[split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2013, 11:57 PM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
Maklelan, I'm curious... are you in fact religious at all ? Just wondering... I know you said it has no bearing on your scholarship, and what with peer review and all it'd be very clear if it did... Just... it'd be kinda fascinating if you were.

RE: The quiz seems like a simple challenge. Not that I read Greek or anything but I can flip the letters into Roman alphabet and they seem to make nice simple words arranged in a sentence. If you really do read Greek you should be able to easily put to rest the claim that you cannot in fact translate it ?

Hell, even Google translate or a few minutes spent with a Greek dictionary can probably do it. Although if M is nasty he'll have thought of that and used Koine or something where the true meaning might be slightly different - which would be no obstacle to a scholar who understands nuances like jokes in the Talmud...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 02:01 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
.

I have just noticed that Maklelan (aka: McClellan) is actually a believer - a polytheist as he has been called.

So please tell us if you believe that Jesus was the Son of God. It would make much more sense of your postings if we knew your beliefs. At present, we do not know if you are presenting rational history, or simply reinforcing your belief system.

In addition, can you put my mind to rest on your rationality. Do you believe that Josiah Smith found gold tablets written in 'reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs' that he translated using a seeing-stone -- and then promptly 'lost them' again?? Yeeaaahh, riiiiiight, several kilos in gold, and he looses them. White coats with no arms are in order, I feel.

Please tell us, because if you are indeed a believer in this childish nonsense, you are simply not worth debating with. Indeed, if you were looking for ridicule, you will find it coming your way in spades.

This matters, because it you are indeed a Mormon (having been educated in 17th century Salt Lake City), then it is highly likely that you are a 'sleeper' - a believer who pretends to be Atheistic and yet seeks in every way possible to destabilise and destroy Atheism. Of course, such an individual would be highly alarmed at the truth about Judaeo-Christianity coming out into the public, and do everything in their power to destroy that evidence and those 'heretical' ideas.

Is that what you are doing, Makellan (aka: McClellan).


.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 03:04 AM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2013 03:13 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
>>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."

Geezzz, you are grasping at straws.

I know how to read all the historical and theological greats, and I do know how pesher is devised, which you obviously do not. And 'transliteration' makes less sense than 'translation', are you saying that 'Adiabene' is an English word? The derivation is from Aramaic to Greek, and if you have ever read either Josephus or the Gospels, you will know that this is a regular event.

If this is not so, then please do explain how Acts of the Apostles derived the name Agabus (meaning 'locust'), instead of Abgarus (ie: King Abgarus V). Go on, please parse this verse, and show us how this name was derived. If you are not too scared to do so, of course, and demonstrate that everything you have said thus far is complete cods.

And I know you have had a humouroctomy, but calling the Edessan monarchy (and Jesus) a locust is humour, as well as political commentry. Believe me, if Billy Conolly stood up on stage and said that xxxx adulterous female politician was a lamp with two wicks, he would get a laugh.




>>>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:

You call your arguments 'rational analysis'? That is a sleight on rationality, is it not?

Josephus knows everything and everyone from 1st century Syrio-Judaea - but makes no mention of the influential region and monarchy of Edessa. Hmmm.

Conversely, Moses of Chorene says that events that Josephus was describing were involving the Edessan monarchy, and yet Josephus makes no mention of this. For instance, the battle with King Aretas of Petra was assisted by 'Syrian fugatives' according to Josephus. But according to Moses of Chorene these 'fugatives' were the Edessan Army.

If you cannot see that Josephus is covering something up here, you must be the worst historian to have ever have stalked the earth. Or perhaps you are like Eusebius, who was desperately trying to prop us the Christian historical edifice, and has been named as the 'most thoroughly dishonest historian ever'. Is this what you are, Maklelan (aka: McClellan) - a dishonest Christian apologist?




>>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.

Then please enlighten us. In a discussion about the valitity and meaning of Christian texts and the history that surrounds them, your faith is important.

And readers should note that faith is not reason and nor is it rational. Faith means that Maklelan (aka: McClellan) will accept a belief as a truism when there is absolutely no evidence to support that belief. Indeed, the less evidence a belief has, the truer it becomes. Are we to sit here and believe the word of someone who will intentionally deceive himself (and everyone around him)??




>>This is not how history works, Ralph. We don't really have the luxury of proving much of
>>anything at all. We weigh probabilities.

And after 620 pages of erudite research, the balance of probablilities is that Adiabene is Edessa, and thus King Monobazus is King Abgarus of Edessa. And you will not read the book to find out, because you are too scared to do so, just in case it disturbs your faith.

And readers do note that Maklelan asked for my reasoning as to why Adiabene must be Edessa, and he has been given that evidence twice now (and many weeks ago too). But he has studiously ignored my evidence, and concentrates instead on iPad - induced spelling mistakes and stupid quizzes. This sums up Makelan - he is a wind bag who is afraid of the truth, because the truth might interfere with his faith. As was said many centuries ago (Eusebius?, paraphrased) 'the truth is not the truth, the only true truth is the truth according to faith'.




>>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.

No I did not. I made no insults on Caruso's blog, I made academic critisims just as you have. I thought you liked the rough and tumble of academic critisism?! And when I made my EXACT copy of the comments, Mr Carusos complaints (and his quotes of percieved insults) were still there on his site. I cannot help it if
Caruso resorts to censorship and deletes those percieved 'insults' (quoted so-called 'insults' about others, and not directed at him).



>>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.

And here we have the ultimate deflection of the pseudo-academic who is well out of his depth and floundering in the open seas of real debate. He refuses to answer reasoned questions, until a quiz is addressed that has nothing to do with the Edessan royal family, and nothing to do with the questions and reasons I posted for Adiabene being Edessa.

I think that before Maklelan's historical statements are given any veracity, he should explain the decay series of Thorium. (It has as much relevence.)

But Maklelan will use this smokescreen, this figleaf, because he has no reasoned argument to hide behind - he cannot prove Adiabene is Arbela, but he has FAITH. He is the ultimate academic with no clothes.



If readers are wondering why the Adiaben-Edessa argument is relevant, it is because this conflation would mean that the Edessan monarchy led the Jewish Revolt. It would also mean that the Edessan king of the Revolt was called Izas-Manu (ie: Jesus-EmManuel).


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 03:33 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(23-06-2013 11:57 PM)morondog Wrote:  RE: The quiz seems like a simple challenge. Not that I read Greek or anything but I can flip the letters into Roman alphabet and they seem to make nice simple words arranged in a sentence. If you really do read Greek you should be able to easily put to rest the claim that you cannot in fact translate it ?

Parsing a sentence is not the same as translating it. But the request to parse anything by Maklelan is totally irrelevant, for that is not what Josephus nor what the talmudic rabis were doing.

I have already demonstrated talmudic humour, but let us look at Josephus too. For instance, the name Monobazus was derived from Monos Basilleus, meaning Only King (because both Jesus and Monobazus were called the Only Begotten Son).

Now the derivation of Monobazus from Monos Basilleus has nothing to do with gramar, syntax or declinations, it was a pun, and a poor pun at that. As Josephus admits, his grasp of Greek was poor, and so it is highly unlikely that he would be making intricate derivations of names - he was simply covering up names by changing the language, deriving a homophone pun, or changing the pronunciation slightly. This is not rocket science.


.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 03:51 AM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2013 04:22 AM by morondog.)
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
The point is, it seems like a simple challenge. Can you, or can you not translate it ? It reflects badly on you if instead of answering you come up with reasons why you can't do it. It hurts your credibility.

I don't *care* if the Talmud has humour in it *according to you*. I want to know if you are a credible source of information before I accept any of what you say. Frankly I've already dismissed you as a crackpot from what I've seen of you before, but you are free to change that opinion. Dodging this challenge is not a point in your favour.

An example of a similar challenge is found on this very forum where a former Muslim challenged InternetMullah to prove his understanding of Arabic. Mullah didn't dodge. He translated it perfectly, and both he and his challenger ended on a note of mutual respect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 04:40 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(23-06-2013 11:57 PM)morondog Wrote:  Maklelan, I'm curious... are you in fact religious at all ? Just wondering... I know you said it has no bearing on your scholarship, and what with peer review and all it'd be very clear if it did... Just... it'd be kinda fascinating if you were.

I'm a Latter-day Saint, more commonly known as a Mormon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 04:46 AM
RE: Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, another look
(24-06-2013 02:01 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  I have just noticed that Maklelan (aka: McClellan) is actually a believer - a polytheist as he has been called.

No, I'm not a polytheist, that's just something a particularly vituperative fundamentalist Christian called me yesterday on my blog. I'm a henotheist, to be technical, but so are all Judeo-Christians if we want to be perfectly accurate.

(24-06-2013 02:01 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  So please tell us if you believe that Jesus was the Son of God. It would make much more sense of your postings if we knew your beliefs.

No, it wouldn't, since you'd be trying to correlate my beliefs with my posts here, and as I've already told you directly, my beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on my scholarship.

(24-06-2013 02:01 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  At present, we do not know if you are presenting rational history, or simply reinforcing your belief system.

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

(24-06-2013 02:01 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  In addition, can you put my mind to rest on your rationality. Do you believe that Josiah Smith

Joseph Smith.

(24-06-2013 02:01 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  found gold tablets written in 'reformed Egyptian hieroglyphs' that he translated using a seeing-stone -- and then promptly 'lost them' again?? Yeeaaahh, riiiiiight, several kilos in gold, and he looses them. White coats with no arms are in order, I feel.

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

(24-06-2013 02:01 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Please tell us, because if you are indeed a believer in this childish nonsense, you are simply not worth debating with.

I see.

(24-06-2013 02:01 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Indeed, if you were looking for ridicule, you will find it coming your way in spades.

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

(24-06-2013 02:01 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  This matters,

No, it doesn't.

(24-06-2013 02:01 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  because it you are indeed a Mormon (having been educated in 17th century Salt Lake City),

Brigham Young University is in Provo, not Salt Lake City, and as I've already told you, I was also educated at Oxford and elsewhere, so please stop with this ignorant and fumbling attempt at poisoning the well.

(24-06-2013 02:01 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  then it is highly likely that you are a 'sleeper' - a believer who pretends to be Atheistic and yet seeks in every way possible to destabilise and destroy Atheism.

Oh, good grief.

(24-06-2013 02:01 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Of course, such an individual would be highly alarmed at the truth about Judaeo-Christianity coming out into the public, and do everything in their power to destroy that evidence and those 'heretical' ideas.

Is that what you are doing, Makellan (aka: McClellan).

As I already told you, don't even make assumptions about my personal beliefs. You will be wrong absolutely every time, as you are throughout this post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 04:53 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 03:33 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Parsing a sentence is not the same as translating it.

And you are capable of neither. You don't even know the difference between transliteration and translation.

(24-06-2013 03:33 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  But the request to parse anything by Maklelan is totally irrelevant, for that is not what Josephus nor what the talmudic rabis were doing.

But it was what you were trying to do when you pretended Adiabene meant "sons of Addai." No one is so stupid as to actually be taken in by this idiotic notion that you don't have to translate because that wasn't was Josephus was doing.

(24-06-2013 03:33 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  I have already demonstrated talmudic humour, but let us look at Josephus too. For instance, the name Monobazus was derived from Monos Basilleus, meaning Only King (because both Jesus and Monobazus were called the Only Begotten Son).

Oh, my gosh. You've been repeatedly shown that the name has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Greek phrase, and you've never been able to respond. Scholarship isn't about burping up "Nu-uh!" and then just reasserting yourself.

(24-06-2013 03:33 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Now the derivation of Monobazus from Monos Basilleus has nothing to do with gramar, syntax or declinations,

That's quite obvious.

(24-06-2013 03:33 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  it was a pun, and a poor pun at that.

In other words, you cannot prove any linguistic connection whatsoever, so you're just arbitrarily asserting that the connection is there based on nothing at all. Way to go.

(24-06-2013 03:33 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  As Josephus admits, his grasp of Greek was poor,

What on earth? You haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

(24-06-2013 03:33 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  and so it is highly unlikely that he would be making intricate derivations of names - he was simply covering up names by changing the language, deriving a homophone pun, or changing the pronunciation slightly. This is not rocket science.

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? You should write to the people who wrote this article. You would make their heads explode.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 07:15 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 04:40 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I'm a Latter-day Saint, more commonly known as a Mormon.

Er... wow Tongue I was gonna ask you a whole bunch of questions but... I decided I'll leave it for now...

It just seems really weird that's all...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 07:17 AM
RE: [split] Resurrection of Jesus - Argument with Ralph Ellis
(24-06-2013 07:15 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 04:40 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I'm a Latter-day Saint, more commonly known as a Mormon.

Er... wow Tongue I was gonna ask you a whole bunch of questions but... I decided I'll leave it for now...

It just seems really weird that's all...

Yeah, huh? Ban the fool. Big Grin

[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: