Theos-Talk Archives (November 2012 Message tt00080)

Thanks for the additional info.

MKR


On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM, <Augoeides-222@Ym--NtanT0ODf5Zs6I23_NYzftjx_mMQY91Tfe5fxpPgXobsRPK4mzMTImi14kUWhZKPwFrtYsnwLwsGr_CdD5P68w.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> mkr,
>
>    In reading the article of the the Popes view I also agree with the Pope
> that Jesus was not born  at Nazareth. This is because at the time that
> Jesus is alledged to have lived Nazareth as a town or c ity did not exist
> so he could not have been born there. Nazareth had existed more than a
> century before but it was totally razed, depopulated and the ruling
> civilizatio n
> banned and permanently forbid anyone to live at that location, it is
> unoccupied for more than a century.
>
>    Why Jesus is referred to a born of Nazareth or the Nazarean could not
> have been attributed to have  being born in Nazareth. My personal opinion
> is he was called the Nazarean because John the Baptist, the Elder of the
> Mandaeans was a half brother of Jesus, I believe that Jesus was Mandaean, a
> Baptizer himself and that a schiszm obtained between John and J esus. There
> is ev idence of this in the exegesis documents of the M andaeans
> Particularily in the Ancient M andaean Baptism Ritual dialogue itself
> preserved by the M andaeans. The chief El der of the Mandaeans was titled
> with the Name Nazarean or Nazi. A similarity to the chief Hebrew of the
> Sanhedren also. There is a thread that leads back to  the M andaeans who s
> till possess the B ook of Yaya (John)  . If Jesus was indeed born in
> Nazareth it would have had to have been 200 years or more earlier when
> Nazareth still existed before it was destroys to the ground and made
> anathema to live there by the Empe ro r (of syria If I recall right ).
>
>   The peculair occurances of J esus having so many "Brothers" who all were
> instrumental in the creation of bedrock contents of the Christian origins
> of the Religion is a strong red flag that should grab the minds  of
> enquirers and led them to discovery.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: ".:." <mkr777@QCCYuaxopSXoNs0n7fAcvRLZ0EYbfttXnxzfZ1vHKwDXVI5OC5BT8GcHKmvC7HsLKpO9Ko-Qxg.yahoo.invalid>
> To: "theos-talk" <Theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:07:08 PM
> Subject: theos-talk Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope
>
>
>
> In a news item today, here is an interesting report:
>
> Jesus was born years earlier than thought, claims Pope
>
> The entire Christian calendar is based on a miscalculation, the Pope has
> declared, as he claims in a new book that Jesus was born several years
> earlier than commonly believed.
> +++
>
> More than a century ago, HPB and the Inner Founders of TS had mentioned in
> their writings that Jesus was born a century before that is commonly
> believed. I am glad to see Pope's statement on the date of Jesus.
>
> Read the full story at:
>
> <
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9693576/Jesus-was-born-years-earlier-than-thought-claims-Pope.html
> >
>
> MKR
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]