[split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2013, 11:10 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(18-06-2013 05:42 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  But I would contend that my ideas do indeed make more sense...

And regard your example of Jesus' armed assault on Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, you are as guilty of cherry-picking as myself, if not more so....

I did indeed mention why Jesus' words have been turned into sermons of peace. The NT was crafted or edited by Saul-Josephus after the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem. ...

You see, my interpretation does make sense of all the available information, in a much more comprehensive fashion than the original version ever did...

I was going to write a full argument against this, but I don't know why I'd waste my time. I already pointed out all the good reasons that you aren't going to abandon your theory, so I know that literally nothing I add will change your mind.

We're not arguing against your theories because we find them disagreeable, revolutionary, or shocking but rather because you're clearly wrong... not that this will change your mind. Beliefs come first and justification comes second, and no amount of argument is going to make you go back and re-evaluate your beliefs. The language and tone of your statements makes it clear that your cognitive rider has no control over its elephant, and you'll let it charge off a cliff if that means that you never have to suffer the pain of doubt. And I'm content to just let that happen now.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
22-06-2013, 12:49 AM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2013 08:04 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(21-06-2013 07:25 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(18-06-2013 06:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Ralph, I'm having great trouble following your train of thought.

You say that King Jesus attacked Jerusalem with 30,000 troops. Who, exactly, was he attacking? Hadn't the Roman garrison in Jerusalem already being driven out in 66 CE?


Jesus was a prince of Syria, who wanted to take over Judaea as a stepping-stone to taking over the Empire.

To that end, he and his mother converted to Nazarene Judaism (as the Talmud relates), and followed the prophesy, to become King of Judaea (as the gospels relate). But obviously, the Jerusalem Priesthood did not go along with this (and nor did Rome, who had banned Jesus' father, King Agbarus, from going out of the Osrhoene - northern Syria).

If you read Josephus 'Life' you will see that Judaea was a maelstrom of unrest in the late AD 60s, with Josephus (ie: Saul) as the Judaean army commander of Galilee, chasing Jesus of Gamala (ie: the biblical Jesus) all over Galilee. And Jesus chasing Josephus, likewise. (Josephus got too big for his boots, so the Jerusalem authorities paid their enemy, Jesus, to prune Josephus' wings a little.)

A part of this general unrest, was the attempt by the Egyptian False Prophet (ie: Jesus) to storm Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives with 30,000 men. But the Roman guard foiled the attack.




(18-06-2013 06:38 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You say that Josephus asked Vespasian to take King Jesus down off the cross, because King Jesus was one of Josephus' mates. How could Josephus and King Jesus be good friends? Surely they were batting for opposing teams?

You say King Jesus survived crucifixion which is the explanation for the Jeebus of the Bible rising from the dead. Do you have any evidence that King Jesus survived, as written up in secular history?


Sure they were enemies. But they were also related - family.

And what gives the greater pleasure and satisfaction - killing your enemy, or have him kneel at your feet and beg for forgiveness? Especially when Jesus was the senior and Saul-Josephus was by far the more junior. If you read 'Life' and Josephus' account of him: 'grandising himself to the point of glory', you will understand his actions.


And Josephus clearly states that one of the leaders of the Jewish Revolt (i.e.: King Izas-Jesus)** survived the crucifixion.



** There were two leaders of the Revolt, Jesus and Izas. For many reasons, they were the same person.


.

Okay, let me see if I am understanding you correctly. You say Jesus was actually Syrian (and therefore, I presume, not a true Jew.) He pretended to be a Nazarene, so you must be saying that the parts of the gospel that talk about John the Baptist being his cousin and James being his brother are fictitious? Or, are they Syrians too? This Jesus was at war with Josephus (who was really also Paul, and also the real author of the Gospels.) This Jesus was also at war with the Jewish temple priesthood, who I assume you think were in league with the Romans. This Jesus was also, obviously, at war with the Romans, as they crucified him, or at least attempted to crucify him. I'm assuming you believe Josephus was always in league with the Roman government and was only pretending to be on the Galilean side. Do you think he was actually in charge of a Galilean mob or is this fictitious?

Jesus' 30,000 troops were defeated by the Romans (do you think this happened inside Jerusalem or before the siege of Jerusalem?) Jesus was crucified, but Josephus (despite being at war with him) decided he was a good bloke and asked Vespasian to take Jesus down from the cross. I think you're saying that this Jesus survived and? went back to Syria to live out his days. Do you have any evidence for the post crucifixion existence of Jesus? In Syria?

Is there any other historian you know of who agrees with you that your Syrian fellow is in fact Jesus? I've never heard anything of the sort in all my years of reading about the history of the times. I will admit however that I've never got around to reading Josephus' works, which I should've done, because they are a primary source. It does strike me as very odd that there must've been thousands of historians who have read Josephus, yet no one but yourself has made the connection. Atwill, who claims to have spent 10 years studying Josephus, doesn't even give it a mention. Nor does Peter Creswell, Hugh Schonfield, Douglas Lockhart, Paul Johnson, Earl Doherty or any other of the numerous historians I've read

There were three other leaders of the Jewish revolt mentioned in Josephus' writing... John, Simon and Menahem. How do you see these three fitting in? Were they at war with Jesus the Syrian?

Josephus then went back to Rome and wrote the letters of Paul, in which he talks about Christ that mentions virtually nothing about the life of a Jesus?

He then (presumably later) writes the gospels, full of information about, and wise anecdotes, from this Jesus.

How do you tie together the known post first Jewish War history of the Nazarenes with the fact that your Jesus wasn't a true Nazarene? It's pretty well established that the Nazarenes existed for a few hundred years after the first Jewish war and that they believed that Jesus had been one of them.

How do you account for the fact that it appears to have been Marcion, in the 140s CE, who actually introduced the writings of Paul to Rome.

Do you think Josephus wrote the Gospels using the names Matthew Mark Luke and John? If so, can you explain why these names only appear in the 180's CE?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
22-06-2013, 11:32 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(21-06-2013 09:04 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Not a word that came from me was anything but academically appropriate criticism. As much as you wish people weren't allowed to point it out, you are not trained in this field, you are not trained in the languages, you are not familiar with the secondary literature, and you are not applying legitimate methodological standards.

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever inappropriate about pointing that out in an academic response to a publication that wants to be considered academic. If you would like to challenge any of these criticisms, then do it directly. Simply insisting that I'm being mean by pointing them out is empty rhetoric and nothing more.



"Academic response"? These were your comments, were they not?:

Ellis’ flagrant lack academic training and discipline is put on display
the etymological connections he makes are utter nonsense, and he stumbles naively over every inch
giving it a stale air of erudition and sincerity that would only fool those
uncritical enough to ignore the atrocious cover artwork, the shameless self aggrandizing
you’ve yet to show a single instance of respect for professionalism or the standard methodologies
You are the sole arbiter of the truth,
This is amateur nonsense.
This is pseudo-scholarship, pure and simple
you just hide behind rhetorical contrarianism that amounts to little more than “Nu-uh!”

I ask you again - is that what you consider to be an academic response?





And regards languages, what Mr Causo and yourself have both failed to grasp, although I don't exactly know why, is that most of pesher is not about the structure of languages, it is about the structure of humor - often ribald and highly vitriolic humour. Having a laugh at one's adversaries. Remember laughing? ROFL and all that? Perhaps you have both had a humouroctomy, who knows.


So where does one begin? I know....


• When the Talmud says that Mary the Virgin was called Miriam Stada, do you think that observation is based upon classical grammar and the parsing of verses?

Think again, it is subversive humor. Miriam Stada or Miriam Stath-da or Miriam the Unfaithful. Do you get it now? I'll give you a clue - the apocryphal gospels hint that Mary got up the duff through adultery rather than via god.



• When the Talmud says that Mary the 'Virgin'** was called Miriam Megaddela Nesaiia (the Dresser of Ladies Hair), do you think that observation is based upon classical grammar and the parsing of verses?

Think again, it is subversive humor. Miriam Megaddela Nesaiia or Miriam Magdalene the Nazarene. Do you get it now? I'll give you a clue - the family of Jesus were Nazarene and the Nazarene wore their hair long. (And Queen Helena was also a Nazarene, of course - which would not be surprising if she was Mary the Virgin.)



• When the Talmud says that Vespasian had an insect that buzzed in his head for many years and drove him mad, do you think that observation is based upon classical grammar and the parsing of verses?

Think again, it is carping humor. Vespasian or Vespa or Wasp. Do you get it now?



And by the way, most of these talmudic observations are by venerable and contemporary theologians, so if you have a problem with these interpretations please see them.*** So your claim that since I have no formal training I must be making things up is so wide of the mark it is not in the same ball-court. The only differences I have made to these interpretations, is the historical environment into which those interpretations can best be made to sit. And that environment is the AD 60s of the Jewish Revolt, because they have no meaning whatsoever in the AD 30s.

So this debate about language a classic example of your so-called criticisms, all of which are wrong. So you still huff and puff with superiority about "your complete lack of training in the languages", but forget to mention your complete lack of understanding about talmudic humour.




Oh, and you have deliberately omitted to highlight the many errors you have made in your criticisms. As one of many you said earlier:

Quote:
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.

But when I give you chapter and verse from Moses of Chorene and others, and you simply say that relying on later authors is erroneous and akin to writing pseudo-history. Eh? Are you saying that when you write about Minoan, Sumerian and Egyptian history, you rely solely on contemporary texts. Come, come, now - you jest, surely. Surely you must know that the king-list chronology of Egypt is largely built upon the much later jottings of Manetho. You did know that, I hope.

If fact, your complete evasion regards my many answers to your criticism, is tantamount to deliberately dodging the evidence. Why don't you just admit that you had never read the Syraic historians, before I pointed them out to you, and now you are simply pontificating and prevaricating to maintain the status quo. And you had most certainly had not ever considered that Adiabene was, in fact, a reference to Edessa, and so you are left floundering and not knowing how to respond. Your Mr Caruso claimed triumphantly that there was an inscription in Arbela saying that King Monobazus lived there, and so I was completely wrong. But when I asked, time and time again, for evidence of this inscription he prevaricated and then deleted the blog. You are doing much the same - the history of this region is outside your experience, and so you are making things up as you go along.

A considered response to each of my reposts would be appreciated. I shall repost some of them here for general interest.
http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/20...mment-3358
https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2...lph-ellis/




* One incorrect terminating 's' out of 44 that were correct.
** The Talmud makes little differentiation between the Virgina and the Magdalene.
*** The Vespasian interpretation is one of my own interpretations.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2013, 11:54 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(21-06-2013 09:04 AM)maklelan Wrote:  If you would like to challenge any of these criticisms, then do it directly. Simply insisting that I'm being mean by pointing them out is empty rhetoric and nothing more.


These are some of the many replies I made to your criticisms, but you did not reply to. Perhaps you would be so kind as to reply here instead.



>>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 that I have found. 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.

Thanks for that, I will browse this later (it is rather long). I have already read many texts on this subject, so I don’t expect too many surprises from it.

This turned out to be the paper I had used in the book and it was, errr, somewhat lacking in logic. The author had omitted to research the royal family, and merely looked at geographical names and descriptions. But as as I pointed out to Mr Marciak - if he could find the Adiabene royal family, he would find the location of Adiabene. And the location of Queen Helena of Adiabene turned out to be Edessa.



.
>>Next, you claim that you were constrained
>>in your use of Greek and Hebrew fonts,
>>and that you had to provide JPEG images
>>of all occurrences of those scripts. You don’t
>>make clear whether you produced the JPEGs
>>or they were produced by Innodata using a
>>text you submitted. If you did it, it would mean
>>that whatever came through in the book was
>>what was in the JPEG you submitted. They can’t
>>edit the fonts in a JPEG image.

I really think this long discussion about one incorrect Greek consonant is a bit of a diversion (yes, the complaint was that I had one final sigma incorrect – just one). The book and its arguments will rise or fall on its historical merit, not on one Greek sigma. But I have long noted that academics will try and concentrate on one minor error, and totally ignore the wider subject that they cannot fault.

One academic said that an aleph could never become an ayin, and so my entire book was wrong. So I showed him 15 words that interchangeably used either alephs or ayins, and I never heard from him again. No apology, though.

As it happens, the ePubber did everything (this was now Suntec, as Innodata had made such a mess. Innodata’s attempt was so bad, we scrapped it and started again.). The trouble is that because they could not cut-and-paste, they had to re-spell each Greek word themselves. But they could not differentiate between the letters, and so EVERY word came back spelt incorrectly. This is AFTER editing, of course, so you then have to re-edit the book again and again (we had eight edits). A pain, I can tell you. But the Hebrew-Aramaic jpgs were even worse. Instead of copying each word to a picture, one by one, they just said: ‘ah, that word looks like the same as the previous word, so I will use the previous one.’ So most of the Aramaic words were completely wrong (the Hebrew alphabet being particularly hard to differentiate).

The guys at Apple and Kindle who decided upon ePub as a standard, instead of pdf, have a lot to answer for. If pdf can handle any font, why not ePub? I cannot count how much time this all cost.



.
>>The error found in your book is quite
>>common to beginners who are typing
>>out Greek from a transliteration. I am
>>compelled to conclude that this was
>>your error,

Actually, you are ‘compelled to be completely wrong’, as every other final sigma in the book was eventually corrected before publication (all 44 of them).



.
>>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.




Thanks for the questions. If you have any more, please let me know.

.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 08:44 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
23-06-2013, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2013 11:59 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(23-06-2013 08:44 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Yup. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear something like this at an academic conference if a scholar were confronted by a hobbyist with wacky theories like yours.

I see. You like it when you are giving it, but you scream if you get it back. Ok, we shall see about that.





>>What a nonsensical and irrelevant red herring. Of course it was. No one can write
>>anything that has meaning without basing it on grammar and morphology.

What idiotic nonsense. I have seen better excuses from a semi-retarded nematode. Ok, if you think these derivations are based upon grammar and parsing, then please parse a verse mentioning Mary, and derive Stathda from it. Go on.

Firstly, Stathda has nothing really to do with Mary, morphologically or gramatically. Secondly, the humour is based upon phonemes, not parsing. You do know what a phoenem is, I presume.



>>That's not humor, that's polemic. It's not meant to make people laugh, it's meant t
>>criticize an individual so readers understand they're not supposed to sympathize with them.

Eh? You really have had a humourectomy, haven't you.

Do you think that the rabbis would not laugh at the thought of Mary adunterously screwing a carpenter, rather than god? The talmudic rabbis called this adultery: 'two wicks in one lamp'. Come come, now, surely even you can see the humour in that. No?? If not, there is no hope for you.




>>You don't even know what you're saying.

You have simply been outclassed, and are regretting ever getting involved.





>>You're conflating Nazerenes and Nazarites, Ralph. A Nazarene is just someone from
>>Nazareth. It has nothing to do with a Nazarite vow, and nothing suggests citizens of
>>Nazareth wore their hair long.

Oh, Jeezzz, you are so behind the drag-curve this is getting embarassing. Let me spell this out in words of one syllable - Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD. It was made up later, as an excuse for those - like yourself - who hated the thought of Jesus being a Nazarene. But we know Jesus was a Nazarene, otherwise why else did he ask the disciples to become eunuchs?? And why was he called the Egyptian FalsenProphet?? Tell me, why.



>>Ralph, you really, don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Again, you are out of your depth. Better retreat to the safety of Salt Lake City, and the 17th century.




Gospels in AD 60s.
>>And that's completely and totally unsupportable. Just because you are a superb scholar it
>>does not make that claim doesn't mean it's true.

Since you have never read the book, how would you know?




>>t's based on nothing but your uninformed reading of the English transliterations.

But I never use English translation. And if you had read the book, you would know that.




>>Anyone with a grasp of the Hebrew would not have understood it as “Sons of Addai”
>>anyway, since the word you have read as “son” comes at the end of the word, rather than the beginning

Because it is a phoneme. Goodness gracious, its like talking to a child. You do know what a phoenem is, I presume.

Do you think that Mary Mag really eas a Dresser of Ladies Hair?? No, it was a phoneme.





>>Actually, I pointed to many reasons why we should not trust Moses of Chorene,
>>highlighting that he's been considered too untrustworthy for years by contemporary scholars.

Because Moses tells the truth, while Josephus et al have distorted the chronology and location. Thats why he appears to be different. But it is Moses who is correct, not Josephus. Moses was NOT writing for the Romans, so he had no need to neuter the Edessan monarchy. Why do you think Josephus NEVER mentions Edessa or the Edessan monarchy? Tell us why.

In reality, Josephus calls them Adiabene and Monobazus - thus we have prima face evidence that Josephus was distorting history. Thus we should look to Moses for an alternate opinion and perspective.





>>No, but I have been trained by the best in critically analyzing the historical value of
>>ancient texts. I know how to determine if an author has a reason for not being accurate,
>>intentionally or otherwise.

Based upon your many years of Christian indoctrination.





>>Don't try to lecture me about ancient Near Eastern history, Ralph.

Why not? You seem to be decidedly lacking in both knowledge and rational analysis. You reject Moses of Chorene, because he is a later historian, but you accept Manetho because - ah, yes, because he is a later historian. You are making a fool of yourself.




>>It's Syriac, Ralph, not Syraic.

You have just displayed the fact that you do not own an iPad. Come into the 21st century, why not, the water is lovely.




>>No, I'd never heard it before, and that's because it's a ludicrous contradiction of the history.

Then prove that Adiabene is Arbella. You cannot do it, can you. Prove that Queen Helena lived in Arbella. You cannot do it, can you.




>>You're wildly misrepresenting Steve. What he said was that the name Adiabene is attested in inscriptions
>>at Arbela. He was making an assumption there that is not correct,

What I said is that Mr Caruso was greatly mistaken. But no, it would appear this in reality he was actually - errr - greatly mistaken. Hey, you are better at politics than Tony Blair. (That is not a compliment, by the way.)




>>If anyone has any doubt as to the veracity or sincerity of my statements, I have the entire
>>conversation archived and transcripts are available upon request.

Better still, they are already on my Edfu website, where anyone can see what really transpired.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
.

>>Okay, let me see if I am understanding you correctly. You say Jesus was actually Syrian
>>(and therefore, I presume, not a true Jew.) He pretended to be a Nazarene, so you must
>>be saying that the parts of the gospel that talk about John the Baptist being his cousin and
>>James being his brother are fictitious.

Define 'Jew'. Show me where, in modern Jerusalem, they make roast sacrifices of oxen or doves. Show me where the altars to Molech are in modern Jerusalem. Show me where the temple prostitutes are.

See the problem?

In reality, Jesus, as a true Egypto-Nazarene, was the true Jew, while the rabbis of the 1st century were doing their own thing. Remember that it was Moses (the Moses who was the leader of Pharaoh Akhenaton's people) who ended the sanctity of particular animals (ie, the Apis bull), and barbecued them in the temples. This was the biblical Moses, by the way.

Thus Jesus and his family, as true Nazarenes, were trying to take over Jerusalem to return Judaism back to its true Davidic roots - as well as trying to take over the Empire. And if you were wondering why Jesus asked the disciples to become eunuchs, just take a look at the historybof Emperor Elagabalus (another Syrian emperor of Rome), and you will find out why.





>>Jesus' 30,000 troops were defeated by the Romans (do you think this happened
>>inside Jerusalem or before the siege of Jerusalem?) Jesus was crucified,

This was the general civil war chaos, befor the siege.



>>but Josephus (despite being at war with him) decided he was a good
>>bloke and asked Vespasian to take Jesus down from the cross.

Read what I said again. Josephus was enjoying the glory. See also the famous scene from Schindler's List, with the prison guard.




>>think you're saying that this Jesus survived and? went back to Syria to live out his days. Do you have any
>>evidence for the post crucifixion existence of Jesus? In Syria?

Do you think they would keep him close to his power base? What did they do to Napoleon? What did they do to the suspects of 9-11?

The Romans were well ahead of the game here. They built a prison fortress for Jesus as far from Syria as was possible in that era - Fortress Dewa in England.




>>Is there any other historian you know of who agrees with you that your Syrian fellow is in fact Jesus? I've
>>never heard anything of the sort in all my years of reading about the history of the times.

This is as cutting edge as it gets, which is why the likes of McClellan do not like it and will resist it with every fibre of their Christianised body. This is the beginning of a new revolution in thought and understanding, mark my words. The gospel cat is out of the bag, and will not go back.

And since this theory is true, I will predict now that more and more information will come to light very shortly. This would be hastened, of course, if supposed Atheists who know this subject, like our dear Maklelan (McClellan), would look and reasearch with a favourable disposition, rather than spewing bile and ridicule, but it will happen nevertheless. Even if it down to just me, it will still happen. You cannot prevent the truth, for it will eventually show itself at every opportunity.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 12:32 PM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2013 02:04 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(21-06-2013 11:10 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I was going to write a full argument against this, but I don't know why I'd waste my time.

Translated:

Jeezz those arguments are good, I have nothing that will disprove them except prevarication, evasion and deception.



Readers will also note that you said previously:
Quote:
"How many times do I have to invite you to actually respond to my concerns, before you'll actually do it?"

But when presented with reasoned replies and arguments (many weeks ago), you refused to answer them. You are running scared, pure and simple.





(21-06-2013 11:10 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  We're not arguing against your theories because we find them disagreeable, revolutionary, or shocking but rather because you're clearly wrong...


Translated:

Perhaps if we concentrate on this guy's credentials, we can stop him peddling the truth. And we have to do this, otherwise the entire Christian house of cards will come tumbling down.



(P.S. This response pertains equally to Starcrash and Maklelan. Initially I though the comment was from Maklelan, but since these two posters seem to post very similar material, the confusion is easy to make. )
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 03:21 PM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  I see. You like it when you are giving it, but you scream if you get it back. Ok, we shall see about that.

"Scream" is quite a misrepresentation of my reaction to your personal insults, which is quite a bit distinct from my professional opinion of your claims.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  What idiotic nonsense. I have seen better excuses from a semi-retarded nematode.

Y'see, this is of a totally different species of criticism from what I have posted.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Ok, if you think these derivations are based upon grammar and parsing, then please parse a verse mentioning Mary, and derive Stathda from it. Go on.

You appear to be quite confused regarding what it means for a statement to be "based on grammar and parsing." You seem to be intending to aiming at insisting that I think their alterations to the traditions are the direct product of grammar and parsing, as if they interpreted their polemic from the linguistic nature of the original. That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything you or I has said. You've obviously got yourself tied in a logical knot here.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Firstly, Stathda has nothing really to do with Mary, morphologically or gramatically. Secondly, the humour is based upon phonemes, not parsing. You do know what a phoenem is, I presume.

I do (although I don't know what a "phoenem" is). A phoneme is a basic phonological unit of meaning. In other words, it is the most simple or basic change in sound that carries meaning. The words "bat" and "ban," for instance, mean different things when spoken because the /t/ phoneme points in a different semantic direction from the /n/ phoneme when attached to the syllable /ba/. The notion that "the humour is based upon phomenes" is kinda silly, though. What the polemic derives from is homonym, which is when two distinct words sound similar. Plays on words are usually based on homonyms or homophones (two different words being pronounced the same).

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Eh? You really have had a humourectomy, haven't you.

Do you think that the rabbis would not laugh at the thought of Mary adunterously screwing a carpenter, rather than god?

No, such vulgarities were fervently avoided within rabbinic culture. You further betray your utter and complete ignorance of the literature and its context.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  The talmudic rabbis called this adultery: 'two wicks in one lamp'. Come come, now, surely even you can see the humour in that. No?? If not, there is no hope for you.

It's not humor, Ralph, it's a euphemism because they were incredibly sensitive to vulgarities.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  You have simply been outclassed, and are regretting ever getting involved.

You don't actually believe that, do you? You cannot possibly be so deluded as to think I am intimidated by anything you have to say.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Oh, Jeezzz, you are so behind the drag-curve this is getting embarassing. Let me spell this out in words of one syllable - Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD.

Actually there have been settlements in and around Nazareth as far back as the Neolithic Era. The question is whether or not it was inhabited in the first century CE. The notion that it was not derives from its lack of mention in contemporary texts, which suffers from the fallacious assumption that lack of mention = non-existence (just like your notion that it's relevant to anything that Josephus doesn't mention Edessa). The actual archaeological evidence, independent of arguments from silence, quite firmly established the existence and habitation of the city of Nazareth throughout the first century CE. It just wasn't a big city. The idea that it wasn't inhabited is confined these days only to amateur circles, which deals primarily in outdated scholarship that circulates more easily for free. See here for an example of actual archaeological excavation there.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  It was made up later, as an excuse for those - like yourself - who hated the thought of Jesus being a Nazarene.

Again, "Nazarene" and "Nazarite" are two entirely different words.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  But we know Jesus was a Nazarene, otherwise why else did he ask the disciples to become eunuchs??

Asceticism was an early Christian ideal deriving from more Greco-Roman-oriented Christians. See Philo's De Vita contemplativa or the Qumran sectarian literature for Jewish examples of asceticism. The linking of this tradition with Jesus originated in the late first century CE.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  And why was he called the Egyptian FalsenProphet?? Tell me, why.

He wasn't. That's just a ludicrous notion you've aped from Lena Einhorn. When you use one assumption as evidentiary leverage for another assumption you're engaging in what is called circular argumentation.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Again, you are out of your depth. Better retreat to the safety of Salt Lake City, and the 17th century.

Ridiculous rhetoric, Ralph.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Since you have never read the book, how would you know?

I don't have to have read your book to know the weaknesses inherent in the original argument you're just borrowing.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  But I never use English translation.

First, that's a bald faced lie. You don't know the languages at all. You have no choice but to use English translations. Second, I didn't say "translation," I said "transliteration." I find your constant attempts at condescension so remarkably hypocritical when you display just horrific ignorance in everything you assert.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  And if you had read the book, you would know that.

I'm still waiting for you to attempt to defend your etymological analysis of Adiabene. You know you can't do it, and so does everyone here, so quit pretending to have any capacity with ancient language.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Because it is a phoneme. Goodness gracious, its like talking to a child. You do know what a phoenem is, I presume.

Again you spell it "phoenem," and again you completely misunderstand what a phoneme is. Calling it a phoneme doesn't even begin to validate your atrocious misrepresentation of the language, and I defy you to attempt to explain exactly why its nature as a phoneme has anything whatsoever to do with your argument.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Do you think that Mary Mag really eas a Dresser of Ladies Hair?? No, it was a phoneme.

Again, it was a homonym, not a phoneme.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Because Moses tells the truth, while Josephus et al have distorted the chronology and location. Thats why he appears to be different. But it is Moses who is correct, not Josephus. Moses was NOT writing for the Romans, so he had no need to neuter the Edessan monarchy. Why do you think Josephus NEVER mentions Edessa or the Edessan monarchy? Tell us why.

In other words, "Nu-uh!" Asking why Josephus never mentions Edessa has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability of Moses of Chorene. I already addressed this:

Quote:Assumptions about what an historian would have had to have done do not form legitimate methodological bases for conflating toponyms and personal names, though. Historical authors frequently leave out quite important information for reasons that are not clear to us. For instance, some people claim that the absence of the mention of Belshazzar from Herodotus’ histories means Herodotus didn’t know about him, but they overlook the fact that Herodotus also never mentions Nebuchadnezzar, of whom Herodotus could not possibly have been ignorant. Josephus is actually quite infamous for glaring omissions from his retelling of Jewish history that he obviously felt did not reflect on Judaism the way he wanted. His Antiquities and his War are also inconsistent, crafting the narratives with different details to satisfy the rhetorical concerns of each composition. In short, I don’t see any reason whatsoever we are required to find Edessa or its rulers in Josephus’ text. If you wish to insist that we cannot leave the text without identiying Edessa within it, you will have to provide something well beyond the naked assertion that he just cannot have left it out.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  In reality, Josephus calls them Adiabene and Monobazus - thus we have prima face evidence that Josephus was distorting history. Thus we should look to Moses for an alternate opinion and perspective.

Again, this is nothing but naked assertion. You have no evidence, you just say it is so because you say so.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Based upon your many years of Christian indoctrination.

I've already pointed out that you know slightly less than jack about me and my faith, so please don't presume to make assumptions about it. I guarantee you you'll be wrong every time. I already pointed out to you that any quick glance at my blog will show Christian indoctrination has absolutely nothing at all to do with the positions for which I advocate.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Why not?

Because you don't understand it.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  You seem to be decidedly lacking in both knowledge and rational analysis. You reject Moses of Chorene, because he is a later historian, but you accept Manetho because - ah, yes, because he is a later historian. You are making a fool of yourself.

I accept Manetho? Unilaterally or selectively? How do you figure?

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  You have just displayed the fact that you do not own an iPad. Come into the 21st century, why not, the water is lovely.

Ralph, I own an iPad, an iPhone 5, an iPod, a MacBook Pro, a MacBook Air, and an iMac. I'm well acquainted with the 21st century and the limits of its technologies. Don't try to blame your misspellings on technology.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Then prove that Adiabene is Arbella. You cannot do it, can you. Prove that Queen Helena lived in Arbella. You cannot do it, can you.

This is not how history works, Ralph. We don't really have the luxury of proving much of anything at all. We weigh probabilities. Additionally, you don't get to just highlight a ludicrous conflation within a text from centuries after the fact as some kind of default position that wins if there is no definitive proof of the consensus view. That's just silly rhetoric, not legitimate scholarship.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  What I said is that Mr Caruso was greatly mistaken.

No, this is what you said:

Quote:Your Mr Caruso claimed triumphantly that there was an inscription in Arbela saying that King Monobazus lived there

And that is completely and totally false. You're being incredibly dishonest and now you're being dishonest to try to avoid taking responsibility for it.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  But no, it would appear this in reality he was actually - errr - greatly mistaken. Hey, you are better at politics than Tony Blair. (That is not a compliment, by the way.)

Yes, he was mistaken, but I provided more than adequate evidence to show it doesn't matter, since the identification of the location is quite secure. Archaeological proof of the identification of the toponym is not necessary for reasonably drawing a conclusion about it. You said you'd read the text to which I linked you. Obviously you've ignored it or forgotten about it.

(23-06-2013 11:34 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Better still, they are already on my Edfu website, where anyone can see what really transpired.

But they've been edited. Steve shared the original portions that you edited when you posted it on your website. He showed that you removed your insults and vulgarities.

Now, I will not respond to another word from you until you directly and fully address (1) my concern with your etymology of Adiabene, and (2) my Greek and Aramaic quiz. Keep in mind, just burping up "it's a phoneme!" doesn't address the Adiabene question, it just shows that you're making crap up because you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 11:40 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
I've split this thread at Bucky's request since these posts have almost zero or at most a tangential relationship to the original purpose of his thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: