Appellations of Augustus and Jesus
Dom
former Catholic priest, claimed that the following appellations had
been applied to Augustus before they became associated with Jesus:
Prince of Peace, Savior of the World, Redeemer, Son of God.
Augustus was addressed as the son of the deified Julius, but does
anyone know of any references to the previous three appellations?
According to Suetonius, "Lives of the Caesars" (trans by Catharine
Edwards), Oxford (2000) Page 96: "There was even an ex-praetor who
swore that after the cremation he saw Augustus' image ascending into
the sky." This makes ascension another common characteristic between
Augustus and Jesus.
I presume that ascension and resurrection experiences were associated
with many ancient historical figures. For example, Page 49 of Livy's
"The Early History of Rome (trans. by Aubrey de Selincourt) Penguin
CLassics (2002) states that Romulus "had been carried up on high by a
whirlwind." When rumors spread that Romulus "had been torn to pieces
by the senators," in order to reassure the ordinary people "Julius
Proculus [...] declared 'Romulus, the father of our City, descended
from heaven at dawn this morning and spoke to me.,'" After telling
Proculus that Rome was destined to become capital of the world,
Romulus "was taken up again into the sky."
These are truly striking parallels that would provide evidence
supporting those biblical scholars and theologians who contend that
the Gospel writers employed well-established "literary forms."
++
>
> Augustus was addressed as the son of the deified Julius, but does
> anyone know of any references to the previous three appellations?
Martin Edwards
>
> These are truly striking parallels that would provide evidence
> supporting those biblical scholars and theologians who contend that
> the Gospel writers employed well-established "literary forms."
They do indeed. Indeed most priests and ministers find this out at
college, they just do not tell the simple faithful about it.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
RVG
Of course, the Gospel is a piece of litterature. We don't even have ONE
physical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. He's more a
kind of Galilean Buddha with attributes of an Egyptian god vaguely
quoting a few psalms and verses from the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah
in their Greek translation (the real Hebrew text never mentioned a
virgin as the Messiah's mother, and Isaiah says that among a bunch of
colourful and highly fantasist "good news" à la "Look Ma, no hands!").
--
The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself."
William Blake
http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://www.jamendo.com/fr/user/RVG95
http://bluedusk.blogspot.com/
Dom
> On 06/06/2011 02:54, Dom wrote:
>
>
>
> > These are truly striking parallels that would provide evidence
> > supporting those biblical scholars and theologians who contend that
> > the Gospel writers employed well-established "literary forms."
>
> They do indeed. Indeed most priests and ministers find this out at
> college, they just do not tell the simple faithful about it.
In my haste to quote from Page 49 of Livy's "The Early History of Rome
(trans. by Aubrey de Selincourt) Penguin CLassics (2002), I omitted
the following. In reaction to the disappearance of Romulus, the
shocked Romans "felt like children bereft of a father and for a long
time stood in sorrowful silence. Then a few voices began to proclaim
Romulus's divinity; the cry was taken up, and at last every man
present hailed him as a god and son of god, and prayed to him to be
for ever gracious and to protect his children."
Again, this is a striking parallel to the shock, fear and loss
experienced by the Apostles after the crucifixion of Jesus, followed
by the "resurrection experience," after which the Apostles emerged
from their hiding places and resumed the preachings and teachings of
Jesus. In my opinion, it is not sacrilegious to illustrate parallels
between the Gospel writers and previous ancient writers.
Catawumpus
> Of course, the Gospel is a piece of litterature. We don't even have ONE
> physical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. He's more a
> kind of Galilean Buddha with attributes of an Egyptian god vaguely
> quoting a few psalms and verses from the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah
> in their Greek translation (the real Hebrew text never mentioned a
> virgin as the Messiah's mother, and Isaiah says that among a bunch of
> colourful and highly fantasist "good news" à la "Look Ma, no hands!")
O.k., so the Gospels are literature. Would it kill you to
read them a bit more accurately? They don't depict Jesus
quoting Isaiah's prophesy about the messiah's virgin, or if you
prefer his non-virgin mother: that bit belongs to the
narration of the Gospel of Matthew and precedes Jesus' birth in
the story.
The Gospels very often show Jesus quoting from the law and
the prophets, not just vaguely mentioning "a few psalms and
verses from the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah." Some of many
examples: he approvingly quotes "Love thy neighbour as
thyself" (Lev. 19:18), "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one
Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4), "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind"
(Deuteronomy 6:5), about half the Ten Commandments, Hosea's
claim that God desires "mercy, and not sacrifice," and Isaiah's
prophesy of deliverance to the captive, healing to the
brokenhearted, sight to the blind, good news to the poor and so
on. He _disapprovingly_ quotes "An eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth" (Exodus 21:24-25, Lev. 24:20 and Deuteronomy
19:21). Etc.
-- Catawumpus
Martin Edwards
>
> Of course, the Gospel is a piece of litterature. We don't even have ONE
> physical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. He's more a
> kind of Galilean Buddha with attributes of an Egyptian god vaguely
> quoting a few psalms and verses from the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah
> in their Greek translation (the real Hebrew text never mentioned a
> virgin as the Messiah's mother, and Isaiah says that among a bunch of
> colourful and highly fantasist "good news" à la "Look Ma, no hands!").
>
together", and it is widely held to be from a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original.
RVG
Indeed a lot of things had come to fruition when Jesus appeared. Since
ALexander the Great all the cultures of the Empire had been accessible
to all thanks to Greek translations of essential doctrines, like the
Bible of course, but also Indian sources. Greco-Buddhism was a reality,
as were the Jewish traders in India (silk and spices). So all that and
the Greek philosophy had produced a long and slow cooking cultural stew
(Saul of Tarsis was a Jewish doctor of the law and a stoicist
philosopher for example) in which only such a baroque figure like Jesus
of Nazareth could come and somehow, in the most unlikely way, make sense
in the completely absurd political situation of Israel.
Matt Giwer
Beyond the obvious the usual presentation of the Roman view of the afterlife
is in the underworld. This is clearly not of an underworld.
As to the comparisons with Jesus, am I the only one who has noticed the
majority of his "miracles" are standard fare of preachers? They are so common
you can see them on the god channel.
The lame walk? The blind see? The old water into wine trick? Nothing to it.
In fact emperors did them often with the same methods. Spittle and mud for the
blind. Yuch! Why was anything at all needed save for showmanship?
How about the one armed man becomes a juggler? The man no legs becomes a
marathon runner? Never.
The titles and deeds sort of feel like the things we say about politicians
the people like. The liked ones have remarkably similar personalities and only
have defects which they have overcome. Consider FDR's polio and Churchill's
clinical depression.
--
Reality is an existential threat to Israel.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4313
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Mon Jun 20 22:42:43 EDT 2011
Matt Giwer
...
> In my haste to quote from Page 49 of Livy's "The Early History of Rome
> (trans. by Aubrey de Selincourt) Penguin CLassics (2002), I omitted
> the following. In reaction to the disappearance of Romulus, the
> shocked Romans "felt like children bereft of a father
Speaking of which god the father? Now unless I missed a definition of father
some place the title does not apply. But father of his country, lots of
countries have fathers, and kings and emperors and Romuli also rise to that
status.
In the reverse, as I used to point out when people were declared gods, people
didn't expect much of their gods in those days.
But on the third claw, the gods of the temples were fickle and not the type
to inspire respect much less the emotions which lead to declaring dead people
to be gods.
The Christian inspired presentation of the Romans does not appear to be borne
out by what the Romans did.
--
Occupation troops can do no right.
The resistance can do no wrong.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4303
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Mon Jun 20 23:09:15 EDT 2011
Matt Giwer
...
> Of course, the Gospel is a piece of litterature.
I do appreciate the TT. Once one ignores what one is told about it and
actually reads them, they are a rather sorry collection.
> We don't even have ONE
> physical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. He's more a kind of
> Galilean Buddha with attributes of an Egyptian god vaguely quoting a few
> psalms and verses from the prophecies of Daniel and Isaiah in their Greek
> translation (the real Hebrew text never mentioned a virgin as the Messiah's
> mother, and Isaiah says that among a bunch of colourful and highly fantasist
> "good news" à la "Look Ma, no hands!").
There is a lot to be said about it but Josephus cites a forgery to support
his assertion that the Septuagint is miraculously accurate.
In any event, even if the Greek were in fact a translation, then it was
thousands of years closer to the "original" than us. It was more than a
thousand years closer than the Jewish discovery that the word really did not
mean virgin. On top of a hatred of Galileans to fall in line behind the newly
discovered incorrect translation around the 11th c. AD there is really nothing
credible to suggest they were able to refer to a 4th c. BC Hebrew dictionary
for confirmation of their discovery.
--
Occupation troops can do no right.
The resistance can do no wrong.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4303
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Mon Jun 20 23:19:46 EDT 2011
Matt Giwer
...
> Indeed a lot of things had come to fruition when Jesus appeared. Since
> ALexander the Great all the cultures of the Empire had been accessible to all
> thanks to Greek translations of essential doctrines, like the Bible of course,
> but also Indian sources. Greco-Buddhism was a reality, as were the Jewish
> traders in India (silk and spices). So all that and the Greek philosophy had
> produced a long and slow cooking cultural stew (Saul of Tarsis was a Jewish
> doctor of the law and a stoicist philosopher for example) in which only such a
> baroque figure like Jesus of Nazareth could come and somehow, in the most
> unlikely way, make sense in the completely absurd political situation of Israel.
As we all know you are blowing it out your ass.
The Septuagint it the original by every criteria used for every other
document from ancient times.
There are no "doctrines" in the OT rather it is no more than a ritual/taboo
religion.
There were no "jewish" traders in India and there were no Jews until there
was a Judea which Josephus traces back no further than the mid 2nd c. BC.
There was no Israel before the modern Israel. The Judeans, aka Jews,
conquered the Galileans and forced them to join their Yahweh cult according to
Josephus.
Learn what there is from the physical evidence and stop repeating religious
traditions created by unknown people at an unknown time for unknown reason.
They were unknown to Josephus so we know the time of their invention was after
him.
--
What is the essential difference between the Apis bull
and the red Heifer?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4305
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Mon Jun 20 23:31:17 EDT 2011
Martin Edwards
transliterated. Now, in some parts of the Hebrew Bible there is
extensive punning. How, exactly, do you compose something in Greek that
produces puns when translated into Hebrew?
RVG
> There were no "jewish" traders in India and there were no Jews until there
> was a Judea which Josephus traces back no further than the mid 2nd c. BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochin_Jews
Matt Giwer
When dealing with an imprecise language in which meanings are constructed I
would guess it is as difficult as creating rhymes in languages where half the
words end in vowels. Of course transliterated is not translated. That
translators of the Greek chose to construct meanings which we should call
ambiguous is a separate matter.
How does one decide between "Greeks took out" and "Judeans put in"?
And as the examples of "hebrew" consists of a couple of letters plus the
Septuagint translation it is not clear just what one means by hebrew. It is a
essentially a one-off item. What do we know of hebrew without puns? Two
letters found at Qumran.
A few weeks ago I read an editorial by an Israeli bemoaning the difference
between Israeli and English leading to just how easy and common it was for
politicians to make statements for translation whereas an exact opposite
meaning could often be found in the words for local consumption.
Now we do know of Yiddish and Ladino so there is a likelihood of hebrew being
the equivalent in Greek but based upon Aramaic/Phoenician. The book "Hebrew Is
Greek" describes the same sorts of things found in Yiddish at least -- I am
unfamiliar with Ladino so I can't speak to it.
--
There is no good in what is false.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4321
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Tue Jun 21 15:14:13 EDT 2011
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer a écrit :
>> There were no "jewish" traders in India and there were no Jews until there
>> was a Judea which Josephus traces back no further than the mid 2nd c. BC.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochin_Jews
Are you not unaware wikipedia is not an acceptable reference? If you can
produce evidence of the claims in that article you be sure to post it.
Despite what wikipedia might tell you, Solomon is also a myth as is biblical
Israel, his temple and all the rest.
What you can find is that Egypt traded with India by sea going back to some
1500 to 2000 BC even digging a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea to
facilitate commerce. You should be able to google up a lot on the arkie digs
into this as it has been hot for several years now.
--
Claiming Israel is a jewish nation is no different
from claiming the US is a christian nation.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4311
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Tue Jun 21 15:51:14 EDT 2011