[split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2013, 09:57 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(29-06-2013 05:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-06-2013 04:20 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  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.

Taking measurements has taught us to think in numbers, those that do, think calculus. Consider

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2013, 08:11 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(29-06-2013 09:27 AM)morondog Wrote:  ^^ 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...


But you fail to mention that Maklelan has refused to answer any of my historical questions - he has evaded everything and fallen back each time on his linguistic quiz, because he had no answers whatsoever.


The basic issue in my revised history, is whether Adiabene is Edessa, rather than Arbela. I have asked Maklelan time and time again for evidence substantiating the orthodox opinion that Adiabene is Arbela, and not once has he bothered to give any replies. Not once. No evidence whatsoever. His friend did try, but when I revealed that he was peddling misinformation, he deleted his blog. Maklelan then claimed that his friend was not wrong, but merely mistaken.... So there is NO historical evidence demonstrating that Adiabene is Arbela.

Conversely, I have given Maklelan instance after instance proving that Adiabene is Edessa, and all we get in return is a rejection of the historians I have quoted, and another request to answer a stupid quiz that has no relevance to the location of Adiabene whatsoever. But having rejected the Syriac historians as being totally unreliable and not worth consideration, Maklelan then takes the gospels as the literal truth. And you call this scholarship?? Is evasion, spin and personal abuse now considered to be scholarship??

And as Atheists, why you do not take Maklelan to task for believing the gospels are the literal truth? I know that politics sometimes makes strange bed-fellows, but this one tops them all. Weird is not the word.



And all of this does matter to the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the modern world they created, because the Age of Reason is under more pressure now than when it was first devised. Fundamentalist Islam is pushing in from the East, and an increasingly fundamentalist Christianity is being promoted as a response to this 'attack' - and the Rational and Enlightened of this world are being squeezed and sidelined, especially in the USA. Our fundamental freedoms are at stake here, if the likes of Maklelan gain a foothold in power.


So why does Edessa matter?

Because the Adiabene monarchy prosecuted the Jewish Revolt, as Josephus says.
But if Adiabene was Edessa (as the Syriacs claim), then it was the Edessan monarchy who prosecuted the Jewish Revolt.
But this means that the king who prosecuted the Jewish Revolt was King Izas Manu VI.
And this was the biblical King Jesus Em-Manu-el.
Thus the revolt that Jesus was involved in, that upset the Romans, was actually the Jewish Revolt.

More importantly, this directly implies that:
This was a secular power-struggle, with not a trace of spirituality whatsoever.
That the gospels are truish, but highly distorted, and place a Roman spin on these events.
That the foundations of Christianity are therefore based upon lie after lie (or spin after spin).
That the Christian priesthood are similarly spinning lies and disinformation.
That the Rationalists were right to mistrust the Christian doctrines and devise a secular society.
That the Christian Church should be revised so that it tells the truth (as far as we know that to be) and banned from spreading disinformation.


As you can see, even educated people like Maklelan can be taken in by this nonsense, and believe it word for word. And if we do not counter that virus, rationality will be subsumed, and the modern world will be lost to us. You will note that the Industrial Revolution occurred immediately after the Reformation was successful and defeated Catholic tyranny. That, was not a coincidence. But there is nothing to stop this process from going into reverse - the triumph of fundamentalism and the collapse of the technical and industrial world.

You praise the likes of Maklelan, and his overt evasion of difficult historical questions, at your peril.

.





N
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2013, 08:33 AM (This post was last modified: 30-06-2013 11:28 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(29-06-2013 05:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, an adult understands that astrology is childish and constellations are meaningless.


You don't understand precessional astrology, do you.

This was, and still is, an essential tool for both royalty and historians alike. The royalty can claim to be a king of a precessional era (a Great Month) and their descendants and historians will know exactly when they ruled, and thus date the chronology of human civilisation.

When Alexander and Ptolemy wore the horns of a ram, we immediately know they ruled in the Great Month of Aries (about 1800 BC to AD 10).

When Gilgamesh (who is dressed exactly like Orion) kills the Bull of Heaven (Taurus) anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that this epic was written just after 1800 BC, and not the ridiculous date it is often given.

When Joseph tells Pharaoh his family are not cattle breeders (Taurus) but shepherds (Aries) we know immediately this event happened just after 1800 Bc (it actually happened in 1500s BC, because this was the return of the Shepherd Kings).

When someone claims to be a Lamb of God (Aries) and then a Fisher of Men (Pisces), historians down the millennia will know exactly when this king ruled.

And when someone parks a massive lion in front of their temple, again we have a very good idea what was being implied by this overtly symbolic act.

etc, etc and etc.



So rather than being the preserve of fools, precessional astronomy is the finest and the most precise historical dating tool we have.

Indeed, we still use this dating system today. Why do you think this is the year 2013?? Do you really think this was because King Jesus-Manu of Edessa was born about 2013 years ago?? Of course not - this is year 2013 of the Great Month of Pisces. Face facts, while you may be totally unaware of the traditions and symbolism, the entire culture of the Western world is based upon precessional chronology.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2013, 10:22 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(29-06-2013 08:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The transition from one to the other occurred, yes. But when? An exact date is literally impossible to determine.


Nonsense - it just has to be defined, by the astrological priesthood. And the easiest definition is not the join between two constellations, but when the Sun touches the next constellation. ie About 000 AD for the change from Aries to Pisces.

And yes, there were disputes about the exact timing and dating. A classic example is that the Jewish Revolt was not started in AD 68 by Jesus of Gamala (aka: King Izas), but by his father, Judas of Gamala. But the first of these revolts failed (as did the second, eventually).

No dating system or chronology is complete, without adding the human dimension to it.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2013, 11:49 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(30-06-2013 08:11 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(29-06-2013 09:27 AM)morondog Wrote:  ^^ 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...


But you fail to mention that Maklelan has refused to answer any of my historical questions - he has evaded everything and fallen back each time on his linguistic quiz, because he had no answers whatsoever.


The basic issue in my revised history, is whether Adiabene is Edessa, rather than Arbela. I have asked Maklelan time and time again for evidence substantiating the orthodox opinion that Adiabene is Arbela, and not once has he bothered to give any replies. Not once. No evidence whatsoever. His friend did try, but when I revealed that he was peddling misinformation, he deleted his blog. Maklelan then claimed that his friend was not wrong, but merely mistaken.... So there is NO historical evidence demonstrating that Adiabene is Arbela.

Conversely, I have given Maklelan instance after instance proving that Adiabene is Edessa, and all we get in return is a rejection of the historians I have quoted, and another request to answer a stupid quiz that has no relevance to the location of Adiabene whatsoever. But having rejected the Syriac historians as being totally unreliable and not worth consideration, Maklelan then takes the gospels as the literal truth. And you call this scholarship?? Is evasion, spin and personal abuse now considered to be scholarship??

And as Atheists, why you do not take Maklelan to task for believing the gospels are the literal truth? I know that politics sometimes makes strange bed-fellows, but this one tops them all. Weird is not the word.



And all of this does matter to the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the modern world they created, because the Age of Reason is under more pressure now than when it was first devised. Fundamentalist Islam is pushing in from the East, and an increasingly fundamentalist Christianity is being promoted as a response to this 'attack' - and the Rational and Enlightened of this world are being squeezed and sidelined, especially in the USA. Our fundamental freedoms are at stake here, if the likes of Maklelan gain a foothold in power.


So why does Edessa matter?

Because the Adiabene monarchy prosecuted the Jewish Revolt, as Josephus says.
But if Adiabene was Edessa (as the Syriacs claim), then it was the Edessan monarchy who prosecuted the Jewish Revolt.
But this means that the king who prosecuted the Jewish Revolt was King Izas Manu VI.
And this was the biblical King Jesus Em-Manu-el.
Thus the revolt that Jesus was involved in, that upset the Romans, was actually the Jewish Revolt.

More importantly, this directly implies that:
This was a secular power-struggle, with not a trace of spirituality whatsoever.
That the gospels are truish, but highly distorted, and place a Roman spin on these events.
That the foundations of Christianity are therefore based upon lie after lie (or spin after spin).
That the Christian priesthood are similarly spinning lies and disinformation.
That the Rationalists were right to mistrust the Christian doctrines and devise a secular society.
That the Christian Church should be revised so that it tells the truth (as far as we know that to be) and banned from spreading disinformation.


As you can see, even educated people like Maklelan can be taken in by this nonsense, and believe it word for word. And if we do not counter that virus, rationality will be subsumed, and the modern world will be lost to us. You will note that the Industrial Revolution occurred immediately after the Reformation was successful and defeated Catholic tyranny. That, was not a coincidence. But there is nothing to stop this process from going into reverse - the triumph of fundamentalism and the collapse of the technical and industrial world.

You praise the likes of Maklelan, and his overt evasion of difficult historical questions, at your peril.

.





N

"More importantly, this directly implies that:
This was a secular power-struggle, with not a trace of spirituality whatsoever.
That the gospels are truish, but highly distorted, and place a Roman spin on these events.
That the foundations of Christianity are therefore based upon lie after lie (or spin after spin).
That the Christian priesthood are similarly spinning lies and disinformation.
That the Rationalists were right to mistrust the Christian doctrines and devise a secular society.
That the Christian Church should be revised so that it tells the truth (as far as we know that to be) and banned from spreading disinformation."

Ralph, we disagree about the details, but I'll give you some credit for the above.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2013, 12:17 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(01-07-2013 11:49 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "More importantly, this directly implies that:
This was a secular power-struggle, with not a trace of spirituality whatsoever.
That the gospels are truish, but highly distorted, and place a Roman spin on these events.
That the foundations of Christianity are therefore based upon lie after lie (or spin after spin).
That the Christian priesthood are similarly spinning lies and disinformation.
That the Rationalists were right to mistrust the Christian doctrines and devise a secular society.
That the Christian Church should be revised so that it tells the truth (as far as we know that to be) and banned from spreading disinformation."

Ralph, we disagree about the details, but I'll give you some credit for the above.


A start, I suppose.

But whether you agree with my posts or not, the exercise has been useful once more. I have been on a dozen sites and debated this theory, but never once has the theory been falsified. Yes, there has been intemperate rejections and debate about peripheral issues, but none of my key quotes or arguments has been falsified - not one.

It means that the concept stands up to critical scrutiny. You may not like it, Christians may not like it, Jews may not like it, Atheists may not like it, but nevertheless the theory remains robust. And no stupid quiz by a stupid Mormon, is going to topple it.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2013, 01:02 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(04-07-2013 12:17 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  It means that the concept stands up to critical scrutiny. You may not like it, Christians may not like it, Jews may not like it, Atheists may not like it, but nevertheless the theory remains robust. And no stupid quiz by a stupid Mormon, is going to topple it.

Publish in a respectable journal or GTFO. You think rambling on in a forum means anything ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2013, 01:08 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(04-07-2013 12:17 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  ... but never once has the theory been falsified.

Except no, because it's unfalsifiable. It's reading between the lines of a limited number of already questionable ancient sources, and connecting those suppositions with even wilder speculation.

As atheists we (and you yourself identify as one) can't absolutely show that God doesn't exist. Never once has the theory been falsified...

That you busted out the old "all professional scholarship is hidebound close-minded fools who refuse to listen to my obviously correct theory" gem doesn't exactly lend you credence. That your theory relies on re-interpreting all known sources in a manner you, and only you, have figured out doesn't exactly lend you credence. Your repeated childish personal attacks and tantrums don't exactly lend you credence.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
05-07-2013, 02:13 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2013 02:17 PM by ralphellis.)
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
.
>>As atheists we (and you yourself identify as one) can't absolutely show that
>>God doesn't exist. Never once has the theory been falsified...

As you well know the claim for an omnipotent and omnipresent good god IS falsifiable, for it is a logical contradiction if disasters and disease continue to happen. The only logical conclusion is that if their god is indeed omnipotent and omnipresent, then it must be an evil god.

As you can see, we can make logical assumptions about Judaeo-Christian claims. Likewise, we can also see where the balance of probablilities lie, in the claim that the Jesus-ImManuel story was actually referring to King Izas-Manu of Edessa.



>>Publish in a respectable journal or GTFO. You think rambling on in a forum means anything ?

If you think that will happen, you are much mistaken. There are too many vested interests out there, and too many careers to preserve. Do you think any magazine would take the risk, knowing the vitriol and mud that would get thrown at it for doing so? Better stay safe and ignore the issue.


But the seed has been planted, and it will continue to grow.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2013, 05:15 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Oh I see... there's a *conspiracy* to keep silent on this issue... My GOD whatever shall we do ? I know, I'll just go prove it by convincing non-experts on internet forums... that'll show all those bastards who rejected my stuff on peer-review...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: