Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2013, 11:22 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(03-04-2013 05:10 AM)Doctor X Wrote:  They do not. Mt links his birth prior to 4 BCE and Luke to just after 6 CE. So he would be in his 60s. Mk--and Lk, Mt, Jn also limit him to Pilate--again prior to 35 CE. Oh and, you know, Jerusalem is still in existence.


So Jesus was in his 60s when he led the Jewish Revolt . And...?? So...??
How old was Winston Churchill, when he led the UK in WWII?

As to Jerusalem, it was wiped off the Judaic map in AD 70, with the Temple destroyed and every Jew being exiled from within sight of the city (Josephus says a million people were exiled). In its place, Hadrian built a new city, Aelia Capitolina.

The rest of your post is a rambling diatribe, appealing to authority and consensus as evidence of truth. Of course, if you are appealing to authority and consensus, you no doubt still believe in:

The seven crystal spheres that encompass the Earth.
The geocentric model of the solar system.
Disease being spread by vapors and noxious smells.
Zeus being the chief of the gods.
The Universal Law of Gravitation.
That stomach ulcers are caused by stress and acids.


Appeals to consensus only means you are swimming with the tide, not that you are correct - as we have seen amply demonstrated recently in climate 'science'. Conversely, I have presented numerous points and contentions to the consensus in theology that are not only logical and self consistent, but they also explain a great deal about the biblical story that was otherwise inexplicable. And yet you have presented nothing to counter those arguments, bar a call to consensus. But that proves nothing.



.
Find all posts by this user
03-04-2013, 11:29 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
Da fuq? Address the concern that nobody but you conflates Psusennes I with Psusennes II but you. Tongue
(Yeah, I've been drinking. You jelly? )

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-04-2013, 11:34 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(03-04-2013 11:22 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 05:10 AM)Doctor X Wrote:  They do not. Mt links his birth prior to 4 BCE and Luke to just after 6 CE. So he would be in his 60s. Mk--and Lk, Mt, Jn also limit him to Pilate--again prior to 35 CE. Oh and, you know, Jerusalem is still in existence.


So Jesus was in his 60s when he led the Jewish Revolt . And...?? So...??
How old was Winston Churchill, when he led the UK in WWII?

As to Jerusalem, it was wiped off the Judaic map in AD 70, with the Temple destroyed and every Jew being exiled from within sight of the city (Josephus says a million people were exiled). In its place, Hadrian built a new city, Aelia Capitolina.

The rest of your post is a rambling diatribe, appealing to authority and consensus as evidence of truth. Of course, if you are appealing to authority and consensus, you no doubt still believe in:

The seven crystal spheres that encompass the Earth.
The geocentric model of the solar system.
Disease being spread by vapors and noxious smells.
Zeus being the chief of the gods.
The Universal Law of Gravitation.
That stomach ulcers are caused by stress and acids.


Appeals to consensus only means you are swimming with the tide, not that you are correct - as we have seen amply demonstrated recently in climate 'science'. Conversely, I have presented numerous points and contentions to the consensus in theology that are not only logical and self consistent, but they also explain a great deal about the biblical story that was otherwise inexplicable. And yet you have presented nothing to counter those arguments, bar a call to consensus. But that proves nothing.



.

Sorry Ralph. Jerusalem was not destroyed in 70 CE. That happened after the bar Kochba revolt about 50 years later. The temple was, not the city.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
03-04-2013, 12:15 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 06:35 PM by Doctor X.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
******

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
03-04-2013, 01:14 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
Woah. Watch out, Doc... he's getting feisty... Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-04-2013, 01:57 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(02-04-2013 09:22 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(02-04-2013 07:54 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  And! Sometimes you refer to Psusennes I as David (like the images above), and sometimes Psusennes II, like the World Mysteries post... Consider


Same guy - conflated.

The only change made to the Egyptian record, is that the Torah only seems to have one David (one Psusennes).

However, if you look at the fragmentary evidence for the historical record, you can see why errors occur (literally fragmentary, as most of it is mummy wrappings). There are numerous permutations of fitting these wrapping-records together, and so the historians have lent heavily on Manetho for a succession list - if you believe Manetho.

So I took all the records of these pharaohs, and matched them to the biblical royal succession (with only one David/Psusennes) and it worked just fine.


.


Works fine fine if you make up your own facts. Like you are doing.

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
04-04-2013, 02:08 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(03-04-2013 11:29 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Da fuq? Address the concern that nobody but you conflates Psusennes I with Psusennes II but you. Tongue


I already have.

The historical record is lacking, so they are using Manetho as a framework. But do you trust Manetho as being 100% accurate?

To test this, I used the biblical royal succession as a framework, and that fitted the historical records even better

The records are composed of mummy bandages which say "Year ** under High Priest ****" (the 'year' refers to the pharaoh, not the high priest.) And most of them do not mention the pharaoh's name.

So the game is: If we know roughly the succession of the high priests, then the year numbers should rise until there is a new pharaoh, and then stat from 'one' again. But with a long-lived high priest, who ruled along with two or three pharaoh - does a low year square to the first or the third pharaoh? Tricky, eh?

As you can imagine, there are many possible permutations in this puzzle. The following is the list of bandages. The left column is the ordering of those bandages using the the biblical (my) chronology, and the second row is using the classical (Kenneth Kitchen) chronology. So the bandage inscription only starts with "Year ... " :



 K = Pharaoh, HP = High Priest


Biblical ...... Kitchen ...... Year
Order ........ Order ......... of Pharaoh


K Smendes & HP Pinedjem I
6 ...... 6 ...... Year 1 of Pinudjem I
7 ...... 7 ...... Year 4
8 ...... 8 ...... Year 6
9 ...... 9 ...... Year 6, HP Pinudjem I
10 ...... 10 ...... Year 6, HP Pinudjem I
11 ...... 11 ...... Year 6
12 ...... 12 ...... Year 9, linen made by HP Pinudjem I
13 ...... 13 ...... Year 10, linen made by HP Pinudjem I
14 ...... 14 ...... Year 10, linen made by HP Pinudjem I
15 ...... 15 ...... Year 10, coming to see the mountains ... HP Pinudjem I
16 ...... 16 ...... Year 10,
17 ...... 17 ...... Year 11, coming to see the mountains ... HP Pinudjem I
18 ...... 18 ...... Year 11, coming to see the mountains ...
19 ...... 19 ...... Year 11, coming to see the mountains ...
Note the references to visiting the ‘mountains’ at the necropolis. Since these
pharaohs were based in Tanis and Heliopolis, they were probably more
interested in the Giza necropolis than the Valley of the Kings.
20 ...... 20 ...... Year 11
21 ...... 21 ...... Year 12
22 ...... 22 ...... Year 12, re-burial of Amenophis II by HP Pinudjem I
23 ...... 23 ...... Year 12, coming to see the mountains by necropolis scribe ...
24 ...... 24 ...... Year 13, coming to see the mountains ...
25 ...... 25 ...... year 13, osirify Ramesses III, HP Pinudjem I
26 ...... 26 ...... Year 15, day of bringing, HP Pinudjem I

............ Induction of HP Masaharta & ‘K’ Pinudjem I
27 ...... 27 ...... Year 16, HP Masaharta son of Pinudjem I
Note that HP Pinudjem I was still alive. He had left the priesthood and claimed
the throne of Thebes as king, although nobody at the time seems to have paid
any attention to this.
28 ...... 28 ...... Year 16, HP Masaharta
29 ...... 29 ...... Year 18, linen by HP Masaharta
30 ...... 30 ...... Year 19
31 ...... 31 ...... Year 20
32 ...... 32 ...... Year 20
33 ...... 33 ...... Year 21

............ Induction of HP Menkheperre & ‘K’ Pinudjem I
34 ...... 34 ...... Year 25, arrival of Menkheperre
35 ...... 35 ...... Year 25, induction of Menkheperre
36 ...... ?? ........ Year 25, (Louvre ‘Banishment Stele’) Recall of exiles
The Maunier ‘Banishment Stele’ marks a significant event that can only be
explained in terms of a change of policy. Such policy changes are often only
brought about by a change in administration, hence I have placed the record at
this point in time on the induction of a new high priest. The ‘Banishment Stele’
is also followed by a short reign, which it now is – that of Amenemnisu.
37 ...... 43 ...... Year 30, linen by Menkheperre?
38 ...... 44 ...... Year 40, inspection of temples under HP Menkheperre
39 ...... 45 ...... Year 48, works by HP Menkheperre
40 ...... 46 ...... Year 48, Menkheperre linen

K Amenemnisu & HP Menkheperre & ‘K’ Pinudjem I
41 ...... 36 ...... Year 1, HP Menkheperre seeks oracle

K Siamun & HP Menkheperre & ‘K’ Pinudjem I
42 ...... 56 ...... Year 2, (Karnak Annals 3b 1-3)

............ Induction of Nespaneferhor under Pinudjem I
43 ...... 38 ...... Year 7
44 ...... 39 ...... Year 7
45 ...... 73 ...... Year 8, of K Siamun, linen by HP&K Pinudjem I
46 ...... 74 ...... Year 8, of K Siamun, linen, mummy 124 or 134?
There is an oddity here, in that the mummy No 124 has linen from both King
Amenemopet and King Siamun. Kitchen has played around with the mummy
numbers, but the problem still exists in both the classical and the revised
chronology. It is unlikely that linen was kept for quite so long before being
used.
47 ...... 40 ...... Year 8, K&HP Pinudjem I to re-osirify Ahmose I
48 ...... ?? ...... Year 8, linen by HP&K Pinudjem I, and his son Menkheperre, year 8 of K Siamun
49 ...... 41 ...... Year 8, command to osirify prince Siamun
Note that the command to bury a prince Siamun makes much more sense now.
Here, the father was burying a son with the same name, whereas the classical
chronology has a pharaoh called Psusennes I inserted at this point and burying
prince Siamun.
50 ...... 77 ...... Year 10, dockets under K Siamun
51 ...... 78 ...... Year 10, same
52 ...... 79 ...... Year 10, burial of HP&K Pinudjem I (priest for 64 years)
While this is a surprisingly long period, there are two factors to bear in mind.
Firstly, Pinudjem I effectively resigned after 16 years in office, in favour of his
sons. Secondly, it is thought that Pinudjem I was rather old at his death.
53 ...... 80 ...... Year 12, linen by HP Psusennes III
54 ...... 85 ...... Year 15, linen by HP Psusennes III (actual year uncertain)
55 ...... 82 ...... Year 16, K Siamun
56 ...... 83 ...... Year 17, K Siamun (Karnak Annals 3b 3-5) induction of Hori, son of Nespaneferhor
57 ...... 84 ...... Year 17, K Siamun

K Uasorkon & HP Menkheperre
58 ...... 37 ...... Year 6, linen by HP Menkheperre

K Amenemopet & HP Pinudjem II & HP Smendes
59 ...... 51 ...... Year 1, mummy linen, also year 48 of HP Menkheperre, plus braces of HP Pinudjem II enclosed
The changes made to the chronology mean that the 48-year tenure for the HP
Menkheperre is now substantially correct. The HP Menkheperre would have
held his office for 22 years under Smendes, 4 years under Amenemnisu, 16
years under Siamun and 6 years under Uasorkon (remember that if a pharaoh
dies in his 17th year, he has only completed 16 full years). The total is thus
48 years. Since HP Menkheperre had been in office for 48 years at the start of
the reign of Amenemopet, both the royal reign lengths and the priestly office
periods tally rather well.
60 ...... 57 ...... Year 1, (linen from mummy of Pinudjem II)
This linen was obviously made in advance of Pinudjem II’s death, as were
several other bandages on his mummy – they must have been stored for up to
13 years. This bandage fragment infers that Pinudjem II was inducted as HP
in year one of Amenemopet.
As references that include HP Pinudjem II cannot possibly now refer to the
pharaoh Siamun, the references following No 57 (Nos 57-72) must now belong
to Amenemopet – as was thought all along by historians.
61 ...... ?? ...... Year (2), also year 49 of (HP Menkheperre)
62 ...... 50 ...... Amenemopet & HP Pinudjem II (no year)
63 ...... 58 ...... Year 2, judgement of officials under Pinudjem II
64 ...... 59 ...... Year 2, judgement of officials under Pinudjem II
65 ...... 60 ...... Year 3, judgement of officials under Pinudjem II
66 ...... 52 ...... Year 3, linen by Pinudjem II, mummy 143
67 ...... 63 ...... Year 3, linen by Pinudjem II, mummy 143
68 ...... 61 ...... Year 3, linen by Pinudjem II
69 ...... 62 ...... Year 3, linen from mummy of Pinudjem II
70 ...... 66 ...... Year 5, linen by Neskhons
71 ...... 67 ...... Year 5, decree for Neskhons
72 ...... 68 ...... Year 5, burial text for Neskhons
73 ...... 54 ...... Year 5, dateline for Amenemopet
74 ...... 64 ...... Year 5, decree for Henttawy
75 ...... 65 ...... Year 5, judgement of Amun
76 ...... 69 ...... Year 6, decree for Henttawy
77 ...... 70 ...... Year 7, linen (renewal of) mummy of Ramesses IX
78 ...... 71 ...... Year 7, linen by HP Pinudjem II, his mummy
79 ...... 72 ...... Year 7, linen by Pinudjem II, mummy 124
80 ...... 75 ...... Year 8, decree for Henttawy
81 ...... 76 ...... Year 9, linen by Pinudjem II, his mummy
82 ...... 55 ...... Year 10, linen by Pinudjem II, mummy 124
83 ...... 53 ...... Year 13, K Amenemopet, linen by HP Pinudjem II, mummy 124
84 ...... 86 ...... Year 13, Karnak annals (yr 13 after Siamun)
85 ...... 87 ...... Year 13, linen by a Chief of Harim
86 ...... 81 ...... Year 14, Karnak priestly annals (entry year 14 after mention of Pinudjem II)
87 ...... 49 ...... Amenemopet & HP Smendes (no year)

K Psusennes II & HP Smendes
88 ...... 42 ...... Year 19, Psusennes II, Dakhla stele
89 ...... 47 ...... Year 49, linen fragment with K Psusennes II and K Amenemopet
90 ...... 48 ...... Burial of K Psusennes II, bracelets of HP Smendes, son of Menkheperre
The bracelets of HP Smendes do not directly imply that this high priest was still alive at
the death of King Psusennes II, they were probably made at an earlier time.
While the sequence of HP Smendes following
HP Menkheperre is correct, HP Smendes would have been rather (but
not impossibly) old at the death of Psusennes II. Had Menkheperre begun
his office at the age of 20, and fathered Smendes at the age of 60, then the HP
Smendes would have been 77 at the death of Psusennes II.



What this means, is that all the 'long reign' bandages of Psusennes I are transferred to a single long reign of Psusennes II. I still call him Psusennes II for clarity, even though Psusennes I has been done away with. These are the new reign lengths, classical and revised, that result from the changes in the order of the bandages just given:

Pharaoh ...... Manetho ...... Revised
Smendes ......... 26 ............. 48
Psusennes I .... 46 .............. –
Amenemnisu .... 4 .............. 4
Siamun ............ 9 ............. 16
Uasorkon ......... 6 .............. 6
Amenemopet ..... 9 ............. 13
Psusennes II .... 35 ............ 49




Here is the CLASSICAL list of pharaohs vs high priests:

Pharaoh ............................. High Priest
Smendes [Amminadab] ....... Pinedjem I
(Nesbanebdjed) ................. Masaharta / Pinedjem I, Menkheperre / Pinedjem I
Amenemnisu [Nahshon] ...... Menkheperre / Pinedjem I
Psusennes I ....................... Menkheperre / Pinedjem I / HP Smendes
Amenemopet [Obed] .......... HP Smendes / Pinedjem II
B-Uasorkon [Boaz] ............ Pinedjem II
Siamun [Salmon] ............... Pinedjem II / HP Psusennes III
Psusennes II [David] ......... HP Psusennes III



And here is the REVISED list of pharaohs vs high priests:

Pharaoh ................................. High Priest
Smendes [Amminadab] ........... Pinedjem I
(Nesbanebdjed) ..................... Masaharta / Pinedjem I / Menkheperre / Pinedjem I
Amenemnisu [Nahshon] ......... Menkheperre / Pinedjem I
Siamun [Salmon] ................... Menkheperre / Pinedjem I / Psusennes III
B-Uasorkon [Boaz] ................. Menkheperre
Amenemopet [Obed] .............. Pinedjem II / HP Smendes
Psusennes II [David] .............. HP Smendes


As you can see, all the high priests are fully utilized, and their positions and order are fully supported by the historical data. The only real change, is that HP Smendes has gone down the list, and taken K Psusennes I with him. The biblical king-list also has Pharaoh Siamun at an earlier time. And we still have an K Psusennes and a K Amenemopet in successive reigns, which is important.




.
Find all posts by this user
04-04-2013, 02:29 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 06:35 PM by Doctor X.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
******

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
04-04-2013, 03:17 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(03-04-2013 11:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sorry Ralph. Jerusalem was not destroyed in 70 CE. That happened after the bar Kochba revolt about 50 years later. The temple was, not the city.


Sorry, Buckyball, you need to read Josephus in more detail:

Quote:
Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came to the place believe it had ever been inhabited. War 7:1:1


People 'could not even believe it had been inhabited'. The implication is clear - Jerusalem was raised to the ground.


.
Find all posts by this user
04-04-2013, 03:44 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2013 03:50 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(03-04-2013 11:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 11:22 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  So Jesus was in his 60s when he led the Jewish Revolt . And...?? So...??
How old was Winston Churchill, when he led the UK in WWII?

As to Jerusalem, it was wiped off the Judaic map in AD 70, with the Temple destroyed and every Jew being exiled from within sight of the city (Josephus says a million people were exiled). In its place, Hadrian built a new city, Aelia Capitolina.

The rest of your post is a rambling diatribe, appealing to authority and consensus as evidence of truth. Of course, if you are appealing to authority and consensus, you no doubt still believe in:

The seven crystal spheres that encompass the Earth.
The geocentric model of the solar system.
Disease being spread by vapors and noxious smells.
Zeus being the chief of the gods.
The Universal Law of Gravitation.
That stomach ulcers are caused by stress and acids.


Appeals to consensus only means you are swimming with the tide, not that you are correct - as we have seen amply demonstrated recently in climate 'science'. Conversely, I have presented numerous points and contentions to the consensus in theology that are not only logical and self consistent, but they also explain a great deal about the biblical story that was otherwise inexplicable. And yet you have presented nothing to counter those arguments, bar a call to consensus. But that proves nothing.



.

Sorry Ralph. Jerusalem was not destroyed in 70 CE. That happened after the bar Kochba revolt about 50 years later. The temple was, not the city.

Ah....I was just about to make the same point. Ralph...you're getting the first and second Jewish wars mixed up.

Hadrian was emperor from 117-138. He banned all Jews from Jerusalem after the SECOND war of 132-135.

Jews returned to Jerusalem after the first war, including the Nazarenes.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: