Author Topic: Conspiracy Theorist Ralph Ellis says Jesus of Nazareth = Jesus ben Gamala  (Read 100216 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Again for general information's sake, other people have different counts of the "Year" as well that are not the same as yours, Mr. Ellis.

Again, you are using words that indicate speculation.  How do you truly know what any Israelite priest or otherwise would use or think ?  It would be "unlikely" because then it wouldn't fit with your theories?  "most probably" because it would fit with your ideas? It is still guessing and not based on facts or information from what people really did or thought or believed.  You are applying your ideas from outside these peoples and they are not around now to give their own "emic" account.  

You also wrote above that it was "Sabean priesthood".  Go you mean these Sabeans who lived in the southern Arabian peninsula?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabean



Like any precessing spinning top, the precession of the Earth's Great Year is variable, and cannot be given to any better than the nearest 200 years.

It is highly likely that the Israelite priesthood were using the actual limits of each constellation, as the dates this gives conforms to the dates of the Israelite and Egyptian record.  Both the Egyptian Shepherd Kings and the Israelite shepherd patriarchs who were pseudo kings appeared in the 1700s or 1800s BC, which is coincident with the change between Taurus and Aries.  And Jesus changes from a shepherd to a fisherman in the early 1st century, which is coincident with the change between Aries and Pisces.   The evidence is pretty solid.

Sabaens were not confined to the Arabian penninsular.  There is a large Sabaean temple complex at Edessa, the principality of King Izas (the Biblical Jesus).

Ralph
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 10:17:13 AM by ralfellis »

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

If you look at the photo you provided, the eye is immediately drawn to the temple-like structure in the center covered by a veil/curtain.  But this veil hangs in such a way as to be an image of a womb, with the knot toward the bottom of the "triangle" representing the cervix, and below that the birth canal.  The two corners of the triangle at the top of the temple are aligned with the capitals of its columns: these are obviously ovaries. 

In fact, this image bears a striking resemblance to this yoni-lingam.  Since yoni and Yahweh begin with the same letter, we can be certain that Judaism, as presented in this mosaic, is an impoverished (i.e., monotheistic) form of Hinduism with bizarre practices like circumcision (from the Latin circumcidere, "to cut around", which is roughly what you have to do to rock in order to get the stones necessary for making a mosaic like the one under examination here).   

Surrounding the temple-like structure are what appear to be horns and other phallic objects as well as flowers, which, due to their number, must represent spermatozoa rushing to fertilise eggs (which are what the lampstands seem to be made of).  These flowers are all oriented upward, so they are heading in the right direction.  Finally, two paddles with red surfaces: ordinarily, I would think "table tennis", but given the subject matter of the rest of the mosaic, I think we must presume some sort of BDSM toys. 

The braiding framing the image suggests the intertwining of bodies in the nuptial embrace, which happens at night (symbolised by the fourteen flames of the lampstands, which stand for stars) and which turns the dark night into the luminous dawn of cosmic ecstasy, which is why the frame is dark but what happens within is depicted as light.  Again, we are reminded that the yoni-lingam is sacred to Shiva, who shares an ultimate syllable with the Jewish Yahweh: he (Shiva) is depicted in the act of love with Parvati in this image, light framed by dark. 

So it seems we cannot understand Judaism without understanding Hindu sacred sexuality.  But why?     



Have you seen a doctor about this?


Ralph


Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137


was A Jesus... as has been pointed out it was a common name.

 


If Jesus of Gamala, Jesus of Sepphias** and the biblical Jesus were all the same person, then Jesus was NOT a common name. But it does suit the Church to repeat endlessly that this was a common name.

In fact, 'Jesus' is likely to have been a very uncommon name in Judaea.  The name Jesus (gr. Eesous) bears little or no relationship to Joshua (heb. Yehushua), and so it is much more likely that the name was actually derived from the Persian title 'Izas', the short form of Izates.


Ralph


** These two Jesus have very similar lives, and the latter was the leader of rebel fishermen.   


Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,514
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Yekmalian Monoculture

If you look at the photo you provided, the eye is immediately drawn to the temple-like structure in the center covered by a veil/curtain.  But this veil hangs in such a way as to be an image of a womb, with the knot toward the bottom of the "triangle" representing the cervix, and below that the birth canal.  The two corners of the triangle at the top of the temple are aligned with the capitals of its columns: these are obviously ovaries. 

In fact, this image bears a striking resemblance to this yoni-lingam.  Since yoni and Yahweh begin with the same letter, we can be certain that Judaism, as presented in this mosaic, is an impoverished (i.e., monotheistic) form of Hinduism with bizarre practices like circumcision (from the Latin circumcidere, "to cut around", which is roughly what you have to do to rock in order to get the stones necessary for making a mosaic like the one under examination here).   

Surrounding the temple-like structure are what appear to be horns and other phallic objects as well as flowers, which, due to their number, must represent spermatozoa rushing to fertilise eggs (which are what the lampstands seem to be made of).  These flowers are all oriented upward, so they are heading in the right direction.  Finally, two paddles with red surfaces: ordinarily, I would think "table tennis", but given the subject matter of the rest of the mosaic, I think we must presume some sort of BDSM toys. 

The braiding framing the image suggests the intertwining of bodies in the nuptial embrace, which happens at night (symbolised by the fourteen flames of the lampstands, which stand for stars) and which turns the dark night into the luminous dawn of cosmic ecstasy, which is why the frame is dark but what happens within is depicted as light.  Again, we are reminded that the yoni-lingam is sacred to Shiva, who shares an ultimate syllable with the Jewish Yahweh: he (Shiva) is depicted in the act of love with Parvati in this image, light framed by dark. 

So it seems we cannot understand Judaism without understanding Hindu sacred sexuality.  But why?     



Have you seen a doctor about this?


Ralph



Have you? 
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.

Offline Laird

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Lord have mercy
In fact, 'Jesus' is likely to have been a very uncommon name in Judaea.  The name Jesus (gr. Eesous) bears little or no relationship to Joshua (heb. Yehushua), and so it is much more likely that the name was actually derived from the Persian title 'Izas', the short form of Izates.

I do not want to take part in this nonsense, but I just wanted to point out the obvious to you that Jesus and Joshua are both 'Iesous' in Greek, that is, far from having little to no relationship with each other, they are actually the same name. Both the LXX, which was translated before Christ, and the Greek NT use 'Iesous', as Acts 7:45 & Hebrews 4:8 attest to. Your hallucinations do not reflect reality.  But I'm sure you'll deny this too.
"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,540
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
In fact, 'Jesus' is likely to have been a very uncommon name in Judaea.  The name Jesus (gr. Eesous) bears little or no relationship to Joshua (heb. Yehushua), and so it is much more likely that the name was actually derived from the Persian title 'Izas', the short form of Izates.

I do not want to take part in this nonsense, but I just wanted to point out the obvious to you that Jesus and Joshua are both 'Iesous' in Greek, that is, far from having little to no relationship with each other, they are actually the same name. Both the LXX, which was translated before Christ, and the Greek NT use 'Iesous', as Acts 7:45 & Hebrews 4:8 attest to. Your hallucinations do not reflect reality.  But I'm sure you'll deny this too.

Thank you, Laird. Thank you for highlighting Ellis' complete lack of grasp of the Greek language, and, in all likelihood, of other languages of the Biblical era.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline DeniseDenise

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,591
  • This place holds to nothing....
  • Faith: Does it matter?
  • Jurisdiction: Unverifiable, so irrelevant
In fact, 'Jesus' is likely to have been a very uncommon name in Judaea.  The name Jesus (gr. Eesous) bears little or no relationship to Joshua (heb. Yehushua), and so it is much more likely that the name was actually derived from the Persian title 'Izas', the short form of Izates.

I do not want to take part in this nonsense, but I just wanted to point out the obvious to you that Jesus and Joshua are both 'Iesous' in Greek, that is, far from having little to no relationship with each other, they are actually the same name. Both the LXX, which was translated before Christ, and the Greek NT use 'Iesous', as Acts 7:45 & Hebrews 4:8 attest to. Your hallucinations do not reflect reality.  But I'm sure you'll deny this too.

Thank you, Laird. Thank you for highlighting Ellis' complete lack of grasp of the Greek language, and, in all likelihood, of other languages of the Biblical era.

this is rich...the one time he tries to -separate- names...they do turn out to be the same.....

every time he tries to make names the same.......
All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

Offline Ebor

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


was A Jesus... as has been pointed out it was a common name.

  


If Jesus of Gamala, Jesus of Sepphias** and the biblical Jesus were all the same person, then Jesus was NOT a common name.

That does not logically follow.  One might try "if Thomas Lee of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson from Virginia who wrote about liberty and Thomas Paine who wrote on liberty were all the same person then Thomas was NOT a common name".  But that would not be true since there are so many others of that name: Thomas Moore, Thomas More, Thomas Mann, Thomas Hardy, Thomas Edison, Thomas Dolby, Thomas (Tom) Hiddleston etc etc

But you again use "If".  Are you are trying to say that these are the only three examples of the name that have been documented.

If they were NOT all the same person then the name still might be uncommon or it might be shared by large numbers of people.


Quote
In fact, 'Jesus' is likely to have been a very uncommon name in Judaea.  The name Jesus (gr. Eesous) bears little or no relationship to Joshua (heb. Yehushua), and so it is much more likely that the name was actually derived from the Persian title 'Izas', the short form of Izates.

"Likely".  yet another speculation word.   On what would this be based in terms of real, documented sources as opposed to you happened to like the idea since you see it as fitting with your personal theories?.  

One might try to say that the name "Diego" (spanish) "bears little or no relationship to James (English).  But one would be in error since the names are related but have developed in different languages.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 08:27:33 PM by Ebor »
"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 Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Just to offer some information on zodiac mosaics in synagogues with some other ideas, here is a link to the article "Jewish Worship, Pagan Symbols: Zodiac Mosaics in Ancient Synagogues" by Walter Zenger from August 2012

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/jewish-worship-pagan-symbols/

It covers a number of finds of this nature, describes them (some are in good condition and others are ruinous), discussion of the variations and has some considerations of why the art was there and what it might have meant.  There are also notes for various points in the text and comments of varying quality.
"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 Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,514
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Yekmalian Monoculture
Just to offer some information on zodiac mosaics in synagogues with some other ideas, here is a link to the article "Jewish Worship, Pagan Symbols: Zodiac Mosaics in Ancient Synagogues" by Walter Zenger from August 2012

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/jewish-worship-pagan-symbols/

It covers a number of finds of this nature, describes them (some are in good condition and others are ruinous), discussion of the variations and has some considerations of why the art was there and what it might have meant.  There are also notes for various points in the text and comments of varying quality.

Anything in there about Hindu sex?
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.

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

In fact, 'Jesus' is likely to have been a very uncommon name in Judaea.  The name Jesus (gr. Eesous) bears little or no relationship to Joshua (heb. Yehushua), and so it is much more likely that the name was actually derived from the Persian title 'Izas', the short form of Izates.

I do not want to take part in this nonsense, but I just wanted to point out the obvious to you that Jesus and Joshua are both 'Iesous' in Greek, that is, far from having little to no relationship with each other, they are actually the same name. Both the LXX, which was translated before Christ, and the Greek NT use 'Iesous', as Acts 7:45 & Hebrews 4:8 attest to. Your hallucinations do not reflect reality.  But I'm sure you'll deny this too.



Thanks for your input, Laird.  Much appreciated.
But you have two problems, in asserting that the LXX proves your case.

a.  Do you have any evidence for a pre-1st century copy of the LXX that replaces the name Yeshua with Iesous (Jesus)?  I have not seen one, with all the major copies and fragments of the LXX being post 1st century.  So when exactly was Yeshua transliterated as Iesous? 

If you have any further info, I would be grateful.

b.  The earliest Christian Bible we have, the Codex Sinaticus, never mentions Jesus at all.  Surprised?  No, really.  The Codex Sinaticus simply uses the Nomina Sacra  'ΙΣ'.  So when was Iesous actually chosen for the name of Jesus?  And why?

If you have any further info, I would be grateful.


Ralph




Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Νέος Άνκορεϊτζίτης
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 982
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")
a.  Do you have any evidence for a pre-1st century copy of the LXX that replaces the name Yeshua with Iesous (Jesus)?  I have not seen one, with all the major copies and fragments of the LXX being post 1st century.  So when exactly was Yeshua transliterated as Iesous?  

Do you have any evidence for a pre-1st century copy of the LXX that replaces the name Iesous (Jesus) with Yeshua?

b.  The earliest Christian Bible we have, the Codex Sinaticus, never mentions Jesus at all.  Surprised?  No, really.  The Codex Sinaticus simply uses the Nomina Sacra  'ΙΣ'.  So when was Iesous actually chosen for the name of Jesus?  And why?

'Ι' and 'Σ' are simply the first and last letters of Iesous. Evidently, the name had to have been used before the Codex Sinaiticus.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 05:42:31 AM by Hawkeye »
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Just to offer some information on zodiac mosaics in synagogues with some other ideas, here is a link to the article "Jewish Worship, Pagan Symbols: Zodiac Mosaics in Ancient Synagogues" by Walter Zenger from August 2012

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/jewish-worship-pagan-symbols/

It covers a number of finds of this nature, describes them (some are in good condition and others are ruinous), discussion of the variations and has some considerations of why the art was there and what it might have meant.  There are also notes for various points in the text and comments of varying quality.


Thanks for that article, it is a good summary.


But one area where he is wrong is the paragraph that says:

To set our minds at rest (for the time being), we can say what all this wasn't. It could not have been astrology (predicting the future, etc.) and it could not have been scientific astronomy, because the seasons in the corners are in the wrong places. The upper right corner at Beth Alpha is marked טבת (Tevet), the winter month, and the upper left corner ניסן (Nissan) the month of Passover in spring. But between them you have the zodiac sign of Cancer, the Crab, which falls in mid-summer, not early spring. The same thing with the sign for Libra, the Scales. The mosaic has placed it between the spring and summer seasons, whereas it belongs in the fall. Clumsy astronomy.


Actually, this zodiac is not wrong at all. You just need to understand precessional astronomy.

Remember that the signs of the zodiac move with the millennia, and so there WAS an era in which Cancer would have been located in the spring in just this manner.  That date was about 7200 BC.  All you need to do now, is work out why 7200 BC (the era of Cancer) was important in Judaic history.

For various reasons, the next sign of Gemini may be associated with the Flood, so was this slightly earlier era considered to be the creation of the world? Perhaps you may know the answer.





Ralph

 

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137


'Ι' and 'Σ' are simply the first and last letters of Iesous. Evidently, the name had to have been used before the Codex Sinaiticus.


Yes, I know. 

But they could also be considered to be the first letters of the name 'IZAS'.

The Codex Sinaticus could have been concealing the Persian origins for Jesus' name.


Ralph



Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Νέος Άνκορεϊτζίτης
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 982
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")


'Ι' and 'Σ' are simply the first and last letters of Iesous. Evidently, the name had to have been used before the Codex Sinaiticus.


Yes, I know.  

But they could also be considered to be the first letters of the name 'IZAS'.

The Codex Sinaticus could have been concealing the Persian origins for Jesus' name.


Ralph

Tell me, since I'm seemingly not as versed in all of this as you are, how does the Codex refer to the central character of the Book of Joshua?

A cursory glance indicates that he is also referred to as 'ΙΣ,' though I can't be too certain since I can't exactly read the language all that well.

Given the unlikelihood that both Jesus and Joshua should be referred to by the same abbreviation yet have names of entirely different origin, would you claim the latter was an 'Izas' as well?
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 06:52:44 AM by Hawkeye »
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Tell me, since I'm seemingly not as versed in all of this as you are, how does the Codex refer to the central character of the Book of Joshua?

A cursory glance indicates that he is also referred to as 'ΙΣ,' though I can't be too certain since I can't exactly read the language all that well.

Given the unlikelihood that both Jesus and Joshua should be referred to by the same abbreviation yet have names of entirely different origin, would you claim the latter was an 'Izas' as well?


I am pretty sure that the Codex Sinaticus calls Joshua 'Iesous'.  But the Codex is a 4th century document, influenced by whatever trends and conventions that were then in vogue.  And you still have the problem that the Codex does not call Jesus 'Iesous' -  so any link to between Jesus and Iesous is likely to be later than 4th century.

To give you an idea of how this happens, the Penguin translation of Josephus' works calls Jesus of Gamala 'Joshua of Gamala'.  They did this because they think they are right - that Jesus is a Greek rendering of Joshua.  However, that is not what Josephus writes - he calls him Iesous of Gamala.  So Penguin has completely retranslated this name, for no good reason (and nobody complained).

So here we have Josephus calling these 'two' characters Iesous and Izas, with both being revolutionary Jews from 'Babylonia' who were both blamed for fomenting the Jewish Revolt.


Ralph





Offline Laird

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 303
  • Lord have mercy

In fact, 'Jesus' is likely to have been a very uncommon name in Judaea.  The name Jesus (gr. Eesous) bears little or no relationship to Joshua (heb. Yehushua), and so it is much more likely that the name was actually derived from the Persian title 'Izas', the short form of Izates.

I do not want to take part in this nonsense, but I just wanted to point out the obvious to you that Jesus and Joshua are both 'Iesous' in Greek, that is, far from having little to no relationship with each other, they are actually the same name. Both the LXX, which was translated before Christ, and the Greek NT use 'Iesous', as Acts 7:45 & Hebrews 4:8 attest to. Your hallucinations do not reflect reality.  But I'm sure you'll deny this too.



Thanks for your input, Laird.  Much appreciated.
But you have two problems, in asserting that the LXX proves your case.

a.  Do you have any evidence for a pre-1st century copy of the LXX that replaces the name Yeshua with Iesous (Jesus)?  I have not seen one, with all the major copies and fragments of the LXX being post 1st century.  So when exactly was Yeshua transliterated as Iesous? 

If you have any further info, I would be grateful.

b.  The earliest Christian Bible we have, the Codex Sinaticus, never mentions Jesus at all.  Surprised?  No, really.  The Codex Sinaticus simply uses the Nomina Sacra  'ΙΣ'.  So when was Iesous actually chosen for the name of Jesus?  And why?

If you have any further info, I would be grateful.


Ralph





a. I don't really know that much about the LXX, but early 1st and 2nd century Christian writings use 'Iesous' to refer to Jesus, such as the Didache, 1 Clement, and the Ignatian epistles. Plus, 1 Clement also refers to Joshua as 'Iesous'.

b. So? What's your point? Many manuscripts also used abbreviations for God, Lord, Christ, Son, Spirit, etc. But that doesn't mean you can make those abbreviations say whatever you want them to say.

Stop trying to rewrite history and face the facts.
"Do not deceive yourself with idle hopes that in the world to come you will find life if you have not tried to find it in this present world." - Theophanis the Monk

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

a. I don't really know that much about the LXX, but early 1st and 2nd century Christian writings use 'Iesous' to refer to Jesus, such as the Didache, 1 Clement, and the Ignatian epistles. Plus, 1 Clement also refers to Joshua as 'Iesous'.

Stop trying to rewrite history and face the facts.


But the earliest copy of the Didache we have, dates from the 11th century.  Yes?  See the problem?

This is the problem with Jesus being missing from the historical record, for all we are left with is the later traditions.  Yes, these later manuscripts may well be based upon 2nd century originals, but we lack a N.T. version of the Dead Sea Scrolls to confirm the details.

Ralph


Offline Hawkeye

  • Διονύσιος ὁ Νέος Άνκορεϊτζίτης
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 982
  • Matthew 27:52-53
  • Faith: Like unto Neronov
  • Jurisdiction: Old Rite, Chapelist ("Double-Crossers")
I am pretty sure that the Codex Sinaticus calls Joshua 'Iesous'. 

Go and judge for yourself.

To give you an idea of how this happens, the Penguin translation of Josephus' works calls Jesus of Gamala 'Joshua of Gamala'.  They did this because they think they are right - that Jesus is a Greek rendering of Joshua.  However, that is not what Josephus writes - he calls him Iesous of Gamala.  So Penguin has completely retranslated this name, for no good reason (and nobody complained).

If we assume, as is right, that "Iesous" is simply a Greek rendering of "Yeshua", then that would mean that Josephus' "Iesous of Gamala" could indeed be referred to as either Jesus or Joshua depending on whether you look at the name's Greek or Hebrew form.

Also, I though Iesous of Gamala was your fabled Izas. Why then would Josephus give him the former name rather than the latter?
"Take heed, you who listen to me: Our misfortune is inevitable, we cannot escape it. If God allows scandals, it is that the elect shall be revealed. Let them be burned, let them be purified, let them who have been tried be made manifest among you."   - The Life of the Archpriest Avvakum by Himself

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Just to offer some information on zodiac mosaics in synagogues with some other ideas, here is a link to the article "Jewish Worship, Pagan Symbols: Zodiac Mosaics in Ancient Synagogues" by Walter Zenger from August 2012

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/jewish-worship-pagan-symbols/

It covers a number of finds of this nature, describes them (some are in good condition and others are ruinous), discussion of the variations and has some considerations of why the art was there and what it might have meant.  There are also notes for various points in the text and comments of varying quality.


Thanks for that article, it is a good summary.


But one area where he is wrong is the paragraph that says:

To set our minds at rest (for the time being), we can say what all this wasn't. It could not have been astrology (predicting the future, etc.) and it could not have been scientific astronomy, because the seasons in the corners are in the wrong places. The upper right corner at Beth Alpha is marked טבת (Tevet), the winter month, and the upper left corner ניסן (Nissan) the month of Passover in spring. But between them you have the zodiac sign of Cancer, the Crab, which falls in mid-summer, not early spring. The same thing with the sign for Libra, the Scales. The mosaic has placed it between the spring and summer seasons, whereas it belongs in the fall. Clumsy astronomy.

You're welcome.  I'm glad that you find it interesting. I am also reading a scholarly paper on the presence of the "Sol Invictus" in the center of the zodiac.   However,

Quote
Actually, this zodiac is not wrong at all. You just need to understand precessional astronomy.

On this, the author writes that the positions of the constellations with relation to the figures representing the seasons is wrong because they do not match up correctly.  For the time that it was created it is wrong.  That you find it necessary to come up with an explanation to have the mosaic somehow fit into your theories is not the same is the author is "wrong".  

Why are you assuming that the artisan(s) who made the mosaic would know about the procession of the equinox let alone how things were approximately 8,000 years previously?  Your date for the "Age of Cancer" is in the Neolithic era where there were small scattered cultures in various places NS the domestication of various plants such as emmer/wheat and animals like sheep and goats and the creation of pottery was coming into being. It was a very different time from the 3rd to 4th century A.D. which is whet the Hammat Tiberias mosaic is dated or the 6th century A.D. when the Beth Alpha mosaic was made.

Quote
Remember that the signs of the zodiac move with the millennia, and so there WAS an era in which Cancer would have been located in the spring in just this manner.  That date was about 7200 BC.  All you need to do now, is work out why 7200 BC (the era of Cancer) was important in Judaic history.


There are others who give other times for that including 8,600 BC - 6450  B.C. http://www.yeatsvision.com/GreatYear.html  
or 8,640 to 6,480   http://www.signsofthetimeshistory.com/ages.html

And the differences are not necessarily because they are using the 1/12th of the ecliptic to calculate. The author of this site, who uses the same measure that you wrote that you have used, that the age starts when the equinox enters a constellation not just the 30 degrees of the sky says that the Age of Aries years are 1875 B.C. to 100 B.C.
http://web.archive.org/web/20091027103010/http://geocities.com/astrologyages/ageofaries.htm

There are varying opinions and ideas.  Why should yours be accepted as true/definitive, please?)


Since there was no Judaism in the Neolithic time period. How could such a remote time in the past when there was no writing to transmit information have any importance to the people of the early A.D. era?  


Quote
For various reasons, the next sign of Gemini may be associated with the Flood, so was this slightly earlier era considered to be the creation of the world? Perhaps you may know the answer.

That does not seem likely since the current year in the Jewish calendar is 5774 and it is supposed to refer to time since the creation which would then be 3760 B.C.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar#Years


Quote


And to make sure that it is clear the above photograph is of another mosaic of a zodiac with the "Sol Invictus/Helios" in the center which is at Beth Alpha, not Hammat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Alpha
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 05:41:36 PM by Ebor »
"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 ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Your date for the "Age of Cancer" is in the Neolithic era where there were small scattered cultures in various places NS the domestication of various plants such as emmer/wheat and animals like sheep and goats and the creation of pottery was coming into being. It was a very different time from the 3rd to 4th century A.D. which is whet the Hammat Tiberias mosaic is dated or the 6th century A.D. when the Beth Alpha mosaic was made.


There are others who give other times for that including 8,600 BC - 6450  B.C. http://www.yeatsvision.com/GreatYear.html  
or 8,640 to 6,480   http://www.signsofthetimeshistory.com/ages.html



I was thinking about a possible date of creation.  Judaism has a date of creation of about 4000 BC while Christianity pushes this back to about 5000 BC.  Did someone else venerate 7200 BC?

As to the age of Cancer, yes I know.  But do note that the head of Helios is in the center of the sign, not the start or finish.  The mid point of your range is 7500 BC, which is the era I was thinking about.     The range I was using, is 8000 to 6500 BC (Voyager computer planisphere), which gives about 7200 BC.


Ralph





Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

If we assume, as is right, that "Iesous" is simply a Greek rendering of "Yeshua", then that would mean that Josephus' "Iesous of Gamala" could indeed be referred to as either Jesus or Joshua depending on whether you look at the name's Greek or Hebrew form.

Also, I though Iesous of Gamala was your fabled Izas. Why then would Josephus give him the former name rather than the latter?


The political goal of Josephus was to quell the revolting Jews (revolting as in always fomenting revolts).  And the leaders of the AD 70 Jewish Revolt are given by Josephus as Izas (of Adiabene) and Jesus (of Gamala). 

The last thing Rome wanted, was a great following for and veneration of the leaders of the Jewish Revolt. Yet these leaders were still very popular. The only option was to neuter the revolutionary aspect of these leaders, while simultaneously separating them from the Jewish Revolt. 

Thus the true leaders of the Revolt (King Izas and Monobazus) were said to be from a mythical place far away (Adiabene). While the domestic veneration was of a 'new' character (Jesus) who had been completely separated from the Revolt (by adjusting the date back by 40 years).  Jesus was admitted to be a bit of a revolutionary, but only in a peaceceful fashion, and the Romans were nice people too - so it was only the Jews who were nasty and wanted to kill this peacefull revolutionary  -  honest.....

To achieve this character readjustment and separation, it is axiomatic that the name 'Jesus' had to be separated from the name 'Izas'.

Ralph


Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
What you have failed to do is define what Judaism is.

This is a central question in modern scholarship on Judaism, but I highly doubt you've read a word of it. 

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

The notion that one group's use of the Zodiac while identifying as Jewish renders the conclusion that astrology was "a central component within Judaism" is pure and utter nonsense. You're also ignoring the problem of the well established dating, to which you can only shout "Nu-uh!"

- and yet modern Judaism appears to ridicule and ban astrology. 

So to what kind of Judaism do you refer?

You're stacking fallacies upon assumptions and confusing it for evidence.

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
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.

Well, that's not true at all.

Likewise, he will ridicule something I mention.

Because virtually all of what you mention is pure and utter nonsense.

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.

No, you've never proved me wrong, and your concern above just highlights a single appeal to authority of yours to which I adequately responded. Remember? I pointed out that I looked through all of the Greek and Syriac text and couldn't find the spelling Eisenmann insisted was there. You never responded, no doubt in large part because you cannot read Greek or Syriac.

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

Both are poor lexicons that are almost two centuries old, and you only consult them because they're in the public domain and freely available on the internet. All you have to do is look at the next edition of Thayer's to see the suggestion that it may stem from the Hebrew word for love. Or you could look in Strong's, another poor lexicon from the 19th century, and see where it says the etymology and root are unknown. Or, if we do decide it must mean "locust," then you could read the rest of my comment where I point out why such a name would be given to someone. The point was to show that you don't think about the implications of your assumptions, you just pick one you like and then pick a conclusion (when you don't start with the conclusion). You have absolutely no concern whatsoever for precision or thoroughness, you just plow ahead without think until you arrive at your goal, cherry picking your methodologies, your sources, your conclusions, and everything else.

Ok, so the standard explanation is that Agabus means 'locust' (Gr. agabos  Heb: chagab).

No, one explanation from the middle of the 1800s was that it meant "locust." These lexicons have not been standards for longer than you and I have been alive (put together).
  
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.

This is what is called an assertion, and particularly one that is based on nothing but itself. You have no evidence for this explanation other than how comfortably it fits into your conclusions.

To understand the Talmud and the gospels you have to have a very deep understanding of the true politics of this era.

And you have no such thing. You know absolutely nothing about the historical contexts surrounding these texts.

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.

Ralph, I studied Judaism in the first century under Martin Goodman and Sir Fergus Millar. Have you even heard of either of those two people?

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

They are worthless, and the only reason you use them is because they're free. Get a BDAG, a TDNT, a Louw-Nida, or even an LSJ for Greek (for Hebrew, TDOT, HALOT, Klein, DCH, or a number of others from our lifetimes) but when you use Thayer and BDB (and then actually defend them!) you are basically yanking out a bullhorn and shouting at the top of your lungs "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M DOING!"

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
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.

And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for such a ludicrous notion.

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

And you have absolutely no argument whatsoever to provide that isn't absolutely drenched in fallacy and naked assertion.

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)

They were hardly "fighting," but keep in mind that was a very common name.

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

And you've never been able to defend any of that argument against the criticism that has rightly rained down upon it.

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.

Good heavens, this is just pure and unadulterated nonsense.

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
DELETED
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 12:44:01 PM by maklelan »

Offline maklelan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Carbon dating cannot date stone, only the carbonised stratigraphy, and I have not seen any report.

Geochronology would date the stone, and come up with an answer of about 65 million years BC.

As to the city of Hammath, I think you have answered your own question.  The new city was based upon the old, which is why someone dug a wall across the zodiac without realising it was there.

Numismatic evidence (that means coins) shows the stratum under level III dated to the first century BCE. That level was destroyed in the second century CE. The level immediately above it, level IIB--the first iteration of the synagogue--is dated at the earliest to the early third century CE. The architectural profile of the synagogue also matches those of the second-fifth centuries CE found elsewhere. It was the next level (IIA) that contained the mosaic, and it dates to the late third or early fourth century CE at the earliest. The architectural profile here is most closely related to the late third century, and coins found at this level date to that time period. The particular depiction of Helios is found in other synagogues dating to around a century later, meaning this was one of the earliest such depictions. There is no support whatsoever for the notion that this particular depiction dates to three centuries earlier, and just managed to disappear from the artistic canon for three or four centuries and then just crop up again. There's also the Galilean Aramaic of the inscription within the Mosaic, which is very easily dated to the third-fourth centuries. Level IB was built over this level, but the foundations were sunk much lower than the previous levels, which is why the mosaic was damaged. The synagogue of that level was basilical, which is characteristic of Byzantine synagogues the fifth and sixth centuries CE.

The dating is not a problem, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports your assumptions.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Quote
The dating is not a problem, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that supports your assumptions
You're beating a dead horse. It doesn't stop him. He has had his assertions disproven by factual evidence from more than a couple separate disciplines. It doesn't matter. I think its a virus for folks on oc.net.

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,421
  • Excelsior
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Antonis said I'm not Christian, so...
Quote from: maklelan
Good heavens, this is just pure and unadulterated nonsense.

Ta-daa! We have a winner!  :)
My only weakness is, well, never mind

He said he had a horrible house
I looked in it and learnt to shut my mouth

Come back my dream into my arms, into my arms

London is drowning, and I live by the river

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,540
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Quote from: maklelan
Good heavens, this is just pure and unadulterated nonsense.

Ta-daa! We have a winner!  :)

The pity is that Mr Ellis is hardly likely to accept this. He reminds me of the Monty Python knight, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge his delusions.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 06:22:50 PM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Ebor

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

Your date for the "Age of Cancer" is in the Neolithic era where there were small scattered cultures in various places NS the domestication of various plants such as emmer/wheat and animals like sheep and goats and the creation of pottery was coming into being. It was a very different time from the 3rd to 4th century A.D. which is whet the Hammat Tiberias mosaic is dated or the 6th century A.D. when the Beth Alpha mosaic was made.


There are others who give other times for that including 8,600 BC - 6450  B.C. http://www.yeatsvision.com/GreatYear.html  
or 8,640 to 6,480   http://www.signsofthetimeshistory.com/ages.html



I was thinking about a possible date of creation.  Judaism has a date of creation of about 4000 BC while Christianity pushes this back to about 5000 BC. 


There isn't any "about 4000" or "about 5000" B.C. in using these calendars. These things can be looked easily.  As was covered in my post and backed up with the link to the Wiki page on the Hebrew calendar if one goes by the Jewish count there is no "about 4000 BC" but a date of creation of 3760 B.C.  If you are thinking of the calculations of Bishop James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland (Church of Ireland i.e. Anglican) from 1625-1656, his chronology set the Creation as "nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher#Chronology

If you are trying to recall some other "Christian" calculation for the date of the Creation a vague "about" is not sufficient. 

Quote
Did someone else venerate 7200 BC?

It was the Neolithic time. There aren't any written records nor major cultures.  Why would what a very theoretical "someone else" thought or a time 8,000 years in the past have any importance for an artisan creating a mosaic in the 5th century A.D.? 

Quote
As to the age of Cancer, yes I know.  But do note that the head of Helios is in the center of the sign, not the start or finish.  The mid point of your range is 7500 BC, which is the era I was thinking about.     The range I was using, is 8000 to 6500 BC (Voyager computer planisphere), which gives about 7200 BC.

I note the design and that the section of the constellation of Cancer isn't that big.  It's about the width of the Helios figure's head.  I think that this is more a matter of design and the lay-out of the circles that make up the zodiacal ring.
"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 Gkterra

  • Formerly know as findingfaith
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • ακραία αμαρτωλός
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not of this Earth
Quote from: maklelan
Good heavens, this is just pure and unadulterated nonsense.

Ta-daa! We have a winner!  :)

The pity is that Mr Ellis is hardly likely to accept this. He reminds me of the Monty Python knight, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge his delusions.

"Merely a flesh wound"

but seriously, I wish he would not word nearly everything he says, in a manner, that looks like it's intended to give his assertions the weight of truth, or fact, when he knows they are only assertions, that he can not prove.
Do unto others, as You would have them do unto You.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,540
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Quote from: maklelan
Good heavens, this is just pure and unadulterated nonsense.

Ta-daa! We have a winner!  :)

The pity is that Mr Ellis is hardly likely to accept this. He reminds me of the Monty Python knight, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge his delusions.

"Merely a flesh wound"

but seriously, I wish he would not word nearly everything he says, in a manner, that looks like it's intended to give his assertions the weight of truth, or fact, when he knows they are only assertions, that he can not prove.

Your wish is futile, I'm afraid.  :( :( :(
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,514
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Yekmalian Monoculture
The pity is that Mr Ellis is hardly likely to accept this. He reminds me of the Monty Python knight, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge his delusions.

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.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Just to offer some information on zodiac mosaics in synagogues with some other ideas, here is a link to the article "Jewish Worship, Pagan Symbols: Zodiac Mosaics in Ancient Synagogues" by Walter Zenger from August 2012

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/jewish-worship-pagan-symbols/

It covers a number of finds of this nature, describes them (some are in good condition and others are ruinous), discussion of the variations and has some considerations of why the art was there and what it might have meant.  There are also notes for various points in the text and comments of varying quality.

Anything in there about Hindu sex?

No. But then there wouldn't be since that's not the topic of the article.   ;) 

Focus
"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 ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Quote from: maklelan
Good heavens, this is just pure and unadulterated nonsense.

Ta-daa! We have a winner!  :)


You are easily pleased.

Perhaps your hero could now give us archaeological evidence for who exactly King Arthur was, including evidence for his capital city and tomb. 

If he is unable to do so, perhaps he could give the mythological antecedents that spawned Arthurian legend.  Including an explanation for the origins of the round table motif with twelve acolytes, and the reasoning for Walter Map and Walter Kayo including so much biblical material in Arthurian legend - including the claim that the first book of the Vulgate Cycle was derived from a booklet written by the biblical Jesus.

I would be interested in a complete explanation of why these legends have nothing to do with the gospel story, when the claimed authors of these legends say that they are very much connected to the gospel story. Indeed, the primary hero of Arthurian legend is someone called Joseph of Arimathaea, and correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember that Joseph appeared in the gospels somewhere.  And it was Joseph of Arimathaea who created the Round Table of Arthurian legend, so where did Joseph get the idea of a prominent table for a 'king' and his twelve acolytes?  Now where have we read of such a scene, in previous works?  Hmmm, let me think....

Perhaps McClellan knows more than the scribes who wrote the Vulgate Cycle.  If so, I would be grateful if he could tell us where this wonderful new information came from.

Ralph.


Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,829
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Perhaps your hero could now give us archaeological evidence for who exactly King Arthur was, including evidence for his capital city and tomb. 

If he is unable to do so, perhaps he could give the mythological antecedents that spawned Arthurian legend.  Including an explanation for the origins of the round table motif with twelve acolytes, and the reasoning for Walter Map and Walter Kayo including so much biblical material in Arthurian legend - including the claim that the first book of the Vulgate Cycle was derived from a booklet written by the biblical Jesus.

I would be interested in a complete explanation of why these legends have nothing to do with the gospel story, when the claimed authors of these legends say that they are very much connected to the gospel story. Indeed, the primary hero of Arthurian legend is someone called Joseph of Arimathaea, and correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember that Joseph appeared in the gospels somewhere.  And it was Joseph of Arimathaea who created the Round Table of Arthurian legend, so where did Joseph get the idea of a prominent table for a 'king' and his twelve acolytes?  Now where have we read of such a scene, in previous works?  Hmmm, let me think....


Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,540
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Quote
Perhaps your hero could now give us archaeological evidence for who exactly King Arthur was, including evidence for his capital city and tomb. 

He sure wasn't Jesus Christ. Not that this fact would get in the way of your flights of fancy.  :P
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

The architectural profile here is most closely related to the late third century, and coins found at this level date to that time period. The particular depiction of Helios is found in other synagogues dating to around a century later, meaning this was one of the earliest such depictions. There is no support whatsoever for the notion that this particular depiction dates to three centuries earlier, and just managed to disappear from the artistic canon for three or four centuries and then just crop up again.



Does McClellan seek to intentionally deceive, or does he genuinely not know the subject?


Actually, the image of a radiant Helios in a quadriga chariot dates back to the 3rd or 4th century BC at least.
This is the Helios relief from Troy, but there are many similar sculptures around Greece:





And this is exactly the same image that we see in Judaea, on the Beth Alpha zodiac - Helios with a radiant halo upon his quadriga chariot.
And so this Helios imagery was freely available in the 1st century, to any zodiac designer with even the most basic understanding of Greek mythology:






And in case you say that the Hamat Teverya zodiac is not the same, because there is no chariot (although Helios does appear to have a whip). Well this design was probably influenced a great deal by Malakbel, a Syrian manifestation of Helios who also wore the radiant halo.

But note in these two images that Helios-Malakbel wears the same cloak with clasp on the right shoulder; plus some shoulder padding; plus his right hand raised in salutation (now broken), all of which is a good indication of where this imagery came from.  The Palmyran Malakbel and the Hamat Helios appear to be almost identical.  And the Palmyran sculpture is dated to the early 1st century, and so there is an almost identical antecedent that demonstrates the possible origins of the Hamat Teverya design.  

In actual fact, to say that the Hamat zodiac is 4th century, is to say that it was very old fashioned by the time it was fabricated:
http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/divine-triad
(Malakbel is on the right as we see it.)








Note also that Helios here holds a blue spherical Earth in his (gravitational) embrace.
That is the level of knowledge that we are dealing with here.


Ralph
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 05:05:50 AM by ralfellis »

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Quote
Perhaps your hero could now give us archaeological evidence for who exactly King Arthur was, including evidence for his capital city and tomb. 

[king Arthur] sure wasn't Jesus Christ. Not that this fact would get in the way of your flights of fancy.  :P



Just for you, I am saying that the mythology and traditions of Arthurian legend are based upon the life of Jesus.  The glorious semi-divine leader who will lead his people to the sunlit uplands of truth, justice and righteousness; through his new council of 12 acolytes around the Round (Last Supper) Table.    etc: etc: etc:

Can you not see the parallels? Or do you not think that this was Jesus' goal? 
Or perhaps you think King Arthur was a real king of the Britons?  If so, I would be grateful for the archaeological evidence.


Ralph


Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,540
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Quote
Perhaps your hero could now give us archaeological evidence for who exactly King Arthur was, including evidence for his capital city and tomb.  

[king Arthur] sure wasn't Jesus Christ. Not that this fact would get in the way of your flights of fancy.  :P



Just for you, I am saying that the mythology and traditions of Arthurian legend are based upon the life of Jesus.  

So you say.

Quote
The glorious semi-divine leader who will lead his people to the sunlit uplands of truth, justice and righteousness; through his new council of 12 acolytes around the Round (Last Supper) Table.    etc: etc: etc:

Ummm, Ralph, Jesus Christ was, and is, fully divine as well as fully human. He was not a demigod.


Quote
Or do you not think that this was Jesus' goal?  

No, it was not. His goal was far, far more profound than that. He was God Incarnate, sent to restore the right relationship of humanity with God, to undo the damage caused by the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

Quote
Or perhaps you think King Arthur was a real king of the Britons?  If so, I would be grateful for the archaeological evidence.

I have no opinion of whether King Arthur was a real king of the Britons, or whether he was only a mythological figure. What I do know, and what every Christian knows, is that he was not the same person as Jesus Christ.




 
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 05:17:05 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
.

And before you ask, yes, Palmyra does have an enormous zodiac in its great temple. So the zodiac was indeed a central element of Palmyran theology.

And do remember that the Palmyrans were partly Jewish. The Talmud says that one of the few groups who could become Jews were the Palmyrans. Plus the Jewish mezuzah was discovered on many Palmyran doorposts.  So there were some elements of Judaism that embraced the zodiac, as the many zodiacs in synagogues amply demonstrate.


Zodiac in the Temple of Bel, Palmyra.




Ralph

Offline ralfellis

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137

Ummm, Ralph, Jesus Christ was fully divine as well as fully human. He was not a demigod.



Sounds like an oxymoron to me…..  :D


In reality, there have been many sects of Christianity that considered Jesus to be semi-divine or not divine at all.  As far as I can see, these include the Arianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Manicheanism, Marcionism, Montanism, and many others.

Please don't assume that every Christian sect follows your creed, or that only your views are correct.


Cheers,
Ralph



Offline Nephi

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,829
  • A non-Chalcedonian in Chalcedonian clothing.
  • Faith: Orthodox
Please don't assume that [...] only your views are correct.


Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,540
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox

Ummm, Ralph, Jesus Christ was fully divine as well as fully human. He was not a demigod.



Sounds like an oxymoron to me…..  :D


Indeed it is. A stumbling block, a paradox, as even the New Testament says, if you care to look. But then, God's mind and actions are not restricted to the feeble efforts of man. That's why He's God, and we are not.

Quote
In reality, there have been many sects of Christianity that considered Jesus to be semi-divine or not divine at all.  As far as I can see, these include the Arianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Manicheanism, Marcionism, Montanism, and many others.

And every one of them has been shown to be a false Christianity, with erroneous beliefs. We call them heretics.

Quote
Please don't assume that every Christian sect follows your creed,

I wasn't born yesterday, Ralph.

Quote
or that only your views are correct.

Look up the etymology of Orthodox some time. You might learn something.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?