The great josephus interpolation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2014, 08:09 PM
RE: The great josephus interpolation
The Josephus paragraph always struck me as odd, and either way, doesn't prove anything.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 03:22 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2014 04:04 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The great josephus interpolation
(14-09-2014 07:24 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The Saxons couldn't read or write and the NT was in Latin. They were Arian Christians who did not believe in the Trinity. This poem shows that they saw themselves as having a religion prior to Jesus which venerated the Tau or Tree of Life.

The real problem you have is that Armenians adopted Christianity in the first century and were being persecuted by 110AD. It is ridiculous to suggest that people who lived only hundreds of miles away from Jerusalem, travelled there, lived there, didn't know that Jesus was just some kind of hoax. This is like people today being unable to discern that Mao or Hitler weren't real people. It's just asinine reasoning which begins with what you want to be your conclusion and then taking an eraser and trying to rub out what you don't like. A billion Muslims view Jesus as a human "prophet" figure, Jews wrote of him as a person. As of 110 AD people were being persecuted for following him and it is impossible to prove that they had any access at all to any of the Gnostic gospels or that they could have read them.

Dream of the Rood

Listen, I will tell the best of visions,
what came to me in the middle of the night,
when voice-bearers dwelled in rest.
It seemed to me that I saw a more wonderful tree
5 lifted in the air, wound round with light, Click for translation
the brightest of beams. That beacon was entirely
cased in gold; beautiful gems stood
at the corners of the earth, likewise there were five
upon the cross-beam. All those fair through creation
10 gazed on the angel of the Lord there. There was certainly no
gallows of the wicked; Click for translation
but the holy spirits beheld it there,
men over the earth and all this glorious creation.
Wondrous was the victory-tree, and I stained with sins,
wounded with guilts. I saw the tree of glory,
15 honoured with garments, shining with joys, Click for translation
covered with gold; gems had
covered magnificently the tree of the forest.
Nevertheless, I was able to perceive through that gold
the ancient hostility of wretches, so that it first began
20 to bleed on the right side. I was all drenched with sorrows. Click for translation
I was frightened by the beautiful vision; I saw that urgent
beacon
change its covering and colours: sometimes it was soaked with
wetness,
stained with the coursing of blood; sometimes adorned with
treasure.
Yet as I lay there a long while
25 I beheld sorrowful the tree of the Saviour, Click for translation
until I heard it utter a sound;
it began to speak words, the best of wood:
"That was very long ago, I remember it still,
that I was cut down from the edge of the wood,
30 ripped up by my roots. They seized me there, strong enemies, Click for translation
made me a spectacle for themselves there, commanded me to
raise up their criminals.
Men carried me there on their shoulders, until they set me
on a hill,Click for footnote
enemies enough fastened me there. I saw then the Saviour of
mankind
hasten with great zeal, as if he wanted to climb up on me.
35 There I did not dare, against the word of the Lord, Click for translation
bow or break, when I saw the
corners of the earth tremble. I might have
felled all the enemies; even so, I stood fast.
He stripped himself then, young hero - that was God almighty -
40 strong and resolute; he ascended on the high gallows, Click for translation
brave in the sight of many, when he wanted to ransom
mankind.
I trembled when the warrior embraced me; even then I did not
dare to bow to earth,
fall to the corners of the earth, but I had to stand fast.
I was reared a cross. I raised up the powerful King,
45 the Lord of heaven; I did not dare to bend. Click for translation
They pierced me with dark nails; on me are the wounds visible,
the open wounds of malice; I did not dare to injure any of them.
They mocked us both together. I was all drenched with blood
poured out from that man's side after he had sent forth his spirit.
50 I have experienced on that hillside many
cruelties of fate. I saw the God of hosts Click for translation
violently stretched out. Darkness had
covered with clouds the Ruler's corpse,
the gleaming light. Shadows went forth
55 dark under the clouds. All creation wept, Click for translation
lamented the King's fall. Christ was on the cross.
Yet there eager ones came from afar
to that noble one; I beheld all that.
I was all drenched with sorrow; nevertheless I bowed down to the hands of the men,
60 humble, with great eagerness. There they took almighty God, Click for translation
lifted him from that oppressive torment. The warriors forsook me then
standing covered with moisture; I was all wounded with arrows.
They laid the weary-limbed one down there, they stood at the head of his body,
they beheld the Lord of heaven there, and he himself rested there a while,
65 weary after the great battle. They began to fashion a tomb for him, Click for translation
warriors in the sight of the slayer; they carved that from bright stone,
they set the Lord of victories in there. They began to sing the sorrow-song for him,
wretched in the evening-time; then they wanted to travel again,
weary from the glorious Lord. He rested there with little company.Click for footnote
70 Nevertheless, weeping, weClick for footnote stood there a good while Click for translation
in a fixed position, after the voice departed up
of the warriors. The corpse grew cold,
the fair live-dwelling. Then men began to fell us
all to the ground: that was a terrible fate.
75 Men buried us in a deep pit; nevertheless the Lord's thanes, Click for translation
friends,Click for footnote discovered me there,
adorned me with gold and silver.
Now you might hear, my beloved hero,
that I have experienced the work of evil-doers,
80 grievous sorrows. Now the time has come Click for translation
that I will be honoured far and wide
by men over the earth and all this glorious creation;
they will pray to this beacon. On me the Son of God
suffered for a while; because of that I am glorious now,
85 towering under the heavens, and I am able to heal Click for translation
each one of those who is in awe of me.
Formerly I was made the hardest of punishments,
most hateful to the people, before I opened for them,
for the voice-bearers, the true way of life.
90 Listen, the Lord of glory, the Guardian of the kingdom of heaven, Click for translation
then honoured me over the forest trees,
just as he, almighty God, also honoured
his mother, Mary herself, for all men,
over all womankind.
95 Now I urge you, my beloved man, Click for translation
that you tell men about this vision:
reveal with words that it is the tree of glory
on which almighty God suffered
for mankind's many sins
100 and Adam's ancient deeds.
Death he tasted there; nevertheless, the Lord rose again Click for translation
with his great might to help mankind.
He ascended into heaven. He will come again
to this earth to seek mankind.
105 on doomsday, the Lord himself, Click for translation
almighty God, and his angels with him,
so that he will then judge, he who has the power of judgement,
each one of them, for what they themselves have
earned here earlier in this transitory life.
110 Nor may any of them be unafraid there Click for translation
because of the words which the Saviour will speak:
he will ask in front of the multitude where the person might be
who for the Lord's name would
taste bitter death, just as he did before on that tree.
115 But then they will be fearful and little think Click for translation
what they might begin to say to Christ.
Then there will be no need for any of those to be very afraid
who bear before them in the breast the best of trees.
But by means of the rood each soul
120 who thinks to dwell with the Ruler Click for translation
must seek the kingdom from the earthly way.'
I prayed to the tree with a happy spirit then,
with great zeal, there where I was alone
with little company. My spirit was
125 inspired with longing for the way forward; I experienced in all Click for translation
many periods of longing. It is now my life's hope
that I might seek the tree of victory
alone more often than all men,
to honour it well. My desire for that is
130 great in my mind, and my protection is Click for translation
directed to the cross. I do not have many wealthy
friends on earth; but they have gone forward from here,
passed from the joys of this world, sought for themselves the King of glory;
they live now in heaven with the High Father,
135 they dwell in glory. And I myself hope Click for translation
each day for when the Lord's cross,
that I looked at here on earth,
will fetch me from this transitory life,
and then bring me where there is great bliss,
140 joy in heaven, where the Lord's people Click for translation
are set in feasting, where there is unceasing bliss;
and then will set me where I might afterwards
dwell in glory fully with the saints
to partake of joy. May the Lord be a friend to me,
145 he who here on earth suffered previously Click for translation
on the gallows-tree for the sins of man.
He redeemed us, and gave us life,
a heavenly home. Hope was renewed
with dignity and with joy for those who suffered burning there.
150 The Son was victorious in that undertaking,Click for footnote Click for translation
powerful and successful, when he came with the multitudes,
a troop of souls, into God's kingdom,
the one Ruler almighty, to the delight of angels
and all the saints who were in heaven before,
155 who dwelled in glory, when their Ruler came, Click for translation
almighty God, to where his native land was.

"the NT was in Latin."

Um... Don't you mean it was translated into Latin, as it is universally accepted that NT was originally written in Greek?

"The real problem you have is that Armenians adopted Christianity in the first century..."

Evidence?

"and were being persecuted by 110AD."

Evidence?

"Jews wrote of him as a person."

Evidence, and please make it contemporary?

"As of 110 AD people were being persecuted for following him"

Evidence?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 03:31 AM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2014 04:05 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: The great josephus interpolation
(14-09-2014 07:33 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  BB, I have to say you are one of the most narrow minded thinkers on this site. You have not once addressed the points that Ralph Ellis raises which singles you out as a dogmatist just like the people you constantly attack. It may be possible to get away with insulting people for their views on an internet forum, a medium famous for mindlessness and bullying, but it doesn't wash in the real world or academia to suggest that you can comment on a position when you haven't even read the book.

There's no record of any gospel mentioning Jesus before 67 AD in any work I have ever read. Just surmises and "suggestions". So, within 30 years or so people were being persecuted in the name of this person who they, according to some on this forum, think was a complete "myth". The NT is undoubtedly a ficionalization so how on earth can any one focus on the date of it's supposed setting as being any more true than the miracles in it. It's like saying that the kid JK Rowling based Harry Potter on couldn't possibly have been a neighbour's child because the book was set 30 years earlier. If you can't deal with this particular issues, god knows how you are gong to get through a dissertation.

You know there were characters called Jesus of Gamala and Izates and you know their histories are similar and bear resemblances to Jesus. Suck it up big boy and deal with it.

"So, within 30 years or so people were being persecuted in the name of this person"

Evidence?

"how on earth can any one focus on the date of it's supposed setting as being any more true than the miracles in it."

Well....there's this....

"Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think a man named Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple. I don’t think this is a Christian interpolation, as he doesn’t write of them with much respect.

I propose that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries."
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
17-09-2014, 02:52 PM
RE: The great josephus interpolation
(16-09-2014 08:00 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  I've seen much scrotum-twisting by apologists trying to salvage the TF for their godboy but I'll simply stick to the most obvious failure.

Origen writes:

Quote: For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.

Quote:Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.

(and I separated the passage into two in order to avoid this board's annoying tendency to collapse long quotes).

So, no. He is not refuting Celsus at all. He is discussing the failure of Josephus to properly attribute the disasters which befell the Jews to the death of jesus and instead citing the death of James the Just....which, as I pointed out much earlier, Josephus did not say, either. But even if the watered-down variant of the TF did exist as apologists desperately try to show it is clear that Origen knew nothing about it 75 years before it appears in all its glory in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Bk 1, Chapter 11.

The plain fact is that we have nothing before Eusebius' TA-Da! moment when he trots out the TF and he used it 3 times in different works. Not a single early xtian writer knows anything about it and Origen, who most assuredly would not have written what he wrote if anything resembling it had existed is the clinching piece.

The TF is a 4th century forgery which (mainly) protestant scholars have tried to breathe life into with a collection of sophistic bullshit arguments.

As Bishop Warburton noted in the late 18th century: The TF is " a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too"

Have you considered the possibility that since Origen is speaking about the writings of both Josephus & Celsus, that the excerpt above may very well refer to Celsum as the writer whom Origen refers to when he says "Now this writer ...?"

Since it doesn't exist in Josephus' extant works, it is entirely reasonable- and quite likely- that he is speaking of Celsus's works.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: The great josephus interpolation
Absolutely not.

He comments on Josephus and then says "this writer."

Like I said, apologists will twist their balls into a pretzel trying to get their godboy off the hook for anything. It's a common tactic no matter what issue they are debating. But it is obvious bullshit in this case. Origen's meaning is crystal clear.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
17-09-2014, 03:41 PM (This post was last modified: 17-09-2014 03:57 PM by Free.)
RE: The great josephus interpolation
(17-09-2014 03:32 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Absolutely not.

He comments on Josephus and then says "this writer."

Like I said, apologists will twist their balls into a pretzel trying to get their godboy off the hook for anything. It's a common tactic no matter what issue they are debating. But it is obvious bullshit in this case. Origen's meaning is crystal clear.

I disagree.

Textual analysis demonstrates that the latin use of the word "Now" in the words "Now this writer" refers to a change in direction from the previous writer, which was Jospehus.

Not only that, since Origen is paraphrasing the writer by describing what he says in regards to James the Just, Origen then goes on in the very next paragraph with the words of, " This Jew of Celsus continues, after the above, in the following fashion:"

Reasoning and logic determines that since Origen stated "after the above," which obviously refers to the above paragraph which speaks of James the Just, and clearly states that "Celsus continues AFTER THE ABOVE," then what did Celsus say in the previous paragraph that would warrant Origen stating "after the above?"

Obviously Celsum said "something" in the previous paragraph, and that something is most likely what Origen paraphrased in regards to James the Just.

Wink

Mind you, Origen does indeed state quite clearly elsewhere that Josephus does mention James the Just as the reason for the fall of Jerusalem, but the paragraph in question is very ambiguous.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 04:36 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2014 04:43 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: The great josephus interpolation
(17-09-2014 03:31 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(14-09-2014 07:33 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  BB, I have to say you are one of the most narrow minded thinkers on this site. You have not once addressed the points that Ralph Ellis raises which singles you out as a dogmatist just like the people you constantly attack. It may be possible to get away with insulting people for their views on an internet forum, a medium famous for mindlessness and bullying, but it doesn't wash in the real world or academia to suggest that you can comment on a position when you haven't even read the book.

There's no record of any gospel mentioning Jesus before 67 AD in any work I have ever read. Just surmises and "suggestions". So, within 30 years or so people were being persecuted in the name of this person who they, according to some on this forum, think was a complete "myth". The NT is undoubtedly a ficionalization so how on earth can any one focus on the date of it's supposed setting as being any more true than the miracles in it. It's like saying that the kid JK Rowling based Harry Potter on couldn't possibly have been a neighbour's child because the book was set 30 years earlier. If you can't deal with this particular issues, god knows how you are gong to get through a dissertation.

You know there were characters called Jesus of Gamala and Izates and you know their histories are similar and bear resemblances to Jesus. Suck it up big boy and deal with it.

"So, within 30 years or so people were being persecuted in the name of this person"

Evidence?

"how on earth can any one focus on the date of it's supposed setting as being any more true than the miracles in it."

Well....there's this....

"Despite the dearth of reputable evidence, I think a man named Yeshua probably did exist, and that parts of the Gospel plots are loosely based on his life. My reasoning is as follows.

There is non-biblical evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes, and many scholars claim Yeshua was their boss between these two, an idea that fits with what we know about Yeshua. The Nazarenes soldiered on for a few centuries after Jesus’ death, weren’t Christians, and there’s evidence from the church fathers’ writings that they believed Yeshua had existed.

Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been Yeshua’s brother and disciple. I don’t think this is a Christian interpolation, as he doesn’t write of them with much respect.

I propose that Yeshua probably existed, but his life story was far less remarkable than the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his insignificance, so was destroyed by evangelical Christians sometime in the second, third or fourth centuries."


Mark, I don't intend to conduct myself on this forum as though I am in a debate or writing a paper. I read both scientific articles and paper written by non-scientists. It isn't possible to prove things in the non-scientific world in the same way as in the scientific world because we have to rely on thing written by other people in other languages which requires us to understand what their particular writing techinique involves and whether they even write from an objective, truthful perspective. Back 2000 years ago the only people who could read and write were people schooled by the ruling classes so there is no reason whatsoever to assume anything written back then was objective or entirely truthful. Also, we, and particularly religious scholars, suffer from what BB accuses Ellis of, Presentism. If, for instance, you say that certain words have a similar meaning and sound, and this means they had a similar meaning, you get people, here, almost laughing. They are ok with the dual pronunciation of the word "Celt" with an "s" and "k" sound, but that is about as far as their minds stretch and they don't even know why this is.

In a civilization where 2% of the population wrote, and they were writing for the ruling class and religion, you have to devise other means of looking at the origins of religions.

I'm of the view, now, that Judaism today is nothing at all like Judaism of 2000 yeara ago. I don't even think the "Jews" were the same people. I think they were Gauls and their own book says they are because Abraham came from Ur in Sumeria which makes Jews "Aryan". This no doubt raises huge guffaws andFacepalm Facepalm but that is what Genesis says. It's also what DNA at Johns Hopkins says in research which has nothing to do with racial or religious theories. http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-en...m-1.490539

So, when you look at the Jesus story, you are looking at an era which had a pre exsiting religion, coming out of Egypt and a predominant religion there was the worship of "Karas" or "Horos". He is the anointed son of god and he is an avenging god. This cult was merged with Ra worship by the Pharoahs (I can give you a ref for that). Why? I think because it was like modern Islam.

Then you look at Jerusalem and it was often spelled with an "H" and stem from a consonantal language system so it is "RSLM". That means "submission of man to the "fire" god" or the god of the Aryans. There's no way round that. Then you look at the Egyptians who are often called the "Khem". If you take my Celtic analogy then this makes them "Sem" and "gem", giving us "Camal", "Gemel" and "seminal" and even "germinal". The reason these words come down to us with different spellings is that we don't know how things were pronounced. People didn't write first, they spoke and they used gutteral sounds to make their languages more complex with a greater variety of sounds. It is us who try to figure things out and are confused into thinking that this or that word means something different from another word because it is spelled differently. We all suffer from "presentism" in a big way, but that is what academia burdens itself with, that you have to move at a snail's pace if you adopt academic standards of proof.

Here's a newish sort of piece of scientific research that most people have never heard of and it could completely change how we look at world history: http://www.ees.lanl.gov/geodynamics/Wohl...akatau.htm

Since I was a kid, we have realized that there was, indeed, a world flood, that there was a Near East refugia of Europeans, that places like Syria were green sheep grazing lands inhabited by people who were "free" from the Romans, ie., Frankish people. Linguistic analysis shows that European languages descend from languages of the Near East, that Turkish is similar to Sumerian, that Enlish DNA shows that they migrated from Turkey 9000 years ago...

My view is becoming increasingly influenced by science which is washing over the sort of debate that goes on here. In my view, Egypt and the Near East had a religion which was based on astrological notions including an avenging, anointed son figure, pronounce it any way you like, but it is what gave rise to the "Christ" figure which we find in the NT. I have no doubt this is largely fiction but I think it is also a highly political work.

I think if you look at the Near East today you see what became of old Judaism. The Romans tried to turn it into NT Christianity but they failed. It worked for people under their influence but the problem is that people in the Near East had first hand and close up experience of "Jesus" and they adopted different sorts of religions which are like NT Christianity but see Jesus as, in some sects, a real person, not born of a virgin.

So, what happened? There was a collapse of the centre of the "world system" and that gave rise to a new development. The Kingdoms collapsed and the people who remained, dirt poor bedouins, rose up against their rulers. In the wake of this, Islam was written up as a religion to take advantage of and consolidate this. But, the underlying ideas of this movement come out of Near Eastern, Judaic monotheism.

Look at Gaza and Isis. The same dilemma presents itself today. This old religion with its militancy just won't go away. What is the best way of dealing with this so it goes away forever? The issues are ideological and one can easily see how the way forward has to be to change the way these militants see the world.

That is what the NT is. It is an ideological work intended to get this primitive religion to worship a figure who was at once a recognized leader of these people and also peaceful and pro-Roman.

Sorry, the idea of some "Yeshua" figure just doesn't cut it with me anymore. Not only is there no evidence of this figure but it just doesn't deal with a hundred year war with the Jews and the events of the Jewish revolt. It doesn't take into account that there was, in fact, someone called Jesus, on the scene, who fed the poor, was a high priest, a military leader and was probably the person Josephus took down from the cross.

The problem I have here, on this forum, is that I can see what Ellis is saying. I don't know enough to say he is entirely correct. However, where he mentions things I have read elsewhere, he reports things as I have read elsewhere.

I just reread bits of his King of Edessa book and was amazed at what he said about Hamas. He is criticized for being a "presentist" but one of the things he drove home in the book was the background and ideas of Hamas and what he says about them turned out to be entirely correct.

I think it is extremely important that we get to grips with what Islam is all about. Do many people actualy realize, for instance, that the disagreement between Sunnis and Shia muslims stems among other things from the view that Shia believe in the second coming of Jesus:

I said, ‘Verily, Jesus will descend to the world before the Resurrection Day, then the people of the Jewish nation or Christian nation will not remain [on the earth] unless they believe in him before their death and will pray behind al-Mahdi.’ He said, ‘Woe unto you! Where did you bring it from?’ I said, ‘Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib (‘a) narrated it to me.’ He said, ‘By Allah! You brought it from a pure spring.’”1 http://www.al-islam.org/jesus-though-shi...ond-coming

Then there is Syria which is ruled by the Alawi who are some kind of crypto-Christian sect, but we don't know because they are so secretive, only they know what they are. People think they are Muslims. Who knows?

My own view is that talk of who Jesus was is largely irrelevant. At some point there will be more of an academic interest in Jesus of Gamala et al and religious places like Sanliurfa and Gobleki Tepe.

For me, I am now of the view that the religions of Egypt and the near east and Rome were astrological inseminating/phallic religions and that Judaism comes from paganisic Tau worship. This became a predominant sect which spread across the Near East and the centre of the ancient world in what is now Turkey, and Iran. It challenged Rome in strength and where they met was in Judea, Syria and southern Turkey and this brought about a 100 year long war which brought the Flavians to power in Rome and the development of the NT as an antidote to the prevailing militant religion of the Near East. I think this new Roman religion is Hellenistic, Essene and Gnostic and is much like Epicureanism which had waned with the coming of the Claudians.

GaspWeepingFacepalmBowingThumbsup I thought I would get those in first.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2014, 06:01 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2014 10:00 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The great josephus interpolation
He forgot the most important one.

Laugh out load

Can I play "Connect The Random Dots" too ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...eliability

There was no "world flood". Archaeological sites from all around the world have NOT ONE SHRED of evidence that there was a "world flood". All floods have silt layers. Thousands, if not millions of archaeological sites have NOT ONE SHRED of evidence there was ever a "world flood". They have been excavated DEEPER than the evidence would be present. It's simply a delusional concept, with NO SUPPORT, anywhere, and NOT ONE scientist agrees with it, or supports that nonsense. Anyone asserting that crap, puts everything else they say into to context of THAT asserted nonsense, and EVERYTHING else they then say, is questionable, as the METHODOLOGY is either totally ABSENT, or totally questionable.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-09-2014, 07:08 AM
RE: The great josephus interpolation
(18-09-2014 04:36 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Mark, I don't intend to conduct myself on this forum as though I am in a debate or writing a paper. I read both scientific articles and paper written by non-scientists.

And consistently misunderstand or misinterpret them.

Quote: It isn't possible to prove things in the non-scientific world in the same way as in the scientific world because we have to rely on thing written by other people in other languages which requires us to understand what their particular writing techinique involves and whether they even write from an objective, truthful perspective. Back 2000 years ago the only people who could read and write were people schooled by the ruling classes so there is no reason whatsoever to assume anything written back then was objective or entirely truthful. Also, we, and particularly religious scholars, suffer from what BB accuses Ellis of, Presentism. If, for instance, you say that certain words have a similar meaning and sound, and this means they had a similar meaning, you get people, here, almost laughing. They are ok with the dual pronunciation of the word "Celt" with an "s" and "k" sound, but that is about as far as their minds stretch and they don't even know why this is.

'Celt' pronounced with an 's' is a modern mispronunciation. Nothing more - it has no significance.

Quote:In a civilization where 2% of the population wrote, and they were writing for the ruling class and religion, you have to devise other means of looking at the origins of religions.

I'm of the view, now, that Judaism today is nothing at all like Judaism of 2000 yeara ago. I don't even think the "Jews" were the same people. I think they were Gauls and their own book says they are because Abraham came from Ur in Sumeria which makes Jews "Aryan".
[/quote

Are you still going on with this? The DNA evidence says this is not true. Every paper you have referenced says this is not true. You have utterly misunderstood them.

[quote]
This no doubt raises huge guffaws andFacepalm Facepalm but that is what Genesis says.

Well, you've got that one right. The guffaws, that is.

Quote:It's also what DNA at Johns Hopkins says in research which has nothing to do with racial or religious theories. http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-en...m-1.490539

No, it doesn't.

Quote:So, when you look at the Jesus story, you are looking at an era which had a pre exsiting religion, coming out of Egypt and a predominant religion there was the worship of "Karas" or "Horos". He is the anointed son of god and he is an avenging god. This cult was merged with Ra worship by the Pharoahs (I can give you a ref for that). Why? I think because it was like modern Islam.

In what way was it like modern Islam? And if it was, so what?

Quote:Then you look at Jerusalem and it was often spelled with an "H" and stem from a consonantal language system so it is "RSLM". That means "submission of man to the "fire" god" or the god of the Aryans. There's no way round that.
[/quyote]

Yes, there is. A recent post in this forum has given a different etymology, so there is 'a way around that'.

[quote]
Then you look at the Egyptians who are often called the "Khem". If you take my Celtic analogy then this makes them "Sem" and "gem", giving us "Camal", "Gemel" and "seminal" and even "germinal".

This is where you and the other Ellisians go completely off the rails. That is creating imaginary connections for things that are not even vaguely related.

Quote: The reason these words come down to us with different spellings is that we don't know how things were pronounced. People didn't write first, they spoke and they used gutteral sounds to make their languages more complex with a greater variety of sounds. It is us who try to figure things out and are confused into thinking that this or that word means something different from another word because it is spelled differently. We all suffer from "presentism" in a big way, but that is what academia burdens itself with, that you have to move at a snail's pace if you adopt academic standards of proof.

You are the one suffering from some sort of presentism. You are using modern orthography to make ancient connections. This is no better than numerology.

Quote:Here's a newish sort of piece of scientific research that most people have never heard of and it could completely change how we look at world history: http://www.ees.lanl.gov/geodynamics/Wohl...akatau.htm

It is a very interesting piece of research that could explain some things that are not currently known. Completely change the way we look at world history? Hardly.

Quote:Since I was a kid, we have realized that there was, indeed, a world flood,

No, there wasn't. There is absolutely no evidence of any such flood.

Quote:that there was a Near East refugia of Europeans,

No, there wasn't. The ice age refuges were in southern Europe.

Quote: that places like Syria were green sheep grazing lands inhabited by people who were "free" from the Romans, ie., Frankish people.

There is no evidence of that. The Franks were European.

Quote: Linguistic analysis shows that European languages descend from languages of the Near East, that Turkish is similar to Sumerian, that Enlish DNA shows that they migrated from Turkey 9000 years ago...

No, so what, and no.

Quote:The problem I have here, on this forum, is that I can see what Ellis is saying. I don't know enough to say he is entirely correct. However, where he mentions things I have read elsewhere, he reports things as I have read elsewhere.

The problem I have here, with you, is that you think Ellis is saying anything useful at all.

Quote:I just reread bits of his King of Edessa book and was amazed at what he said about Hamas. He is criticized for being a "presentist" but one of the things he drove home in the book was the background and ideas of Hamas and what he says about them turned out to be entirely correct.

I think it is extremely important that we get to grips with what Islam is all about. Do many people actualy realize, for instance, that the disagreement between Sunnis and Shia muslims stems among other things from the view that Shia believe in the second coming of Jesus:

The base difference between Sunnis and Shiites is the rightful succession from Mohammed. Since the split, the two sects have evolved other differences.

Quote:I said, ‘Verily, Jesus will descend to the world before the Resurrection Day, then the people of the Jewish nation or Christian nation will not remain [on the earth] unless they believe in him before their death and will pray behind al-Mahdi.’ He said, ‘Woe unto you! Where did you bring it from?’ I said, ‘Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib (‘a) narrated it to me.’ He said, ‘By Allah! You brought it from a pure spring.’”1 http://www.al-islam.org/jesus-though-shi...ond-coming

Then there is Syria which is ruled by the Alawi who are some kind of crypto-Christian sect, but we don't know because they are so secretive, only they know what they are. People think they are Muslims. Who knows?

And who cares? How is it significant?

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
18-09-2014, 08:58 AM
RE: The great josephus interpolation
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: