Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(18-10-2015 11:05 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 10:45 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  If he's fictitious, who gives a fuck? Obviously, the answer is those who don't not believe he is fictitious, the point is to demonstrate that folly in various sensible dialogues. That's why the fucks are given. Drinking Beverage
I fail to see the point of discussing whether Paul was a charlatan. It's pointless, hence my attempt to add some levity to this painful dialogue.

Then what would be the point of saying he was Josephus?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
18-10-2015, 11:29 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(18-10-2015 11:07 AM)Leo Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 10:53 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It's a story! It's based on the lives of two brothers, lets call them Jesus 1 and Jesus 2. They were identical twins. No one could tell them apart except one was a fighter and the other was a peaceful gay guy. So the warrior, Jesus 1, decided to try to take on the Romans and when the game was up, he got his brother, Jesus 2, to take the rap and get crucified. The Jews got hold of him, Jesus 1, and threw him off a cliff. No one heard of him after that. His brother, Jesus 2, survived the curcifixion and left town.

I think I've got it right. Anyway, after that, somebody made it into a paperback and it sold like hotcakes.

Your twin brother hypothesis could be right. But maybe a single Jesus survived the cruxifiction. He was hung on the cross for a few hours. Pilate was surprised about Jesus super fast "death". On average cruxifiction victims lasted between 1 and 2 days on the cross.

Judas Thomas Didymus was his twin brother. In Islam, this is what they believe. I'm not making it up. Muslim scholars have always maintained that Jesus did not die, that Judas took his place and was crucified.

There is, of course, the whole "Jesus in Srinigar" story where Jesus is supposed to have travelled to Kashmir. Then you get Thomas Christinity in India...

The Jesus in Srinigar is supposed to have crucifixion marks which are shown on a cast of his feet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Bal


What do you call it when there is an idea which seems bizarre, but then it coincides with something which happens completely independently?

For instance, there is a story that the Carthaginians left northern Africa and sailed to South America where they built temples and structures similar to those in North Africa: http://phoenicia.org/carthanewworld.html

So, I think, if this is true then there is going to be a DNA trace of them and I come up with this: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/carthage...sode/1163/

Two completely independent sources, archaeology and DNA, suggest the same thing? But it's all just a legend??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 03:31 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2015 03:37 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(18-10-2015 11:05 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 10:45 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  If he's fictitious, who gives a fuck? Obviously, the answer is those who don't not believe he is fictitious, the point is to demonstrate that folly in various sensible dialogues. That's why the fucks are given. Drinking Beverage

I have put forward a very sensible view that Paul is Josephus Flavius. Mark ignores this. He can't see the obvious parallels. He can't find a Paul or a Saul in the historical record and he feels, somehow, that by ignoring the elephant in the room he is somehow getting somewhere with whatever it is he is trying to do.

If the NT is a political work, as I believe it is, then Paul is a pseudonym for the person/persons who were responsible for writing it up and distributing it to the cult it was aimed at converting to this new religion. I fail to see the point of discussing whether Paul was a charlatan. It's pointless, hence my attempt to add some levity to this painful dialogue.

Except the Jesus 1 and 2 isn't a joke:

Wiki: Adiabene (from the Ancient Greek Ἀδιαβηνή, Adiabene, itself derived from Classical Syriac: ܚܕܝܐܒ, Ḥaḏy’aḇ or Ḥḏay’aḇ, Old Persian: Nodshirakan,[4] Armenian: Նոր Շիրական, Nor Shirakan) was an ancient kingdom in Assyria,[5][6][7][8] with its capital at Arbela (modern-day Arbil, Iraq).

Its rulers converted to Judaism from Ashurism in the 1st century.[9] Queen Helena of Adiabene (known in Jewish sources as Heleni HaMalka) moved to Jerusalem where she built palaces for herself and her sons, Izates bar Monobaz and Monobaz II (Izates 1 and Izates 2)

"I have put forward a very sensible view that Paul is Josephus Flavius."

Please repaste or provide a link.

"Paul," whether "he" was Josephus or not (he wasn't), promoted fabricated, immoral nonsense designed to undermine Judaism. It turned out "he" was the main creator of Christian theology. So it is very important to understand who he was and why he did what he did. It is at the core of the question of the validity of Christianity. That is why it is worth discussing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 04:36 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2015 05:10 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(18-10-2015 11:29 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 11:07 AM)Leo Wrote:  Your twin brother hypothesis could be right. But maybe a single Jesus survived the cruxifiction. He was hung on the cross for a few hours. Pilate was surprised about Jesus super fast "death". On average cruxifiction victims lasted between 1 and 2 days on the cross.

Judas Thomas Didymus was his twin brother. In Islam, this is what they believe. I'm not making it up. Muslim scholars have always maintained that Jesus did not die, that Judas took his place and was crucified.

There is, of course, the whole "Jesus in Srinigar" story where Jesus is supposed to have travelled to Kashmir. Then you get Thomas Christinity in India...

The Jesus in Srinigar is supposed to have crucifixion marks which are shown on a cast of his feet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Bal


What do you call it when there is an idea which seems bizarre, but then it coincides with something which happens completely independently?

For instance, there is a story that the Carthaginians left northern Africa and sailed to South America where they built temples and structures similar to those in North Africa: http://phoenicia.org/carthanewworld.html

So, I think, if this is true then there is going to be a DNA trace of them and I come up with this: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/carthage...sode/1163/

Two completely independent sources, archaeology and DNA, suggest the same thing? But it's all just a legend??

Muslim scholars say Muhammed flew on a donkey-mule to Jerusalem also.
I suppose you believe that too ?

The link specifically says there has no DNA test been done yet.
33:14 "There is still no conclusive proof that Celts and Carthaginians were ever present in Peru".

You call a non-existent test and "no proof" "independent sources" ?

Get help.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-10-2015, 05:32 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2015 05:35 PM by Leo.)
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(18-10-2015 10:45 AM)Anjele Wrote:  Q vs. Mark Fulton...hahahahahahahahhaha!

That's some funny stuff right there.

YesI'm looking forward for the Q guy getting owned by Mark Fulton big time. The Q will be crushed by Mark and will probably claim victory.

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leo's post
18-10-2015, 05:56 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(18-10-2015 05:32 PM)Leo Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 10:45 AM)Anjele Wrote:  Q vs. Mark Fulton...hahahahahahahahhaha!

That's some funny stuff right there.

YesI'm looking forward for the Q guy getting owned by Mark Fulton big time. The Q will be crushed by Mark and will probably claim victory.

That's how he rolls.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 06:31 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(18-10-2015 05:32 PM)Leo Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 10:45 AM)Anjele Wrote:  Q vs. Mark Fulton...hahahahahahahahhaha!

That's some funny stuff right there.

YesI'm looking forward for the Q guy getting owned by Mark Fulton big time. The Q will be crushed by Mark and will probably claim victory.

Thanks! It's nice to get some encouragement! Sometimes I wonder whether I talk too much about Paul...I do find the topic rather fascinating.Tongue

I hope Q will show up. I can't debate myself.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2015, 06:41 PM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(18-10-2015 10:45 AM)Leo Wrote:  
(18-10-2015 10:39 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  This debate about Paul is like asking whether R2D2 had BO. Who gives a fuck? He's fictitious. And...who gives a fuck?

Fictitious ? Maybe he was. I think is likely that Paul was a real person and was the main founder of today's Christianity. He was a liar and charlatan of course. Much like Joseph Smith or Mohammed.

Yes.

Some of the similarities are uncanny.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 01:25 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
Mark,

I post here, because there are some intelligent people here who share some of my values and out of a sense of curiosity. I lived in Scotland for several years. I developed an interest in Shakespeare authorship issues back in the 1980s when I saw a TV program on the US PBS network called "The Mysterious William Shakespeare". I thought it was a Baconian theory thing but watched it anyway. I had no interest in conspiracy theories,even particularly the Kennedy assassination. I can't stand all this stuff about "Illuminati" etc.

Anway. It was having lived in Scotland that got me going on all of this, simply because walking through the main train station I thought the local people sounded Norwegian. I started to think about accents and languages and then picked up a copy of "The Wallace" by Blind Harry. I read the introduction to it and realized it was a pseudonymous work and the author was supposedly an uneducated blind minstrel but that it was probably written by an aristocratic cleric. That took me down some very odd rabbit holes and to a family called the "Montgomeries" who were high ranking Earls under the Stuart kings and were poets and collectors of literary works, and eventually the patrons of Robin Burness, who is now known as Robert Burns. Turns out he was an uneducated ploughman who wrote like an aristocratic woman, etc etc. All kinds of problems. Then I realized that the title "Earl of Montgomery" was given by James VI of Scotland, James I of England, to a family of aristocrats in England. Then the film Anonymous comes out which brings up the connection of the Earl of Oxford as the real "Shakespeare". After his death the title of Montgomery was given to his daughter's husband. James I of England was a huge fan of Shakespeare.

It is this sort of thing which I find perplexing. I then started to read about names and language and realized that the "Scots" language is actually just "old English" which is a Germanic language so it's actually closer to old English than modern English is since it is less affected due to geography by Norman French. Norwegian is also a Germanic language.

Then I read about "Isoglosses" which is a linguistic concept. Words such as "centum" are related to "hundred" because they both mean the same thing, ie., 100. They are just pronounced differently so in different languages you find the same concept and a similar sounding word. The relevant sounds are "s", "c", "ch", "g", "k". It is called the Centum-sentem Isogloss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum%E2%...m_isogloss

I then thought about the word "Montgomery". So, where is Mount Gomery and what is the connection to poetry, plays, history...literature???

Turns out there is a Mount Chimeria in what was Cilicia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Chimaera

And it is significant because it is tied in with Prometheus, fire and legends of "Homer".

Cilicia: Wiki
Mythological namesake[edit]
Greek mythology mentions another Cilicia, as a small region situated immediately southeast of the Troad in northwestern Asia Minor, facing the Gulf of Adramyttium. The connection (if any) between this Cilicia and the better-known and well-defined region mentioned above is unclear. This Trojan Cilicia is mentioned in Homer's Iliad and Strabo's Geography, and contained localities such as Thebe, Lyrnessus and Chryse[disambiguation needed]. These three cities were all attacked and sacked by Achilles during the Trojan War.

In Prometheus Bound (v 353), Aeschylus mentions the Cilician caves (probably Cennet and Cehennem), where the earth-born, hundred-headed monster Typhon dwelt before he withstood the gods and was stricken and charred by Zeus's thunderbolt.


So, is Mont "Gomer" y a reference to "Homer"? Turns out "Homer" is a fictional and blind character:

Wiki, Homer:
Nevertheless it is possible to make a case that Homer was only a mythological character, the supposed founder of the Homeridae. Martin West has asserted that "Homer" is "not the name of a historical poet, but a fictitious or constructed name."[9] Oliver Taplin, in the Oxford History of the Classical World’s article on Homer, announces that the elements of his life “are largely … demonstrable fictions.”[10] Another attack on the biographical details comes from G.S. Kirk, who said: "Antiquity knew nothing definite about the life and personality of Homer."[11] Taplin prefers instead to speak of Homer as “a historical context for the poems.” His dates for this context are 750-650 BCE, without considering Murray’s “fluid state.”

So, I get hold of a couple of histories of Scotland and they say that there is this huge gap in Scottish history from when the Romans find it and it is full of wild men called "Picts" to a time when it is a highly evolved feudal system with a rich literature, architeture etc. Then there is the "Declaration of Arbroath" which says "Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous."



I say all this to give a bit of background. My main point is that I look at things from a literary, scientific and archaeological point of view. If you read any of these stories, about Burns, Shakespeare, Homer, being "fronts" for aristocratic groups you can discount any of them. If you start looking at them as a whole, you can be accused of "dot joining". I fully accept that. However, it gets to a point where the dots actually form a picture and it is then hard to dislodge because there is so much of it.

For instance, with this Eastern Mediterranean, Scythian origin of the Scots, there is another huge coincidence. The name "Scotia", according to Ellis comes from an Egyptian princess "Scota". However, linguistically, in Turkish, which is where Schythians came from, Scotland is "Is Koc ya" and "Koc" means "Aries" or the "Ram".


Take a look at what Wiki says about how the works of Homer were written and that they may represent the works of the Rhapasodes of a guild:

The chronological period of Homer depends on the meaning to be assigned to the word “Homer.” If the works attributed either wholly or partially to a blind poet named Homer, were really authored by such a person, then he must have had biographical dates, or a century or other historical period, which can be described as the life and times of Homer. If on the other hand Homer is to be considered a mythical character, the legendary founder of a guild of rhapsodes called the Homeridae, then “Homer” means the works attributed to the rhapsodes of the guild, who might have composed primarily in a single century or over a period of centuries. And finally, much of the geographic and material content of the Iliad and Odyssey appear to be consistent with the Aegean Late Bronze Age, the time of the floruit of Troy, but not the time of the Greek alphabet. The term “Homer” can be used to mean traditional elements of verse known to the rhapsodes from which they composed oral poetry, which transmitted information concerning the culture of Mycenaean Greece. This information is often called “the world of Homer” (or of Odysseus, or the Iliad). The Homeric period would in that case cover a number of historical periods, especially the Mycenaean Age, prior to the first delivery of a work called the Iliad.

Concurrent with the questions of whether there was a biographical person named Homer, and what role he may have played in the development of the currently known texts, is the question of whether there ever was a uniform text of the Iliad or Odyssey. Considered word-for-word, the printed texts as we know them are the product of the scholars of the last three centuries. Each edition of the Iliad or Odyssey is a little different, as the editors rely on different manuscripts and fragments, and make different choices as to the most accurate text to use. The term “accuracy” reveals a fundamental belief in an original uniform text. The manuscripts of the whole work currently available date to no earlier than the 10th century. These are at the end of a missing thousand-year chain of copies made as each generation of manuscripts disintegrated or were lost or destroyed. These numerous manuscripts are so similar that a single original can be postulated.[7]

The time gap in the chain is bridged by the scholia, or notes, on the existing manuscripts, which indicate that the original had been published by Aristarchus of Samothrace in the 2nd century BCE. Librarian of the Library of Alexandria, he had noticed a wide divergence in the works attributed to Homer, and was trying to restore a more authentic copy. He had collected several manuscripts, which he named: the Sinopic, the Massiliotic, etc. The one he selected for correction was the koine, which Murray translates as “the Vulgate”. Aristarchus was known for his conservative selection of material. He marked lines that he thought were spurious, not of Homer. The entire last book of the Odyssey was marked.

So, we have the same Koine Greek in the New Testament, a travelling, poor teller of tales. We have political upheaval and wars. It's all part of a literary tradition which we know little of and which involved creating national myth of these people. I just can't see it as plausible that Christianity sprung out of the story of some "unknown". That he had some followers and that someone recorded his words in gospels. The whole story is implausible and ridiculous and isn't supported by anything in the historical record so it has to be explained some other way.

The reason I posted the link to the 3D reconstruction of the shroud is that I had always discounted it as pure religious nonsense.

Then I read Ellis who makes a case that Jesus or Thomas, whoever was crucified was an old guy. I think that if the shroud of Turin is legitimate then, according to Ellis's and Atwill's theories it's going to show an old guy. So I google for a 3d reconstruction of the shroud and hey...it's an old guy.


Then I think, is there some other source for the idea that Jesus had a twin and I find that the whole Muslim world has been saying Jesus had a brother and it was the brother who was crucified.

Then, I ponder, is there somewhere that people revere Thomas as the "Christ", and I find a whole religion in India called Thomas Christinaity, which is suppressed by Roman Catholicism, and they even have a crucified body...

When people or 99% of people could not read or write, they communicated ideas orally. Because a "literary class" of people decide to write things down, thousands of years ago, is no reason to accept what they say as true. They had economic and political reasons for doing this. Literature and libraries had to have the support of their rulers and promote their interests so one has to look at the economics, military history, DNA record which is only now becoming available, the archaeology, NASA imagery. One can look, I think, at linguistics and language patterns of migration of peoples, legends and myths, but it only hints to us what happened so, yes, it is all "joining the dots".

What some people here do, however, is to look only at the written word, then restrict that down to what is "peer reviewed" and also, now, what is "politically correct". That means if the shroud of turin shows an old guy, the people who do the 3d analysis look ridiculous because it is nothing like what they expected. So, they flesh in the guy and make him look young. It's a product of cultural bias.

Have a look at the Declaration of Arbroath: http://www.constitution.org/scot/arbroath.htm

The truth once spoken cannot be checked, the seed once planted controls its own growth, and the liberty which men secure for themselves must be given by them to others, or it will be taken as they took it. Freedom is a hardy plant and must flower in equality and brotherhood.

That is what I am "about" if I can put it that way, and why I don't care about being accused of being a "fraud" and all kinds of other things by someone here who is just wrapped up in himself and his own cultural significance. It's also why I don't have any problem with people saying whatever they like here even if it offends, because these values are important. Without freedom there is no hope of finding truth and when I see people saying it is ok to crush people with foul language and abuse because they don't "tolerate" that kind of stuff, I see the victims in it as freedom of throught and conscience. That is what is being fought over in Syria and the Middle East now, just as it was 2000 years ago between Hellenistic thinkers and Abrahamic tribes who adhered to an old religion which, sadly, never went away and has come back to bit us all in the backside with a new book, the Koran, and a vengeful, bloodthirsty, selfish religion...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 03:17 AM
RE: Jesus Christ, A Pointless Sacrifice
(20-10-2015 01:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Mark,

I post here, because there are some intelligent people here who share some of my values and out of a sense of curiosity. I lived in Scotland for several years. I developed an interest in Shakespeare authorship issues back in the 1980s when I saw a TV program on the US PBS network called "The Mysterious William Shakespeare". I thought it was a Baconian theory thing but watched it anyway. I had no interest in conspiracy theories,even particularly the Kennedy assassination. I can't stand all this stuff about "Illuminati" etc.

Anway. It was having lived in Scotland that got me going on all of this, simply because walking through the main train station I thought the local people sounded Norwegian. I started to think about accents and languages and then picked up a copy of "The Wallace" by Blind Harry. I read the introduction to it and realized it was a pseudonymous work and the author was supposedly an uneducated blind minstrel but that it was probably written by an aristocratic cleric. That took me down some very odd rabbit holes and to a family called the "Montgomeries" who were high ranking Earls under the Stuart kings and were poets and collectors of literary works, and eventually the patrons of Robin Burness, who is now known as Robert Burns. Turns out he was an uneducated ploughman who wrote like an aristocratic woman, etc etc. All kinds of problems. Then I realized that the title "Earl of Montgomery" was given by James VI of Scotland, James I of England, to a family of aristocrats in England. Then the film Anonymous comes out which brings up the connection of the Earl of Oxford as the real "Shakespeare". After his death the title of Montgomery was given to his daughter's husband. James I of England was a huge fan of Shakespeare.

It is this sort of thing which I find perplexing. I then started to read about names and language and realized that the "Scots" language is actually just "old English" which is a Germanic language so it's actually closer to old English than modern English is since it is less affected due to geography by Norman French. Norwegian is also a Germanic language.

Then I read about "Isoglosses" which is a linguistic concept. Words such as "centum" are related to "hundred" because they both mean the same thing, ie., 100. They are just pronounced differently so in different languages you find the same concept and a similar sounding word. The relevant sounds are "s", "c", "ch", "g", "k". It is called the Centum-sentem Isogloss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum%E2%...m_isogloss

I then thought about the word "Montgomery". So, where is Mount Gomery and what is the connection to poetry, plays, history...literature???

Turns out there is a Mount Chimeria in what was Cilicia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Chimaera

And it is significant because it is tied in with Prometheus, fire and legends of "Homer".

Cilicia: Wiki
Mythological namesake[edit]
Greek mythology mentions another Cilicia, as a small region situated immediately southeast of the Troad in northwestern Asia Minor, facing the Gulf of Adramyttium. The connection (if any) between this Cilicia and the better-known and well-defined region mentioned above is unclear. This Trojan Cilicia is mentioned in Homer's Iliad and Strabo's Geography, and contained localities such as Thebe, Lyrnessus and Chryse[disambiguation needed]. These three cities were all attacked and sacked by Achilles during the Trojan War.

In Prometheus Bound (v 353), Aeschylus mentions the Cilician caves (probably Cennet and Cehennem), where the earth-born, hundred-headed monster Typhon dwelt before he withstood the gods and was stricken and charred by Zeus's thunderbolt.


So, is Mont "Gomer" y a reference to "Homer"? Turns out "Homer" is a fictional and blind character:

Wiki, Homer:
Nevertheless it is possible to make a case that Homer was only a mythological character, the supposed founder of the Homeridae. Martin West has asserted that "Homer" is "not the name of a historical poet, but a fictitious or constructed name."[9] Oliver Taplin, in the Oxford History of the Classical World’s article on Homer, announces that the elements of his life “are largely … demonstrable fictions.”[10] Another attack on the biographical details comes from G.S. Kirk, who said: "Antiquity knew nothing definite about the life and personality of Homer."[11] Taplin prefers instead to speak of Homer as “a historical context for the poems.” His dates for this context are 750-650 BCE, without considering Murray’s “fluid state.”

So, I get hold of a couple of histories of Scotland and they say that there is this huge gap in Scottish history from when the Romans find it and it is full of wild men called "Picts" to a time when it is a highly evolved feudal system with a rich literature, architeture etc. Then there is the "Declaration of Arbroath" which says "Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous."



I say all this to give a bit of background. My main point is that I look at things from a literary, scientific and archaeological point of view. If you read any of these stories, about Burns, Shakespeare, Homer, being "fronts" for aristocratic groups you can discount any of them. If you start looking at them as a whole, you can be accused of "dot joining". I fully accept that. However, it gets to a point where the dots actually form a picture and it is then hard to dislodge because there is so much of it.

For instance, with this Eastern Mediterranean, Scythian origin of the Scots, there is another huge coincidence. The name "Scotia", according to Ellis comes from an Egyptian princess "Scota". However, linguistically, in Turkish, which is where Schythians came from, Scotland is "Is Koc ya" and "Koc" means "Aries" or the "Ram".


Take a look at what Wiki says about how the works of Homer were written and that they may represent the works of the Rhapasodes of a guild:

The chronological period of Homer depends on the meaning to be assigned to the word “Homer.” If the works attributed either wholly or partially to a blind poet named Homer, were really authored by such a person, then he must have had biographical dates, or a century or other historical period, which can be described as the life and times of Homer. If on the other hand Homer is to be considered a mythical character, the legendary founder of a guild of rhapsodes called the Homeridae, then “Homer” means the works attributed to the rhapsodes of the guild, who might have composed primarily in a single century or over a period of centuries. And finally, much of the geographic and material content of the Iliad and Odyssey appear to be consistent with the Aegean Late Bronze Age, the time of the floruit of Troy, but not the time of the Greek alphabet. The term “Homer” can be used to mean traditional elements of verse known to the rhapsodes from which they composed oral poetry, which transmitted information concerning the culture of Mycenaean Greece. This information is often called “the world of Homer” (or of Odysseus, or the Iliad). The Homeric period would in that case cover a number of historical periods, especially the Mycenaean Age, prior to the first delivery of a work called the Iliad.

Concurrent with the questions of whether there was a biographical person named Homer, and what role he may have played in the development of the currently known texts, is the question of whether there ever was a uniform text of the Iliad or Odyssey. Considered word-for-word, the printed texts as we know them are the product of the scholars of the last three centuries. Each edition of the Iliad or Odyssey is a little different, as the editors rely on different manuscripts and fragments, and make different choices as to the most accurate text to use. The term “accuracy” reveals a fundamental belief in an original uniform text. The manuscripts of the whole work currently available date to no earlier than the 10th century. These are at the end of a missing thousand-year chain of copies made as each generation of manuscripts disintegrated or were lost or destroyed. These numerous manuscripts are so similar that a single original can be postulated.[7]

The time gap in the chain is bridged by the scholia, or notes, on the existing manuscripts, which indicate that the original had been published by Aristarchus of Samothrace in the 2nd century BCE. Librarian of the Library of Alexandria, he had noticed a wide divergence in the works attributed to Homer, and was trying to restore a more authentic copy. He had collected several manuscripts, which he named: the Sinopic, the Massiliotic, etc. The one he selected for correction was the koine, which Murray translates as “the Vulgate”. Aristarchus was known for his conservative selection of material. He marked lines that he thought were spurious, not of Homer. The entire last book of the Odyssey was marked.

So, we have the same Koine Greek in the New Testament, a travelling, poor teller of tales. We have political upheaval and wars. It's all part of a literary tradition which we know little of and which involved creating national myth of these people. I just can't see it as plausible that Christianity sprung out of the story of some "unknown". That he had some followers and that someone recorded his words in gospels. The whole story is implausible and ridiculous and isn't supported by anything in the historical record so it has to be explained some other way.

The reason I posted the link to the 3D reconstruction of the shroud is that I had always discounted it as pure religious nonsense.

Then I read Ellis who makes a case that Jesus or Thomas, whoever was crucified was an old guy. I think that if the shroud of Turin is legitimate then, according to Ellis's and Atwill's theories it's going to show an old guy. So I google for a 3d reconstruction of the shroud and hey...it's an old guy.


Then I think, is there some other source for the idea that Jesus had a twin and I find that the whole Muslim world has been saying Jesus had a brother and it was the brother who was crucified.

Then, I ponder, is there somewhere that people revere Thomas as the "Christ", and I find a whole religion in India called Thomas Christinaity, which is suppressed by Roman Catholicism, and they even have a crucified body...

When people or 99% of people could not read or write, they communicated ideas orally. Because a "literary class" of people decide to write things down, thousands of years ago, is no reason to accept what they say as true. They had economic and political reasons for doing this. Literature and libraries had to have the support of their rulers and promote their interests so one has to look at the economics, military history, DNA record which is only now becoming available, the archaeology, NASA imagery. One can look, I think, at linguistics and language patterns of migration of peoples, legends and myths, but it only hints to us what happened so, yes, it is all "joining the dots".

What some people here do, however, is to look only at the written word, then restrict that down to what is "peer reviewed" and also, now, what is "politically correct". That means if the shroud of turin shows an old guy, the people who do the 3d analysis look ridiculous because it is nothing like what they expected. So, they flesh in the guy and make him look young. It's a product of cultural bias.

Have a look at the Declaration of Arbroath: http://www.constitution.org/scot/arbroath.htm

The truth once spoken cannot be checked, the seed once planted controls its own growth, and the liberty which men secure for themselves must be given by them to others, or it will be taken as they took it. Freedom is a hardy plant and must flower in equality and brotherhood.

That is what I am "about" if I can put it that way, and why I don't care about being accused of being a "fraud" and all kinds of other things by someone here who is just wrapped up in himself and his own cultural significance. It's also why I don't have any problem with people saying whatever they like here even if it offends, because these values are important. Without freedom there is no hope of finding truth and when I see people saying it is ok to crush people with foul language and abuse because they don't "tolerate" that kind of stuff, I see the victims in it as freedom of throught and conscience. That is what is being fought over in Syria and the Middle East now, just as it was 2000 years ago between Hellenistic thinkers and Abrahamic tribes who adhered to an old religion which, sadly, never went away and has come back to bit us all in the backside with a new book, the Koran, and a vengeful, bloodthirsty, selfish religion...

Hi DB,

on reading your post (3x) I don't doubt your sincerity.

I'm trying to understand you.

You make some interesting points.

I'll comment on the bits of your post that I have some knowledge about.

"So, we have the same Koine Greek in the New Testament, a travelling, poor teller of tales."

I assume you mean "Paul?" . I agree he was a poor teller of tales.

" We have political upheaval and wars."

Oh yes. The first Jewish war, Nero's death, then 4 short term emperors, then Vespasian and Titus.

"It's all part of a literary tradition which we know little of and which involved creating national myth of these people. "

Agreed. I happen to think the government created the myth.

"I just can't see it as plausible that Christianity sprung out of the story of some "unknown""

You don't think it is possible the Jeebus story had some elements of truth?

"That he had some followers ..."

Do you think an historical James existed? I do.

"and that someone recorded his words in gospels."

Agreed. This is ridiculous.

The reason I posted the link to the 3D reconstruction of the shroud is that I had always discounted it as pure religious nonsense.

You were right. It is a proven fraud. End of story.

Then I think, is there some other source for the idea that Jesus had a twin and I find that the whole Muslim world has been saying Jesus had a brother and it was the brother who was crucified.

There's no good evidence that Muslims knew anything about an historical Jesus. They were making stuff up.

"Because a "literary class" of people decide to write things down, thousands of years ago, is no reason to accept what they say as true. They had economic and political reasons for doing this. Literature and libraries had to have the support of their rulers and promote their interests so one has to look at the economics, military history, DNA record which is only now becoming available, the archaeology, NASA imagery. One can look, I think, at linguistics and language patterns of migration of peoples, legends and myths, but it only hints to us what happened so, yes, it is all "joining the dots"."

Agreed.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: