[split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2013, 07:32 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(15-06-2013 06:32 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Daniel Mr McClellan:
http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com

Should put that in yer siggy or something, maklelan. Tongue

[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, 07:45 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(26-06-2013 07:32 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Should put that in yer siggy or something, maklelan. Tongue

Thanks for reminding me.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
27-06-2013, 06:09 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(26-06-2013 06:44 AM)maklelan Wrote:  [
(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.

Again you are evading the issue. Like any good Mormon evangelist, you know how to deflect the incredulous questions of the 'unbeliever' - and the readers on this thread appear to have afllen for it.

As you know, the issue here is not English. You holy book, and so your entire wold-view, was written in Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphics, and presumably in a Egypto-Hebrew language. Now you are a scholar who likes evidence, so show us the evidence of the script and language that underpins your world-view.

It is rather disingenuous to condem a theory for not having enough evidence, when you yourself wholeheartedly believe a theory that has absolutely NO evidence.


Quote:
(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?


I have given 620 pages of evidence - but you will not read it. Now that is being infantile.

And as you well know - or should know - the new Simple Judaic religion of Christianity was created by Jesus' worst enemy - Saul (ie: Josephus). Even the gospels and epistles record this fact. Not surprisingly, the victor in this battle of wills has ensured that most of the evidence had been deleted from the historical record.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 06:22 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Again you are evading the issue.

No, you're just annoyed I'm not blithely walking into your stupid little rhetorical trap.

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Like any good Mormon evangelist, you know how to deflect the incredulous questions of the 'unbeliever' - and the readers on this thread appear to have afllen for it.

As you know, the issue here is not English.

English is the language that "underpins" my worldview.

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  You holy book,

I'm not a holy book.

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  and so your entire wold-view,

Again, stop making assumptions about the nature of my faith. My entire worldview was well established long before I joined the LDS church. You know absolutely nothing at all about my relationship to the church, so stop making assumptions.

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  was written in Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphics, and presumably in a Egypto-Hebrew language. Now you are a scholar who likes evidence, so show us the evidence of the script and language that underpins your world-view.

You're looking at it.

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  It is rather disingenuous to condem a theory for not having enough evidence, when you yourself wholeheartedly believe a theory that has absolutely NO evidence.

You haven't the foggiest idea what my position is with regards to the Book of Mormon.

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  I have given 620 pages of evidence - but you will not read it. Now that is being infantile.

I've read what I can online, but I'm not wasting any of my hard-earned money on it. Now, I didn't ask for 620 pages of bloviated posturing and fallacies, I asked you to point to an actual original manuscript, exactly as you're asking me. The point was to show that your claim is idiotic. Everyone here got it but you.

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  And as you well know - or should know - the new Simple Judaic religion of Christianity was created by Jesus' worst enemy - Saul (ie: Josephus).

More utter nonsense.

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Even the gospels and epistles record this fact. Not surprisingly, the victor in this battle of wills has ensured that most of the evidence had been deleted from the historical record.

Good thing you managed to imagine it all back again.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 06:26 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(26-06-2013 06:47 AM)maklelan Wrote:  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.


No, you are simply evading the issue once more, like any good Mormon evangelist.

I gave you reason after reason why Adiabene is actually Edessa, and you have refused to answer those pojnts time and time again.

Please address the lack of irrefutable Roman references to Adiabene.
Please address the lack of archaeological evidence or references to Adiabene.
Please address the Syriac references to Adiabene actually being Edessa.
Please address the lack of references to Edessa in the works of Josephus.

You won't do this, because you know you have lost the argument.

What you do instead, is harp on about my postulation that Adiabene referred to the Sons of Addai (the evangelist who went to Edessa). But as you know, this was a one-paragraph proposition in my book, to explain what Adiabene means. If Josephus invented this name, as is looking likely, then why did he coin the term 'Adiabene'? What does it mean? It is a legitimate line of enquiry, and a reasonable suggestion.

But the proposition that Adiabene is Edessa does not depend on this suggestion in any way, shape or form. So do us a favour, Maklelan, and answer the question - please answer my points on the Roman and Syriac accounts of Adiabene that indicate that this was a fabricated name for Edessa - ie: the Romans did not conquer Parthia in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

Is that what you believe, Maklelan, that Rome invaded deep into Parthia in the 1st and 2nd centuries, without sustaining any losses whatsoever?? Do you really think that is credible? Do you have a text written in Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphs that can confirm this?? Can you not see that the accounts of the Tacitus et al have been subtly doctored (to make Adiabene appear to be located further to the east)??

Please stop evading the primary issue here, and give us you proof that Adiabene is Arbela, and not Edessa.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 06:34 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(26-06-2013 06:50 AM)maklelan Wrote:  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.


Again, a Mormon evangelist's deflection.

The primary language at issue here is Latin (the Roman historians), so why arenyou asking about Greek and Aramaic? Again you cannot answer the central issue, which is that the Roman accounts of attacks deep into Parthia (ie to Adiabene) have been fabricated. They never went that far, and you know it - they went to Edessa instead.

Adiabene is Edessa. But you will not agree because this simple and seemingly irelevant fact will end Mormonism as a religion, and you know it. So you resort to deflections and propaganda - What you are saying is: 'give me the Gettysburg Address in Swahili, otherwise I will not reply' Na,na,Na,na,na.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 06:34 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(27-06-2013 06:26 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  No, you are simply evading the issue once more, like any good Mormon evangelist.

I gave you reason after reason why Adiabene is actually Edessa, and you have refused to answer those pojnts time and time again.

No, I explained exactly why they weren't legitimate. You were the one who refused to answer after that. I am still waiting for you to answer my two very reasonable requests.

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Please address the lack of irrefutable Roman references to Adiabene.
Please address the lack of archaeological evidence or references to Adiabene.
Please address the Syriac references to Adiabene actually being Edessa.
Please address the lack of references to Edessa in the works of Josephus.

You won't do this, because you know you have lost the argument.

Oh, good grief. You don't actually believe I feel that way, do you? You can't possibly be that deluded. I already told you, I'm not providing any evidence until you respond to my language quiz and my points about Adiabene. The above, where you bark "Nu-uh!" at me, doesn't count.

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  What you do instead, is harp on about my postulation that Adiabene referred to the Sons of Addai (the evangelist who went to Edessa). But as you know, this was a one-paragraph proposition in my book, to explain what Adiabene means. If Josephus invented this name, as is looking likely, then why did he coin the term 'Adiabene'? What does it mean? It is a legitimate line of enquiry, and a reasonable suggestion.

And I told you exactly where it comes from, -ene suffix and all. Are you now acknowledging that your little etymological puppet show is wrong, or are you just softening your conviction a bit to try to get me to drop it?

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  But the proposition that Adiabene is Edessa does not depend on this suggestion in any way, shape or form.

Not the point. The point is to show that you know nothing at all about the languages and are just making up etymological stuff based on similar-looking words in English transliteration.

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  So do us a favour, Maklelan, and answer the question - please answer my points on the Roman and Syriac accounts of Adiabene that indicate that this was a fabricated name for Edessa - ie: the Romans did not conquer Parthia in the 1st and 2nd centuries.

First you need to respond fully to my concerns with your etymology of Adiabene and then take my language quiz.

(27-06-2013 06:09 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Is that what you believe, Maklelan, that Rome invaded deep into Parthia in the 1st and 2nd centuries, without sustaining any losses whatsoever?? Do you really think that is credible? Do you have a text written in Reformed Egyptian Hieroglyphs that can confirm this?? Can you not see that the accounts of the Tacitus et al have been subtly doctored (to make Adiabene appear to be located further to the east)??

Please stop evading the primary issue here, and give us you proof that Adiabene is Arbela, and not Edessa.

I've already showed you numerous ancient sources and some modern academic discussions that identify the areas. You said you'd get back to me after you read it, which you obviously had no intention of ever doing. Now, you've got two things to respond directly and fully to: my concerns with your Adiabene etymology and my language quiz. Please take your time.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 06:43 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(27-06-2013 06:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Again, a Mormon evangelist's deflection.

The primary language at issue here is Latin (the Roman historians), so why arenyou asking about Greek and Aramaic?

Fine, add this to the list of things to translate, with the nouns declined:

Quote:Nisi quis iucundus bonusque erit, vitam vere felicem mihi non vivet

(27-06-2013 06:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Again you cannot answer the central issue, which is that the Roman accounts of attacks deep into Parthia (ie to Adiabene) have been fabricated. They never went that far, and you know it - they went to Edessa instead.

Adiabene is Edessa. But you will not agree because this simple and seemingly irelevant fact will end Mormonism as a religion, and you know it.

You so phenomenally over-inflate not only your argument but your significance to the religious and academic world that it is sincerely astonishing.

(27-06-2013 06:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  So you resort to deflections and propaganda - What you are saying is: 'give me the Gettysburg Address in Swahili, otherwise I will not reply' Na,na,Na,na,na.

What utter and complete nonsense.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 06:43 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(26-06-2013 07:00 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Utter and complete nonsense. You don't have the foggiest idea how to deal with late Antique syncretism.


Ha, ha, what you mean is that you did not realise that the New Testament was based upon Precessional Astrology.

Why do you think Jesus was born as a Lamb of God (Aries) but became a Fisher of Men (Pisces)?? And why the line of Arthurian kings were called the Fisher Kings (Pisces), and why the symbol of Christianity is the fish (Pisces), and why the pope wears the fisher ring and fisher hat (Pisces).


For those who do not follow precession, the Earth wobbles on its axis, making the constellations change every 2,140 years or so. It happens that in AD 10, when Jesus-Izas was born, Aries (the Lamb of God) turned into Pisces (the Fisher of Men). Jesus was the first Piscean King, the first of the Arthurian Fisher Kings...




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 06:50 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(27-06-2013 06:34 AM)maklelan Wrote:  . I already told you, I'm not providing any evidence until you respond to my language quiz and my points about Adiabene. The above, where you bark "Nu-uh!" at me, doesn't count.

But you have still not answered my pesher quiz. I gave you two pesher extracts to decypher, and you failed to do so - and until you do so you have completely lost the argument.

You don't know what pesher is, do you? Loser.

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: