[split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2013, 03:13 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2013 03:18 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(27-06-2013 06:58 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(27-06-2013 06:43 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Why do you think Jesus was born as a Lamb of God (Aries) but became a Fisher of Men (Pisces)??

Uh, no, he said he would make the disciples he took from the sea of Galilee the fishers of men. He was not a "Fisher of Men." Go read the text instead of just making up what it says. Also the notion of the "lamb of God" does not come from Aries.


And therein lies the problem with any true believer. Maklelan will be critical of any text, be it the Syriac historians, the Roman historians, or even (sometimes) Manetho, but when it comes to the N.T. suddenly this text is seen as being the absolute truth.

Yet the reality is that although we have a reasonable idea about the sources for the Syriac historians, we have absolutely no idea about the provenance of the gospels - and yet the gospels trump every historical card there is. Suddenly, Maklelan's rationality and critical analysis goes out of the window, and we are back to good old 'faith'. The gospels must be right, because he has 'faith'. How as an educated and rational adult, can you throw out your rational thinking and descend into the gullibility of a a first-grader. I really don't get it. The wise rational Maklelan is reduced to bumbling irrationality by a book that only has a tenuous link to real history.



.


So you think a prince of the realm (Jesus) will really be a 'carpenter' with 'fishermen' for close compatriots do you, Maklelan? Dear me. In reality Jesus was a prince and a king, even as the gospels admit. And while Maklelan will dismiss such a notion, it is clear from the Talmud that Jesus was indeed a royal prince and king. There are many accounts of Jesus being royal in the Talmud, but here is one for starters.

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged ... With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government or royalty. (Sanhedrin 43a)

And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mt 27:37


I will put this bluntly, Maklelan, because you have a mental block here. A king of Judaea and Syria does not have a couple of scruffy fishermen for disciples. But a king who understands precession will have 12 princely disciple-knights who represent the 12 constellations; and he will certainly have a new religious sect (the Fourth Sect of Judaism according to Josephus) that was represented by the dominant constellation of Pisces.

Thus the symbol of this religion will be the fish, and the disciples will be called fishermen, and the royal line will be called fisher kings, and the pope will wear the fisher ring, and the pope will wear a fish-mouth mitre.


The fish symbol of Christianity.
Forget what it says here about 'Son and Savior', that interpretation is only for children.
in reality Ichthus actually stands for 'fish', the constellation of Pisces.

[Image: Greekfish]


Pope wearing the fish-mouth mitre:

[Image: papal_mitre.jpg]



And all of this comes from the Judaic zodiacs of Judaea. Do note that the head of Helios (Jesus) points at the conjunction of Aries and Pisces (i.e: AD 10), which positively demonstrates that these priests knew of and understood Precession and the new Great Month of Pisces.
Note also that Helios (the Sun) holds a circular (sperical?) and blue image of the Earth in his gravitational grasp. These guys knew a great deal more about the heavens than you might think.

[Image: 2zf6783.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2013, 03:28 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2013 04:22 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(27-06-2013 07:10 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
Quote:As Josephus admits, he was unaccustomed to Greek and found the translation tiresome.

Yes, "to us" does not mean "me personally," but "to the Jews." He's referring to the general lack of familiarity with Greek among the Jews in Syria-Palestine.


Eh? What an absurd assumption and conclusion. You are making this up as you go along, aren't you?

It was not 'the Jews' who were having difficulty in translating the Tankh, it was Josephus. It was Josephus who was growing tired, not 'the Jews', and this demonstrates that Josephus found translations into Greek difficult, just as I said.

Why don't you just admit you were wrong? Oh, silly me, I forgot, believers are never wrong - no matter what scientific absurdity they pronounce, and no matter which heretic they tie to the funerary pyre.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2013, 04:07 AM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2013 04:16 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(27-06-2013 09:32 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi Ralph, could you provide the evidence that Epaphroditus was the gospels' and Josephus' publisher?


Josephus quote:
However, some persons there were who desired to know our history, and so exhorted me to go on with it; and, above all the rest, Epaphroditus, a man who is a lover of all kind of learning Antiquities preface.

Epistles quote:
Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants. Php 2:25

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. To the Philippians written from Rome, by Epaphroditus. Php 4:23

I will leave it to you to figure out why these 'two' characters are likely to have been the same secretary and scriptorium owner (ie: 'publisher'). But if you understand the obvious - that Saul and Josephus were the same person - the reasons for this conflation of characters become equally obvious.



And you will note also that it was 'another' secretary and scribe called Epaphroditus who finished off Emperor Nero. Could they be the same person? Remember that this entire New Testament intrigue was about a bid for the Throne of Rome, and this goal demanded the demise of Nero to allow the throne to be vacant. Jesus made a bid for the Throne of Rome as soon as it became vacant in AD 68, but it was Vespasian who defeated the king of Edessa-Adiabene (ie: defeated Jesus-Izas) at Jerusalem in AD 70 and was eventually successful.

And it was (Saul) Josephus who was Vespasian's pet Jewish quisling and historian, who had a secretary called Epaphroditus who was writing Antiquities and some of the Epistles. (Josephus had been working for the Romans for years, as their chief Jewish spy, with Vespasian as his 'handler'). And it was Epaphroditus (the Nero Epaphroditus) and Josephus who fell foul of Domitian at the end of his reign, and either fled or were executed.

I am sure that there is a lot more to this political intrigue than has been admitted in the extant historical documents.



(27-06-2013 07:10 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(27-06-2013 04:31 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Josephus also relates that his assistant and 'publisher' was one Epaphroditus.
And you might also recall that the 'publisher' of the gospels was also Epaphroditus.
And that is NOT a coincidence.

(Epaphroditus) was an incredibly common name in Greek and Latin, derived from the word for "lovely." It appears in both the long form and in the shorter Epaphras. Hopefully you don't mean that it's not a coincidence just because you say so.

Yeah, yeah - just like they say that Jesus was a common name in this era, because they don't want you to know that Jesus of Gamala and Jesus Sapphias (both commanders in Galilee) were references to the biblical Jesus.

In reality, all these guys were not simply called Epaphroditus, they were 'both' professional secretaries/scriptorium managers, and were 'both' intimately connected to the main players in this sage - ie: to Saul-Josephus, to Vespasian, and to Nero.

This is more than a coincidence of names.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2013, 04:20 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(27-06-2013 09:36 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
Quote:Look at the image you posted. There is an arbitrary dotted line between the two. Have you looked at the night sky? 'Cause that line's not really there...

That was fucking hilarious. Thumbsup


Hilarious to a child, perhaps.

But an adult would realise that one of the primary jobs of an astrologer-astronomer is to join up the dots in the sky to form the outlines of the major constellations. That was year one in astrologer school in the 1st century - delineating the constellations.

But only an adult would understand that.

.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2013, 05:02 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(29-06-2013 04:20 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(27-06-2013 09:36 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  That was fucking hilarious. Thumbsup


Hilarious to a child, perhaps.

But an adult would realise that one of the primary jobs of an astrologer-astronomer is to join up the dots in the sky to form the outlines of the major constellations. That was year one in astrologer school in the 1st century - delineating the constellations.

But only an adult would understand that.

.

No, an adult understands that astrology is childish and constellations are meaningless.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-06-2013, 08:58 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(29-06-2013 03:13 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  And therein lies the problem with any true believer.

For a man in a glass mansion, you throw an awful lot of stones.

(29-06-2013 03:13 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  [Image: 2zf6783.jpg]

That is a fourth century floor mosaic. It tells us nothing about what people thought three centuries earlier.

(29-06-2013 03:13 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Do note that the head of Helios (Jesus) points at the conjunction of Aries and Pisces (i.e: AD 10), which positively demonstrates that these priests knew of and understood Precession and the new Great Month of Pisces.

Everybody understood precession, because the hellenistic astronomers had a thorough understanding of it at least as far back as Hipparchus.

Everybody further realized that the sun's path was indeed moving from aries to pisces.

Whatever claims you are making, however, must be understood in light of the fact that the transition took centuries to observe. Declaring the conjunction to have occurred in (exactly!) AD 10 is a little demented. Your own image showed that to be a point by which the sun's path intersected the pisces asterism. Therefore the transition between the aries and pisces constellations must have occurred somewhat earlier.

(29-06-2013 04:20 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  But an adult would realise that one of the primary jobs of an astrologer-astronomer is to join up the dots in the sky to form the outlines of the major constellations. That was year one in astrologer school in the 1st century - delineating the constellations.

Yes. Of course. Defining asterisms is pretty simple stuff. Defining boundaries between constellations, not so much. The current boundaries were defined only in the twentieth century. Prior to this, there was much disagreement. The Babylonians invented, and the Greeks presumably could have inherited, a system to divide the sky into twelve sections along the ecliptic, but this was a coordinate system to track the planets' motions, and they knew very well themselves that signs inspiring this division were not the same size. For astrological as opposed to strictly observational purposes, this type of regular division became more and more common, but it was not universal, and there was no widely agreed upon division.

By the first century AD the sun was within the pisces asterism (at the vernal equinox). Prior to that it was not. Several centuries earlier, the sun was obviously closer to the aries asterism (which it never actually intersects).

The transition from one to the other occurred, yes. But when? An exact date is literally impossible to determine.

I have told you how the human eye can only resolve one arc-minute (and that, under stable, controlled conditions with many reference points). That gives an uncertainty of several years at minimum.

You don't need me to tell you about the specific difficulty. Find a star map. Look at the line of the ecliptic. Find the region in front of the pisces asterism. Trace back a couple degrees. Now - tell me at what exact point it may be said to be closer to pisces than aries?

Here, I'll make it easier for you:
[Image: Equinox_path.png]
At what exact point does the sun's path change from closer to aries to closer to pisces?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
29-06-2013, 09:13 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
There are several dangers with hobbyists trying to engage actual scholars with their work. Ellis here exposes some of them. The vast majority of hobbyists are not trained to think critically about their ideas, but more importantly, they're not exposed to the breadth and the depth of the fields in which they work. They tend to focus on scholarship that aligns with the greatest number of their presuppositions or conclusions, which, over time, contributes to this false impression that they know what's going on in the field, and that their ideas are predominant or most secure from an evidence point of view. Unfortunately, their research tends to conflate old and outdated ideas that are in the public domain and freely available on the internet, with newer fringe ideas that usually play off those outdated ones. If you see someone claim to have researched scholarship spanning the last multiple centuries, that conflation is usually going to come out the other end. When these hobbyists run up against trained scholars who disagree, their lack of training in logic, rhetoric, and methods of argumentation tend to compel them to egregious fallacies, including ad hominem and pure and simple argument by assertion. Ralph's repeated claims that this or that assertion is "obvious," or self-evident are cases in point. He has refused to do me the courtesy of responding honestly and directly to anything I've posted, so I'm not going to be dignifying anything he has to say with a response. It goes without saying what his inevitable response will be, but I'll leave him to it.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
29-06-2013, 09:27 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
^^ I was wondering if you'd finally do this. As galling as it may be, responding to each of RE's claims individually and so forth only pleases him, as he's now having a high-level argument with a respected academic who of course cannot answer his basic questions, thus showing the shallowness of academic thought on this important research area... Shit I could write RE's response right now...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2013, 09:50 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(29-06-2013 09:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  There are several dangers with hobbyists trying to engage actual scholars with their work. Ellis here exposes some of them. The vast majority of hobbyists are not trained to think critically about their ideas, but more importantly, they're not exposed to the breadth and the depth of the fields in which they work. They tend to focus on scholarship that aligns with the greatest number of their presuppositions or conclusions, which, over time, contributes to this false impression that they know what's going on in the field, and that their ideas are predominant or most secure from an evidence point of view. Unfortunately, their research tends to conflate old and outdated ideas that are in the public domain and freely available on the internet, with newer fringe ideas that usually play off those outdated ones. If you see someone claim to have researched scholarship spanning the last multiple centuries, that conflation is usually going to come out the other end. When these hobbyists run up against trained scholars who disagree, their lack of training in logic, rhetoric, and methods of argumentation tend to compel them to egregious fallacies, including ad hominem and pure and simple argument by assertion. Ralph's repeated claims that this or that assertion is "obvious," or self-evident are cases in point. He has refused to do me the courtesy of responding honestly and directly to anything I've posted, so I'm not going to be dignifying anything he has to say with a response. It goes without saying what his inevitable response will be, but I'll leave him to it.

He busted out personal attacks on you almost immediately, denigrated real scholarship, avoided your counterclaims, and will now declare victory.

I'm amazed you had the patience you did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2013, 09:54 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(29-06-2013 04:20 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(27-06-2013 09:36 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  That was fucking hilarious. Thumbsup


Hilarious to a child, perhaps.

But an adult would realise that one of the primary jobs of an astrologer-astronomer is to join up the dots in the sky to form the outlines of the major constellations. That was year one in astrologer school in the 1st century - delineating the constellations.

But only an adult would understand that.

.

Geometry is a fundamental tenet of gwynnite. Don't look at me for your losing of the argument.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: