Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2013, 09:59 AM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
(08-03-2013 07:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 02:33 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  My Wiki page was deleted by Wiki, because they considered my books unsubstantiated and anti-Christian.

.
Things for which there is actual evidence are not deleted. Your stuff is tenuous and unsupported.


So why are there Wiki articles on the New Testament and King Arthur, or the theories of multi-universes and ghosts, to name but a few examples? The deletion was partisan censorship by an acknowledged Christian, to prevent the wold gaining an alternate view of Christianity.

They said I could retain the Wiki page if I had been published by a recognised publisher. So I showed them my books as published in Brazil, Italy, China and Taiwan. They said that was not good enough, and deleted the page. Face facts, Chas, Wiki is mainly propaganda dictated by the views of the gatekeepers, especially on contentious subjects like religion, politics and environmentalism.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 10:19 AM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2013 10:23 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
(08-03-2013 02:50 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  Not sure about him.. However Christianity literally did evolve out of Egypt, and the evicted Hyksos were likely the people of the Exodus giving they were evicted in 1560 BC around the same time as the Thera Eruption to which was a super volcanic eruption to which would have been visible from Egypt and even likely from Levant, or far east as Israel.


Indeed.

And we have good reason to think this is so, because the ancient texts from Israel and Egypt support that contention (including the Tempest Stele). For instance 'god ' said to Moses and Aaron:

Quote:
Then the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, Take handfuls of ash from a furnace and have Moses toss it into the air in the presence of Pharaoh. It will become fine dust over the whole land of Egypt, and festering boils will break out on men and animals throughout the land. Ex 9:8-9

Sorry, but you could not get a better description of the long-range fallout from the massive 1600 BC Thera eruption if you tried.

And if you combine this with the description storms and darkness for three day (confirmed by the Tempest Stele). And if you combine all of this with the tsunami (the sea parting for Moses and the Israelites), what you have here is a first-hand description of the Thera eruption - as was witnessed by the Hyksos leadership in Egypt.

How would the ancients have known that the sea often recedes in a subducting-eruption's tsunami, before rushing in again? (The Thera eruption was a 'lava chamber evacuation' followed by a subduction, causing the Santorini caldera, and so the first tsunami action would have been a receding sea.) As well as showering the lands downwind with choking dust that would kill people (inwardly consumed by the thickness of the air, as Josephus Flavius says).

This is interesting on many levels.
Firstly it means that the Torah contains real historical information.
Secondly, for many reasons it confirms that the Israelite Shepherds who were kicked out of Egypt on a great Exodus were actually the Hyksos Shepherd Kings who were kicked out of Egypt on a great Exodus.

Both peoples, you might recall, wore earrings; both had curly side-locks of hair; had a war with the Egyptians; had three days of storms and darkness; had an ashfall; had many deaths if people and cattle; started the Exodus from Pi Ramesse; and went to Jerusalem; and had a leader called Moses.

Check out Manetho's version of the Hysos Exodus, and then read the Tempest Stele.


.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 02:10 PM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
(08-03-2013 09:59 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 07:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  Things for which there is actual evidence are not deleted. Your stuff is tenuous and unsupported.


So why are there Wiki articles on the New Testament and King Arthur, or the theories of multi-universes and ghosts, to name but a few examples? The deletion was partisan censorship by an acknowledged Christian, to prevent the wold gaining an alternate view of Christianity.

They said I could retain the Wiki page if I had been published by a recognised publisher. So I showed them my books as published in Brazil, Italy, China and Taiwan. They said that was not good enough, and deleted the page. Face facts, Chas, Wiki is mainly propaganda dictated by the views of the gatekeepers, especially on contentious subjects like religion, politics and environmentalism.


.
There are plenty of self published people out there. Not all of them merit inclusion in the Encyclopedia Galactica Drinking Beverage And you wanted to set up your wiki page so it was yet more self-promotion. Is there a single credible historian who would give you the time of day ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
Does anyone else think this whole thread is kinda weird? From the OP....then to this other guy just showing up? Is mom missing something?


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 02:33 PM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
(08-03-2013 02:18 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Does anyone else think this whole thread is kinda weird? From the OP....then to this other guy just showing up? Is mom missing something?


RE is definitely not Denicio. Denicio was awesome. Sarcastic as fuck. Dunno why he not here no more...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
Ok..then...

Also just realized this whole thread is pretty dang old too. Sometimes that bit is missed when looking at the new posts on the mobile thingy.

Sorry to be a pest...


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2013, 02:47 PM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
(08-03-2013 02:43 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Ok..then...

Also just realized this whole thread is pretty dang old too. Sometimes that bit is missed when looking at the new posts on the mobile thingy.

Sorry to be a pest...

No worries... think the answer to your weirdness question is that good old RE, busily polishing his halo, came across this thread after googling his name... although it doesn't turn up on google on the first page anyway... possibly came over here to do some promotion (after all he sells Jesus related stuff) and per policy searched his name on the forum to see if he was known here or not... I'm going with that hypothesis for now...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
08-03-2013, 03:26 PM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
(08-03-2013 09:59 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(08-03-2013 07:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  Things for which there is actual evidence are not deleted. Your stuff is tenuous and unsupported.


So why are there Wiki articles on the New Testament and King Arthur, or the theories of multi-universes and ghosts, to name but a few examples? The deletion was partisan censorship by an acknowledged Christian, to prevent the wold gaining an alternate view of Christianity.

They said I could retain the Wiki page if I had been published by a recognised publisher. So I showed them my books as published in Brazil, Italy, China and Taiwan. They said that was not good enough, and deleted the page. Face facts, Chas, Wiki is mainly propaganda dictated by the views of the gatekeepers, especially on contentious subjects like religion, politics and environmentalism.


.


That's the final nail in the coffin. You played the 'poor me' card. Dodgy

It is practically diagnostic of woo believers when they pull out the "they are suppressing my ideas, "they won't publish my research", "they are a clique", "they are the gatekeepers", "they are blah, blah, blah ..."

No, they want evidence, they want scholarship, they want facts.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-03-2013, 03:48 PM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
(08-03-2013 06:02 AM)morondog Wrote:  Mark... can't work out if you're being sarcastic Undecided I know you know your shit, seems like RE also knows quite a bit of his.

*But* a guy who claims to be a ground breaking historian...

Well, it's not like amateurs don't make sometimes huge contributions to science in general, but I can't find a breath of scholarly interest in your ground breaking work. I thought maybe it was too obscure... but come on Ralph Ellis, Einstein *by the way* published a shit load of papers. He sent his stuff for peer review and it was immediately acclaimed. He didn't self-promote for years and claim that "anti-Christianity" stops him from having a wikipage. I want to know what your critics think, do they universally accuse you of kookiness, or do they respectfully disagree with your opinions ?

So you haven't published in journals but you confidently write popular books which won't be reviewed by a critical audience who know their shit. I think you have presented your academic credentials.
Absolutely not being sarcastic. I was flattered that you thought my opinion of Ralph was important.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
08-03-2013, 05:00 PM
RE: Ralph Ellis. You guys heard of him? Making BIG claims.
(07-03-2013 05:33 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 04:02 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  >>You touched on the fact that there are some striking similarities between Paul's life and the
>>life of Josephus, but does that necessarily mean that they are the same person?


I suppose not, but there are some 16 or so points of commonality. Plus, this conflation of characters explains so much - it explains why Josephus was writing a secular history of Jesus (of Gamala) while Saul was writing a spiritual story of what appears to be the same Jesus.

You also have to ask yourself how Saul slipped past the quills of historians. Just why is he missing from the historical record. This is the guy who created Christianity (and not Jesus), so why is he missing from history?


>>For example it is well-recognised that the story of Paul's life as related in Acts is largely
>>fictional... is it not possible that details of Paul's life were copied from Josephus' life story?
>>Are you proposing that Josephus wrote the book of Acts too?

Why fictional? From my analysis of the texts, Josephus wrote Luke, Acts, and the Epistles. There is a good analysis recently, by a Swedish lady. I will find a URL later.



>> I think your comments on the following would be helpful. I was always under the impression
>>that Josephus claimed that Vespasian was in fact the Messiah.

Yes, he took the Star Prophesy of Jesus, and bestowed it upon Vespasian. but it was Jesus who was born under the Easter Star (the Star Prophesy).


>>Surely there were many leaders of the revolt that resulted in the first Jewish war. John was one, Simon was
>>another and Menahem was another. They fought bitterly with each other.

Yes, and the brothers of Jesus were - James, Jude, Joset and Simon. And I am not exactly sure about Josephus' account of them fighting each other all the time, as that is not what the Roman historians intimate. But there may have been differences in strategy between the brothers, and we know that Judas was not exactly 'on side'.

As an aside, the historical John and Simon are called Bargioras, while in the NT they are called John and Simon Boanerges (disciples of Jesus). The 'surname' here has the same syllable-swap as the historical Abgarus and the NT Agabus. I think the syllable swap was used to confuse the names, but is is a poor camouflage.





>>At the moment I find it very difficult to buy this story that Jesus was able to buy the position of high priest. If he
>>was a political activist (which both you and I think he was,) surely the Romans would have some inkling of this.
>>Jerusalem was a hotbed of political dissent during the 60s. It was the Romans who chose who was to be the
>>high priest (I assume you agree with this).

As King Izas-Manu of Edessa, Jesus was the richest man in Syrio-Judaea. Likewise, the Talmud says that Mary Magdalene (Mary Boethus) was not only married to Jesus of Gamala (ie, Izas Manu), but also the richest woman in Judaea. They had the money.

Would the Romans have objected? Would the Romans have dared dictate the High Priest of Jerusalem? Their military standards had already been torn down from the Temple. The priesthood had already built the wall, which blocked the Roman view of the Temple. It was for this very same wall (the Temple Wall Affair), that Saul-Josephus was sent to Rome to see Nero, in about AD 62. By the AD 60s, the Romans had all but lost control of the Temple, and much of Judaea.


>>What about the fact that Jesus spent a fair bit of his time wandering around Gallilee preaching to the crowds.
>>That is not what a high priest did in the 60s, as he was rich and comfortable and settled in Jerusalem.

Remember that Jesus was the fist elected High Priest (he was not a Levite), an election greased by 75 kilos of silver (see Hebrews 7). He was also trying to change Judaism into Nazarene Judaism. That took a lot of 'electioneering'.



>>The high priests derived much of the income from taxation, which was often collected in the temple,
>>and Jesus is said to have overturned the tables in the temple. How do you explain that? If he was the
>>high priest, and for some reason he was pissed off with the money changers, wouldn't he have had his
>>henchmen overturn the tables?

Two reasons.
Jesus of Gamala (King Izas Manu) was given his lands in Edessa and eastern Syria tax free. But the Romans were intent on taxing him, which he objected to. (Render unto Caesar, was his famous repost..)

Also, the Nazarene were against Temple sacrifices. The 'money changers' were taking the dues for selling doves, sheep and cattle for slaughter. This may have been the primary reason for overturning the table. You will note that after AD 70, the Jews stopped the historic tradition of Temple sacrifice. Why? Did they get another revelation from their god? Or did Jesus-Manu win the argument? Saul-Josephus was also against Temple sacrifice).


Cheers,
Ralph
Hi Ralph,

This is all very interesting! I take your point about Paul. It is quite unusual that he never made it into the annals of history. I've always had difficulty trying to understand how the writings of Paul were introduced to the world. As best I can tell no one really knows how that happened.The closest I came to coming to a conclusion about this was that Marcion introduced them to Rome in the 140s. My understanding is that the church fathers appear to allude to many of the ideas that are contained in Paul's writings, yet they never directly refer to him. If your theory about Paul being Josephus is correct, what evidence do
you have for the use of Paul's writings prior to the 140's?

Do you believe that the book of Acts is a truly historical work? I.e. a true record of history? If so you would be contradicting the opinion of the vast majority of biblical scholars.












The book of Acts is
the only attempt in the bible to document a diary of the first Christians. The
author bent over backwards to build the untrue impression that Christianity was
derived from Yeshua and his disciples. He failed, at least at the intellectual
level, because most biblical scholars regard Acts as unforgivably imaginative (
http://xcntrik.wordpress.com/lukeacts-as-historical-fiction/).








Personally, I find Acts to be an embarrassingly amateurish attempt to marry Judaism with Paul's Christianity. For example, the road to Demascus story in which Paul encounters Jesus' ghost is obviously fictional, as Paul mentions nothing about it in his letters. The story about Peter receiving a vision telling him to eat non Kosher food is just plain pathetic. This story about a Jewish man (Apollos) who gets instruction about Paul's Christ and then starts badmouthing the Jews is amateurish writing at its worst. I doubt Josephus wrote such drivel. However I guess it's possible that the more silly parts of Acts are interpolations, and Josephus may have written the guts of the story.

You say that Josephus claimed that Jesus of Gamala was the Messiah. You also admit that Josephus said Vespasian was the messiah. How many messiahs did Josephus think there there?

Do you have any evidence that Jesus was the first elected high priest of Jerusalem? Or can you point me in the direction where I can discover that evidence for myself? In all my years of reading about Jesus I have never heard that before, so perhaps you can understand why it sounds unlikely. I am intrigued by this idea, particularly as there is some evidence that James, Jesus' brother, was considered a high priest. I always imagined that he was a sort of defacto high priest ie a guy that people would have liked to it be the high priest if the Romans hadn't installed someone else.

I've spent some time searching on the Internet trying to find some evidence that the Romans had lost control over the appointment of the high priest in the 60s. I can't find that evidence, although knowing what we do about the times, I accept that it may be possible. Can you provide some evidence that the high priest was chosen by the people, not by the Romans?

I agree with you that the Nazarene's were against sacrifices. If Jesus was in fact the high priest, surely he would have been in charge of everything that happened in the temple? I can't imagine that he was just walking around, noticed soon money changing going on, and all the animals, so threw a hissy fit.

Going back a little bit, you admit that John the Baptist did his thing in the early 30s and is therefore, according to your theory, of the generation before Jesus. Are you aware that most biblical scholars claimed that there are only three things that we can be sure of about Jesus (assuming he existed)...

1.That he was baptised by John the Baptist and
2. that he overturned the tables in the temple.
3. that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate?

Phil Harland, in his excellent series of podcasts on the historical Jesus, goes into the reasons why these scholars think this.

Your theory means that he wasn't baptised by John the Baptist and he wasn't executed under Pontius Pilate. I'd appreciate your comments on why you appear to disagree with the majority of scholars.

Moving on...re Josephus...are you saying he never genuinely fought for the Jews? ie that he always was a Roman spy? That would make sense if you are. After all, why would Vespasian become best mates with a dude he was fighting against?

I'm going to start a post on the real origin of the gospels, and particularly Atwill's theories. I hope you join in.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: