Author Topic: Conspiracy Theorist Ralph Ellis says Jesus of Nazareth = Jesus ben Gamala  (Read 105857 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

And on (what) grounds does Professor Eisenman make these assertions? Okay, so Agabus from the NT was actually called Agbar Uchama. Where does he get this from. What sources indicates that this was his name.

I still can't see how there can possibly be a connection between a christian prophet and an assyrian king. There is nothing that indicates that this is the same person. Even if they did share the same name, it still wouldn't prove anything, because there is nothing that ties these two persons together.    

Professor Eisenman gets his idea from a comparison of individuals.  We have a mention of 'two' people:
Both had a name like Agabus or Abgarus.
Both were involved in the AD 47 famine.
Both gave famine relief to Judaea in AD 47.
Both sent ambassadors with that money, to Judaea.
Both sets of ambassadors knew of Jesus and his followers and would have gone to meet him.
I think that is a fairly close comparison.


The reason for the different spelling, is that the gospel version (Agabus) is a deliberately acerbic hypocorism, devised by an erudite character like Saul or Josephus.  The revised spelling means 'locust', which is the same carping hypocorism that is used by the Talmud for Jesus.

The "connection between a christian prophet and an assyrian king" is that if the biblical (King) Jesus EmManuel was King Izas-Manu VI of Edessa, then King Abgarus V of Edessa was his father.  Perhaps you can now see why King Abgarus was writing to the biblical Jesus while he was in Jerusalem.


Ralph
« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 03:33:24 AM by ralfellis »

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

And on (what) grounds does Professor Eisenman make these assertions? Okay, so Agabus from the NT was actually called Agbar Uchama. Where does he get this from. What sources indicates that this was his name.

I still can't see how there can possibly be a connection between a christian prophet and an assyrian king. There is nothing that indicates that this is the same person. Even if they did share the same name, it still wouldn't prove anything, because there is nothing that ties these two persons together.    

Professor Eisenman gets his idea from a comparison of individuals.  We have a mention of 'two' people:
Both had a name like Agabus or Abgarus.
Both were involved in the AD 47 famine.
Both gave famine relief to Judaea in AD 47.
Both sent ambassadors with that money, to Judaea.
Both sets of ambassadors knew of Jesus and his followers and would have gone to meet him.
I think that is a fairly close comparison.


The reason for the different spelling, is that the gospel version (Agabus) is a deliberately acerbic hypocorism, devised by an erudite character like Saul or Josephus.  The revised spelling means 'locust', which is the same carping hypocorism that is used by the Talmud for Jesus.

The "connection between a christian prophet and an assyrian king" is that if the biblical (King) Jesus EmManuel was King Izas-Manu VI of Edessa, then King Abgarus V of Edessa was his father.  Perhaps you can now see why King Abgarus was writing to the biblical Jesus while he was in Jerusalem.


Ralph


As amazing as it sounds Ralph, aiding people during a famine was a pretty normal thing to do. Even if we are to disregard all the other historical texts that speaks against Moses' writings, we still have nothing that proves that the biblical Agabus were King Abgar. They are said to have lived in two different places, the one is a king, but there is nothing that suggests that the other was.
And I still haven't seen any evidence of a king by the name Izas-Manu. He does not appear on the list of rulers of Osroene.
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

As amazing as it sounds Ralph, aiding people during a famine was a pretty normal thing to do.

Were they all called Queen Helena, and closely associated with someone called (king) Abgar-Agbar? 
Interesting, where does it say this?




And I still haven't seen any evidence of a king by the name Izas-Manu. He does not appear on the list of rulers of Osroene.

If Queen Helena of Adiabene was actually Queen Helena of Edessa, then Prince Izas of Adiabene was one and the same as Prince Manu V or Prince Manu VI.


Ralph


Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,578
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox

As amazing as it sounds Ralph, aiding people during a famine was a pretty normal thing to do.

Were they all called Queen Helena, and closely associated with someone called (king) Abgar-Agbar? 
Interesting, where does it say this?




And I still haven't seen any evidence of a king by the name Izas-Manu. He does not appear on the list of rulers of Osroene.

If Queen Helena of Adiabene was actually Queen Helena of Edessa, then Prince Izas of Adiabene was one and the same as Prince Manu V or Prince Manu VI.


Ralph



Where is your evidence, Ralph? Other than playing linguistic contortionist, or referring to your self-penned sources.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Where is your evidence, Ralph? Other than playing linguistic contortionist, or referring to your self-penned sources.


Sorry, if you are looking for an ancient affidavit, there is not one.  What I have done is to compare lifestories and names, exactly as Professor Robert Eisenman has done.  And he has drawn the same conclusions as myself.  The only difference, is i have also considered the ultimate conclusions of this research, while Eisenman backed off at the last minute.

Consider.....

If Helena of Adiabene is Helena of Edessa, then it is likely that all of Josephus' history of Adiabene belongs to Edessa.

If the above was so, then it was the Edessan royalty who fomented and prosecuted the Jewish Revolt.

If Agabus was Abgarus of Edessa, then Saul and Barnabas were in Antioch-Edessa and not Antioch-Orontes.

If the above was so, then Edessa is strongly linked to the gospel story.

But if both of the above were true, then Saul and Barnabas would also have been linked to the Jewish Revolt.

But since Josephus also says that Jesus of Gamala was the leader of the Jewish Revolt, then the history of Jesus of Gamala is also strongly linked to Edessa and the Edessan royalty.

And much more besides.

Now you might say 'speculation upon speculation'.  Possibly.  However, the resulting new narrative that this gives explains every aspect of the gospel story, and locates all the main characters in the historical record.  So instead of a gospel story based on faith (because there is no historical evidence) we end up with a gospel story based upon real history (because all the events and characters are now replicated in the historical record).

It makes for a compelling argument.

Ralph






Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,689
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Lord have Mercy but it is just too early to be ralphellising so early on Sunday.

A+b might make C, so if you say it does.  Then c= d

You are hinging conclusions off other conjecture. That does not make them truth.

Sadly you actually believe yourself.
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,578
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Quote
It makes for a compelling argument.

Only to you, Ralph. The rest of us see linguistic contortions, historical conflations, a refusal to submit your work for peer-review, and an unyielding reliance on your own "scholarship" and that of this Eisenman character, discredited by learned people who actually know what they're talking about.

Sorry, won't wash.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 08:15:29 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Professor Eisenman gets his idea from a comparison of individuals.

As we shall see, no he doesn't.

We have a mention of 'two' people:
Both had a name like Agabus or Abgarus.

So they have different names that have almost the same letters in English transliteration, although not in the same order.

Both were involved in the AD 47 famine.

No text says this. Agabus putatively prophesied about the famine, and the text says it later happened under Claudius Caesar. Nowhere is Agabus mentioned in actual connection with the famine itself.

Both gave famine relief to Judaea in AD 47.

Nowhere is Agabus mentioned in connection with famine relief. Only the disciples (not the prophets mentioned earlier) are said to have provided relief.

Both sent ambassadors with that money, to Judaea.

The text of Acts says no such thing in connection with Agabus.

Both sets of ambassadors knew of Jesus and his followers and would have gone to meet him.

The text of Acts says no such thing in connection with Agabus.

I think that is a fairly close comparison.

No, what it is is a phenomenally thorough misrepresentation of what the text says about Agabus.

The reason for the different spelling, is that the gospel version (Agabus) is a deliberately acerbic hypocorism, devised by an erudite character like Saul or Josephus. The revised spelling means 'locust', which is the same carping hypocorism that is used by the Talmud for Jesus.

That's an oversimplification and an assumption all rolled into one. If taken from the Hebrew, the name would mean "He loved" or "he loves," or it could mean "Father's joy" or even "Father's feast." It might mean "locust," in which case it would be a name the author of Acts gave him, used to reflect his contribution to the narrative. In this case, it would reflect one of the main causes of famine for the time period and region: locust swarms. It's not acerbic or carping in any sense whatsoever.

The "connection between a christian prophet and an assyrian king" is that if the biblical (King) Jesus EmManuel was King Izas-Manu VI of Edessa, then King Abgarus V of Edessa was his father.  Perhaps you can now see why King Abgarus was writing to the biblical Jesus while he was in Jerusalem.

No, none of that makes any sense for anyone who understands that languages, the onomastica, or the history.

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Sorry, if you are looking for an ancient affidavit, there is not one.  What I have done is to compare lifestories and names, exactly as Professor Robert Eisenman has done.  And he has drawn the same conclusions as myself.  The only difference, is i have also considered the ultimate conclusions of this research, while Eisenman backed off at the last minute.

Consider.....

If Helena of Adiabene is Helena of Edessa, then it is likely that all of Josephus' history of Adiabene belongs to Edessa.

If the above was so, then it was the Edessan royalty who fomented and prosecuted the Jewish Revolt.

If Agabus was Abgarus of Edessa, then Saul and Barnabas were in Antioch-Edessa and not Antioch-Orontes.

If the above was so, then Edessa is strongly linked to the gospel story.

But if both of the above were true, then Saul and Barnabas would also have been linked to the Jewish Revolt.

But since Josephus also says that Jesus of Gamala was the leader of the Jewish Revolt, then the history of Jesus of Gamala is also strongly linked to Edessa and the Edessan royalty.

And much more besides.

That's a very nice set of assumptions, but since Helena of Adiabene was demonstrably and unquestionably not the same person as Helena of Edessa, it really makes no difference what might follow from their historical conflation.

Now you might say 'speculation upon speculation'.  Possibly.

No, it's speculation upon speculation by very definition.

However, the resulting new narrative that this gives explains every aspect of the gospel story, and locates all the main characters in the historical record.

There's no need for such an explanation, and when you have to chuck numerous other historical texts out the window just to harmonize a set of stories that don't need to be harmonized, you're not doing history, you're doing fiction.

So instead of a gospel story based on faith (because there is no historical evidence) we end up with a gospel story based upon real history (because all the events and characters are now replicated in the historical record).

No, we end up with one man's outdated and incorrect assumptions about history raised to the status of gospel over and against numerous other more trustworthy texts, all in the interest of univocalizing a set of texts that are understood perfectly well in their own individual contexts.

It makes for a compelling argument.

No, it makes for a grotesque perversion of history and scholarship. Then we have you relentlessly harassing and bullying people IRL for disagreeing with you in a manner you don't like.

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Lord have Mercy but it is just too early to be ralphellising so early on Sunday.

A+b might make C, so if you say it does.

You are hinging conclusions off other conjecture.



Hinging them on the historical record, actually.  
For instance, Tacitus says of King Abgarus of Edessa:

(Cassius) encamped at Zeugma where the river was most easily fordable and
awaited the arrival of the chief men of Parthia and of Acbarus, king of the
Arabs
. He reminded Meherdates that the impulsive enthusiasm of barbarians
soon flags ... or even changes into treachery, and that therefore he should urge
on his enterprise. The advice was disregarded through the perfidy of Acbarus,
by whom the foolish young prince, who thought that the highest position
merely meant self-indulgence, was detained for several days in the town of
Edessa.
(Tacitus Annals 12:12)


As you can see, the Edessan name has changed from Abgarus to Acbarus, which is but one step from Acts of the Apostle's Agabus.  Indeed, Tacitus may have used the same source as Acts, which why he derived this spelling.

So Robert Eisenman and myself are correct - the Agabus in Acts of the Apostles is King Abgarus (Acbarus) of Edessa.


Ralph

« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 07:46:30 AM by ralfellis »

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Hinging them on the historical record, actually.

Well, partially. You're hinging them on manipulation of the historical record.

For instance, Tacitus says of King Abgarus of Edessa:

(Cassius) encamped at Zeugma where the river was most easily fordable and
awaited the arrival of the chief men of Parthia and of Acbarus, king of the
Arabs
. He reminded Meherdates that the impulsive enthusiasm of barbarians
soon flags ... or even changes into treachery, and that therefore he should urge
on his enterprise. The advice was disregarded through the perfidy of Acbarus,
by whom the foolish young prince, who thought that the highest position
merely meant self-indulgence, was detained for several days in the town of
Edessa.
(Tacitus Annals 12:12)

As you can see, the Edessan name has changed from Abgarus to Acbarus, which is but one step from Acts of the Apostle's Agabus.

And Daniel is just one step from Daniela, but it's a step you can't just arbitrarily insist must be assumed. Missing an entire syllable is not nothing. You have to have a reason to take that step, and you have absolutely none. You also overlook the fact that in chapter 14 of book 12 Tacitus very clearly and explicitly distinguishes Adiabene from Edessa, as well their respective kings.

Indeed, Tacitus may have used the same source as Acts, which why he derived this spelling.

But it's not the same spelling. All it is is a metathesis of two letters that frequently get metathesized in consonant clusters (bg > gb; voiced velar plosives more naturally precede voiced bilabial plosives in a consonant cluster). It is far, far more likely that the letters were just transposed. Maybe you should take some time to study phonology in Greek and Latin.

So Robert Eisenman and myself are correct - the Agabus in Acts of the Apostles is King Abgarus (Acbarus) of Edessa.

Laughable the way you have "may" in one sentence, and then "we are correct" in the very next. You evidently don't realize that scholars don't actually say "this is possible/plausible/probable, therefore it happened." That's not scholarship, that's just naked assertion.

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,689
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Hinging them on the historical record, actually.

Well, partially. You're hinging them on manipulation of the historical record.

For instance, Tacitus says of King Abgarus of Edessa:

(Cassius) encamped at Zeugma where the river was most easily fordable and
awaited the arrival of the chief men of Parthia and of Acbarus, king of the
Arabs
. He reminded Meherdates that the impulsive enthusiasm of barbarians
soon flags ... or even changes into treachery, and that therefore he should urge
on his enterprise. The advice was disregarded through the perfidy of Acbarus,
by whom the foolish young prince, who thought that the highest position
merely meant self-indulgence, was detained for several days in the town of
Edessa.
(Tacitus Annals 12:12)

As you can see, the Edessan name has changed from Abgarus to Acbarus, which is but one step from Acts of the Apostle's Agabus.

And Daniel is just one step from Daniela, but it's a step you can't just arbitrarily insist must be assumed. Missing an entire syllable is not nothing. You have to have a reason to take that step, and you have absolutely none. You also overlook the fact that in chapter 14 of book 12 Tacitus very clearly and explicitly distinguishes Adiabene from Edessa, as well their respective kings.

Indeed, Tacitus may have used the same source as Acts, which why he derived this spelling.

But it's not the same spelling. All it is is a metathesis of two letters that frequently get metathesized in consonant clusters (bg > gb; voiced velar plosives more naturally precede voiced bilabial plosives in a consonant cluster). It is far, far more likely that the letters were just transposed. Maybe you should take some time to study phonology in Greek and Latin.

So Robert Eisenman and myself are correct - the Agabus in Acts of the Apostles is King Abgarus (Acbarus) of Edessa.

Laughable the way you have "may" in one sentence, and then "we are correct" in the very next. You evidently don't realize that scholars don't actually say "this is possible/plausible/probable, therefore it happened." That's not scholarship, that's just naked assertion.


*swoons*

voiced velar plosives....bilabial plosives...


*swoons again*


you might be my new best friend.  ;D
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

As amazing as it sounds Ralph, aiding people during a famine was a pretty normal thing to do.

Were they all called Queen Helena, and closely associated with someone called (king) Abgar-Agbar? 
Interesting, where does it say this?
No, thats exactly the point. Sending help to other people during a famine was something a lot of people did, not just kings and queens.


And I still haven't seen any evidence of a king by the name Izas-Manu. He does not appear on the list of rulers of Osroene.

If Queen Helena of Adiabene was actually Queen Helena of Edessa, then Prince Izas of Adiabene was one and the same as Prince Manu V or Prince Manu VI.


Ralph



But again, she was not.
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

This is especially evident since the Antioch of the New Testament is described as a greek city. Your theories are completely without basis.


Sorry, but where is Antioch described as a Greek city in the N.T.?


Thanks,
Ralph



Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

*swoons*
voiced velar plosives....bilabial plosives...
*swoons again*



You are easily pleased, Denise, as with the previous posting containing references.  Did you read any of those titles, to ensure they were relevant?   Please bear in mind that many historians simply copy the bibliography from another paper into their own, while adding a couple of additional titles.  Which is why a 20-page paper may end up having 150 references in the bibliography. It is a very lazy form of scholarship.

As to the possibility of an accidental consonant transposition from Abgarus to Agabus, this is highly unlikely, as the resulting hypocorism was specifically designed to mean 'locust'  -  the very hypocorism given to Jesus in the Talmud.  This transposition was done with deliberate intent. 

There are a number of academics who will attempt to persuade you that explanations for the many pseudonyms and double meanings that litter the Talmud (and to a lesser extent the N.T.) can only be derived through complex exegetical methodologies. But that is simply not true. The name Abgarus was changed into Agabus simply because the latter means 'locust', and this was a well-known derogatory sobriquet for the Edessans.

Even the Toledoth Yeshu knows this one….!!  (But very few academics do.)


Cheers,
Ralph



Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,689
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
Excuuuuse me.

Perhaps you are confused by my admiration of actual linguistic knowledge.

Rest assured I am a smart enough person to tell wheat from chaff, academically.

However, since I am not the one making statements and conclusions about historical events and linking them together, I have absolutely ZERO burden to tell you about my credentials...You on the other hand, do bear the burden of proof.

You still havent done anything but string together research by a man who is controversial...with other outdated research and sew it together with very faulty linguistics.


Maybe -that- is why you can't tell a lighthearted post from a serious one.
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
You are easily pleased, Denise, as with the previous posting containing references.  Did you read any of those titles, to ensure they were relevant?   Please bear in mind that many historians simply copy the bibliography from another paper into their own, while adding a couple of additional titles.  Which is why a 20-page paper may end up having 150 references in the bibliography. It is a very lazy form of scholarship.

The existence of lazy scholarship does not mean my scholarship is lazy, Ralph, and you're more than welcome to review my scholarship and decide if it's lazy. You can read my first two graduate theses here and here, for instance. How about you show me where I'm being lazy?

As to the possibility of an accidental consonant transposition from Abgarus to Agabus, this is highly unlikely, as the resulting hypocorism was specifically designed to mean 'locust'  -  the very hypocorism given to Jesus in the Talmud.  This transposition was done with deliberate intent.

It's not an "accidental consonant transposition," Ralph, it's a consistent pattern in almost all the world's language families. Also, the Greek Agabus from Acts is not the concern, so the "locust" meaning (which is really just one of a few different possible meanings) is utterly irrelevant. The concern is Abgar/Agbar, and you have no such imaginary "hypocorism" to attempt to leverage.

There are a number of academics who will attempt to persuade you that explanations for the many pseudonyms and double meanings that litter the Talmud (and to a lesser extent the N.T.) can only be derived through complex exegetical methodologies. But that is simply not true.

Nobody is doing this, Ralph just got frustrated when I pointed out the ignorance of his attempt to render "Sons of Addai" from Adiabene and demanded I--since I consider myself such a linguistic expert--show him how certain Talmudic names were linguistically derived from their historical predecessors.

The name Abgarus was changed into Agabus simply because the latter means 'locust', and this was a well-known derogatory sobriquet for the Edessans.

No, it's not. This is another example of Ralph just inventing things and then not only asserting them as facts, but presupposing them in his arguments.

Even the Toledoth Yeshu knows this one….!!  (But very few academics do.)

That's because the academics know better, Ralph. You just pick and choose what ancient texts you want to believe and which you don't. Academics have the weightier challenge of actually finding reasons and evidence for their conclusions.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 01:20:42 PM by maklelan »

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
 

This is especially evident since the Antioch of the New Testament is described as a greek city. Your theories are completely without basis.


Sorry, but where is Antioch described as a Greek city in the N.T.?


Thanks,
Ralph

« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 04:08:22 AM by ralfellis »

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27


This is especially evident since the Antioch of the New Testament is described as a greek city. Your theories are completely without basis.


Sorry, but where is Antioch described as a Greek city in the N.T.?


Thanks,
Ralph



You're repeating questions when you refuse to respond at all to multiple challenges to your claims?

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair


This is especially evident since the Antioch of the New Testament is described as a greek city. Your theories are completely without basis.


Sorry, but where is Antioch described as a Greek city in the N.T.?


Thanks,
Ralph



Quote
Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.
Acts 11:20
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,578
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
The identity of the king and queen of Edessa is one thing, but Ralph has made even more preposterous allegations which he has failed to adequately address: that St Paul (whom he insists on calling Saul, even after his baptism into Christianity) and Josephus Flavus are the same person, and that Jesus Christ is the son of this Edessan king, as well as being Jesus ben Gamala, and King Arthur.

From Ellis' own website:

Contrary to orthodox perceptions, King Jesus and Queen Mary Magdalene were the richest couple in Syrio-Judaea. The Romans wanted to impose taxes on Jesus and Mary, an imposition that provoked the Jewish Rebellion. King Jesus fought and lost that war, and so he was crucified, reprieved and sent into exile in Roman England. In those remote lands, King Jesus became known as Atur-tii (the Egyptian) or 'King Arthur and the twelve disciples of the Last Supper Table'.

How on earth can Ellis be taken seriously?
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,864
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
St Paul (whom he insists on calling Saul, even after his baptism into Christianity)...

To be fair, there's no indication in Acts that Saul's name was changed to Paul at baptism or by the Lord.  The "name change" is not even really a change, it's almost a footnote in Acts 13.9 that Saul "is also called Paul".  In Acts 9.4-5, 11-12 and Acts 13.2, either Jesus or the Holy Spirit refers to him as Saul.  I'm not sure if, after Acts 13.9, God speaks to Paul by referring to him as Paul, although the text consistently refers to him only as Paul after this point except when Paul is describing his conversion experience.   
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,578
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
St Paul (whom he insists on calling Saul, even after his baptism into Christianity)...

To be fair, there's no indication in Acts that Saul's name was changed to Paul at baptism or by the Lord.  The "name change" is not even really a change, it's almost a footnote in Acts 13.9 that Saul "is also called Paul".  In Acts 9.4-5, 11-12 and Acts 13.2, either Jesus or the Holy Spirit refers to him as Saul.  I'm not sure if, after Acts 13.9, God speaks to Paul by referring to him as Paul, although the text consistently refers to him only as Paul after this point except when Paul is describing his conversion experience.   

The fact remains that the Apostle to the Gentiles, chosen by Christ, is known to all Christians as Paul, just as Peter is called Peter, not Simon; Abraham, not Abram; Sarah, not Sarai. We know their former names, but, as saints and righteous ones, we call them by their newer name.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,864
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
St Paul (whom he insists on calling Saul, even after his baptism into Christianity)...

To be fair, there's no indication in Acts that Saul's name was changed to Paul at baptism or by the Lord.  The "name change" is not even really a change, it's almost a footnote in Acts 13.9 that Saul "is also called Paul".  In Acts 9.4-5, 11-12 and Acts 13.2, either Jesus or the Holy Spirit refers to him as Saul.  I'm not sure if, after Acts 13.9, God speaks to Paul by referring to him as Paul, although the text consistently refers to him only as Paul after this point except when Paul is describing his conversion experience.   

The fact remains that the Apostle to the Gentiles, chosen by Christ, is known to all Christians as Paul, just as Peter is called Peter, not Simon; Abraham, not Abram; Sarah, not Sarai. We know their former names, but, as saints and righteous ones, we call them by their newer name.

I agree that we know and refer to Paul as Paul, I'm not arguing against that.  But the claim was made that this change was linked to his baptism, and I don't see any evidence of that in Acts. 

Regarding Peter, you are correct, although I will note that Semitic Christian traditions like my own don't have a problem using "Simon", "Simon Peter", "Simon Kepha", or even just "Kepha".  We use "Peter" obviously, but not exclusively.  Our Lord did likewise (cf. Lk. 22.31-34).
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,578
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
St Paul (whom he insists on calling Saul, even after his baptism into Christianity)...

To be fair, there's no indication in Acts that Saul's name was changed to Paul at baptism or by the Lord.  The "name change" is not even really a change, it's almost a footnote in Acts 13.9 that Saul "is also called Paul".  In Acts 9.4-5, 11-12 and Acts 13.2, either Jesus or the Holy Spirit refers to him as Saul.  I'm not sure if, after Acts 13.9, God speaks to Paul by referring to him as Paul, although the text consistently refers to him only as Paul after this point except when Paul is describing his conversion experience.   

The fact remains that the Apostle to the Gentiles, chosen by Christ, is known to all Christians as Paul, just as Peter is called Peter, not Simon; Abraham, not Abram; Sarah, not Sarai. We know their former names, but, as saints and righteous ones, we call them by their newer name.

I agree that we know and refer to Paul as Paul, I'm not arguing against that.  But the claim was made that this change was linked to his baptism, and I don't see any evidence of that in Acts. 

Regarding Peter, you are correct, although I will note that Semitic Christian traditions like my own don't have a problem using "Simon", "Simon Peter", "Simon Kepha", or even just "Kepha".  We use "Peter" obviously, but not exclusively.  Our Lord did likewise (cf. Lk. 22.31-34).

The point I'm trying to make is that Ralph Ellis is simply wrong in insisting that Saul remained Saul. No surprise, given his unfathomable agenda in trying to rewrite history.

As for his claim that "Saul" is the same person as Josephus Flavus .....
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,864
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
The point I'm trying to make is that Ralph Ellis is simply wrong in insisting that Saul remained Saul. No surprise, given his unfathomable agenda in trying to rewrite history.

As for his claim that "Saul" is the same person as Josephus Flavus .....

Oh, sure.  Ralph gets elementary things wrong (which I've noted here, but he has yet to acknowledge them) and yet expects us to believe his more fantastic claims.  I have no doubt he is wrong or at least untrustworthy.   
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492

 This is a 1st century zodiac from the Hamat Teverya synagogue in Tiberias, Galilee (it is said to be 4th century, but for many reasons it is 1st century).  






Ralph

What are the reasons that you think that the mosaic is 1st century when others say 4th century, please?  

For information's sake here is a link that describes the mosaic  http://samsontours.com/stop/the-mosaic-floor-of-the-synagogue-at-hamat-tiberias-194
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,829
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
I do enjoy that after maklelan started posting, Ralph just attacked his character then promptly continued to ignore the content of his posts for the rest of the thread.

Way to show you're above academia by making fun of his being a Mormon in lieu of offering any real defense.

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Quote
Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.
Acts 11:20



But the people of Jerusalem were called Grecians in Acts 6:1. 
Are you saying Jerusalem was a Greek city?


Ralph


Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
But the people of Jerusalem were called Grecians in Acts 6:1.

It simply refers to a faction of Greek speakers. It also refers to a faction of Hebrew speakers.

Are you saying Jerusalem was a Greek city?

It was certainly a hellenized city. None of them were Greek anymore, but the evidence unquestionably undermines your attempts to wrangle Antioch out of the context in which educated and competent historians have established it.

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

Quote
Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.
Acts 11:20



But the people of Jerusalem were called Grecians in Acts 6:1. 
Are you saying Jerusalem was a Greek city?


Ralph



Here is the text:

Quote
And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

The Grecians are the Hellenistic Jews.



Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137








What are the reasons that you think that the mosaic is 1st century when others say 4th century, please?  




Firstly, the head of Helios points to the conjunction of Aries and Pisces. In precessional astrology/astronomy, that position in the zodiac can be dated very precisely to AD 10  (+/- 20 years).

And we know that the Church of Jesus venerated the precessional zodiac, because that is why Jesus was born as a Lamb of God (Aries) but became a Fisherman (Pisces), and the symbol of Christianity became the fish (Pisces), and why the Pope wears the Fisher Ring (Pisces).  

This change in the symbolism for Jesus is a clear allusion to what is being shown on this very zodiac  -  the end of the Great Month of Aries and and the start of the new Great Month of Pisces in AD 10.  (Each Great Month is about 2,140 years long.)  The Great Months are regulated by the precession of the equinox, and they were a central component of Greek and Judaic theology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession


Axial Precession:







Secondly, Josephus Flavius appears to have written about this very same zodiac.  He says:

So I … came to a certain village called Bethmaus, four furlongs distant
from Tiberius … I told them I was sent to them by the people of Jerusalem…
to demolish that house which Herod the tetrarch had built there, and which had
figures of living creatures in it, although our laws have forbidden us
to make any such figures; and I desired that they would give us leave so
to do immediately. So Jesus
the son of Sapphias, one of those whom we have already mentioned as the
leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people, prevented us,
and took with him certain Galileans, and set the entire palace on fire.

Josephus Life 12


This zodiac not only has 'figures of living creatures in it', it resides 4 furlongs south of Tiberius.  Note also that the Jesus who covered up the idolatrous images was a leader of 'mariners' and 'poor'.  The disciples were known as 'fishermen' and the Jewish Christian Ebionites were known as the 'poor'.  It would appear likely that the people who covered up this zodiac, through burning the building, were the followers of the Church of Jesus.


Ralph
 



« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 11:57:11 AM by ralfellis »

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Here is the text:

Quote
And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

The Grecians are the Hellenistic Jews.



Err, we know that.  But that does not prove that the Antioch in Acts was not Antioch-Edessa.

With Edessa having a large Sabaean element, the same kind of Judaeo-Sabaeans who created the Hamat zodiac displayed above, Edessa was every bit as 'Jewish' as the people who built the Hamat synagogue and its precessional zodiac.  And note that the people 'protecting' the Hamat zodiac appear to have been linked to the same Judaeo-Christian 'Fishermen' and 'Ebionites' who comprise the gospel stories.

What you have failed to do is define what Judaism is.  The people who built the Hamat zodiac (and all the other Judaic zodiacs in the region) obviously considered themselves to be Jewish.  So astrology was a central component within Judaism - and yet modern Judaism appears to ridicule and ban astrology. 

So to what kind of Judaism do you refer?


Ralph


Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
I do enjoy that after maklelan started posting, Ralph just attacked his character then promptly continued to ignore the content of his posts for the rest of the thread.

Way to show you're above academia by making fun of his being a Mormon in lieu of offering any real defense.


Because 'Professor' McClellan is not worth addressing.  He loves to ask oblique questions that have little to do with the subject, and if you ask a question in return he completely ignores it.

Likewise, he will ridicule something I mention.  But when I prove him wrong, he will say 'the authority you are quoting is wrong' (because he has no real answer).  Frankly, he is not worth debating with.



For instance, I said that Agabus means 'locust'.  But the pseudo-scholarly McClellan said:

That's an oversimplification and an assumption all rolled into one. If taken from the Hebrew, the name would mean "He loved" or "he loves," or it could mean "Father's joy" or even "Father's feast." It might mean "locust," in which case it would be a name the author of Acts gave him, used to reflect his contribution to the narrative. In this case, it would reflect one of the main causes of famine for the time period and region: locust swarms. It's not acerbic or carping in any sense whatsoever.

But Thayer says:

Agabov Agabos ag'-ab-os   of Hebrew origin, chagab  
Agabus = "locust"
1) a Christian prophet


And the Brown-Driver-Briggs Aramaic says:

Chagab khaw-gawb'
the same as Greek agabov  
Hagab = "locust"
1) head of a family of exiles who returned with Zerubbabel


(sorry, cannot get the fonts to work here)


Ok, so the standard explanation is that Agabus means 'locust' (Gr. agabos  Heb: chagab).  
And this hypocorism for King Abgarus of Edessa is acerbic, because the Edessans came from the east and destroyed Judaea, just like the locusts of the Exodus.

To understand the Talmud and the gospels you have to have a very deep understanding of the true politics of this era. And McClellan simply does not grasp any of this.  I am sorry to have to openly denigrate, but debating to McClellan it is like debating with a fresher, because he has no understanding of the deeper politics of the 1st century.  All he can see is words in black and white, while the wider and subtler picture drawn in many hues is completely invisible to him.

Now you watch McClellan say that the dictionaries of Thayer and BDB are worthless.  One, two three….


Ralph







« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 12:25:22 PM by ralfellis »

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,689
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
he doesnt have to...


Rather unfortunately, Thayer's Lexicon became obsolete quickly as Gustav Adolf Deissmann's work with the Egyptian papyri was soon to revolutionize New Testament and Koine Greek Lexicography with the publication of his Bible Studies: Contributions Chiefly from Papyri and Inscriptions to the History of the Language, the Literature, and the Religion of Hellenistic Judaism and Primitive Christianity, published in 1901 (2nd edition 1909) and also Light from the Ancient East: the New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. These books and similar ones that followed helped confirm and sometimes correct inadequate definitions of many words in the Greek New Testament. With this new and valuable information for studying the Greek of the New Testament, Thayer's Lexicon became a victim of history, being published less than a decade before this papyri revolution.

And its not like B-D-B is any more recent.

I won't say they are worthless. But they clearly do not include well over a century of research and additional insights.

Is there some reason that all the references you actually -do- cite, are outdated?

All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,060
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair

Here is the text:

Quote
And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

The Grecians are the Hellenistic Jews.



Err, we know that.  But that does not prove that the Antioch in Acts was not Antioch-Edessa.
You asked me about Jerusalem. Make up your mind. Edessa was an assyrian city at the time of Christ. Antioch in modern-day Turkey was greek.

With Edessa having a large Sabaean element, the same kind of Judaeo-Sabaeans who created the Hamat zodiac displayed above, Edessa was every bit as 'Jewish' as the people who built the Hamat synagogue and its precessional zodiac.  And note that the people 'protecting' the Hamat zodiac appear to have been linked to the same Judaeo-Christian 'Fishermen' and 'Ebionites' who comprise the gospel stories.

What you have failed to do is define what Judaism is.  The people who built the Hamat zodiac (and all the other Judaic zodiacs in the region) obviously considered themselves to be Jewish.  So astrology was a central component within Judaism - and yet modern Judaism appears to ridicule and ban astrology. 

So to what kind of Judaism do you refer?


Ralph



Do you even know what hellenic judaism is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism

All movements within first century Judaism were monotheistic, so if you are still trying to prove that polytheistic-judaism thing, you wont get far. The Edessans were not jews, and neither were King Abgar and his family.
Besides, from what I can see, the Hamat Synagogue, as maklelan mentioned, is from the fourth century.
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

The identity of the king and queen of Edessa is one thing, but Ralph has made even more preposterous allegations which he has failed to adequately address: that St Paul (whom he insists on calling Saul, even after his baptism into Christianity) and Josephus Flavus are the same person, and that Jesus Christ is the son of this Edessan king, as well as being Jesus ben Gamala, and King Arthur.



a.  If the biblical King Jesus EmManuel of Judaea was King Izas Manu of Judaea and Edessa, then Jesus was indeed the son of King Abgarus of Edessa.


b.  If Mary Magdalene was Mary/Martha Boethus, as Professor Robert Eisenman derived, then she was indeed the wealthiest woman in Judaea.


c.  The lives of Saul and Josephus happen to be remarkably the same. And do note that:
 .. Saul was fighting with Jesus in Galilee in the mid 1st century.
 .. Josephus was fighting with Jesus in Galilee in the mid 1st century. (Jesus of Gamala)

All you need to understand, is that most of the gospel events took place in the AD 50s and 60s. Please see this paper, for an overview of why this is likely:
http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf


d.  The legend of King Arthur is based upon the life of King Jesus.  Which is why King Jesus had 12 knightly-disciples of the Last Supper Table, and King Arthur had 12 knightly-disciples of the Round Supper Table. Arthurian legend is simply a retelling of the gospel story, with Jesus portrayed in a more martial and historical role - as the great saviour-monarch who will lead his people towards a prosperous and just kingdom and society.  And the name-change from 'Jesus' to 'Arthur' comes from the Hamat Teverya zodiac displayed above.


Ralph




 
« Last Edit: March 18, 2014, 12:45:32 PM by ralfellis »

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,689
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant



if...


if...


if...



Then I am right!




if you could prove or reasonably (to modern academic standards, not your own) back any of this up...you would have by now, with sources and references accepted by more than yourself.
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
St Paul (whom he insists on calling Saul, even after his baptism into Christianity)...

To be fair, there's no indication in Acts that Saul's name was changed to Paul at baptism or by the Lord.  The "name change" is not even really a change, it's almost a footnote in Acts 13.9 that Saul "is also called Paul".  In Acts 9.4-5, 11-12 and Acts 13.2, either Jesus or the Holy Spirit refers to him as Saul.  I'm not sure if, after Acts 13.9, God speaks to Paul by referring to him as Paul, although the text consistently refers to him only as Paul after this point except when Paul is describing his conversion experience.   

The fact remains that the Apostle to the Gentiles, chosen by Christ, is known to all Christians as Paul, just as Peter is called Peter, not Simon; Abraham, not Abram; Sarah, not Sarai. We know their former names, but, as saints and righteous ones, we call them by their newer name.
This isn't quite accurate and shows merely your interpretation of the facts. Simon was not Peter's former name; rather, Simon Peter was his full name. Saul was not Paul's former name; rather, the apostle Paul had two names simultaneously: Saul and Paul--the commentary in the OSB indicates that Saul was his Hebrew name, while Paul was his Roman name, and that he grew to favor Paul to emphasize his ministry to the Gentiles without ever abandoning the use of his Hebrew name Saul. The example of neither of these two appears to follow the pattern set with Abraham and Sarah, where they each had old names that they abandoned when they became children of the promise and took on new names.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America








What are the reasons that you think that the mosaic is 1st century when others say 4th century, please?  




Firstly, the head of Helios points to the conjunction of Aries and Pisces. In precessional astrology/astronomy, that position in the zodiac can be dated very precisely to AD 10  (+/- 20 years).

And we know that the Church of Jesus venerated the precessional zodiac, because that is why Jesus was born as a Lamb of God (Aries) but became a Fisherman (Pisces), and the symbol of Christianity became the fish (Pisces), and why the Pope wears the Fisher Ring (Pisces).

This change in the symbolism for Jesus is a clear allusion to what is being shown on this very zodiac  -  the end of the Great Month of Aries and and the start of the new Great Month of Pisces in AD 10.  (Each Great Month is about 2,140 years long.)  The Great Months are regulated by the precession of the equinox, and they were a central component of Greek and Judaic theology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession


Axial Precession:


WOW! The act of creating that little narrative must have taken a real stretch of the imagination! Where did you get that if not from inside your own head?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
I do enjoy that after maklelan started posting, Ralph just attacked his character then promptly continued to ignore the content of his posts for the rest of the thread.

Way to show you're above academia by making fun of his being a Mormon in lieu of offering any real defense.


Because 'Professor' McClellan is not worth addressing.  He loves to ask oblique questions that have little to do with the subject, and if you ask a question in return he completely ignores it.

Likewise, he will ridicule something I mention.  But when I prove him wrong, he will say 'the authority you are quoting is wrong' (because he has no real answer).  Frankly, he is not worth debating with.
You do exactly the same things, Ralph.



For instance, I said that Agabus means 'locust'.  But the pseudo-scholarly McClellan said:

That's an oversimplification and an assumption all rolled into one. If taken from the Hebrew, the name would mean "He loved" or "he loves," or it could mean "Father's joy" or even "Father's feast." It might mean "locust," in which case it would be a name the author of Acts gave him, used to reflect his contribution to the narrative. In this case, it would reflect one of the main causes of famine for the time period and region: locust swarms. It's not acerbic or carping in any sense whatsoever.

But Thayer says:

Agabov Agabos ag'-ab-os   of Hebrew origin, chagab  
Agabus = "locust"
1) a Christian prophet


And the Brown-Driver-Briggs Aramaic says:

Chagab khaw-gawb'
the same as Greek agabov  
Hagab = "locust"
1) head of a family of exiles who returned with Zerubbabel


(sorry, cannot get the fonts to work here)


Ok, so the standard explanation is that Agabus means 'locust' (Gr. agabos  Heb: chagab).  
And this hypocorism for King Abgarus of Edessa is acerbic, because the Edessans came from the east and destroyed Judaea, just like the locusts of the Exodus.

To understand the Talmud and the gospels you have to have a very deep understanding of the true politics of this era. And McClellan simply does not grasp any of this.  I am sorry to have to openly denigrate, but debating to McClellan it is like debating with a fresher, because he has no understanding of the deeper politics of the 1st century.  All he can see is words in black and white, while the wider and subtler picture drawn in many hues is completely invisible to him.

Now you watch McClellan say that the dictionaries of Thayer and BDB are worthless.  One, two three….
One doesn't have to contest the definitions provided in these dictionaries to see that the narratives you create from these definitions is too fanciful to have ever really happened.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Eisenman's theories are universally discredited in the world of biblical historicism, and when someone whose positions are widely ignored in the academy is ignoring your position, perhaps you should take a clue.


Well perhaps we can get Professor Eisenman to answer that charge himself, over the weekend sometime. 


Ralph



Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Firstly, the head of Helios points to the conjunction of Aries and Pisces. In precessional astrology/astronomy, that position in the zodiac can be dated very precisely to AD 10  (+/- 20 years).

And we know that the Church of Jesus venerated the precessional zodiac, because that is why Jesus was born as a Lamb of God (Aries) but became a Fisherman (Pisces), and the symbol of Christianity became the fish (Pisces), and why the Pope wears the Fisher Ring (Pisces).

This change in the symbolism for Jesus is a clear allusion to what is being shown on this very zodiac  -  the end of the Great Month of Aries and and the start of the new Great Month of Pisces in AD 10.  (Each Great Month is about 2,140 years long.)  The Great Months are regulated by the precession of the equinox, and they were a central component of Greek and Judaic theology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession


Axial Precession:




WOW! The act of creating that little narrative must have taken a real stretch of the imagination!
Where did you get that if not from inside your own head?



Where does any sage of repute get their ideas from? 
Or are you suggesting that nothing new can ever be gleaned from history?


Ralph


Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Firstly, the head of Helios points to the conjunction of Aries and Pisces. In precessional astrology/astronomy, that position in the zodiac can be dated very precisely to AD 10  (+/- 20 years).

And we know that the Church of Jesus venerated the precessional zodiac, because that is why Jesus was born as a Lamb of God (Aries) but became a Fisherman (Pisces), and the symbol of Christianity became the fish (Pisces), and why the Pope wears the Fisher Ring (Pisces).

This change in the symbolism for Jesus is a clear allusion to what is being shown on this very zodiac  -  the end of the Great Month of Aries and and the start of the new Great Month of Pisces in AD 10.  (Each Great Month is about 2,140 years long.)  The Great Months are regulated by the precession of the equinox, and they were a central component of Greek and Judaic theology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession


Axial Precession:




WOW! The act of creating that little narrative must have taken a real stretch of the imagination!
Where did you get that if not from inside your own head?



Where does any sage of repute get their ideas from?
Usually, an interpretation of facts will be based on facts and itself verifiable.

Or are you suggesting that nothing new can ever be gleaned from history?
That doesn't give you the freedom to fabricate stories out of thin air!
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

King Jesus fought and lost that war, and so he was crucified, reprieved and sent into exile in Roman England. In those remote lands, King Jesus became known as Atur-tii (the Egyptian) or 'King Arthur and the twelve disciples of the Last Supper Table'. [/color]

How on earth can Ellis be taken seriously?



You are not English are you?  The primary mythology here, is that Jesus came to England.  It is enshrined in the English national anthem "Jerusalem", by William Blake.  Are you saying that English mythology is worthless?



And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On England's pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In England's green & pleasant Land


England's national anthem.
Jerusalem, by William Blake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIzaqn4A2dE#t=136



God as a Master Mason, by William Blake.




Ralph



« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 03:15:13 PM by ralfellis »