[split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2013, 05:10 AM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2013 05:51 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
.

>>And as I've already told you directly, my beliefs have no
>>bearing whatsoever on my scholarship.

Yeeaahh, riiiight. Just like the beliefs of Billy Graham would never colour his world-view in any way.

So let's get this right:
i. You believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
ii. You find a thesis that indicates that Jesus was merely a king of Edessa, and not supernatural at all.
iii. You argue vigorously against this concept.
iv. But your beliefs have in no way influenced your decision to reject said thesis.

Do you think we have all just dropped off a Christmas tree?

And I note that you could not even accept that all the Gospel material should be shifted into the AD 60s, which is a truism that any cursory glance at the gospels and apocryphal gospels will demonstrate.
But of course your rejection of this truism was NOT based upon your childhood indoctrination that Jesus died in AD 33. No, of course not...




>>You already know very well that nothing I've said is meant in any
>>way to reinforce my belief system.

Except, of course, that preventing the truth about Jesus from escaping (that he was a mortal prince and king), would save your entire faith, philosophy and Church from extinction.
But this was never ever a part of your reasoning for attacking the 'Jesus = king of Edessa' hypothesis. Of course not.




>>...found gold tablets written in 'reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs' that he translated using
>>a seeing-stone -- and then promptly 'lost them' again?? Yeeaaahh, riiiiiight,
>>several kilos in gold, and he looses them.

>>>>Coming from the guy who says Jesus Christ was the king of Edessa and King Arthur?

i. Jesus was the central figure on the Hamat Teverya zodiac, from the Sea of Galilee (surrounded by his 12 disciple-constellations).
ii. The central figure on any zodiac is either the Sun (the Sun-god Jesus figure, Helios), or it is Ursa Major.
iii. Ursa Major is the Great Bear - or Arthur. So the central figure on a zodiac can either be Jesus or Arthur.
iv. As the Vulgate Cycle of Arthurian Legend says, the Round Table of Arthur (with 12 knights) was a copy of the Last Supper Table of Jesus (with 12 disciples).
v. But both were derived from the Hamat zodiac from Galilee - the Round Table and 12 knights-disciples was merely a copy of the Round Zodiac with 12 constellations.
vi. And the name-change (from Jesus to Arthur) was made because fundamentalist deists have a habit of burning people who claim that Jesus did not die on the cross.

But of course Josiah Smith losing his gold tablets is muuuuch more believable.
And believing a ridiculous story that has absolutely NO evidence to support it, is much more rational.




>>>It is highly likely that you are a 'sleeper' - a believer who pretends to be
>>>Atheistic and yet seeks in every way possible to destabilise and destroy Atheism.

>>Oh, good grief.

But you happen to be on an Atheist blog site, arguing against a theory that would destroy your belief system, and reduce the Mormon Church to crumbling ruins.

And that is mere coincidence?


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 05:20 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
>>>Give us an example of 'reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs' I mean, you
>>>are so good at languages, so show us what they look like.

>>I get this from fundamentalist Christians screeching in the street all the
>>time. Way to show just what calibre of thinker I'm going up against here.


The usual Maklelan tactic - when you have no answer, deflect the criticism.

Now come on, old son, your entire faith, beliefs and world-view depends on a text written in 'Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphs'. And your entire challenge to the 'Jesus = prince of Edessa' concept was based upon languages.

So show us the alphabet and language that underpins your world view. It is a simple request - just give us a verse from the Book of Mormon that is written in the original Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphs. And then place those Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphs into a historical context - show us the history and antecedents of Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphs, and where else in the historical record that they have been used.

You are, as you have indicated, a rational historian and you would NEVER believe something that has been made up, and thus has no evidence to support it. So please show us the history of, and examples of, Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphs.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 05:29 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 05:20 PM)cufflink Wrote:  The author was a Harvard professor named Herbert Goldstein. At the end of his preface, Goldstein had added these Hebrew letters, unexplained: תושלב״ע.

I bring this up in this context because it was the first direct indication I had that bright people--sometimes frighteningly bright people--could believe things in the religious realm that seemed to me to be patently absurd. It still flabbergasts me, but it's a fact of life I've come to accept, if not understand. The best I can do is invoke the idea of compartmentalization: some people seem to bring different standards of reasoning, evidence, and proof to bear in different realms of inquiry.


Another example for you - from a Muslim professor.

R. You say the Koran is the word of god and therefore 100% correct.
P. Of course.
R. But the Koran says the Sun orbits the Earth.
P. Of course.
R. But it does not, the opposite happens.
P. Of course.
R. So the Koran is wrong.
P. No it is not.
R. But the Koran gives the wrong information about the Solar System.
P. The Koran is never wrong.
R. But it is wrong in this case.
P. No it is not.
R. But the Earth orbits the Sun.
P. Of course it does.
R. And the Koran says the Sun orbits the Earth.
P. Indeed.
R So the Koran is wrong.
P. The Koran is never wrong.


I was losing the will to live at this point, and went for a beer.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 05:45 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 01:01 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I think you have more than shown his errors and lack of expertise and of everything I have read here I have only a very few minor quibbles with your position (the other thread raises the main one) and commend you for rather thoroughly dismantling the entire argument. I hope you stick around to contribute to this community as expertise is always appreciated.


But of course Maklelan has done no such thing - he has merely beguiled you. What he has negated to do is to answer any of the difficult questions I posed, so that his lack of understanding would not be exposed.

So come on Maklelan, please answer the points I made about Adiabene being Edessa. And merely saying that you don't think that Moses of Chorene nor Yohannes Drasxanakertci nor Kirakos Ganjakets are reliable historians, is NOT an answer. You seem to rely on Manetho quite happily, but try to reject any historian who would undermine your Mormon faith.

So come on Maklelan, please answer the reasoned points I made about Adiabene being an alternative (Josephus-inspired?) name for Edessa.





>>Now, regarding your conflation of King Abgarus and
>>King Monobazus, you don’t really provide any evidence
>>You do not provide a word of evidence for these identifications


The short answer is that it is a complex topic. I wrote a 600-page book, and you require a summary in one paragraph, which is not really possible. However, these are the main points:

a.
The Syriac historians maintain that the wife of King Abgarus V was Queen Helena.

Quote – Moses of Chorene:
“The chief of King Abgar’s wives, who was named Helena … Helena could not bear to live with idolators, so she went away to Jerusalem in the time of Claudius, during the famine which Agabus had predicted. Spending all her treasures she bought an immense amount of grain in Egypt, which she distributed to the poor, to which Josephus bears witness. Her famous mausoleum stands before the gate at Jerusalem to this very day. (Moses of Chorene, History of the Armenians 2:35.) ”

This description, with this Helena identified with the Judaean famine relief and the tomb in Jerusalem, means that this IS Queen Helena of Adiabene. And here she is the wife of King Abgarus.
But if Queen Helena was married to King Abgarus V, then King Monobazus-Izas (the elder) of Adiabene and King Abgarus V of Edessa must be the same person. (She did not marry two different kings, because the surrounding events are the same too.)


b.
Likewise we have another history that says the same thing:

Quote – Ganjakets:
“She (the mother of Jalal) astonished all who saw or heard about her. For she had spent all her possessions for the poor and needy (like Abgar’s wife, Heghine) and she fed herself by her own embroidery work." (History of the Armenians, Kirakos Ganjakets)

Heghine is Queen Helena. Again this is a later history, but there are very few extant works from the 1st century from this region.


c.
An earlier text that we do have is Acts of the Apostles. This says:

Quote – Acts Apostles:
“And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea. Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” Act 11:28-30

Professor Eisenman says that this Agabus is one and the same as King Abgarus, and I would agree with him here:

Quote – Eisenman:
“According to Eusebius, the “Agbar” or “Abgar” in question (I prefer to use the former, because of its clear connection with the garbled “Agabus” in Acts and the matter of the famine or famine relief ) was actually called “Agbar Uchama”, which would be Abgar V ( d. c. 50 CE )”

http://roberteisenman.com/articles/mmt_agbarus.pdf

(Hint – if you select ‘Quick View’ from a google search for this article, you can do word searches and copy it.)

So the Agabus in Acts is King Abgarus au Chama V of Edessa. (Note that Eisenman even continues to use the spelling ‘King Agbarus’.) Yet here King Abgarus is being linked to the famine relief for Judaea, that was given by Queen Helena (according to Josephus). So again, King Abgarus is connected both to the famine relief, and thus also to Queen Helena.

Note, however, that it was Saul and Barnabas who took this famine relief from Edessa to Jerusalem. This demonstrates how close the biblical family were to the Edessan monarchy.


d.
Josephus says of this same famine relief event:

Quote – Josephus:
“And (Izates) made great preparations for (Helena’s) mission, and gave her a great deal of money, and she went down to the city Jerusalem … a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal. Queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs. And as soon as they were come back, and had brought those provisions, she distributed food to those (in Jerusalem) who were in want of it. And when her son Izates was informed of this famine, he sent great sums of money to the principal men in Jerusalem.” (Ant 20:2:5)

So in this version is is Queen Helena of Adiabene and her son Izates who sent the famine relief. But you have to ask yourself why Josephus never once mentions Edessa or the Edessan monarchy, even though they are so rich influential in Judaean affairs. But, as we have just seen, it was King Abgarus who ‘predicted’ the famine, and it was his wife (Queen Helena) who sent the famine relief to Judaea via Saul (St Paul).

The simple answer to this apparent conundrum, which is backed up by a great deal of evidence, is that:

Adiabene is Edessa,
King Monobazus (elder) is King Abgarus V,
King Izates (Izas) (jr) is King Manu V or VI,
Queen Helena was actually the matriarch of Edessa.
And all of these events are one and the same.
(ie: Josephus was covering up the role of Edessa and the Edessan monarchy.)

In reality, Josephus is saying that King Manu V or VI (a son of Abgarus) took the famine relief to Judaea (along with Saul and Barnabas obviously).

The reason why Josephus invented pseudonyms for the Edessan royalty, is that the latter were intimately connected with the biblical family. And the knowledge that the biblical Jesus was connected with the Edessans (and thus he was the leader of the Jewish Revolt) would have destroyed the fantasy called Simple Judaism for Gentiles (a.k.a. Christianity). So Josephus did write about the Edessan royalty, its just that he called them the Adiabene royalty – an indeterminate region that nobody has ever proved that it exists. There is NO archaeological evidence for Adiabene being Arbela in Iraq.

This is the reason that Josephus pointedly says that Adiabene was ‘Beyond the Euphrates’ – well it was, and it was usually called Edessa. And in a similar fashion Eusebius says that King Abgarus was the king of Edessa ‘Beyond the Euphrates’ – well yes he was, and Josephus cryptically called the region Adiabene.



.
>>Next, the existence of the kingdom of
>>Adiabene is not in doubt, nor is there
>>any historical need whatsoever to find
>>some candidate from the archaeological
>>record to identity with it.

That is not true, as there is NO archaeological evidence for Adiabene being based around Arbela in Iraq. None whatsoever. There are some Roman accounts, but if you read them they all back up the claim that Adiabene was Edessa, not Arbela.

For instance. Tacitus says that Emperor Claudius went to Adiabene:

Quote – Tacitus
Having crossed the river Tigris (Claudius) traversed the country of the Adiabeni, whose king Izates had avowedly embraced the alliance of Meherdates, though secretly and in better faith he inclined to Gotarzes. In their march they captured the city of Ninos, the most ancient capital of Assyria, and a fortress, historically famous, as the spot where the last battle between Darius and Alexander the power of Persia fell. (Tacitus Annals 12:13)

But Moses of Chorene says that he actually went to Edessa:

Quote – Moses of Chorene
Claudius (Germanicus), having become Caesar, dragging with him the princes of the kingdom of Archavir and Abgar, celebrated a triumph in respect of the war waged with them. Abgar, indignant, forms plans for revolt and prepares himself for combat. He builds a city on the ground occupied by the Armenian army … this new city is called Edessa. (History of Armenia, Moses of Chorene II)

The reason for the Roman duplicity is moot. It may have been bravado – they were merely on a tax gathering expedition, but claimed a bigger incursion into Parthia for propaganda purposes. (But an incursion well to the east was not really credible at this time, which is why it should be doubted).

And King Abgarus was highly upset by this Roman interference in his affairs, because his son had been taken to Rome due to a dispute with Herod, after Herod’s nephew had been killed. Besides, the Romans were probably levying taxes, yet Abgarus had been promised his lands free of tax, as Josephus intimates (the story of the Babylonian Jews). One of the primary reasons for the Jewish Revolt was a tax dispute, as Josephus makes clear (the Fourth Sect Galilean Nazarenes would not pay their taxes).

In the next paragraph Tacitus says:

Quote – Tacitus.
“Izates of the Adiabeni and then Acbarus of the Arabs deserted with their troops, with their countrymen’s characteristic fickleness, confirming previous experience, that barbarians prefer to seek a king from Rome than to keep him.”

Again this can be interpreted in a different fashion. We now know (from the above) that Prince Izates (Izas) was the son of King Abgarus V (ie: he was King Manu). So it is not surprising that King Abgarus and his son Prince Izas-Manu were riding together.

But the question here, is what city was Prince Izas ruling? It says here ‘Adiabene’, but it is highly unlikely that the Edessan royal family controlled lands down by Mosul and Arbela. What has happened here, is that the Syriac historians say that the royal sons of Edessa were given Harran and Nisibis to govern, and this is where the Romans really were – not down in Arbela.

All of the Roman accounts can be re-interpreted in this fashion.



.
>>See this text for discussion of the geographic
>>descriptions of Adiabene.

This turned out to be the academic paper I had used in the book and it was, errr, somewhat lacking in logic. (Actually, it was rubbish.)

The author had failed to research the royal family of Adiabene, and merely looked at geographical names and descriptions. But, as as I pointed out to Mr Marciak at the time, if he could find the Adiabene royal family then he would also find the location of Adiabene.

And the city in which Queen Helena of Adiabene lived turned out to be Edessa (because she was the wife of King Abgarus V).



.

.
>>The shorter form found in the Talmud
>>and in the Syriac Chronicle of Arbela are original.
>>The Greek Adiabene is secondary. We know this
>>because the –ene suffix was one of a small
>>number of Greek components attached to
>>toponyms during the Parthian period when
>>the Seleucid empire split up many Achaemenid
>>satrapies into more manageable sizes.


How do you know that the Aramaic is the original? The fact that ‘ene’ refers to a satrapy is not evidence. And yes, I do know this, and mention it in the book, but this is not evidence.

Again, just like Mr Caruso, you seem to misunderstand what was going on here. This was NOT linguistics, this was HUMOUR and CONCEALMENT.

As we have already established Josephus was using Adiabene as a pseudonym for Edessa. So what did he do, to formulate his ephemeral ‘Adiabene’? How did he choose this name? Did he chose an existing location called Adiabene, and use that? No, I do not believe so. If you read Josephus, he appears to use a pseudonym that is somehow related to the person or location in question. Take Monobazus, for instance; where did that name come from?

It would seem obvious that Mono Bazus was a garbled form of: Mono Basileus (Only King). And since the sons of Monobazus were called Only Begotten (Mono-Genes), that would appear likely.

But since we now know that Adiabene was Edessa, then ther may have been another cryptic layer of fun. It is probable that Monobazus was ultimately derived (and concealed) from Manubazus (Manu Bazus or Manu Basileus) meaning King Manu. (Even more chortling from Josephus – what a jolly wheeze he was having.)
Similarly, when devising a pseudonym for Edessa, Josephus would have been fully aware of the very famous visits to that city by the Apostle Addai, as he mentions this very same visit himself (except his apostolic visits are to Adiabene instead of Edessa). So did he name Edessa as the ‘Sons of Addai’ (Adiabene), knowing full well that Parthian satrapies were suffixed with ‘ene’? (Ho, ho, what a clever guy he was…. etc: )

I think the idea is compelling, and I think there is only one mention of Adiabene by Strabo that would predate Josephus’ coining the term ‘Adiabene’, and cause a problem to this suggestion. (But Strabo’s main reference is actually to Artakene, which is often interpreted as Adiabene, but it is not.)



.
>>Can you translate the following Greek
>>sentence and parse the verbal elements:


Josephus was not parsing anything – he was having a bit of fun at your expense. And he succeeded too, by the looks of it. What Josephus was doing was indulging in his own form of pesher, and thus covering up the true history of Judaea, to suit the propaganda that Vespasian demanded.

So I shall return the compliment, and set a pesher conundrum for you to solve. The following is a Talmud pesher designed to conceal Jesus’ (Izas’) plans and goals. Can you decipher what it means?

Quote – Talmud:
Had the men of Jericho escorted Elisha he would not have stirred up bears against the children, as it is said: And he went up from Jericho unto Bethel; and as he was going up there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, ‘Go up, you bald head, go up you bald head.’ Sotah 46b

And here is another connundrum that is related to the first:

Quote – Talmud:
Our Rabbis taught: Elisha was ill on three occasions: once when he incited the bears against the children, once when he repulsed Gehazi with both hands, and the third [was the illness] of which he died; as it is written, Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness where of he died. Sanhedrin 107b

This is all about New Testament events and characters (pesher style), and it says a lot about what was happening in this era. There is no parsing in sight, but a lot of humor, as you can probably see. You see, we all have our fortes and limitations.



.
>This is the most ridiculous claim you’ve
>>provided to date. Basically, you’re saying
>>the standard exegetical and historical
>>methodologies cannot hold in instances
>>where you believe someone is masking the
>>details in pseudonyms in a way that only
>>the initiated will understand.

Yes, of course.

Ok, let’s do it your way. Using Aramaic grammar and syntax, how do you progress from the name Paul or Saul to Gehazi? Show me the progression here. Or how about from Jesus to Balaam? Show me the progression there. You cannot do it, because these pseudonyms are not based upon the original at all. Parsing these sentences will get you nowhere. (These pseudonyms are from the Talmud, and the talmudic notes confirm they are correct).



.
>>Finally, even if we assume that these three
>>people were leaders of the Jewish revolt, the
>>notion that because “King Izas” was a leader of
>>the revolt, he had to be one of these three is flagrantly
>>fallacious. To call that notion “axiomatic” is utter
>>nonsense.


Sorry, but you are not using all the evidence at your disposal here. How can you decide a trial case, if you only let the jury see one half of the evidence? The leaders of the Revolt included King Izas.

The outbreak of war:
The most valiant (in the battle against Cestius) were the kinsmen of Monobazus, king of Adiabene, and their names were Monobazus and Kenadaeus. (War 2:19:2)

The surrender to Rome:

On the same day it was that the sons and brethren of King Izates … besought Caesar to give them his right hand for their security … He kept them all in custody, but still bound the king’s sons and kinsmen, and led them with him to Rome, in order to make them hostages for their country’s fidelity to the Romans. (War 6:6:4)

You have to remember that Josephus blames the Jewish Revolt on ‘two’ groups of people: –

a. King Izas (au Kama?)
b. Jesus (of Gamala).

See the references in Antiquities to the Fourth Sect of Judas of Gamala (and Galilee) who caused the Jewish Revolt. Thus you have to wonder if Jesus and Izas are one and the same, as they both caused the Jewish Revolt. If they are the same person, and I demonstrate that they are, then it is worth noting that Josephus did indeed used to be a compatriot of Jesus:

Quote – Josephus:
Now, as my father wrote me an account of this, [for Jesus the son of Gamala, who was present in that council, a friend and companion of mine, told him of it]. Life 41

So Josephus did know, and had been friends, with the leaders of the Revolt (as the Gospels confirm).

So the scenario is that following the Revolt, three special people were crucified, who were known to Josephus, and were special enough for Titus to allow them to be taken down from the cross. Two die, and one survives.

But if you compare that scenario with the biblical crucifixion, you will see that again we have three leaders of a revolt being crucified, at least one of whom is called Jesus. In a very similar fashion to the account is ‘Life’, a deputation is made to the governor and they are taken down from the cross. Again, two die and one survives. And again the person taking them down was called Joseph(us) of Arimathaea.
I am sorry, if you are looking for a signed affidavit from Josephus saying that the former friends he took down from the cross included the biblical Jesus, you are not going to get one. All we can do is join up the historical and biblical dots to the best of our ability.



.
>>You repeatedly ignore the context and the
>>historical data in the interest of your naked assertions.

I’m sorry, but this new biblical chronology (AD 50s and 60s) and the conflation of Jesus of Gamala and King Izas with the biblical King Jesus, explains everything about the Gospel saga. A valid theory has to encompass all the known details, and it is even better if it can explain the previously inexplicable. This theory does all of that – even down to the little details about why Jesus was called a king, and why he wore a Plaited Crown of Thorns. How many previous theories could explain such details?



.
>>Your claim that Queen Helena of Adiabene
>>was living in Edessa and married to Abgar,
>>the king of Edessa, is equally without merit
>>of any kind whatsoever.

As previously mentioned, please read the Syriac historians, like Moses of Chorene, Yohannes Drasxanakertci, and Kirakos Ganjakets. And also browse the account in Acts of the Apostles. And I have to say that the revised history that is forged from knowing that Queen Helena was the wife of King Abgarus (and thus Adiabene is Edessa) makes a great deal more sense than the orthodox history of the region.





.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 06:35 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(25-06-2013 09:52 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(25-06-2013 09:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  Well, you get to join me and TheBeardedDude in the Poopyhead Club. Thumbsup

Wear it like a badge of honour.Bowing

That, or don't be a poopyhead. Guy was willing to have a discussion, until Chas applied his irrational skepticism. Dodgy

Ralphie is a nut job. There was never an opportunity for a useful discussion.

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
26-06-2013, 06:37 AM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2013 06:51 AM by houseofcantor.)
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(26-06-2013 06:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-06-2013 09:52 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  That, or don't be a poopyhead. Guy was willing to have a discussion, until Chas applied his irrational skepticism. Dodgy

Ralphie is a nut job. There was never an opportunity for a useful discussion.

Wasn't referencing Ralph, rather maklelan.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 06:44 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(26-06-2013 05:20 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  The usual Maklelan tactic - when you have no answer, deflect the criticism.

It wasn't criticism, it was just a rhetorical jab.

Now come on, old son, your entire faith, beliefs and world-view depends on a text written in 'Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphs'. And your entire challenge to the 'Jesus = prince of Edessa' concept was based upon languages.

(26-06-2013 05:20 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  So show us the alphabet and language that underpins your world view.

You're looking at it.

(26-06-2013 05:20 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  It is a simple request - just give us a verse from the Book of Mormon that is written in the original Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphs.

Give me a correspondance where Jesus calls himself the king of Edessa. See, two can play at this infantile little game. Not very impressive, is it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 06:47 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(26-06-2013 05:29 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Another example for you - from a Muslim professor.

R. You say the Koran is the word of god and therefore 100% correct.
P. Of course.
R. But the Koran says the Sun orbits the Earth.
P. Of course.
R. But it does not, the opposite happens.
P. Of course.
R. So the Koran is wrong.
P. No it is not.
R. But the Koran gives the wrong information about the Solar System.
P. The Koran is never wrong.
R. But it is wrong in this case.
P. No it is not.
R. But the Earth orbits the Sun.
P. Of course it does.
R. And the Koran says the Sun orbits the Earth.
P. Indeed.
R So the Koran is wrong.
P. The Koran is never wrong.


I was losing the will to live at this point, and went for a beer.


.

So you can imagine how I feel when you say Adiabene is a gentilic with the Hebrew word "sons of" in it, and then go on to say there's no linguistic evidence because it was just an inside joke that you get and I don't. Really there's no appreciable difference between your arguments and the argument you share above.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
26-06-2013, 06:50 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(26-06-2013 05:45 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  But of course Maklelan has done no such thing - he has merely beguiled you. What he has negated to do is to answer any of the difficult questions I posed, so that his lack of understanding would not be exposed.

You didn't pose any difficult questions, you just spun this idiotic little rhetorical web that evidently impresses you.

(26-06-2013 05:45 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  So come on Maklelan, please answer the points I made about Adiabene being Edessa.

Asked and answered, but I'm not going to directly respond to a word of evidence from you until you show me you have the slightest grasp of Greek and Aramaic. You already flagrantly lied and said you didn't read the texts in English, even though you misunderstood the word "transliteration," so you should have no problem translating a couple sentences I pulled from introductory Greek and Aramaic grammars.

N.B. - I know you won't ever respond, since you demonstrably don't know jack about the languages, but I will continue to push this point as long as you continue to misrepresent me and attempt to proliferate these asinine claims of yours (and particularly at the expense of my reputation).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2013, 07:00 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(26-06-2013 05:10 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Yeeaahh, riiiight. Just like the beliefs of Billy Graham would never colour his world-view in any way.

Is this supposed to be an argument for something?

(26-06-2013 05:10 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  So let's get this right:
i. You believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
ii. You find a thesis that indicates that Jesus was merely a king of Edessa, and not supernatural at all.
iii. You argue vigorously against this concept.
iv. But your beliefs have in no way influenced your decision to reject said thesis.

Correct. They in no way influenced anything. Your thesis is simply asinine. I don't need to have any biases of any kind to see that or point it out. You are basically trying to argue that the sun goes around the moon, and you can't seem to get it through your skull that the reason no one buys what you're selling is because it's demonstrably false. Tom Verenna is a vehement atheist, and he's your biggest critic. He's the one who pointed me to your claims. Why on earth would you just assume that bias has anything to do with my position?

(26-06-2013 05:10 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Do you think we have all just dropped off a Christmas tree?

And I note that you could not even accept that all the Gospel material should be shifted into the AD 60s, which is a truism that any cursory glance at the gospels and apocryphal gospels will demonstrate.

What a joke. This is another fringe theory that nobody takes seriously, and you're trying to pawn it off as self-evident? When you approach scholarship this way you can't really be surprised when you get laughed at by everyone. Turning around and saying it's just because everyone's either protecting their paycheck or their religious beliefs only adds credence the suspicion that you're just a nutbag.

(26-06-2013 05:10 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  But of course your rejection of this truism was NOT based upon your childhood indoctrination that Jesus died in AD 33. No, of course not...

How many times have I told you not to make assumptions about my beliefs? I was raised an atheist. I didn't read a word of the Bible until I was 19 years old. Ralph, you are shown to be flat wrong every time you make an assumption about me. I have a hard time believing you're really this ignorant, but you're making it difficult to keep saying that. Grow up, dude.

(26-06-2013 05:10 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Except, of course, that preventing the truth about Jesus from escaping (that he was a mortal prince and king), would save your entire faith, philosophy and Church from extinction.

What utter lunacy. My entire blog does nothing but challenge the faith and philosophy of my church. Have you paid attention attention to a word of it?

(26-06-2013 05:10 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  But this was never ever a part of your reasoning for attacking the 'Jesus = king of Edessa' hypothesis. Of course not.

No, it never was.

(26-06-2013 05:10 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  i. Jesus was the central figure on the Hamat Teverya zodiac, from the Sea of Galilee (surrounded by his 12 disciple-constellations).
ii. The central figure on any zodiac is either the Sun (the Sun-god Jesus figure, Helios), or it is Ursa Major.
iii. Ursa Major is the Great Bear - or Arthur. So the central figure on a zodiac can either be Jesus or Arthur.
iv. As the Vulgate Cycle of Arthurian Legend says, the Round Table of Arthur (with 12 knights) was a copy of the Last Supper Table of Jesus (with 12 disciples).
v. But both were derived from the Hamat zodiac from Galilee - the Round Table and 12 knights-disciples was merely a copy of the Round Zodiac with 12 constellations.
vi. And the name-change (from Jesus to Arthur) was made because fundamentalist deists have a habit of burning people who claim that Jesus did not die on the cross.

Utter and complete nonsense. You don't have the foggiest idea how to deal with late Antique syncretism.

(26-06-2013 05:10 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  But of course Josiah Smith losing his gold tablets is muuuuch more believable.

Joseph Smith.

(26-06-2013 05:10 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  And believing a ridiculous story that has absolutely NO evidence to support it, is much more rational.

But you happen to be on an Atheist blog site, arguing against a theory that would destroy your belief system, and reduce the Mormon Church to crumbling ruins.

And that is mere coincidence?

Go read any one of my blog posts. You'll find nothing but criticism of the Mormon belief system. C'mon, Ralph, you're just making a fool of yourself with this silly rhetoric.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: