one can argue about that. But was he some
kind of god incarnate? If he was, then Jesus was certainly not aware of it.
Just curious.
Albert J. Del-Rosario
Dallas, Texas
dltjxx <dlt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7nnh6h$5...@dfw-ixnews14.ix.netcom.com...
> (ROCKIES303) writes:
> >I knew I was of Irish decent,but little more than that.I was amazed to
> >find that I was of a race that once ranged across Europe and into the
> >Middle East.
>
> Turkey, actually. Galatia (central Turkey) was settled by Celts
> sometime in the 3rdC BCE. Celts also invaded Macedonia and Greece, but
> were driven out.
>
> >After much research I started to see a conection between Jesus and the
> >Celts. First off I believe,and I am finding many others believe,the
> >twelve lost tribes were Celtic.
>
> What twelve lost tribes?
>
> >At the time of Jesus there was a large population of Celts liveing in
> >Turkey,and the surounding area.
>
> Those were the Galatians (see above). The province of Galatia was
> bounded on the east by Cappadocia and Cilicia, and on the west by
> Bithynia and Phrygia, and on the south by Pisidia and Pamphylia.
>
> >Jesus was said to have done many amazeing things(walk on
> >water,raise the dead ect.).
>
> Elijah also raised the dead.
>
> >There is a period in Jesus life that no one
> >knows where he was at or what he was doing.
>
> Right, from the time he was a few years old until he was 12 or so, and
> from his bar mitzvah til he was about 30, and took up where Yohanan the
> Nazirite (John the Baptist) left off.
>
> >There is eviedence that he traveled
> >to the Celtic British Isles during this period.
> [snip]
> >There is also evedience that Jesus not only married Mary
> >M.,but also had three sons with her.
>
> What evidence?
>
> >And after Jesus death she traveled to
> >Celtic northern France to live,which the Romans had not yet
> >conqured,and was considered to be nothing but barbarians.
>
> By the time Jesus was executed, Gaul had been a Roman province for some
> time. According to Caesar's Commentaries, the three major tribal
> divisions were the Belgae in the north, the Aquitani in the south, with
> the Celtae in between; the Aquitani seem to have been ethnically
> different from the first two. In 27 BCE, Augustus divided Gaul into
> four administrative districts: Gallia Narbonensis, Aquitania, Gallia
> Lugdunensis, and Gallia Belgica (this last bounded by the Seine, Rhine,
> and North Sea). As to their being barbarians, Roman citizenship was
> conferred on inhabitants of Gallia Cisalpina in 49 BCE; the region
> produced such notable Romans as Vergil, Catullus, Livy, and the Plinys
> Elder & Younger.
>
> >And why did Christianity spread to the
> >Celtic lands to the west,and not to the other peoples to the east?
>
> Xianty developed in the Middle East, Egypt and Greece.
>
> >Last but not
> >least,the Celtic Cross predates the Christian Cross.
>
> How is that again?
>
> Deborah
Eric Stevens
<ni...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Does anyone know why the authors of the Gospels failed to cover the life of
>Jesus from ages 12 to 30? It appears that the omission was deliberate.
>Why? Could it be that the authors of the books knew where and what Jesus
>was doing during those missing years, and that they just didn't want the
>people to know? Maybe if the people knew, Jesus wouldn't be worshipped as
>some kind of a god today.
He was in jail.
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Kenneth Lee
Albert J. Del-Rosario wrote in message ...
>Does anyone know why the authors of the Gospels failed to cover the life of
>Jesus from ages 12 to 30? It appears that the omission was deliberate.
>Why? Could it be that the authors of the books knew where and what Jesus
>was doing during those missing years, and that they just didn't want the
>people to know? Maybe if the people knew, Jesus wouldn't be worshipped as
>some kind of a god today.
>
Aaron-Dirk Boyden
>
> Does anyone know why the authors of the Gospels failed to cover the life of
> Jesus from ages 12 to 30? It appears that the omission was deliberate.
> Why? Could it be that the authors of the books knew where and what Jesus
> was doing during those missing years, and that they just didn't want the
> people to know? Maybe if the people knew, Jesus wouldn't be worshipped as
> some kind of a god today.
The argument of Wells would claim that all the material about the birth
of Jesus and about his childhood was added by people who actually knew
nothing about Jesus, and were attempting to reconstruct his early life
on the basis of their notions of what a messiah's early life is supposed
to be like. If that's correct*, then the lack of anything on the period
between his childhood and his ministry may simply reflect a lack of any
relevant prophecies or other expectations to fulfill, and so a lack of
need for the gospel writers to come up with anything to fill in that
period.
* I'd say it probably is. I've never seen a convincing refutation of
Wells. His views are unorthodox, but, in general, when you're dealing
with a crackpot, there are obvious errors which any moderately together
reader could pick up on anyway and which more sophisticated critics of
the crackpot will harp upon. Wells commits no such errors, so he's
either an extraordinarily subtle crackpot, or there's some other reason,
possibly non-rational, why his position is not more popular.
--
Aaron Boyden
"We are told so little that incredulity cannot gain a foothold. I
suppose that is one way to gain credibility. It is not a good way."
-David Lewis
ADR
Albert J. Del-Rosario wrote in message ...
>Jesus from ages 12 to 30
Its very easy to answer. His whole childhood is based on earlier myths
alone. Buddhist and Egyptian along with themes from the Old Testament as
well. His adult life depicted is partially Buddhist mythology, partially the
myths of the various resurrection deities that existed before who were
associated with crosses and judging the dead. The rest leaves us only with a
rebel who was trying to unite Jews against the Romans. Hardly something that
all the Jews wanted to do. He was an extremist. When he said 'Love thy
neighbour', he wasn't talking to the whole world. It was for Jews alone.
When he said 'Hear O Israel. Love god etc', it's the God of Israel he is
taking about, the nation of Israel he is standing up for. He is simply not
talking to the world. Gentiles and Samaritans, even Pharisees and Saducees,
were not the target of his message. Only desert dwelling, apocalyptic
visionaries and rebels.
Christopher Forbes
I doubt there is a single credible historical fact in this entire posting!
Except possibly for "themes from the Old Testament": that could have some
credibility! Where is there ANY concrete evidence for Buddhist influence on
the Gospels? Most of the Buddhist accounts of the early life of Buddha are
written centuries after the Gospels. Which particular "resurrection deities"
"associated with crosses and judging the dead" did the poster have in mind?
I'm a professional in this field, and I don't know of A SINGLE ONE! Where's
the evidence? As for the "rebel trying to unite the Jews against the
Romans", that's an old theory popularised by SGF Brandon in the 1960s, which
historians have thoroughly debunked. Come back to me if you want detailed
evidence. Certainly Jesus addressed his teachings first and foremost to the
nation of Israel: but where is the evidence that he was excluding the rest?
He clearly envisioned a later stage when "the nations" would come to Israel
and be included within "the Kingdom": see Matthew 8:12-13, = Luke 13:28-30.
And Pharisees and Sadducess are very much the target of his message,
including the angry part of it! As for "only desert-dwelling, apocalyptic
visionaries and rebels", what nonsense. Jesus' primary audience was Galilean
farmers, not desert-dwelling anythings.
OK, here's a challenge: can anyone actually do WORSE than this?
As for the original question, the most likely reason no-one included much
about Jesus' early years in the Gospels is (a) they didn't know much, and
(b) it was his adult, public life, and his "mission", his teaching, life and
deeds, which were of interest to them! Boring, but it just might be true!
Chris Forbes
fam Johansson
Christopher Forbes <cfo...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> skrev i inlägg
<7r4d8t$m...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>...
> In article <7r2pu9$jhm$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net>,
> ADR <a.dall...@virgin.net> wrote:
> >
> >Albert J. Del-Rosario wrote in message ...
> >>Does anyone know why the authors of the Gospels failed to cover the
life of
> >>Jesus from ages 12 to 30
> >
> >Its very easy to answer. His whole childhood is based on earlier myths
> >alone. Buddhist and Egyptian along with themes from the Old Testament >
>as well. His adult life depicted is partially Buddhist mythology,
partially
> >the myths of the various resurrection deities that existed before who
were
> >associated with crosses and judging the dead.
<snip>
> I doubt there is a single credible historical fact in this entire
posting!
> Except possibly for "themes from the Old Testament": that could have
> some credibility! Where is there ANY concrete evidence for Buddhist
> influence on the Gospels?
<snip>
You haven't studied Religion at a Swedish University that I can tell .....
Inger E
ADR
>I doubt there is a single credible historical fact in this entire posting!
>Except possibly for "themes from the Old Testament": that could have some
>credibility! Where is there ANY concrete evidence for Buddhist influence on
>the Gospels?
Numerous parables and stories which are to be found verbatim in Buddhist
cannon. I will post them as a follow up.
Most of the Buddhist accounts of the early life of Buddha are
>written centuries after the Gospels.
The earliest depictions of some of the stories of the Buddha's life were
craved in stone in the 4th C BCE. The Dhammapada also is from around 300
BCE, although it is supposed to be a discussion between a disciple and the
Buddha himself. Let's also not forget that the Indian classical period
between 350-50 BCE, incorporated a lot of Buddhist belief into the
traditional Brahmanas of an earlier period.
Which particular "resurrection deities"
>"associated with crosses and judging the dead" did the poster have in mind?
>I'm a professional in this field, and I don't know of A SINGLE ONE! Where's
>the evidence?
So you never heard of Osiris? In fact, many of the motifs of the Osiran
aspect of Egyptian belief are now Christian.
As for the "rebel trying to unite the Jews against the
>Romans", that's an old theory popularised by SGF Brandon in the 1960s,
which
>historians have thoroughly debunked.
Watch my next posting.
Come back to me if you want detailed
>evidence. Certainly Jesus addressed his teachings first and foremost to the
>nation of Israel: but where is the evidence that he was excluding the rest?
'Preach not to the Samaritans?', 'Go ye not unto the Gentiles but unto the
Jews.'
Watch my next post! I'm gonna make you cry.
Tony Perry
bases his (or her) entire existence on dogma. And hasn't really studied the
history of religions at all
ADR wrote in message <7r502p$q90$1...@nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>
>
>>I doubt there is a single credible historical fact in this entire posting!
>>Except possibly for "themes from the Old Testament": that could have some
>
>Watch my next post! I'm gonna make you cry.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Perry
jtonyperry@.att.net
http://home.att.net/~jtonyperry
Jimmy Clay
thoughts are that Jesus was probable not considered divine while he lived or
directly after he died. He was almost certainly very intelligent, a great
teacher, and a forceful man otherwise he would have been quickly forgotten.
But perhaps after his death it was his teaching that was most important to
his followers, not his personal life. Then many years later when people's
memories of his imperfections faded away he gradually was promoted to a God.
After that it became necessary to produce evidence that he was a God. So a
Godly birth was need, fulfilling prophecies became necessary, and rising
from death.
So except as a means to prove that he was God by showing that God was
his father, it was not necessary to go into his childhood.
--
Jimmy
It is better to suffer wrong than to do it, and happier to be sometimes
cheated than not to trust. -Samuel Johnson
Albert J. Del-Rosario <ni...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:ibFA3.816$eb1....@typhoon01.swbell.net...
> Does anyone know why the authors of the Gospels failed to cover the life
of
> Jesus from ages 12 to 30? It appears that the omission was deliberate.
> Why? Could it be that the authors of the books knew where and what Jesus
> was doing during those missing years, and that they just didn't want the
> people to know? Maybe if the people knew, Jesus wouldn't be worshipped
as
> some kind of a god today.
>
tiglath
Jimmy Clay <jim...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:ru87qn...@news.supernews.com...
> No one can know why the early bible writers wrote what they did. But my
own
> thoughts are that Jesus was probable not considered divine while he lived
or
> directly after he died. He was almost certainly very intelligent, a great
> teacher, and a forceful man otherwise he would have been quickly
forgotten.
The Jesus we know, is very plausibly a composite character based initially
on some errant preacher in Galilee of the many at that time. Plus many
embellishments added by people who never knew him or talked to any
eyewitnesses of his life, but who labored to build up a personna they could
promote as divine and supported the theological needs of a budding religion.
One which was proving good at raising the spirits of the miserable millions
dredging from the excesses of the Roman Empire. The success of
Christianity is a pure fluke. No intentional human design could have
meandered to prevalence as Christianity did, the way it did. But almost any
belief system that offered hope and promised powers that we don't possess
and long for could have metastasize inside the broad and long Roman arteries
to become an important religion, as Christianity did.
Trotter960
>No one can know why the early bible >writers wrote what they did.....
>But perhaps after his death it was his >teaching that was most important to
>his followers, not his personal life...
No doubt. Even in non-canonical gospels
the details of the life of Jesus have a theo-
logical intent. Moreover such "biography"
was not limited to Jesus. For other exam-
ples of the milieu in which the stories of Jesus grew up, one might have a look
at
David Cartlidge's _Documents for the Study
of the Gospels_.
Trotter