Talk:Epaphroditus (freedman of Nero)

Untitled[edit]

There is absolutely no proof and no reason to conclude that Epaphroditos is not the same person cited by both Josephus & the Apostle Paul. It's actually in denial of the mounting evidence. As Ralph Ellis points out in a series of books on Jesus, The Exodus and their connections to the Egyptian pharaohs, it's evidence that the two men, Josephus and Saul/Paul were connected to each other through numerous points in their writings made obvious by the consolidation of the multitude of Jesus figures in the Antiquities and the Jewish War, but also because Epaphroditos was the publisher of both men's works. Since the Slavonic Josephus completely undermines any support of Christian biblical chronology for Jesus by Josephus, it adds to the mounting evidence for the long held belief that Josephus, the traitor and turncoat of the Jews during the Jewish War with Rome, is also Saul/Paul the Apostle (who's death is never confirmed by history).

Given the suspect nature of the "suicide", Epaphroditos may have assassinated Nero in a conspiracy involving Vespasian to put an end to Julio-Claudian dynastic rule. While Saul/Josephus takes control of the entire stock of documents and records from all the Jewish temples as reward for aiding Vespasian's conquest of Palestine, Nero's former secretary is subsequently given complete authority to control the publishing of both Jewish history and scripture, as well as, the new Christian bible; in particular, The New Testament. The reason for the separate identities of Saul/Josephus is part of a strategy of pacification in the aftermath of a war, which destroyed half the Jewish population.

Pacification was essential for what remained of the Jews and a large Greek ethnic population, which had been forced into conversion and lower class status in the ancient Jewish, hereditary, caste system, but was now dominant. The process required the "alias" of Saul/Paul to write a new religion, i.e. the New Testament (including the synoptic gospels) for the formerly pagan, ethnic Greek population, which can only be supported through a doctrine of "faith" but not history. As for the remaining Jews, it's the "alias" Josephus' revised scriptures based in non-caste, pharisiacal beliefs & a similarly revised history that obfuscates the identity of Jesus (breaks him up into multiples) to prevent historical verification for this new Christian religion's pacifist god - who, as a historical figure was, substantially, no pacifist or deity. The final result is that neither the new Christian scriptures or the revised Jewish history & scriptures can verify or refute each other. It's essentially a strategy of separate but equal, but also divide and conquer. Pvsalsedo (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a policy against including Original Research (See WP:OR). If you want to assert that the Epaphroditus of Paul, Josephus, and Epictetus are the same person, then you need to find some university textbooks on any of these three people which argue in favor of this. Singinglemon (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should add that references to articles from any of the peer-reviewed history journals, would, of course, be acceptable. Singinglemon (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mason, S. 1998. "Should Any Wish to Enquire Further", Understanding Josephus. Sheffield: JSP supp.32, 98-100 argues strongly that he be identified with Josephus' patron. If there are no objections, I should like to emend the article accordingly. Ory Amtiay - History @ Haifa University (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in late to say Ellis’s self published books are fringe nonsense, Doug Weller talk 21:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Epaphroditos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]