/lit/ - Literature

post books they say lol

>>22451994
Schizo fanfiction aren't books, though.

>>22452061
ad hominem doesn't refute evidence.

>>22450732
brief overview and synopsis then,

Solomon: Pharaoh of Egypt (era: 940s BC+)
Tempest Exodus (era: presumably 1550s BC+)

The Hebrews were the Hyksos (Shepard Kings) who invaded and tax-farmed Egypt for 150-200yrs before being expelled by Ahmose (established New Kingdom Era), they ransacked the local temples, stole a royal ark containing the totems of the egyptian gods and departed to palestine. The evidence of the Hebrews bigger characters (Solomon, David) are demonstrated as being older the Egyptian Pharaohs and taking place in Egypt; David being the egyptian story of the United Kingdom of Upper and Lower Egypt, Solomon being Pharaoh Shoshenq who invaded and captured Jerusalem and appropriated and redistributed "383 tonnes of gold (according to the torah-bible)" and founded temples and cities from his base as Jerusalem as far northwards as Byblos

- no evidence otherwise exists that these people or events existed.

Eden in Egypt (era: 1350s BC+)

The "biblical" Adam and Eden - in the elements and words - are evidenced to first exist in the practice of the Egyptian Pharoah Akhenaten and Nefertiti; see: Atenism, this includes the habit of nakedness, castrated priests / hermaphroditism (which is later advocated by Jesus and the Gali), monotheism and messianism and (via hermaphroditism) a "return to the 'original' genderless state of being".


I think that's it for Egypt. Scota and Cleopatra fall under Roman times and Jesus.

>>22452093
ed.
>(according to the torah-bible)
Solomon and Shoshenq are contemporaries or rivals according to the torah-bible, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoshenq_I#Biblical_Shishak

Aten
also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten#Atenism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aten

Ahmose
also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I#Conquest_of_the_Hyksos

brief overview and synopsis, then .... on

Jesus: King of Edessa

So, this one is a matter of weighing the actual evidence vs. the controversy of upsetting the religions, on ... two main points, I think:
1) Jesus as Crown-Prince Issus Manu(?), Son of King Abgarus of Edessa
2) Paul-Saul as Josephus Flavius
w/ these being reliant on moving the story forward into the Jewish Rebellion during the end of Neros* reign and the year of four emperors; as nothing resembling the events in the bible story can be shown to have existed in the 'biblical' time frame under Tiberius.


The strongest evidence, before getting into Josephus, is that there remains no evidence at all for Jesus even existing or anything occurring resembling Jesus and those events, and that 'this' (i.e. Ellis) is the only version which gives all of these events and all of their elements. The way I look at this is that the religions wish to maintain a malleable ephemeral mythology of "nothing" onto which they can transplant anything, whereas Ellis (perhaps inadvertently though he recognizes this) has revealed the actual flesh blood and beliefs of the actual Jesus himself.

Actual Jesus w/ evidence vs. Jesus w/ no evidence is no different between the comprehension of anybody, let's say, Julius Caesar or Alexander as a literal magical demigod, as some considered them to be, vs. the Caesar or Alexander we know as real human beings.

In other words, in terms of logic, 'this' is the only working heuristic that exists to support Jesus not being simply a literary invention by later authors.

So, there is Josephus.
Josephus is the primary source for all of this, it may be mentioned. Josephus (now friends with the Romans) rescues three men from a cross, one wears a crown of thorns and a purple robe. This is Issus Manu. Issus survives crucifixion after having supported and instigated a rebellion within Judea with the aim to bring it under Edessan control; Ellis considers this to be a play for the entire Roman Empire but I think it more likely that Edessa simply wanted to govern the levant. Previously, Edessa had supported the armies of King Arete of Petra in his (very little known) defeat of Herods army; Ellis's case here is that Edessa had been motivated to join Arete to avenge the murder of John the Baptist who had protested at Herod marriage whilst Arete was motivated by the broken betrothal, as Herod had been betrothed to one of Aretes daughters to secure a political peace between Petra and Judea. John the Baptist was referred to as a cousin of Jesus and so it would have to be the case that John the Baptist was an Edessan royal who had taken holy orders as to explain why Edessa cared to send troops to assist Arete.

Issus relinquishes his claim to Vespasian who becomes Emperor, citing auspices and destiny, and lives on as a Roman captive in exile in Deva Victrix to secure the future cooperation of Edessa - this is arranged between Titus and Josephus.


Josephus 'as' Saul (or Paul) seems to fit only through the high-rank of Saul and the placement of Saul; essentially heading the secret police to hunt down Issus and his supporters (at least in James case James was a terrorist who led attacks on civilians) prior to the war.

Josephus and Pauls "journey to Rome" is virtually identical in its voyage and shipwreck and near execution during the shipwreck.

Paul as an "enemy of Jesus" 'after' Damascus Road is well enough known to anybody who cares to read; with the divide between the Church (Kibutz Communism) of Peter and James vs. Pauls (Simple Judaism for Goyim) Christianity only growing deeper until being wiped out by Paul attacks them constantly as being "the Jews" who persecute him. Yet, in Pauls biblical account (i.e. the traditional version) he never so much as met Jesus and it seems highly strange that anybody would have followed Paul as an authority on anything, if he was just a low ranking torturer or informant.

Oh I forgot this!

controversy 3)
Jesus was an advocate of Eunuchs

and least two of his followers were transvestite knifemen (Judas the Sicarite and James) who were part of the castration cult (to Romans the cult of Kybele) known as the Gali priests (from whence comes the name Galilean). The biggest proof of this is of course the persistence of the Eunuchs in the Christian Church throughout its entire history; that is: they made Eunuchs out of children, and the elaborate costumes of the Christian priests being highly similar to the Gali costumes of the Gali priests, sans the womans make-up; long crimson robes, etc., showing an unconscious continuity of the Galilean ceremony.

In fact, as I think of it, even Flavius Iulianos, though he mentions nothing of this, gave the name Galilean as his directed ... er ... targets, rather the name Christian.

>during the end of Neros* reign
(*incidentally, I don't think Ellis mentions this, but there is a strong additional Nero detail that supports this: Nero passed a law banning money-changers from the temples in Judea demonstrating that the time of this event, i.e. this law, fits with the time of the subsequent year of four emperors).

oh but.. also... this matters nothing to me, I suppose, but it's worth thinking of what Jesus's 'actual' religion was....

The Christ "he is coming any day now!" is just Issus being King of Judea, I suppose. With the help of the Jewish Kibbutzim Communists led by James the Eunuch. The Edessan Royals don't seem to have practiced 'Judaism' at all, only that their claim came from ancestral marriage ties and they adopted Judaism, though were greatly unhappy and protested the notion of circumcision for themselves, eventually adopting a version of Judaism which exempted them from having to mutilate their penises. Though, like many eastern royals, they were happy with castrating their distant family members under the pretense of having them become temple officials.

anyway I probably missed out 90% of Ellis's supporting proofs, but I think that's the basic version of it.