Jesus: The Missing Years in the East

[Semjase]

That isn't research.

This though is research, which brings up the question what was Jesus
real name and did he die at the crucifixion?

Quote

As odd as it may seem, the name Jesus is a relatively new invention, only a few hundred years old, that was created by multiple translations and stylistic changes to the original name.

The name of the one born in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph about 2000 years ago was written as in Aramaic. Most scholars agree that the common language of the entire region was Aramaic and that Jesus probably spoke Aramaic and was most likely named in Aramaic.

The modern transliteration of the Aramaic into English has been written in many forms, including Yeshu', Eesho' or Eshoo. There were, and still are, many different, and often contradictory, dialects of Aramaic, making it impossible to know for certain how his name was actually pronounced 2000 years ago. That same name would be written as in Hebrew and is commonly transliterated into English as Yeshua, which is a Hebrew contraction for the name Yehoshua meaning Yah is salvation or Yah saves. Many Biblical references, such as Young's Analytical Concordance, have concluded that his name was Yeshua.

The really odd changes to his name all began with translation into non-Semitic languages.

When the name was translated into Greek, the translators were first faced with the task of deciding whether they should translate the name phonetically to try to keep the sound the same, or whether they should translate the name according to its meaning. Apparently, they chose to use the phonetic approach so that the sound of the name would be preserved, even though the meaning of the name would be lost in the phonetic translation.

Unfortunately, the Greek language lacks some of the sounds used in Aramaic. And to further complicate the issue, all Greek masculine names must end with the letter "s". So, without the proper sounds and forced to add the "s" to the end of the name, the best that the Greek translators could do was translate the name as which may be pronounced something like "ee-ay-soos". Still, that's pretty close to the original name, except for the letter "s" that was added at the end.

Then, as the books of the bible began to gain wider circulation, the name was again translated, this time from Greek into Latin. In the official Catholic bible version called the Vulgate, the name was established in Latin as "Iesus". In Latin the letter "I" when used as a consonant has somewhat of a "Y" sound, so the name may have been pronounced something like "ye-soos", which is a still pretty good approximation to the original name, except for the "s" at the end.

Over the years, as the pronunciation of the European languages gradually changed, and as the manner of writing the various letters also changed, an embellished version of the letter "I" gradually acquired a sound of it's own and over time became an entirely new letter, the letter "J" with it's current "J" sound. And, along the way, the long "u" sound of "oo" was lost and it became a short "u". So, as the newly invented printing press churned out bibles, the Latin version of the name gradually became written as "Jesus" and the English pronunciation as we know it today was gradually adopted.

 

[Shermana]

You're first idea was brilliant, and then you follow it up with "pay them off"? Seriously? If I didn't need you as an "idea guy" I'd totally fire you right now. And don't even think about replacing me with one of the millions of people who could provide what you need to make millions

I guess that could be a bit expensive...as well as unreliable. Threatening them to stay silent would be a much better, and cheaper solution. And you're gonna need a guy like me who can follow through on the threats!

Wait, I got a better idea. How about a screenplay about a guy who fabricates such a document, and how he achieves huge fame and wealth among the "unhistorical Jesus" crowd, as a social commentary on how easily duped they are. We can make the Notovich movie as a followup!

 

[godnotgod]

There is no known "Galilean Aramaic" (just some extremely hypothetical and questionably academic reconstructions).

Again, that is just your academically sterile opinion.

From the Talmud and Hebraica
John Lightfoot
A Chorographical Century. Chapters 81-90
Chapter 87 The dialect of the Galileans, differing from the Jewish.​

"Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee," Matthew 26:73. Let these passages, which are delivered by the masters, be instead of a comment:—
"To the men of Judea who were exact in their language, their law is established in their hands. To the men of Galilee, who were not exact in their language, their law is not established in their hands."—The Gloss is, "They [the men of Judea] were exact in their language: so that their speech was pure, not corrupt."

"To the men of Judea, who are exact about their language, and appoint to themselves certain signs, their law is established in their hands: to the men of Galilee, who are not exact about their language, nor appoint to themselves signs, their law is not established in their hands." The Gloss is; "They were exact about their language, namely, in rendering the same words which they had heard from their masters. And because they were taught orally, by hearing after hearing, they appointed to themselves from them sign after sign. And because they were exact about their language, they knew how to appoint to themselves fit signs that they might not forget."

"The men of Judea learn from one master, and their law is established in their hands: the Galileans learn not from one master, and their law is not established in their hands." The Gloss writes, "The Galileans heard one master in one language, and another in another; and the diversity of the language, or pronunciation, confounded them so that they forgat." And a little after,

"R. Abba said, If any ask the men of Judea, who are exact about their language, Whether they say Maabrin with Ain, or Maabrin with Aleph? Whether they say Acuzo (with Ain), or Acuzo (with Aleph)? They all answer, There are some who pronounce it with Aleph, and there are others who pronounce it with Ain..." And a little after:

"A certain Galilean said...They answered him, O foolish Galilean..." The sense is, When the Galilean asked, "Whose is Immar, 'this lamb?'" he pronounced the first letter in the word Immar, so confusedly and uncertainly, that the hearers knew not whether he meant Chamar,—that is, an '***'; or Chamar, 'wine'; or Amar, 'wool'; or Immar, 'a lamb.'

"A Galilean woman when she should have said to their neighbour Come, and I will feed you with milk" [or some fat thing]: "said, My neighbour, a lion shall eat you." The Gloss is, "She distinguished not, but confounded the letters: for when she should say, Shelubti with Beth, which signifies a neighbour, she said Shelucti, with Caph (a barbarous word). For, 'come, and I will feed you with milk.'—she said words that imply a curse; as much as to say, Let a lion devour thee."

"A certain woman said before the judge"...That which she intended to say was this, "My Lord, I had a picture, which they stole; and it was so great, that if you had been placed in it, your feet would not have touched the ground." But she so spoiled the business with her pronouncing, that, as the Glosser interprets it, her words had this sense, "Sir, slave, I had a beam; and they stole thee away; and it was so great, that if they had hung thee on it, thy feet would not have touched the ground."

Among other things, you see, that in this Galilean dialect the pronunciation of the gutturals is very much confounded; which however the Jews correct in the words alleged, yet it was not unusual among them, so that "the mystical doctors distinguished not between Cheth and He." They are the words of the Jerusalem Talmudists:—and these also are the words of those of Babylon; "The schools of R. Eleazar Ben Jacob pronounced Aleph Ain, and Ain Aleph."

We observed before one example of such confusion of letters, when one teaching thus, "The waters of the marshes are not to be reckoned among those waters" (that make unclean), he meant to have it understood of the water of eggs: but he deceived his hearers by an uncertain pronunciation...

If you read the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, you will find so frequent a changing of the gutturals, that you could not easily get a more ready key of that language than by observing that variation.

The Dialect of the Galileans, Differing from the Jewish.
*****

Also, the following differences in customs, which directly affect language:

From the Talmud and Hebraica
John Lightfoot
A Chorographical Century. Chapters 81-90
Chapter 86 The difference of some customs of the Galileans from those of Judea.​

It is not impertinently questioned, with what inhabitants Galilee and Perea were first planted after the return out of Babylon, when you scarce find any mention of them in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, but of those only who inhabited Judea and the land of Benjamin. But whosoever they were, whether pure Israelites, or those that were more mixed, or some of the ten tribes, it is certain those that inhabited Galilee differed much from those that dwelt in Judea, in certain rites, and not a little in the dialect of their speech.
The Jewish pandect observe a various difference between them: out of which we produce these few instances instead of more:—

In the place noted in the margin, it is discoursed concerning the form and manner of writing the donation of the marriage dowry. "So and so (say they) the people of Jerusalem writ, and the Galileans writ as those of Jerusalem: but the inhabitants of Judea something varied," &c. Where the Gemarists thus; "The Galileans' care was of reputation, not of money; the inhabitants of Judea, their care was of money, not of reputation," &c.

"The wise men say, In Judea they did service works on the Passover-eves, until noon; in Galilee, not at all."

"The wise men say, That the Trumah taken generally is bound in Judea, in Galilee is loosed. For the Galileans know not the Trumah of the Temple-chamber." The sense of the tradition is this, When any one pronounced a vow in general terms,—for example, saying thus, 'Let this be to me as the Trumah,' not naming what kind of Trumah,—a Galilean, so speaking, was loosed from his vow, because he, by reason of the distance of the place (as the Gloss tells us), knew not the Trumah of the holy treasury: but he that inhabited Judea, and spoke thus, was bound by his vow.

And in the same text is added, "If any vows generally by curses, he is loosed in Judea; he is bound in Galilee, because the Galileans do not know the curses of the priests." Where the Gloss is this; "There were no priests among the Galileans: therefore, when they cursed, they cursed to none but to God." And the Gemara of Jerusalem thus; "Because they were fastened to the curse of Achan, it is said, that they are bound: but in Judea, because they are not fastened to the curse of Achan, it is said that they are loosed."

"Rabbi Judah saith, In Judea they made inquiry concerning the bridegroom and bride three days before the wedding: but in Galilee they did not so. In Judea they allowed the bridegroom and bride private company one hour before the wedding; but they did not so in Galilee. It was a custom in Judea that the married persons should have two friends, one of the family of the bridegroom, and the other of the family of the bride: but it was not so in Galilee. In Judea those friends slept in the same place where the bridegroom and bride slept: but in Galilee it was not so," &c.

The Difference of Some Customs of the Galileans from those of Judea.

Seems these Galileans might have been the scapegoats of the region. Most were probably poor illiterate fisherman who spoke a colorful vernacular, such as Yeshu saying things like: 'ye pit of vipers', and the like. I can imagine him spitting on the ground as he says these words as well. Wonder what his words were when he tossed the money changers from the Temple.

 

[godnotgod]

This though is research, which brings up the question what was Jesus
real name....

Actually, when we trace the name of Yeshu to the Muslims (Yuz Assaf) and the Hindus & Buddhists (Issa), the associations make far more sense as the seemingly differing names mean essentially the same thing. The Western progressions, as you quoted, are essentially corruptions.


"Yeshua (or Yahushua) bar Yosef (Yeshua, son of Joseph) is the original Aramaic name for Jesus the Nazarene. His parents, siblings, disciples, and followers called him by that name. The name "Jesus" is a misspelling and mispronunciation that resulted from the translation of Yeshua's name after his death, first into the Greek Iesous (pronounced "ee-ay-SUS"), and then from the Greek Iesous into the Latin Iesus. The Latin Iesus ("ee-ay-SUS") wasn't pronounced as "Jesus" with a "J" because the letter "j" didn't come into the English language until the middle of the seventeenth century. The King James Bible, written at the beginning of the seventeenth century, has the name Iesous ("ee-ay-sus"), with no "j." So even in English, no one spoke the name "Jesus" until sometime after the middle of the seventeenth century."

Yeshua before 30 CE

 

[godnotgod]

A solar deity represents or is the sun, not a metaphorical light.

The theme that ties MItra, Mithras, and Jesus together is Renewal. The ancients believed the Sun God would die if not nourished. This was due to the Earth being at its furthest point away from the Sun, the Winter Solstice. The beginning of shorter days represented the rebirth of the Sun. In Christianity, this theme of renewal is reflected in Easter (Resurrection; rebirth), and the symbol of the Paschal (Spring) Lamb.

Moloch is also a solar deity, which required infanticide, the blood sacrifice that provided nourishment for the Sun God.


Persian Winter Festivals

In addition, it is clear that the ancient peoples from whom Mithraism sprang, long before it was Romanized, were very much involved in winter festivals so common among many other cultures globally. In this regard, discussing the Iranian month of Asiyadaya, which corresponds to November/December, Mithraic scholar Dr. Mary Boyce remarks:

...it is at this time of year that the Zoroastrian festival of Sada takes place, which is not only probably pre-Zoroastrian in origin, but may even go back to proto-Indo-European times. For Sada is a great open-air festival, of a kind celebrated widely among the Indo-European peoples, with the intention of strengthening the heavenly fire, the sun, in its winter decline and feebleness. Sun and fire being of profound significance in the Old Iranian religion, this is a festival which one would expect the Medes and Persians to have brought with them into their new lands... Sada is not, however, a feast in honour of the god of Fire, Atar, but is rather for the general strengthening of the creation of fire against the onslaught of winter. (Boyce (1982), 24-25)

This ancient Persian winter festival therefore celebrates the strengthening of the "fire" or sun in the face its winter decline, just as virtually every winter-solstice festivity is intended to do. Yet, as Dr. Boyce says, this "Zoroastrian" winter celebration is likely pre-Zoroastrian and even proto-Indo-European, which means it dates back far into the hoary mists of time, possibly tens of thousands of years ago. And one would indeed expect the Medes and Persians to bring this festival with them into their new lands, including the Near East, where they would eventually encounter Romans, who could hardly have missed this common solar motif celebrated worldwide in numerous ways.

"The Mithraists believed that this night is the night of the birth of Mithra, Persian god of light and truth."

The same may be said as concerns another Persian or Zoroastrian winter celebration called "Yalda," which is the festival of the Longest Night of the Year, taking place on December 20th or the day before the solstice:

Yalda has a history as long as the Mithraism religion. The Mithraists believed that this night is the night of the birth of Mithra, Persian god of light and truth. At the morning of the longest night of the year the Mithra is born from a virgin mother....

In Zoroastrian tradition, the winter solstice with the longest night of the year was an auspicious day, and included customs intended to protect people from misfortune.... The Eve of the Yalda has great significance in the Iranian calendar. It is the eve of the birth of Mithra, the Sun God, who symbolized light, goodness and strength on earth. Shab-e Yalda is a time of joy.

Yalda is a Syriac word meaning birth. Mithra-worshippers used the term "yalda" specifically with reference to the birth of Mithra. As the longest night of the year, the Eve of Yalda (Shab-e Yalda) is also a turning point, after which the days grow longer. In ancient times it symbolized the triumph of the Sun God over the powers of darkness. ("Yalda," Wikipedia)

It is likely that this festival does indeed derive from remote antiquity, and it is evident that the ancient Persians were well aware of the winter solstice and its meaning as found in numerous other cultures: To wit, the annual "rebirth," "renewal" or "resurrection" of the sun.

"'Christmas' is the birth not of the 'son of God' but of the sun."

In the end the effect is the same: "Christmas" is the birth not of the "son of God" but of the sun. Indeed, there is much evidence—including many ancient monumental alignments—to demonstrate that this highly noticeable and cherished event of the winter solstice was celebrated beginning hundreds to thousands of years before the common era in numerous parts of the world. The observation was thus provably taken over by Christianity, not as biblical doctrine but as a later tradition in order to compete with the Pagan cults, a move we contend occurred with numerous other "Christian" motifs, including many that are in the New Testament.


Mithra the Pagan Christ | Mithraism and Christianity | Mithras the Sun God

 

[Semjase]

Actually, when we trace the name of Yeshu to the Muslims (Yuz Assaf) and the Hindus & Buddhists (Issa), the associations make far more sense as the seemingly differing names mean essentially the same thing. The Western progressions, as you quoted, are essentially corruptions.


"Yeshua (or Yahushua) bar Yosef (Yeshua, son of Joseph) is the original Aramaic name for Jesus the Nazarene. His parents, siblings, disciples, and followers called him by that name. The name "Jesus" is a misspelling and mispronunciation that resulted from the translation of Yeshua's name after his death, first into the Greek Iesous (pronounced "ee-ay-SUS"), and then from the Greek Iesous into the Latin Iesus. The Latin Iesus ("ee-ay-SUS") wasn't pronounced as "Jesus" with a "J" because the letter "j" didn't come into the English language until the middle of the seventeenth century. The King James Bible, written at the beginning of the seventeenth century, has the name Iesous ("ee-ay-sus"), with no "j." So even in English, no one spoke the name "Jesus" until sometime after the middle of the seventeenth century."

Yeshua before 30 CE

Maybe the more important question did he die at the crucifixion?
There seems to be smoking gun evidence of his presence in India
after the crucifixion, this could be one of the most important
questions Christian people could ever ask and should be asking
and want an answer.

 

[godnotgod]

Maybe the more important question did he die at the crucifixion?
There seems to be smoking gun evidence of his presence in India
after the crucifixion, this could be one of the most important
questions Christian people could ever ask and should be asking
and want an answer.

Well, while I agree that Yeshu traveled East to several locations, there is no single 'smoking gun' that I know of. Do you?

However, taken altogether as a whole, the various stories from the East all add up to strongly suggest his travels there.

For Christians to accept a scenario different than the current Pauline version, they would need to strip it of all of the ornamentation, sensationalism, and fabrications in order to arrive at a very human Jesus who lies in a grave in the Himalayas, but who would serve their spiritual needs in a much more meaningful way.

One of the problems is that, for the Christian, the Resurrection and Ascension are absolutely essential, ala St. Paul, because it is the centerpiece that 'proves' that Jesus is who he said he was. They constantly point to the empty grave as proof of this. Without the Resurrection, there is no Christianity. There is only a dead man on the cross who died and was buried, like any other spiritual teacher or god-man. What they fail to realize is that it really means they have no faith in the blood sacrifice on the cross, by itself, as a means of sin redemption. So in order for a transformation to take place, mere belief would need to be replaced with a powerful inner mystical experience.

 

[godnotgod]

Mithra the 'Rock-Born'

Mithra's genesis out of a rock, analogous to the birth in caves of a number of gods—including Jesus in the apocryphal, non-canonical texts— was followed by his adoration by shepherds, another motif that found its way into the later Christianity. Regarding the birth in caves likewise common to pre-Christian gods, and present in the early legends of Jesus, Weigall relates (50):

...the cave shown at Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus was actually a rock shrine in which the god Tammuz or Adonis was worshipped, as the early Christian father Jerome tells us; and its adoption as the scene of the birth of our Lord was one of those frequent instances of the taking over by Christians of a pagan sacred site. The propriety of this appropriation was increased by the fact that the worship of a god in a cave was commonplace in paganism: Apollo, Cybele, Demeter, Herakles, Hermes, Mithra and Poseidon were all adored in caves; Hermes, the Greek Logos, being actually born of Maia in a cave, and Mithra being "rock-born."

As the "rock-born," Mithras was called "Theos ek Petras," or the "God from the Rock." As Weigall also relates:

Indeed, it may be that the reason of the Vatican hill at Rome being regarded as sacred to Peter, the Christian "Rock," was that it was already sacred to Mithra, for Mithraic remains have been found there.

Mithras was "the rock," or Peter, and was also "double-faced," like Janus the keyholder, likewise a prototype for the "apostle" Peter. Hence, when Jesus is made to say (in the apparent interpolation at Matthew 16:12) that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given to "Peter" and that the Church is to be built upon "Peter," as a representative of Rome, he is usurping the authority of Mithraism, which was precisely headquartered on what became Vatican Hill.

"Mithraic remains on Vatican Hill are found underneath the later Christian edifices, which proves the Mithra cult was there first."

By the time the Christian hierarchy prevailed in Rome, Mithra had already been a popular cult, with pope, bishops, etc., and its doctrines were well established and widespread, reflecting a certain antiquity. Mithraic remains on Vatican Hill are found underneath the later Christian edifices, a fact that proves the Mithra cult was there first.* In fact, while Mithraic ruins are abundant throughout the Roman Empire, beginning in the late first century AD/CE, "The earliest church remains, found in Dura-Europos, date only from around 230 CE."

http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm


*The Vatican

St. Peter's Basilica, the church of the Vatican, is traditionally located at the burial place of Simon Peter, and most parties, including the Roman Catholic Church, agree that the basilica was built on top of a large necropolis on the Vatican Hill. In 1939, an excavation underneath the grottoes which lie directly under the current Basilica, uncovered several surviving Roman mausoleums from the necropolis, and in the area directly under the high altar, below the grottoes, the excavators found a structure resembling a temple that they named the aedicula (meaning little temple). According to the official Vatican sanctioned report, underneath the aedicula the 1939 excavation uncovered an empty grave, and, where the grave went under a red wall, they found a set of bones that the vatican claims were Simon Peter's, since they had been able to find a nearby graffito which the vatican states said that peter is inside. These archaeological remains are now pointed out on private tours of the necropolis excavation site as being the original.
Catholic sources frequently cite the official Vatican report verbatim. The Vatican sanctioned expedition has, however, been heavily criticised by non-Catholic sources for its lack of scholarly behaviour:

the entire excavation was kept secret for 10 years, 4 years beyond the end of the Second World War.
the excavators were Jesuits
the critical scholar involved in checking the bones was only allowed to do so on condition that they did not publish the results
the bones were found only when the pope himself was at the site
the excavation was destructive to the aedicula floor, and insufficient notes were kept, such that it is now impossible for independent archaeologists to verify how much of the findings are genuine
the graffito was found when it suddenly appeared a few days after the find of the bones when they started looking for a connection to Simon Peter.
One of the few critical scholars to have assessed the bones, came to the conclusion that they cannot be Simon Peter's, at least not all of them, as there are 5 leg bones, requiring at least 5 legs, and that the collection of bones also includes animal remains as would be found from food (chicken bones, etc.), making it strange for them to have been found collected together into a small pile and pushed under a wall in an otherwise empty grave. More tellingly, the soil attached to the bones appears not to come from the empty grave, suggesting that they did not actually lie there, and leading sceptical scholars to suggest that the bones had actually been collected by the excavators from around the necropolis, and only grouped together by vatican officials, with heavily sceptical scholars arguing that the vatican officials were deliberately committing fraud, to explain why there seemed to be a temple under the high altar.

An image from the necropolis under the Vatican in which Jesus = Mithras


The graffito itself is more ambiguous than the vatican conclusion would appear; several letters are missing, and though the vatican concludes that it states petr[os] en, meaning peter is inside, the gap between en and what seems to be an i is rather large, and several scholars have suggested that the text actually states petr[os] en[dei], meaning peter is not inside - a warning against mistaking the location for Simon Peter's grave; another alternative possibility for the text, according to scholars, is petr[o] [g]en[es], meaning rock-born, which would be a direct reference to Mithras, and suggesting that the aedicula was quite literally a mini-temple.[11] The graffito itself was found on a piece of plaster, that supposedly, according to the vatican, had broken from a nearby wall in such a way that it is no longer possible to tell which part it came from, making it near impossible to tell whether the missing parts of the text are still in place and readable. Sceptics have argued that this is excessively convenient for the vatican, and some have even argued that it was deliberately broken from the wall so that what it originally said could not be seen.

Most of the rediscovered tombs in the necropolis under the Basilica are demonstrably non-Christian, but among those that appear to be Christian, is one which depicts Sol Invictus, using the same clear iconography as other Sol Invictus images, but identifies it as a Christian image, identifying Sol Invictus to be the same individual as Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianised_sites#The_Vatican

 

[godnotgod]

The Word is just a representation of the animating principle of the universe, how can you safely assume that it actually is light, or for that matter, that others assumed that light was the animating principle of the universe as well?

Why is the Logos the Light? The Logos is actually an animating principle. Like I said earlier, one can assume it is light, which I do, but how can you assume that those who wrote the Gospels, viewed it in the same manor as you?

I would have to be very selective here, and choose only those verses from the Gospels that coincide with what a mystic Yeshu would have known and understood.


Why is the Logos the Light? Can you have a Logos without Light? I see them as being one and the same, just as Enlightenment is to what the Buddha-nature is.

To say that 'I am the light of the world' is to say that one is an embodiment of the Logos itself.

 

[oldbadger]

Maybe the more important question did he die at the crucifixion?
There seems to be smoking gun evidence of his presence in India
after the crucifixion, this could be one of the most important
questions Christian people could ever ask and should be asking
and want an answer.

It's possible that Yeshua did not die on the cross. The reports of his crucifixion could be construed to mean that he did in fact survive.

1. For a quick death, the convict's legs would be broken, which stopped the 'step-up' to allow for breath, circulation, etc. Yeshua legs were not broken.
2. Joseph of Arimathea could have bribed the decurion (or senior) soldier to lie, and assured him in some way that Yeshua would 'disappear'.
3. Joseph of Arimathea might have been related to Yeshua, and might have had a very strong motive for saving Yeshua's life. The Cornish people still pass on a legend that Yeshua used to visit Cornwall with Joseph, who may well have been a merchant trading in Tin, etc. It may well have been Joseph who took Yeshua (and even Mary-M) out of Palestine after the crucifixion, and one to ....... wherever....?
4. The spear thrust could have been a spear 'prick' or even a posed spear thrust, proving to any interested persons that Yeshua was certainly dead.
5. Death on a cross could take up to three days if a convict was initially strong, and although Yeshua was much weakened by whipping/flogging he could easily have lived on through those (circa) six hours on the cross. Pilate himself was surprised when he was informed of Yeshua's very early death.
6. Large crowds might well have gathered to watch a crucifixion, especially when Jerusalem was filled with visitors for the Passover feast, but how many would stand and watch for hours is in question. I don't think there would have been many hanging around after six hours, and at late afternoon. There was much to do on that day, and before the Sabbath would fall at sunset(?).
7. Yeshua was taken away to Joseph's tomb, and the women followed at a distance. They did not go 'with' Joseph. Ergo, there were no witnesses to Yeshua's interment.
8. Mary -M did not visit the tomb until after the Sabbath, probably on a Sunday (1st day) or Monday (2nd day) to find it empty.
9. Yeshua did (reportedly) roll up to a meeting with the disciples, in (?) Capernaum (?) I think, without checking, which would have been on the route to Tyre or Sidon Ports, which Joseph may well have traded out of,. or even on route to the East. The East........ which may be where Joseph had travelled to on previous occasions as a merchant, maybe even with Yeshua.

So......... there are no experts......... any bus driver's guess is as good as any facetious academic's (not meaning you ).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There is no difference between the Word and the flesh or the Word and the light. Jesus had a dual nature: that of flesh and spirit. When it was said that 'the Word became flesh', this is a reference to light manifesting itself as substance.

How can the Word not be light?

First, you shouldn't interpret the NT outside of its historical context. It took Christianity 400+ years to work out the two natures thing, so it cannot possibly be a viable interpretation of what the NT means.

Then there's a logical issue here. Why in the world would the Gospel use "word" and "light" to describe exactly the same thing. It doesn't make sense. The Gospel uses several other descriptors of Jesus that convey different meanings = vine, bread of life, resurrection and the life, light of the world, word, etc. If it were the same thing, the author would have used the same words.

Finally, Jesus didn't say any of this stuff. These were clearly titles that an early Christian community (or just their leader, perhaps) used to describe Jesus.

 

[Semjase]

Well, while I agree that Yeshu traveled East to several locations, there is no single 'smoking gun' that I know of. Do you?

This documentary provides enough evidence for the question to
be asked why hasn't the academic world looked at this possibility
more seriously?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNRLKDLJnX0

Here's some significant evidence that supports the Talmud of Jmmanuel
account of Jesus ,it is backed by the recently translated gospel of Judas

Quote
The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic gospel whose content consists of conversations between the Apostle Judas Iscariot and Jesus Christ.
It is believed to have been written by Gnostic followers of Jesus, rather than by Judas himself, and, since it contains late 2nd century theology, probably dates from no earlier than the 2nd century. In 180 AD, Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, wrote a document in which he railed against this gospel, indicating the book was already in circulation. The only copy of the Gospel of Judas known to exist is a Coptic language text that has been carbon dated to AD 280, plus or minus 60 years. Joseph Barabe presented the behind-the-scenes story of the role an analysis of the ink played in authenticating the book at a American Chemical Society meeting.[1] It has been suggested that the text derives from an earlier Greek version. A translation of the text was first published in early 2006 by the National Geographic Society.
In contrast to the canonical gospels which paint Judas as a betrayer of Christ who delivered him up to the authorities for crucifixion in exchange for money, the Gospel of Judas portrays Judas's actions as done in obedience to instructions given by Christ. The document also suggests that Christ planned the course of events which led to his deathThe Gospel of Judas does not claim that the other disciples knew about Jesus's true teachings. On the contrary, it asserts that they had not learned the true Gospel, which Jesus taught only to Judas Iscariot, the sole follower belonging to the "holy generation" among the disciples.


This quote from the Talmud of Jmmanuel has a direct correlation to
the gospel of Judas what more evidence do you want?

8. However, at the same time it transpired that the writings, in which Judas Iscariot had reported on the teachings of Jmmanuel, were stolen from him. So he told Jmmanuel about it. 9. But he spoke, "Truly, truly, I say to you, Judas Iscariot, you will have to suffer even greater evils than the mere loss of your writings about my teachings and my life. 10. "For over two thousand years you will be wrongly accused of betraying me, because Simeon the Pharisee wants it so. 11. "But his son, Juda Ihariot, is the real culprit; like his father, Simeon Ihariot, he is a Pharisee who seeks my life.
12. "It is he who stole the writings from you and brought them to the scribes and Pharisees, so they could thereby judge me and put me to death. 13. "He received seventy pieces of silver for your writings and will receive another thirty when he makes it possible to hand me over to the executors. 14. "Truly, I say to you, he will certainly succeed in this, and for two times a thousand years you will innocently have to pay the penalty for it; consequently you will become a martyr. 15. "But write down my teachings and my life stoiy another time, for the time will come, in two times a thousand years, when your writings will be revealed. 16. "Until then my teachings will be falsified and will turn into an evil cult, which will cause much human blood to flow, 40. "One of those who was with you was not of your mind and has betrayed you for thirty pieces of silver- -namely, Judas Iscariot." 41. Jmmanuel answered, saying, "Truly, I say to you, for a long time you may succeed in accusing Judas Iscariot as my betrayer before the people, but the truth will come out and be known by all people throughout the entire worid; 118 42. "namely, that my betrayer is not Judas Iscariot but is your son, Juda Ihariot, who bears the name of his father, the Pharisee."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Again, that is just your academically sterile opinion.

As opposed to the scores upon scores of non-academics who study long dead languages. Tell me something- what are our sources for Galilean Aramaic? When do they date from? Why do we call it Galilean Aramaic? You keep insisting that we can trust an ex-film student about this dialect without saying why. What is our basis for understanding this dialect at all, let alone as the dialect Jesus spoke? So far you've employed a 17th century academic, a pastor, and a film student but have yet to say why we should trust these sources (other than that they say what you want to believe) or what sources these sources are using. How would somebody know whether or not the language they learned as a child was the one Jesus spoke? Not by being a native speaker of any language but by knowing what dialects and languages were spoken in 1st century Galilee. Guess how you learn that? Academic study.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The theme that ties MItra, Mithras, and Jesus together is Renewal.

There is no "renewal" for Mithra/Mitra. In Persian and similar near-Eastern versions of Mithra he is undefeatable, unconquerable, the god "who has 10,000 spies" and rides upon his golden chariot, seeing all. He is the god of oaths.

However, "no direct continuity, either of a general kind or in specific details can be demonstrated between the Perso-Hellenistic worship of Mitra and the Roman mysteries of Mithras...We cannot account for Roman Mithras in terms of borrowed from Persian Mitra."
Clauss, M. (2001). The Roman cult of Mithras: the god and his mysteries. Taylor & Francis.

Nor can we easily talk about who Mithras was or what Mithraic mythology was: "In trying to study the specific beliefs of the cult of Mithras we encounter not merely the interpretative problems we have already seen, but others too, arising from the fact that there is no discursive literary account of the kind we were able to use for the Egyptian and Phrygian cults. Indeed, there is no firm evidence that there even was a proper myth of Mithras. We are thus obliged to reconstruct the narrative mainly from the iconographic sources, supplemented by one or two isolated references in Classical sources. As a result, we can hardly hope to do more than gain a rough outline of the story, accepting that we have lost the subtleties, conscious and unconscious, that fi gure in the literary documentation, such as it is. This is one of the reasons why the cult is often considered somewhat different from the other oriental cults.
The central theme of Mithraism is the tauroctony, the killing of the bull. The young god, in heroic pose (for that reason he is very occasionally represented heroically nude), holds the animal down and drives his dagger into its neck, at the same time wrenching the head up by inserting his fingers into the nostrils (Pl. 6). At the same time, he prevents the bull from getting up by pressing his left leg hard into its back. It is clear from several standard details that the bull’s death is connected with the coming of life. The animal’s tail often ends in one or more heads of wheat, which clearly connotes the idea that the sacrifice is itself fecundative. Then again, a scorpion attacks the bull’s testicles, perhaps so as to obtain some of its life-force. The snake, which is often shown licking at the wound, seems to be a chthonic symbol, a sort of receptionist at the desk of death."
p. 76-77 of
Ezquerra, J. A. (2008). Romanising oriental Gods: myth, salvation, and ethics in the cults of Cybele, Isis, and Mithras (Vol. 165). Brill.

The ancients believed the Sun God would die if not nourished.

They absolutely didn't. They referred to the Sun god as sol invictus (the unconquered Sun) and worshiped both sun and sun gods as invincible, undefeatable, and eternal.

This was due to the Earth being at its furthest point away from the Sun, the Winter Solstice.

1) They didn't believe this happened.
2) It doesn't happen. The earth has an axis. While one point is nearer to the Sun another is farther away.
3) The reason we have myths like that of Heres and Persephone is to explain the death of crops and the barrenness of winter. The sun shines in winter. For "the ancients" (however demeaning, elitist, inaccurate, and alienating that nomenclature is), winter wasn't about the sun being defeated or needing to be "nourished" (where did you get that one?) because it was still there the entire time. They had other explanations for winter that had nothing to do with the unconquerable sun.

In Christianity

In Christianity Jesus is a messianic Jewish savior who brought about god's kingdom once. Renewal mythologies are cyclical like crops. That's why ahistoricity is so central to them- unlike Achilles or Herakles, a Mithras or Persephone who was considered historical couldn't function. The drama of the story needed to play out every single year. Jesus died once and was resurrected once and saved humanity once. Not over and over again as in the pagan stories of renewal. Furthermore, neither Mithra nor Mithras were said to die. Ever.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Moloch is also a solar deity

Now you're just making stuff up.

In this regard, discussing the Iranian month of Asiyadaya, which corresponds to November/December, Mithraic scholar Dr. Mary Boyce remarks:

This is why you need to check your sources. This is the book by Boyce whence your source's quote comes from: A History of Zoroastrianism: Under the Achaemenians. Notice that the section the link should take you to is the section whence comes the quote. Only now we can see what your sources cut off. The section begins "There is nothing in Indo-Iranian tradition to suggest that an ancient custom existed of holding communal celebrations in honour individual gods."

The whole section, including the part about Sada, has not only absolutely nothing to do with Mithras but actually says quite specifically that a previous identification with Mithras is in error:

"It was suggested, therefore, that the name meant '(the month) of worship of Baga', the Baga being formerly understood to be Mithra. It is now known, however, that the Baga was not Mithra".

Why do you insist on quoting sources that are simply wrong? The claim made here is easily checked and easily shown to be a shameless misquote.

 

[godnotgod]

There is no "renewal" for Mithra/Mitra. In Persian and similar near-Eastern versions of Mithra he is undefeatable, unconquerable....

They absolutely didn't. They referred to the Sun god as sol invictus (the unconquered Sun) and worshiped both sun and sun gods as invincible, undefeatable, and eternal.

'Invincible' over what?

 

[godnotgod]

Now you're just making stuff up.

Some identified Moloch with Milcom, with the Tyrian god Melqart, with Ba‘al Hammon to whom children were purportedly sacrificed, and with other gods called "Lord" (Baʿal) or (Bel). These various suggested equations combined with the popular solar theory hypotheses of the day generated a single theoretical sun god: Baal.

Moloch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some have even suggested that Moloch is none other than Yahweh.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This documentary provides enough evidence for the question to
be asked why hasn't the academic world looked at this possibility
more seriously?

Because there's no reason to.

The question doesn't intrigue scholars because it's something that doesn't require any measure of critical study. It's something that we can make a passing judgement on because there's no evidence for it, with the exception of some made-up stuff.

* If there were even the tiniest bit of material to study, I promise that a PhD student would write a dissertation on it and make a career.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Some identified Moloch with Milcom

Also not a Solar god, but irrelevant anyway as Molek is't Milkom:

"Granted that Molech in the Old Testament really is the name (or title) of a god, not a sacrificial term, the question is raised as to his identity. Here there has been no shortage of suggestions. All the Old Testament evidence indicates that a Canaanite deity is in view. Most explicit are the references in Lev. 18.21 and 20.2-5, the context of which indicates that Molech worship is part of the Canaanite abominations (cf. Lev. 18.3, 24-35, 27; 20.23). Similarly, the probable reference to Molech in Isa. 57.9 is set in a context of the Canaanite fertility cult of the high places (cf. Isa. 57.5, 7, 9). Old Testament allusions to human sacrifice, presumably alluding to the Molech cult, also state it to be Canaanite (Deut. 12.31, 18.9-10; 2 Kgs 16.3 and 21.6 [cf. 23.10] against the background of 2 Kgs 16.3,21.2).
In the light of the Canaanite background, the view that Molech is to be seen as the Ammonite god Milkom may be rejected (though conceivably they may have a common origin). Likewise the idea that Molech is to be equated with Adad-Milki is to be rejected for various reasons. For example, not only would the cult in question not be Canaanite, which Molech's seems to have been, but it is now apparent that the Akkadian texts once believed to refer to human sacrifice to Adad-Milki are to be understood as relating rather to the god Sin.
It has sometimes been suggested that Molech is simply an epithet of Baal (cf. Jer. 19.5; 32.35), but against this stands the fact that the two are clearly distinguished in 2 Kgs 23.5, 10. It has also occasionally been supposed that Molech was the Canaanite underworld god Mot. However, if this were the case, it is surprising that the Old Testament does not simply call him Mot or mawet; Mot was not the only god to be regarded as a king, so that there is no reason why he in particular should be denoted by the name Molech.
Since Canaanite gods are characteristically referred to by their proper names in the Old Testament, it is most natural to assume that lying behind Old Testament Molech lies a Canaanite god mlk. The original vocalization would presumably have been molek 'king'. "
Day, J. (2002). Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOT Supplements, Vol. 265). Continuum International Publishing Group.

These various suggested equations combined with the popular solar theory hypotheses of the day generated a single theoretical sun god: Baal.

On the difference between Moloch and Baal, see above. Baal was a Canaanite storm god. There is no evidence of solar deities in the OT and little in the more extensive near-eastern literature as a whole. Even when there is, such as with the Canaan sun-deity Shapash, it's a goddess. The worship of the sun in the Near-East seems to be both widespread and often without any deity. The sun itself was worshipped. The Sun Cult may have rivaled the Yahweh cult (among other deity cults) in ancient times. There is some evidence for equating the sun cult and Yahweh cult at least in particular areas and times.

Some have even suggested that Moloch is none other than Yahweh.

"Various factors, indeed, argue against Molech's equation with Yahweh. First, the Molech sacrifices did not take place in the Yahweh temple on Mt Zion, but a little distance away in the valley of Hinnom. Secondly, as we have seen, Molech was an underworld deity, but Yahweh was notably separated from the underworld through long periods of Israel's history."
(ibid)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Mithra the 'Rock-Born'

This is complete crap.

The propriety of this appropriation was increased by the fact that the worship of a god in a cave was commonplace in paganism: Apollo, Cybele, Demeter, Herakles, Hermes, Mithra and Poseidon were all adored in caves

Wrong.

Hermes, the Greek Logos

Wrong.

Mithras was "the rock," or Peter

Petros is rock, not Peter (not that it matters as the origins of Simon's nickname is well known).

he is usurping the authority of Mithraism

Which didn't exist yet. Right.

By the time the Christian hierarchy prevailed in Rome, Mithra had already been a popular cult

Wrong.

with pope, bishops

Wrong and so stupid it would be funny if people didn't actually believe this crap.

Mithraic remains on Vatican Hill are found underneath the later Christian edifices, a fact that proves the Mithra cult was there first.*

Also wrong. First because we have a scrap of John that dates to around the first evidence of Mithraism that exists. Second there is only a possible reference to Mithras and it isn't dated.

while Mithraic ruins are abundant throughout the Roman Empire

There virtually none. What does exist is a lot of graffiti and inscriptions, and these pale in comparison to the number of Christian ones.

beginning in the late first century AD/CE

That's when we first find inscriptions. And by about this time we have an actual scrap of a manuscript of John.

Yalda is a Syriac word meaning birth. Mithra-worshippers used the term "yalda"

Now we're supposed to believe that Persians/Iranians spoke Syriac? You're sources (including this one) have already been shown to misquote, mislead, and lie. The latest gaff (quoting from the book I linked to and claiming the author said something she didn't) is obvious after a few seconds on google books (like another claim another source of yours made about translations of the Pe****ta). Can you at least check these claims yourself before making your own theories look this bad by association with liars?