At the time of Jesus of Nazareth, as for centuries before, the Mediterranean
world roiled with a happy diversity of creeds and rituals. Details varied
according to location and culture, but the general outlines of these faiths
were astonishingly similar. Roughly speaking the ancients' gods:
Were born on or very near our Christmas Day
Were born of a Virgin-Mother
Were born in a Cave or Underground Chamber.
Led a life of toil for Mankind.
Were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Savior,
Deliverer.
Were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.
And descended into Hell or the Underworld.
Rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly
world.
Founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were
received by Baptism.
Were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.
(The best book to go to for further details is The Christ Conspiracy.)
=======================================
ATTIS
Phrygia
Born of the Virgin Nana on December 25th.
He was both the Father and the Divine Son.
He was a savior crucified on a tree for the salvation of mankind. He was
buried but on the third day the priests found the tomb empty -- He had
arisen from the dead (on March 25th).
He followers were baptized in blood, thereby washing away their sins --
after which they declared themselves "born again."
His followers ate a sacred meal of bread, which they believed became the
body of the savoir.
At the summer solstice celebration of his death an resurrection He is shown
slain and hanging on a tree.
Called "the Good Sheppard," the "Most High God," the "Only Begotten Son"
and "Savior."
=======================================
BUDDHA
India
Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25th, announced by a star and attended
by wise men presenting costly gifts. At birth angles sing heavenly songs.
Taught in temple at age 12.
Tempted by Mara, the Evil One, while fasting.
Baptized in water with the Spirit of God present.
Healed the sick
Fed 500 from a small basket of cakes
Walked on water.
Came to fulfill the law. Preached the establishment of a kingdom of
righteousness.
Obliged followers to poverty and to renounce the world.
Transfigured on a mount.
Died ( on a cross, in some traditions), buried but arose again after tomb
opened by supernatural powers. Ascended into heaven (Nirvana). Will return
in later days to judge the dead.
Called: "Good Shepherd," "Carpenter," "Alpha and Omega," "Sin Bearer,"
"Master," "Light of the World," "Redeemer," etc.
=======================================
DYONISOS
Greece
Born of a Virgin on December 25th, placed in a manger.
He was a traveling teacher who performed many miracles.
Rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.
Turned water into wine.
Followers ate sacred meal that became the body of the god.
Rose from the dead March 25th.
Identified with the ram and lamb's
Called "King of Kings," "Only Begotten Son," "Savior," "Redeemer," "Sin
bearer," "Anointed One," the "Alpha and Omega."
=======================================
JESUS
Middle East
Born on December 25th of a virgin, Mary in a stable (the gospel of
Protevangelion says in a cave).
He traveled widely, doing good works. He was betrayed, sacrificed and
buried, his body placed in a tomb. He arose on the third day and ascended
into Heaven.
Baptism: Understood from the time of Paul as a death experience and
emergence from the water taken as the beginning of a new life.
Eucharist: Sacred meal of Blood and Body of the God
Holy days: Winter solstice -- Christmas. Summer solstice -- Easter
=======================================
HERAKLES
Greece
Born at the winter equinox of a virgin who refrained from sex with her until
her god-begotten child was born.
Sacrificed at the spring equinox.
Called "Savior," "Only begotten," "Prince of Peace," "Son of
Righteousness."
=======================================
KRISHNA
India
Krishna was born while his foster-father Nanda was in the city to pay his
tax to the king. His nativity heralded by a star, Krishna was born of the
virgin Devaki in a cave, which at the time of his birth was miraculously
illuminated. The cow-herds adored his birth.
King Kansa sought the life of the Indian Christ by ordering the massacre of
all male children born during the same night at He.
Krishna traveled widely, performing miracles -- raising the dead, healing
lepers, the deaf and the blind.
The crucified Krishna is pictured on the cross with arms extended. Pierced
by an arrow while hanging on the cross, Krishna died, but descended into
Hell from which He rose again on the third day and ascended into Heaven.
(The Gospel of Nicodemus tell of Jesus' descent into Hell.) He will return
on the last day to judge the quick and the dead.
Krishna is the second person of the Hindu trinity.
=======================================
MITHRAS
Originally Persian
widely worshiped in India and eventually Rome.
When the Christ myth was new Mithras and Mithraism were already ancient.
Worshiped for centuries as God's Messenger of Truth, Mithras was long
revered by the Persians (Zoroastrianism) and the Indians (see the Vedic
literature) before his faith found it's way to Rome where His mysteries
flourished in the second century AD.
Sadly there's a lot we don't know about this faith that comforted million of
souls. Early Christians established the dominance of their religion by
exterminating Mithras' faithful, razing His temples, burning His sacred
texts.
Every year in Rome, in the middle of winter, the Son of God was born one
more, putting an end to darkness. Every year at first minute of December
25th the temple of Mithras was lit with candles, priests in in white
garments celebrated the birth of the Son of God and boys burned incense.
Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came
from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know
as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God."
With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator
of men.
He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead -- an event
celebrated yearly with much rejoicing.
His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in
remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine,
was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.
Baptism in the blood of the bull (taurobolum) -- early
Baptism "washed in the blood of the Lamb" -- late
Baptism by water [recorded by the Christian author Tertullian]
Mithraic rituals brought about the transformation and Salvation of His
adherents --an ascent of the soul of the adherent into the realm of the
divine.
The great Mithraic festivals celebrated his birth (at the winter solstice)
and his death and resurrection (at the summer solstice)
=======================================
OSIRIS
Egypt
He came to fulfill the law.
Called "KRST," the "Anointed One."
Born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave / manger, with his
birth announced by a star and attended by three wise men.
Earthly father named "Seb" (translates to "Joseph.")
At age 12 he was a child teacher in the Temple and at 30 he was baptized,
having disappeared for 18 years.
Baptized in the river Iarutana -- the river Jordan -- by "Anup the
Baptizer," who was beheaded. (Anup translates to John.) [note by Aggie-tom:
Annas was the name one of trhe High Priests at the time of John - Ioannos -
son of Annas ie Anup, Caiaphas being the other High Priest. Both names look
Egyptian.]
Traveled widely, taught men and "tamed them by music and gentleness, not by
force of arms" [Plutarch]
Performed miracles, exorcised demons, raised El-Osiris from the dead.
Walked on water.
Betrayed by Typhon, crucified between two thieves on the 17th day of the
month of Athyr. Buried in a tomb from which he arose on the third day (19th
Athyr) and was resurrected.
His suffering, death, and resurrection celebrated each year by His disciples
on the Vernal Equinox -- Easter.
Called "The Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "god's Anointed Son,' the
"Son of Man," the "Word made Flesh," the "word of truth."
Expected to reign a thousand years.
=======================================
ZOROASTER
Asia minor
Born of a virgin.
Baptized in a river.
In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. Began his ministry at
age 30.
Tempted in the wilderness by the devil.
Cast out demons.
Restored the sight of a blind man.
Revealed the mysteries of heaven, hell, resurrection, judgment, salvation
and the apocalypse.
His followers celebrated a sacred eucharistic meal.
Called: "The Word made flesh,"
=================================
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/
Soon I'll post a chronology of hoe the Bible was counterfeited based on the
above myths and the story of Apollonius.
Wrong in every aspect. Was never considered a savior/messiah, according
to the doctrine of anatman, or lack of soul, he never spoke of the First
or Second Cause, not in the Hinayana, Mahayana or Vajrayana traditions.
Renounced ascetism and encouraged the middle way. Was born as a Prince
Sakyamuni. Died meditating and NOT on a cross. Never transfigured on a
Mount. Maya, BTW is sanscrit for illusion, NOT the name of his mother.
Buddhist doctrines have a lot in common with Heraclitus and Plotinus.
Where did you get this info on Buddhism anyway?
NKrinis
?
>BUDDHA
>
>India
>
>Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25th, announced by a star and attended
>by wise men presenting costly gifts. At birth angles sing heavenly songs.
>
Maya was not a virgin; she was the properly wedded wife of the King of the
Sakyas. Of course the local wise men presented gifts, doofus; that's what
you do when the King's son is born. And Apsaras are, uh, hardly angels,
though they are beautiful females. They have, shall we say, heroinic
appetites for the pleasures of love.
>Taught in temple at age 12.
Where'd you hear _that_? He was sequestered by his father until he was
past puberty, to make sure he wouldn't see anything of the outside world.
>Tempted by Mara, the Evil One, while fasting.
Well, that's one right.
>Baptized in water with the Spirit of God present.
>
His critical life-change came not with some baptism, but when he saw real,
suffering human beings, and -- to pinpoint a time -- when he cut off his
hair with his knightly blade and then threw away the sword.
>Healed the sick
OK so far.
>Fed 500 from a small basket of cakes
>Walked on water.
>
Not passively, though. He walked on water to rescue a boatman who thought
he -- Budha -- was in danger of drowning. The boatman had been giving him
an argument the day before, maintaining that humans were basically
selfish. But that night the river rose in flood and Buddha was cut off on
a small island. What should he see when the sun rose but the boatman
putting off from shore, despite the turbulent current, and shouting to
Budha to come down to shore and he would pull in there and rescue him.
So Buddha ran over the tossing waves and quickly jumped into the boat
before it could be swamped by the flood. "Ah, friend boatman," he said,
"what was it you were saying about how humans were basically selfish?"
>Came to fulfill the law. Preached the establishment of a kingdom of
>righteousness.
>
Nope. There were four earlier Buddhas (we only know the name of the most
recent one, Dipankara) and at least one more (Maitreya) still to come.
And the Buddhas manifest when the previous Buddha's teaching has died out
or become corrupted; there is no question of any "Kingdom of
Righteousness" being established.
>Obliged followers to poverty and to renounce the world.
>
Another one right.
>Transfigured on a mount.
>
Bullfeathers. He died of overeating -- curried pork, in some traditions,
though Wasson claims that it was a dish of mushrooms.
>Died ( on a cross, in some traditions), buried but arose again after tomb
>opened by supernatural powers.
There is no recognized tradition which asserts that Gautama Buddha died by
violence, let alone "on a cross". He did not "arise", because he wasn't
truly dead; he became one with the Universe.
>Ascended into heaven (Nirvana).
Nirvana is a state of non-separateness, not an equivalent to Heaven.
>Will return in later days to judge the dead.
>
Spacegas. The dead will reincarnate until they have attained
illumination, and when that happens they will be able to attain Nirvana.
The nature of their reincarnations is affected by their Karma, which is
vaguely like "sin" but more properly thought of as the consequences of
their actions, not only bad but good. However, even the worst Karma can
be worked off eventually, and since nobody is going to be stuck here
forever there can be no such thing as a Last Judgement.
>Called: "Good Shepherd," "Carpenter," "Alpha and Omega," "Sin Bearer,"
>"Master," "Light of the World," "Redeemer," etc.
>
I can't recognize a single one of these titles among the ekenames of
Gautama Buddha. He was called Tathagata "he who has thus come", The
World-Honored One, and Sakyamuni "the sage of the Sakyas" most commonly.
-- Dick Eney
WWMD What would Manjusri do?
Cut you loose from your errors
...and it won't be a moment too soon, I would say.
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
"Lambrechts has also shown that Attis, the consort of Cybele, does not
appear as a "resurrected" god until after A.D. 150. ( "Les Fetes
'phrygiennes' de Cybele et d' Attis," Bulletin de l'lnstitut Historique
Belge de Rome, XXVII 11952], 141-70)."
"The taurobolium was a bloody rite associated with the worship of
Mithra and of Attis in which a bull was slaughtered on 'a grating over
an initiate in a pit below, drenching him with blood. This has been
suggested (e.g., by R. Reitzenstein) as the basis of the Christian's
redemption by blood and Paul's imagery in Romans 6 of the believer's
death and resurrection. Gunter Wagner in his exhaustive study
Pauline Baptism and thc Pagan Mysteries (1963) points out how
anachronistic such comparisons are:
"'The taurobolium in the Attis cult is first attested in the time of
Antoninus Pius for A.D. 160. As far as we can see at present it only
became a personal consecration at the beginning of the third century
A.D. The idea of a rebirth through the instrumentality of the
taurobolium only emerges in isolated instances towards the end of the
fourth century A.D.; it is not originally associated with this
blood-bath [p. 266].'
"Indeed, there is inscriptional evidence from the fourth century A.D.
that, far from influencing Christianity, those who used the taurobolium
were influenced by Christianity. Bruce Metzger in his important essay
"Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early
Christianity" (Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and
Christian (1968), notes:
"'Thus, for example, one must doubtless interpret the change in the
efficacy attributed to the rite of the taurobolium. In competing with
Christianity, which promised eternal life to its adherents, the cult
of Cybele officially or unofficially raised the efficacy of the blood
bath from twenty years to eternity [p. 11].'"
("Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?", Edwin M. Yamauchi)
http://www.mustardseed.net/html/topaganism.html
"The Cult of Cybele and Attis
"Most of our information about the cult describes its practices during
its later Roman period. But the details are slim and almost all the
source material is relatively late, certainly datable long after the
close of the New Testament canon. According to myth, Cybele loved a
shepherd named Attis. Because Attis was unfaithful, she drove him
insane. Overcome by madness, Attis castrated himself and died. This
drove Cybele into great mourning, and it introduced death into the
natural world. But then Cybele restored Attis to life, an event that
also brought the world of nature back to life.
"The presuppositions of the interpreter tend to determine the language
used to describe what followed Attis's death. Many writers refer
carelessly to the "resurrection of Attis." But surely this is an
exaggeration. There is no mention of anything resembling a resurrection
in the myth, which suggests that Cybele could only preserve Attis's
dead body. Beyond this, there is mention of the body's hair continuing
to grow, along with some movement of his little finger. In some
versions of the myth, Attis's return to life took the form of his being
changed into an evergreen tree. Since the basic idea underlying the
myth was the annual vegetation cycle, any resemblance to the bodily
resurrection of Christ is greatly exaggerated.
"Eventually a public rehearsal of the Attis myth became an annual event
in which worshipers shared in Attis's "immortality." Each spring the
followers of Cybele would mourn for the dead Attis in acts of fasting
and flagellation.
"It was only during the later Roman celebrations (after A.D. 300) of
the spring festival that anything remotely connected with a
"resurrection" appears. The pine tree symbolizing Attis was cut down
and then carried corpse-like into the sanctuary. Later in the prolonged
festival, the tree was buried while the initiates worked themselves
into a frenzy that included gashing themselves with knives. The next
night, the "grave" of the tree was opened and the "resurrection of
Attis" was celebrated. But the language of these late sources is highly
ambiguous. In truth, no clear-cut, unambiguous reference to the
supposed "resurrection" of Attis appears, even in the very late
literature from the fourth century after Christ.
"The Taurobolium
"The best-known rite of the cult of the Great Mother was the
taurobolium. It is important to note, however, that this ritual was not
part of the cult in its earlier stages. It entered the religion
sometime after the middle of the second century A.D. During the
ceremony, initiates stood or reclined in a pit as a bull was
slaughtered on a platform above them.[6] The initiate would then be
bathed in the warm blood of the dying animal. It has been alleged that
the taurobolium was a source for Christian language about being washed
in the blood of the lamb (Rev. 7:14) or sprinkled with the blood of
Jesus (1 Pet. 1:2). It has also been cited as the source for Paul's
teaching in Romans 6:1-4, where he relates Christian baptism to the
Christian's identification with Christ's death and resurrection.
"No notion of death and resurrection was ever part of the taurobolium,
however. The best available evidence requires us to date the ritual
about one hundred years after Paul wrote Romans 6:1-4. Not one existing
text supports the claim that the taurobolium memorialized the death and
"resurrection" of Attis. The pagan rite could not possibly have been
the source for Paul's teaching in Romans 6. Only near the end of the
fourth century A.D. did the ritual add the notion of rebirth. Several
important scholars see a Christian influence at work in this later
development.[7] It is clear, then, that the chronological development
of the rite makes it impossible for it to have influenced first-century
Christianity. The New Testament teaching about the shedding of blood
should be viewed in the context of its Old Testament background -- the
Passover and the temple sacrifice."
("Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Philosophy?", Ronald Nash)
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
"Attis (p. 523). "The complex mythology of Attis is largely irrelevant
to the quesion of dying and rising deities. In the old, Phrygian
versions, Attis is killed by being castrated, either by himself or by
another; in the old Lydian version, he is killed by a boar. In neither
case is there any question of his returning to life...Neither myth nor
ritual offer any warrant for classifying Attis as a dying and rising
deity."
("Dying and Rising Gods", J. Smith)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
[chopperoo]
You forgot Hermes.
All your posting does for me is to confirm that a savior has been sent
to all of the peoples of mankind at one time or another. Thanks for
posting this reminder.
Mark
> >
> If that was your source for ths stuff, you damn it with very faint praise
> indeed. I'll just note the errors about Budha -- who was not, BTW, from
> the Mediterranean --
Alexander conquered India and thus Buddha so the Greeks were already aware
of him.
>
> >BUDDHA
> >
> >India
> >
> >Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25th, announced by a star and
attended
> >by wise men presenting costly gifts. At birth angles sing heavenly songs.
> >
> Maya was not a virgin; she was the properly wedded wife of the King of the
> Sakyas. Of course the local wise men presented gifts, doofus; that's what
Who said anything about virgins being celibate. The Prostitutes of Ishtar
and Aphrodite was ALL called Virgins.
> you do when the King's son is born. And Apsaras are, uh, hardly angels,
> though they are beautiful females. They have, shall we say, heroinic
> appetites for the pleasures of love.
>
> >Taught in temple at age 12.
>
> Where'd you hear _that_? He was sequestered by his father until he was
> past puberty, to make sure he wouldn't see anything of the outside world.
>
> >Tempted by Mara, the Evil One, while fasting.
>
> Well, that's one right.
>
> >Baptized in water with the Spirit of God present.
> >
> His critical life-change came not with some baptism, but when he saw real,
> suffering human beings, and -- to pinpoint a time -- when he cut off his
> hair with his knightly blade and then threw away the sword.
So what made Jesus decide only to start preaching after he reach the age of
30.
Actually all of this preaching and travelling would have been a bit
expensive don't you think. Maybe he amassed himself a fortune first.
Remember he was a free man who practiced his own trace, i.e. Middle Class,
and so were all of his decuples.
Christianity was a religion of the Rich like all the Mystery Cults, like
Free Masonry is today. Slaves could not afford all of the initiation fees.
Maybe Christ saw the suffering of the people and felt ashamed like Buddah.
> >Healed the sick
>
> OK so far.
>
> >Fed 500 from a small basket of cakes
> >Walked on water.
> >
> Not passively, though. He walked on water to rescue a boatman who thought
> he -- Budha -- was in danger of drowning. The boatman had been giving him
> an argument the day before, maintaining that humans were basically
> selfish. But that night the river rose in flood and Buddha was cut off on
> a small island. What should he see when the sun rose but the boatman
> putting off from shore, despite the turbulent current, and shouting to
> Budha to come down to shore and he would pull in there and rescue him.
>
> So Buddha ran over the tossing waves and quickly jumped into the boat
> before it could be swamped by the flood. "Ah, friend boatman," he said,
> "what was it you were saying about how humans were basically selfish?"
>
> >Came to fulfill the law. Preached the establishment of a kingdom of
> >righteousness.
> >
> Nope. There were four earlier Buddhas (we only know the name of the most
> recent one, Dipankara) and at least one more (Maitreya) still to come.
That explains the Christian prophesies of the Second Comming.
> And the Buddhas manifest when the previous Buddha's teaching has died out
> or become corrupted; there is no question of any "Kingdom of
> Righteousness" being established.
But Revelation tells that Christ will only come again when man had become
wicked and forgotten God.
Of course, Buddah would not have been unfamiliar to the Jews in the
so-called exile in Babylon or shortly afterwards when Deuteronomy was
altered to claim that a new prophet will come to the Jews like Moses.
.
>
> http://www.mustardseed.net/html/topaganism.html
>
> "The Cult of Cybele and Attis
>
> "Most of our information about the cult describes its practices during
> its later Roman period. But the details are slim and almost all the
> source material is relatively late, certainly datable long after the
> close of the New Testament canon. According to myth, Cybele loved a
> shepherd named Attis. Because Attis was unfaithful, she drove him
> insane. Overcome by madness, Attis castrated himself and died. This
> drove Cybele into great mourning, and it introduced death into the
> natural world. But then Cybele restored Attis to life, an event that
> also brought the world of nature back to life.
And where do you think this myth cam from. Its the same as the myth of
Adonis which was based on that of Tammuz. Its originally Babylonian and is
even mentions in the Old Testament !
On the facade of Isaiah 14 describes the fall of the king of Babylon into
Hades and the redemption of the children of Israel who are made the heirs to
Zion by Jehovah after the sins of their fathers have been blotted out. (This
text has to be read in the original Greek. None of the Translations in
English resemble the original text.)
The other much older story which it hides is the plagiarised Babylonian myth
of the Decent of Ishtar into the Underworld to rescue her lover Tammuz (who
the Greeks turned into Adonis) and return him to the land of the living.
It would not take a follower of Tammuz very long to recognise this myth
hidden in the Hebrew Bible and neither would it have taken any Jew
initiation into the Mysteries of Attis could long to recognise it.
That where Christianity came form.
Whats more the followers of Attis obtained from eating Pork, like the Jews,
since some believed that he was killed by a wild boar. So this cult would
have been the obvious choice of a Jew that wanted to join the equivalent of
a Masonic lodge.
>
> "The presuppositions of the interpreter tend to determine the language
> used to describe what followed Attis's death. Many writers refer
> carelessly to the "resurrection of Attis." But surely this is an
> exaggeration. There is no mention of anything resembling a resurrection
> in the myth, which suggests that Cybele could only preserve Attis's
UTTER POPPYCOCK
The Story of Attis is almost indistinguishable from that of Adonis and the
cult brought to Roman in 204BC to fulfil a prophesy and defeat Hannibal.
> dead body. Beyond this, there is mention of the body's hair continuing
> to grow, along with some movement of his little finger. In some
> versions of the myth, Attis's return to life took the form of his being
> changed into an evergreen tree. Since the basic idea underlying the
BULLSHIT.
Attis castrated himself under a Pine Tree and then died. The worshipers
attach an effigy to the Tree and then engaged in ritual castration and
mutilation or their arms and bodies to draw blood. Then the effigy was
buried and on the next day the Tomb was unseal and Attis was found
resurrected. (viz. Sir James Frazer - The Golden Bough)
> myth was the annual vegetation cycle, any resemblance to the bodily
> resurrection of Christ is greatly exaggerated.
LOL LOL LOL...
Not only did it resemble a bodily resurrection but Attis stated life as a
Spirit of th Forset. A spirit like the Spirit of Elohim in Genesis. Then he
is seen as a man born of a virgin by immaculate conception who then dies and
is resurrected as a God. We now have a Holy Trinity.
>
> "Eventually a public rehearsal of the Attis myth became an annual event
> in which worshipers shared in Attis's "immortality." Each spring the
> followers of Cybele would mourn for the dead Attis in acts of fasting
> and flagellation.
>
> "It was only during the later Roman celebrations (after A.D. 300) of
> the spring festival that anything remotely connected with a
> "resurrection" appears. The pine tree symbolizing Attis was cut down
> and then carried corpse-like into the sanctuary. Later in the prolonged
> festival, the tree was buried while the initiates worked themselves
Christian BALONEY. They used an effigy of the God.
> into a frenzy that included gashing themselves with knives. The next
> night, the "grave" of the tree was opened and the "resurrection of
> Attis" was celebrated. But the language of these late sources is highly
> ambiguous. In truth, no clear-cut, unambiguous reference to the
> supposed "resurrection" of Attis appears, even in the very late
> literature from the fourth century after Christ.
Rubbish. What literature there was, was destroyed by the Christians to
exterminate the cult that they arose from.
> "The Taurobolium
>
> "The best-known rite of the cult of the Great Mother was the
> taurobolium. It is important to note, however, that this ritual was not
> part of the cult in its earlier stages. It entered the religion
> sometime after the middle of the second century A.D. During the
> ceremony, initiates stood or reclined in a pit as a bull was
> slaughtered on a platform above them.[6] The initiate would then be
> bathed in the warm blood of the dying animal. It has been alleged that
> the taurobolium was a source for Christian language about being washed
> in the blood of the lamb (Rev. 7:14) or sprinkled with the blood of
> Jesus (1 Pet. 1:2). It has also been cited as the source for Paul's
> teaching in Romans 6:1-4, where he relates Christian baptism to the
> Christian's identification with Christ's death and resurrection.
>
> "No notion of death and resurrection was ever part of the taurobolium,
> however. The best available evidence requires us to date the ritual
> about one hundred years after Paul wrote Romans 6:1-4. Not one existing
> text supports the claim that the taurobolium memorialized the death and
> "resurrection" of Attis. The pagan rite could not possibly have been
> the source for Paul's teaching in Romans 6. Only near the end of the
> fourth century A.D. did the ritual add the notion of rebirth. Several
Christian BULLSHIT
Not only did the Taurobolium represent rebirth but it was practiced right on
top of the Vatican Hill in exactly the same spot where St Peters stand
today. Evidence of this was found when the complex was being enlarged in
1608/9. This was the universal Centre of the cult for which is spread across
the Romans Empire. Funny that aint it !!!
Before the Taurobolium the novice is initiated by eating out of a drum and
drinking out of symbol. The he is placed in a pit cover with a grating and
when the bull is slayed he wipes the blood all over him. Then he emerges
from the pit and is reborn to eternal life his sins cleansed. The to keep up
the pretence he is fed only on milk like a newly born babe.
There's your Christian faith at the centre of the Cult of Attis.
He is trying to open your eyes...
The rest of your comments show the same shallow investigation of the subject.
Although even your shallow, orthodox comments reflect that you have spent more
time on the subject than most.
For a deeper understanding of this subject, you should check out Anacalypsis by
Godfrey Higgins.
In article <3A1B395F...@Makedonija.com>, Makedon says...
The remark about "the standard, orthodox accounts" sounds like you are
adopting what the French cruelly call the _frondiste_ attitude: "What's
the accepted view? We're against it, whatever it may be". And even if
you accept the (very possibly true) Gravesian interpretation that "virgin"
originally meant "not under the control of a man", rather than "woman with
intact maidenhead", it would not apply to the Queen, who was the wife of
the King and not an autonomous individual.
>The rest of your comments show the same shallow investigation of the subject.
>
A schoolchildish gibe deserves only a schoolchildish retort:
Takes one to know one.
>For a deeper understanding of this subject, you should check out Anacalypsis by
>Godfrey Higgins.
>
This is some Monty Pythonesque joke, right?
-- Dick Eney
WWCD What would Cerridwen do?
Cook up an intelligence potion
...the demand for it is obviously great. The market...well, maybe.
Of cause he was. Couldn't tell the difference between Caelo and Caelum for a
star a thus made and Engraving out of Heaven and thus created Lucifer..
> Buddha is a myth, then there was somebody of the same name going around
> doing the same actions at the same time.
>
> The remark about "the standard, orthodox accounts" sounds like you are
> adopting what the French cruelly call the _frondiste_ attitude: "What's
> the accepted view? We're against it, whatever it may be". And even if
> you accept the (very possibly true) Gravesian interpretation that "virgin"
> originally meant "not under the control of a man", rather than "woman with
No its either or both. "not under the control of a man and/or not having
been penetrated and damaged"
> intact maidenhead", it would not apply to the Queen, who was the wife of
> the King and not an autonomous individual.
If she was Queen then Virgin would have been used in the same way as of the
Prostitute Priestesses of Ishtar.
> >The rest of your comments show the same shallow investigation of the
subject.
> >
> A schoolchildish gibe deserves only a schoolchildish retort:
>
> Takes one to know one.
>
> >For a deeper understanding of this subject, you should check out
Anacalypsis by
> >Godfrey Higgins.
> >
The problem with everything stated here about Zoroaster is that
it is difficult to know the extent to which the later Zoroastrian
religion of the Sasanian period (224-651 AD) accurately
reflected the actual life and original teachings of Zoroaster.
Another question is the extent to which the sources, the Avesta
(the Zoroastrian scriptures) and the Gathas (older hymns), offer
an authentic guide to Zoroaster's original ideas.
The Gathas and the Avesta were not written down until after the
New Testament was written.
"His (Zoroaster's) teachings were handed down orally in his
community from generation to generation, and were at last
committed to writing under the Sasanians, rulers of the third
Iranian empire. The language then spoken was Middle Persian,
also called Pahlavi; and the Pahlavi books provide invaluable
keys for interpreting the magnificent obscurities of the Gathas
themselves."
("Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices", p.17,
Mary Boyce, 1979)
So the actual teachings and doctrine of Zoroastrianism were not
documented prior to the Sasanian period (224-651 AD). An argument
may be made that Zoroastrianism borrowed concepts and ideas from
Judaism and Christianity.
Prior to 315 AD, the Roman empire was persecuting the Christians,
so Rome could hardly have been considered to be "the centre" of
the Christian faith.
Today, there are millions of Christians that do not consider "the
Vatican Hill" and "St Peters" to be "the centre" of their Christian
faith.
I do not consider "the Vatican Hill" and "St Peters" to be "the
centre" of the Christian faith, so your attempt to identify your
alleged "centre of the cult of Attis" with your alleged "centre
of the Christian faith" must be judged to fail.
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
"In the case of the Mesopotamian Tammuz (Sumerian Dumuzi), his alleged
resurrection by the goddess Inanna-Ishtar had been assumed even though
the end of both the Sumerian and the Akkadian texts of the myth of "The
Descent of Inanna (Ishtar)" had not been preserved. Professor S. N.
Kramer in 1960 published a new poem, "The Death of Dumuzi," that proves
conclusively that instead of rescuing Dumuzi from the Underworld,
Inanna sent him there as her substitute (cf. my article, "Tammuz and
the Bible," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXIV [1965], 283-90). A
line in a fragmentary and obscure text is the only positive evidence
that after being sent to the Underworld Dumuzi may have had his sister
take his place for half the year (cf. S. N. Kramer, Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 183 [1966], 31)."
("Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?", Edwin M. Yamauchi)
> It would not take a follower of Tammuz very long to recognise this
> myth hidden in the Hebrew Bible and neither would it have taken any
> Jew initiation into the Mysteries of Attis could long to recognise
> it.
>
> That where Christianity came form.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
"Tammuz/Dumuzi (p. 525f). The death of Tammuz is fairly widely
attested--his rebirth is not. "The ritual evidence is unambiguously
negative...In all of these varied reports, the character of the ritual
is the same. It is a relentlessly funereal cult...There is no evidence
for any cultic celebration of a rebirth of Tammuz apart from late
Christian texts where he is identified with Adonis...Even more
detrimental to the dying and rising hypothesis, the actions performed
on Tammuz in these three strophes are elements from the funeral
ritual...."
("Dying and Rising Gods", by J. Smith)
> The Story of Attis is almost indistinguishable from that of Adonis
> and the cult brought to Roman in 204BC to fulfil a prophesy and
> defeat Hannibal.
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
"Tammuz was identified by later writers with the Phoenician Adonis,
the beautiful youth beloved of Aphrodite. According to Jerome, Hadrian
desecrated the cave in Bethlehem associated with Jesus' birth by
consecrating it with a shrine of Tammuz-Adonis. Although his cult
spread from Byblos to the GrecoRoman world, the worship of Adonis was
never important and was restricted to women. P. Lambrechts has shown
that there is no trace of a resurrection in the early texts or
pictorial representations of Adonis; the four texts that speak of his
resurrection are quite late, dating from the second to the fourth
centuries A.D. ("La 'resurrection' d'Adonis," in Melanges Isidore Levy,
1955, pp. 207-40)."
("Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?", Edwin M. Yamauchi)
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
"Adonis (p.522). "There is no suggestion of Adonis rising (in either
the Panyasisian form or the Ovidian form of the myth)"..... "Only late
texts, largely influenced by or written by Christians, claim that there
is a subsequent day of celebration for Adonis having been raised from
the dead." (op.cit.)."
> Attis castrated himself under a Pine Tree and then died. The
> worshipers attach an effigy to the Tree and then engaged in ritual
> castration and mutilation or their arms and bodies to draw blood.
> Then the effigy was buried and on the next day the Tomb was unseal
> and Attis was found resurrected. (viz. Sir James Frazer - The Golden
> Bough)
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
"The theory that there was a widespread worship of a dying and rising
fertility god-Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Adonis in Syria, Attis in Asia
Minor, and Osiris in Egypt-was propounded by Sir James Frazer, who
gathered a mass of parallels in part IV of his monumental work The
Golden Bough ( 1906, reprinted in 1961). This view has been adopted by
many who little realize its fragile foundations. The explanation of
the Christian Resurrection by such a comparative-religions approach
has even been reflected in official Soviet propaganda (cf. Paul de
Surgy, editor, The Resurrection and Modern Biblical Thought, 1966,
pp. 1, 131)."
("Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?", Edwin M. Yamauchi)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
"According to the story, the mother had six normal children before the
7th and 8th 'special' kids--a rather clear indication that the mom was
not a virgin when she conceived Krishna."
> King Kansa sought the life of the Indian Christ by ordering the
> massacre of all male children born during the same night at He.
>
> Krishna traveled widely, performing miracles -- raising the dead,
> healing lepers, the deaf and the blind.
>
> The crucified Krishna is pictured on the cross with arms extended.
> Pierced by an arrow while hanging on the cross, Krishna died, but
> descended into Hell from which He rose again on the third day and
> ascended into Heaven. (The Gospel of Nicodemus tell of Jesus'
> descent into Hell.) He will return on the last day to judge the
> quick and the dead.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
"The basic sources of Krishna's mythology are the epic Mahabharata and
its 5th-century-ad appendix, the Harivamsa, and the Puranas,
particularly Books 10 and 11 of the Bhagavata-Purana."
"The poem (Mahabharata) reached its present form about AD 400."
"Puranas are connected in subject with the Mahabharata ("Great Epic of
the Bharata Dynasty") and have some relationship to the lawbooks
(Dharma-sastras). Around this central core has amalgamated much other
material of religious concern during the period c. AD 400 to c. 1000"
"Scholars are in general agreement that the Bhagavata-Purana was
probably composed about the 10th century (AD)".
Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000
"The Mahabharata was composed beginning about 400 BC and received
numerous additions until about AD 400."
"Scholars, however, regard the Puranas as having been compiled by many
hands between the 4th and the 16th centuries AD."
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
"Ananda K. Coomaraswamy and Sister Nivedita in Myths of the Hindus and
Buddhists (Dover: 1967, repub. of 1913), pp.217ff, point out that the
childhood legends of Krisha did not begin surfacing until AFTER the
Gita of 200-300 a.d., with most of the child-lore originating closer to
1000 a.d. and later (in the bhakti developments)."
"Much of the material about him (Krishna) is LATER THAN the NT(!)--for
example, the beautiful work the Bhagavadgita, in which he is the main
speaker, is dated to be a 2nd century a.d. insertion into the older
epic the Mahabharata [WR:Eliade:133; WR:SW:91f; WR:RT:105f]."
"... to argue that since Jesus did miracles and so did the earlier
figure of Krishna, the Jesus 'legend' must have borrowed from the
Krishna 'legend' is simply fallacious. ..."
> Krishna is the second person of the Hindu trinity.
>
> =======================================
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
"This is a grossly naïve understanding of the Hindu pantheon! The Hindu
pantheon--to the extent it can be called a panTHEOn at all--differs
from the Christian trinity substantially. The biggest problem with the
assertion, however, is that it is simply wrong! Although the Hindu
pantheon has changed considerably over over time, Krsna has NEVER been
the 'second person of a 3-in-1'. ..."
What law? Describe it.
> Called "KRST," the "Anointed One."
>
> Born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave / manger,
> with his birth announced by a star and attended by three wise men.
Can you provide specific references and sources of information for
the above? Can you prove that the story that contains the above
information has existed unchanged for at least the past two thousand
years?
> Earthly father named "Seb" (translates to "Joseph.")
According to "Egyptian Mythology," in Microsoft Encarta, Osiris's
father's name was "Geb". What does this translate to?
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "Geb, also called Keb,
in ancient Egyptian religion, the god of the earth, the physical
support of the world. Geb constituted, along with Nut, his sister,
the second generation in the Ennead (group of nine gods) of
Heliopolis. In Egyptian art Geb was often depicted lying by the
feet of Shu, the air god, with Nut, the goddess of the sky, arched
above them. Geb was usually portrayed as a man without any
distinguishing characteristics, but at times he was represented with
his head surmounted by a goose, the hieroglyph of his name. He
was the third divine ruler among the gods; the human pharaohs
claimed to be descended from him, and the royal throne was referred
to as "the throne of Geb.""
This above description certainly is completely different than the
"Joseph" in the Bible.
> At age 12 he was a child teacher in the Temple and at 30 he was
> baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.
http://www.mustardseed.net/html/topaganism.html
"Some writers go even further and refer to the alleged "resurrection"
of Osiris. One liberal scholar illustrates how biased some writers are
when they describe the pagan myth in Christian language: "The dead body
of Osiris floated in the Nile and he returned to life, this being
accomplished by a baptism in the waters of the Nile.[3]"
"This biased and sloppy use of language suggests three misleading
analogies between Osiris and Christ: (1) a savior god dies and (2) then
experiences a resurrection accompanied by (3) water baptism. But the
alleged similarities, as well as the language used to describe them,
turn out to be fabrications of the modern scholar and are not part of
the original myth. Comparisons between the resurrection of Jesus and
the resuscitation of Osiris are greatly exaggerated.[4] Not every
version of the myth has Osiris returning to life; in some he simply
becomes king of the underworld. Equally far-fetched are attempts to
find an analogue of Christian baptism in the Osiris myth.[5] The fate
of Osiris's coffin in the Nile is as relevant to baptism as the sinking
of Atlantis."
(Was the New Testament Influenced by Pagan Philosophy?, by Ronald Nash)
> Baptized in the river Iarutana -- the river Jordan -- by "Anup the
> Baptizer," who was beheaded. (Anup translates to John.) [note by
> Aggie-tom: Annas was the name one of trhe High Priests at the time
> of John - Ioannos - son of Annas ie Anup, Caiaphas being the other
> High Priest. Both names look Egyptian.]
Provide your documentation and references for the names "Iarutana"
and "Anup the Baptizer".
> Traveled widely, taught men and "tamed them by music and gentleness,
> not by force of arms" [Plutarch]
>
> Performed miracles, exorcised demons, raised El-Osiris from the dead.
>
> Walked on water.
Again, provide specific references and sources of information for
the above. Also, can you prove the stories that contain the above
information has existed unchanged for at leat the past two thousand
years?
> Betrayed by Typhon, crucified between two thieves on the 17th day of
> the month of Athyr. Buried in a tomb from which he arose on the
> third day (19th Athyr) and was resurrected.
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
"But it is a cardinal misconception to equate the Egyptian view of the
afterlife with the "resurrection" of Hebrew-Christian traditions. In
order to achieve immortality the Egyptian had to fulfill three
conditions: (1) His body had to be preserved, hence mummification. (2)
Nourishment had to be provided either by the actual offering of daily
bread and beer, or by the magical depiction of food on the walls of the
tomb. (3) Magical spells had to be interred with the dead-Pyramid Texts
in the Old Kingdom, Coffin Texts in the Middle Kingdom, and the Book of
the Dead in the New Kingdom. Moreover, the Egyptian did not rise from
the dead; separate entities of his personality such as his Ba and his
Ka continued to hover about his body."
"Nor is Osiris, who is always portrayed in a mummified form, an
inspiration for the resurrected Christ. As Roland de Vaux has observed:
"What is meant of Osiris being "raised to life"? Simply that, thanks to
the ministrations of Isis, he is able to lead a life beyond the tomb
which is an almost perfect replica of earthly existence. But he will
never again come among the living and will reign only over the
dead....This revived god is in reality a "mummy" god [The Bible and the
Ancient Near East, 1971, p. 236]."
(Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?, Edwin M. Yamauchi)
> His suffering, death, and resurrection celebrated each year by His
> disciples on the Vernal Equinox -- Easter.
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
"The Egyptians, as noted in our discussion of Osiris above, did have
a more optimistic view of their afterlife. But to call the survival of
the Ba and Ka, hovering over the mummified body, a "resurrection" is to
obscure the essential differences in concepts."
(Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?, Edwin M. Yamauchi)
> Called "The Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "god's Anointed
> Son,' the "Son of Man," the "Word made Flesh," the "word of truth."
>
> Expected to reign a thousand years.
>
> =======================================
Again, provide documentation and the complete story that contains
the above claims. Can you prove that the story that contains the
above information has existed unchanged for at least the past two
thousand years?
What does that prove apart from that the myth of Tammuz would now concur
100% with that of Adonis who also spends half the year in the underworld and
the other half on earth.
In any care the most obvious text for the ending of this myth is in the
Bible itself.
Isaiah 14: The decent of Ishtar.
ORIGIANL MAIN NARRATIVE of Ishtar myth
9 o adhv katwyen epikranyh sunanthsav soi sunhgeryhsan soi pantev oi
gigantev oi arxantev thv ghv oi egeirantev ek twn yronwn autwn pantav
basileiv eynwn
Hades from beneath is provoked to meat you, and for you have come all the
Giants and Archons of the earth, the founders of the thrones of the kings of
nations
ORIGIANL MAIN NARRATIVE...
10 pantev apokriyhsontai kai erousin soi kai su ealwv wsper kai hmeiv en
hmin de katelogisyhv
they all come out and say to you, you have been taken, even as we, for we
are (now) reckoned
ORIGIANL MAIN NARRATIVE...
11 katebh de eiv adou h doxa sou h pollh sou eufrosunh upokatw sou
strwsousin shqin kai to katakalumma sou skwlhx
coming down to Hades, is your glory, your great fertility, underneath you
spreads out decay and you are flooded with worms.
CORRUPTED NARRATIVE...
{12 pwv exepesen ek tou ouranou o ewsforov o prwi anatellwn sunetribh eiv
thn ghn o apostellwn prov panta ta eynh
how did it fall from Uranus [how did (your story) unfold form Uranus], the
dawn-bringer, the morning riser, procreating on the earth (is) the one who
goes to all nations.
CORRUPTED NARRATIVE...
13 su de eipav en th dianoia sou eiv ton ouranon anabhsomai epanw twn
astrwn tou ouranou yhsw ton yronon mou kayiw en orei uqhlw epi ta orh ta
uqhla ta prov borran
for you said in your heart, to Uranus I ascend, above the star of Uranus I
set my throne, to sit on a high mountain among the highest mountains to the
north
CORRUPTED NARRATIVE...
14 anabhsomai epanw twn nefelwn esomai omoiov tw uqistw
I rise up above the clouds: I live like the Most High.
REPEATED MAIN NARRATIVE...
15 nun de eiv adou katabhsh kai eiv ta yemelia thv ghv
now but to Hades you go down and to the foundations of earth
ORIGIANL MAIN NARRATIVE...
16 oi idontev se yaumasousin epi soi kai erousin outov o anyrwpov o
paroxunwn thn ghn seiwn basileiv
the witnesses there wonder at you and say this one is the motivation of
earth, mover of kings
ORIGIANL MAIN NARRATIVE...
17 o yeiv thn oikoumenhn olhn erhmon kai tav poleiv kayeilen touv en
epagwgh ouk elusen
the maker [goddess] of everything all desolate, who cleaned out its cities
and doesn’t come to free anyone
BROKEN MAIN NARRATIVE...
18 pantev oi basileiv twn eynwn ekoimhyhsan en timh anyrwpov en tw oikw
autou
so always the kings of nations will sleep in glory, every man in his own
house
BROKEN MAIN NARRATIVE...
19 su de rifhsh en toiv oresin wv nekrov ebdelugmenov meta pollwn
teynhkotwn ekkekenthmenwn macairaiv katabainontwn eiv adou on tropon imation
en aimati pefurmenon ouk estai kayaron
but you suck of the desire of death, enveloped with many craftsmen and
skilful swordsmen that go down to Hades, who’s manner of garment is immersed
in blood that is not clean
BROKEN MAIN NARRATIVE...
20 outwv oude su esh kayarov dioti thn ghn mou apwlesav kai ton laon mou
apekteinav ou mh meinhv eiv ton aiwna cronon sperma ponhron
neither him nor yourself are clean, because my earth is bereaved and my
people slain, so don’t stay forever perspicacious [scheming] seed
ORIGINAL RESURRECTION NARRATIVE...
21 etoimason ta tekna sou sfaghnai taiv amartiaiv tou patrov sou ina mh
anastwsin kai thn ghn klhronomhswsin kai emplhswsi thn ghn polewn
make ready your children, blot out the sins of your fathers, that they shall
not re-appear, and inherit the earth and fill it up with cities
CORRUPTED RESURRECTION NARRATIVE...
22 kai epanasthsomai autoiv legei kuriov sabawy kai apolw autwn onoma kai
kataleimma kai sperma tade legei kuriov
I will raise them up says Jehovah Saboath and release their names and
essence and seed: so saith Jehovah
OUT OF SEQUENCE NARRATIVE...
23 kai yhsw thn babulwnian erhmon wste katoikein ecinouv kai estai eiv
ouden kai yhsw authn phlou barayron eiv apwleian
and I (will) make Babylon a desert, so that all that come there come to
nothing, and make it a chasm in the sand to finish it.
OUT OF SEQUENCE PARTIAL NARRATIVE...
31 ololuzete pulai polewn kekragetwsan poleiv tetaragmenai oi allofuloi
pantev oti kapnov apo borra ercetai kai ouk estin tou einai
holler gates of cities, crying are the cities walled-in, the Philistines
as-well, since smoke form the north comes and nothing is to be of it.
CORRUPTED RESURRECTION NARRATIVE...
32 kai ti apokriyhsontai basileiv eynwn oti kuriov eyemeliwsen siwn kai di
autou swyhsontai oi tapeinoi tou laou
and what answer the kings of nations, that Jehovah founded Sion and it by
him shall save the humblest of people.
SUMMERY combining Babylonian sources
Ishtar descends into the underworld to rescue Tammuz. While she is there the
corps fail the cities become desolate, the gates rattle and all procreation
ends so she is implored to come back. When she returns the world shakes of
its past sins to honour her and the process of life begins again. Tammuz is
helped to escape the Underworld by the other Gods, and the ensuing battle
incurs much bloodshed that Ishtar ends up covered and wading in blood form
head to toe, and this is why she is represented this way in her Temples.
The initiates of Attis, equivalent to Adonis, were Men.
> that there is no trace of a resurrection in the early texts or
> pictorial representations of Adonis; the four texts that speak of his
> resurrection are quite late, dating from the second to the fourth
> centuries A.D. ("La 'resurrection' d'Adonis," in Melanges Isidore Levy,
> 1955, pp. 207-40)."
> ("Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?", Edwin M. Yamauchi)
>
> http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
> "Adonis (p.522). "There is no suggestion of Adonis rising (in either
> the Panyasisian form or the Ovidian form of the myth)"..... "Only late
> texts, largely influenced by or written by Christians, claim that there
> is a subsequent day of celebration for Adonis having been raised from
> the dead." (op.cit.)."
Since all of the early texts were destroyed by the Christians the form the
worship of Attis/Adonis took has to be reconstructed from the little thats
left.
>
> > Attis castrated himself under a Pine Tree and then died. The
> > worshipers attach an effigy to the Tree and then engaged in ritual
> > castration and mutilation or their arms and bodies to draw blood.
> > Then the effigy was buried and on the next day the Tomb was unseal
> > and Attis was found resurrected. (viz. Sir James Frazer - The Golden
> > Bough)
>
> http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
> "The theory that there was a widespread worship of a dying and rising
> fertility god-Tammuz in Mesopotamia, Adonis in Syria, Attis in Asia
> Minor, and Osiris in Egypt-was propounded by Sir James Frazer, who
> gathered a mass of parallels in part IV of his monumental work The
> Golden Bough ( 1906, reprinted in 1961). This view has been adopted by
reprinted in 1994, 2000 also
> many who little realize its fragile foundations. The explanation of
> the Christian Resurrection by such a comparative-religions approach
> has even been reflected in official Soviet propaganda (cf. Paul de
> Surgy, editor, The Resurrection and Modern Biblical Thought, 1966,
> pp. 1, 131)."
> ("Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?", Edwin M. Yamauchi)
Oh so the Christians were the first to invent resurrection were they.
LOL....
The religion of Osiris follows the same pattern as all of the above. The
Christians just borrowed it.
Lets add to these the story of Herakles, half man half god 1500 years before
Christ. Pelops killed and chopped up by his father and resurrected by the
Gods, 1700 years before Christ. The story of Persephone who spends half the
year with Pluto/Hades and half with Demeter, which is based on that of
Ishtar/Inanna 3000 years before Christ.
Theres you Christianity. Or rather the source of Messianic Judaism.
OK heres the Myth of Oraris based on Plutarch, who it is generally agreed
based his treatise De Iside on earlier Pyramid Texts. The resurrection story
is based on native Egyptian accounts.
Like Tammuz Osiris was originality an agricultural deity who dies with the
vegetation and rises with its rebirth. He also presides over the judgement
of the dead like Christ.
Osiris was the son of Seb (Geb or Keb; Sir James Frazer) the Earth God an
the Sky Goddess Nut identified by the Greeks with Chronos and Rea.
(According to Eastmans bible Dictionary Joseph means "Remover or increaser",
and taking into account the story of Joseph in the OT who was put in charge
of Pharaohs Grain silos, this would indicate an association with Ged the
fertilising Earth God who Joseph would have been a priest of.)
When the Sun God Ra discovered Nut's infidelity he pronounced a curse that
Nut would be delivered of the child in No Month and No Year. Fortunately
Nut's other lover Thoth (Hermes) had won from the moon goddess 5 extra day
that were added to the end Egyptian year of 300 days but regarded outside of
it. Osiris was born in the first of these. At his nativity a voice cried out
proclaiming that the Lord of All had come into the world.
On the 2nd day was born Horus the elder then the next day saw the conductive
births of Set, Isis and Nephthys.
Osiris married his sister Isis, and Set married Nephthys.
Reigning on the earth Osiris led the people of Egypt out of savagery and
give them laws and taught them worship of the Gods and also gave them
agriculture. Osiris wanting to communicated these and other benefits across
the world left Isis to rule Egypt and travelled the world.
Thence originates the passage form Isaiah 14 which reads:
Isaiah 14:12 pwv exepesen ek tou ouranou o ewsforos o prwi anatellwn
sunetribh eis thn ghn o apostellwn prosv panta ta eynh - how did (your
story) unfold form Uranus, the dawn-bringer, the morning riser, procreating
on the earth (is) the one who goes to all nations.
In the 28th year of his reign, Osiris was slain at a feast by his brother
Set in collusion with 72 other after being induced to be shut up in a chest
made to his length to try it for size, and which was then thrown into the
Nile. The chest floated down the Nile entered the Mediterranean and reach
Byblos where it was foin by Isis. A sycamore tree had now grown around the
chest of Osiris called the "drowned one" in the Pyramid Texts but before
Isis could obtain it from the King of Byblos, Set had got there first and
cut up the body into pieces and scattered them across Egypt. Isis then
recovered the pieces apart from the Phallus which had be consumed by a Fish,
put them together and assisted by her sister Nephthys and others restored
Osiris to life by performing the rituals of Egyptian mumification. Osiris
then became King of the region of departed spirits in the west and was know
as Unnefer or the Good Being.
In the myth of Osisrs the Egyptians believed in life everlasting beyond the
Grave.
You can get more infomation from Frazers "the Golden Bough" and S H Hooke's
"Middle Eastern Mythology"
More Reading at:
Plutarch (46 A.D. - c.125 A.D.) describes the myth of Isis and Osiris
in his treatise "On Isis and Osiris". Apuleius (124 A.D. - c.170 A.D.)
wrote about the ceremony of initiation into the mysteries of Isis.
A lot of our current understanding of Egyptian mythology comes from
Plutarch and Apuleius, who wrote *after* Christ was on earth, and
*after* the New Testament was written.
Plutarch and Apuleius did not understand the nature of, and were
unable to interpret Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. They did not
obtain guidance on interpreting hieroglyphics from their Egyptian
contemporaries.
> OK heres the Myth of Oraris based on Plutarch, who it is generally
> agreed based his treatise De Iside on earlier Pyramid Texts. The
> resurrection story is based on native Egyptian accounts.
The pyramid texts were "discovered" after the New Testament was
written. Plutarch (46 AD - c. 125 AD) described the myth of Isis and
Osiris, *after* the New Testament was written, in his treatise "De
Iside et Osiride" (On Isis and Osiris). Plutarch did not understand
Egyptian hieroglyphics, and did not obtain guidance from his Egyptian
contemporaries.
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/5/0,5716,41255+1+40385,00.htm
l?query=hieroglyphics
"It is arguable whether the ancient Greeks or Romans understood
hieroglyphics. The Greeks almost certainly did not, since, from their
viewpoint, hieroglyphics were not phonetic signs but symbols of a more
abstruse and allegorical nature. The humanist revival of the European
Middle Ages, although it produced a set of Italian-designed
hieroglyphics, gave no further insight into the original Egyptian
ones."
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,119412+18+110477,00.
html
"With the possible exception of Pythagoras, no Greek understood the
nature of hieroglyphic writing. The Greeks did not obtain guidance from
their Egyptian contemporaries, some of whom even lived on Italian soil
and wrote proper hieroglyphic inscriptions on Roman obelisks. Rather,
the Greek tradition taught that hieroglyphs were symbolic signs or
allegories. The Egyptian-born Greek philosopher Plotinus interpreted
hieroglyphic writing entirely from the viewpoint of his esoteric
philosophy. Only one of the numerous works on the hieroglyphic script
written in late antiquity has been preserved: the Hieroglyphica of
Horapollon, a Greek Egyptian who probably lived in the 5th century AD.
Horapollon made use of a good source, but he himself certainly could
not read hieroglyphic writing and began with the false hypothesis of
the Greek tradition, namely, that hieroglyphs were symbols and
allegories, not phonetic signs."
> Reigning on the earth Osiris led the people of Egypt out of savagery
> and give them laws and taught them worship of the Gods and also gave
> them agriculture. Osiris wanting to communicated these and other
> benefits across the world left Isis to rule Egypt and travelled
> the world.
>
> Thence originates the passage form Isaiah 14 which reads:
>
> Isaiah 14:12 pwv exepesen ek tou ouranou o ewsforos o prwi anatellwn
> sunetribh eis thn ghn o apostellwn prosv panta ta eynh - how did
> (your story) unfold form Uranus, the dawn-bringer, the morning riser,
> procreating on the earth (is) the one who goes to all nations.
The Young's Literal Translation (YLT) for Isaiah 14:12 states:
"How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn!
Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations."
The YLT translation (and other English translations derived from the
Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint) are very different than
your English translation.
I am unaware of any evidence that the Old & New Testament authors
"borrowed" ideas from the myth of Osiris. An argument may be made that
Plutarch borrowed ideas from Christian teaching.
How can Osiris's resurrection be celebrated if pieces of his body
are still buried all over Egypt?
The story of Osiris is that Seth buried 14 pieces of his body in 14
different parts of Egypt. Isis set out on her travels to recover her
husband's body and she found all of the 14 pieces of her husband's
body. Whenever she found a piece, she reburied it properly there.
This means that there are lots of places in Egypt where Osiris was
buried.
Parts of his body were treasured as holy relics in the various
sanctuaries and shrines built at these locations.
According to Alexander Hislop, in his book "The Two Babylons",
" ... this is nothing more than Egypt could do in regard to the
relics of Osiris. Egypt was covered with sepulchres of its martyred
god; and many a leg and arm and skull, all vouched to be genuine,
were exhibited in the rival burying-places for the adoration of
the Egyptian faithful." (Chapter V, Section II, Relic Worship)
My research indicates that some of the places, where parts of
Osiris's body are still buried, appear to be:
1. Philae, an island in the Nile River in southern Egypt.
2. Abydos, a prominent sacred city, located in the low desert west
of the Nile near al-Balyana.
3. Sais, an ancient Egyptian city (Sai) in the Nile Delta on the
Canopic (Rosetta) Branch of the Nile River.
4. Giza, deep underneath one of the Giza pyramids.
The people of Egypt participated in a national pilgrimage to the
sepulchre of Osiris at Philae, which was revered by all the priests
throughout Egypt. A tomb of Osiris was visited at the Abydos temple;
pilgrims from all over Egypt came to Osiris' festival there. Osiris's
sepulchre at Sais was also respected. On February 17, 2000, the BBC
reported that the tomb of Osiris was found buried deep underneath one
of the Giza pyramids.
So, quite clearly, unlike Christ, Osiris was not resurrected and did
not rise from the dead.
Simple those are effigies.
>
> The story of Osiris is that Seth buried 14 pieces of his body in 14
> different parts of Egypt. Isis set out on her travels to recover her
> husband's body and she found all of the 14 pieces of her husband's
> body. Whenever she found a piece, she reburied it properly there.
> This means that there are lots of places in Egypt where Osiris was
> buried.
>
> Parts of his body were treasured as holy relics in the various
> sanctuaries and shrines built at these locations.
Nope.... After Isis found the pieces she made copies and got the priests to
promise not to reveal what she buried. (See Robert Frazer).
After she collected all of Osirs bits minus the phallus which was eaten by a
fish, so she made a copy of that to bolt on, she put them together wrapped
the in bandages, (i.e. the swaddling cloths of Jesus) and pronounced the
ritual of rebirth. So Osirs came back to life long before any Christian
Christ.
> "dpwozney" <dpwo...@ocii.com> wrote in message
> news:902e6s$cml$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <8v5g5v$pei$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
> > "Aggie-Tom" <cyprusandhe...@i.am-SPAM-TRAP> wrote:
> > > PAGAN CHRISTS
> > >
> > > At the time of Jesus of Nazareth, as for centuries before, the
> > > Mediterranean world roiled with a happy diversity of creeds and
> > > rituals. Details varied according to location and culture, but
> > > the general outlines of these faiths were astonishingly similar.
> > > Roughly speaking the ancients' gods:
> > ...
> > > Rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to
> > > the Heavenly world.
> > ...
> > > OSIRIS
> > ...
> > > Buried in a tomb from which he arose on the third day (19th Athyr)
> > > and was resurrected.
> > >
> > > His suffering, death, and resurrection celebrated each year by His
> > > disciples on the Vernal Equinox -- Easter.
> >
> > How can Osiris's resurrection be celebrated if pieces of his body
> > are still buried all over Egypt?
>
> Simple those are effigies.
What is the reason behind your thinking they are effigies? Is it simple
conjecture, or do you have something to back up your claim?
> > The story of Osiris is that Seth buried 14 pieces of his body in 14
> > different parts of Egypt. Isis set out on her travels to recover her
> > husband's body and she found all of the 14 pieces of her husband's
> > body. Whenever she found a piece, she reburied it properly there.
> > This means that there are lots of places in Egypt where Osiris was
> > buried.
> >
> > Parts of his body were treasured as holy relics in the various
> > sanctuaries and shrines built at these locations.
>
> Nope.... After Isis found the pieces she made copies and got the priests to
> promise not to reveal what she buried. (See Robert Frazer).
One redaction of a myth cannot and should not be used to interpret the myth in
its entirety. Or so they teach us in school.
John
--
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become
a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"Wherefore to this day each of the priests imagines that Osiris is
buried in his country, and they honour the beasts that were consecrated
in the beginning, and when the animals die the priests renew at their
burial the mourning for Osiris."
...
"Such is the myth or legend of Osiris, as told by Greek writers and
eked out by more or less fragmentary notices or allusions in native
Egyptian literature. A long inscription in the temple at Denderah
has preserved a list of the god’s graves, and other texts mention the
parts of his body which were treasured as holy relics in each of the
sanctuaries. Thus his heart was at Athribis, his backbone at Busiris,
his neck at Letopolis, and his head at Memphis." (Sir James George
Frazer, The Golden Bough (1922))
> After she collected all of Osirs bits minus the phallus which was
> eaten by a fish, so she made a copy of that to bolt on, she put
> them together wrapped the in bandages, (i.e. the swaddling cloths
> of Jesus) and pronounced the ritual of rebirth. So Osirs came back
> to life long before any Christian Christ.
The stories of the rebirth of Osiris, and of his coming back to life,
and of his astral transfiguration into a star being, as described in
the pyramid and funerary texts, appear to be inconsistent with the
historical understanding that the Egyptian priests mourned over the
holy relics of Osiris's body parts in each of the sanctuaries
in diverse locations throughout Egypt.
These pyramid and funerary texts, that describe such stories, were
"discovered" long after Christ's resurrection.
According to Diodorus Siculus, quoted by Frazer, the priests of the
time of Isis, that Isis talked to directly, believed falsely they had
been entrusted with the entire body of Osiris to bury. Instead they
received one genuine part and the rest of it was "human images out of
waxes and spices". The reason, why Isis required the priests to
promise not to reveal to anyone what they had been entrusted with,
is that she did not want them figuring out that they had each
received just only one genuine part.
Frazer quotes Diodorus Siculus: " 'She moulded human images out of
wax and spices, corresponding to the stature of Osiris, round each
one of the parts of his body. Then she called in the priests according
to their families and took an oath of them all that they would reveal
to no man the trust she was about to repose in them. So to each of
them privately she said that to them alone she entrusted the burial
of the body, and reminding them of the benefits they had received
she exhorted them to bury the body in their own land and to honour
Osiris as a god.' "
> "Wherefore to this day each of the priests imagines that Osiris is
> buried in his country, and they honour the beasts that were
> consecrated in the beginning, and when the animals die the priests
> renew at their burial the mourning for Osiris."
Just to clarify this above quote, this is Frazer again quoting the
Greek historian Diodorus Siculus, who travelled in Egypt during
60-57 BC.
This is consistent with Alexander Hislop in "The Two Babylons":
" ... this is nothing more than Egypt could do in regard to the relics
of Osiris. Egypt was covered with sepulchres of its martyred god; and
many a leg and arm and skull, all vouched to be genuine, were exhibited
in the rival burying-places for the adoration of the Egyptian
faithful." (Chapter V, Section II, Relic Worship)
The point that these quotes make is that the priests and the people
of Egypt at the time of Diodorus Siculus, and before, really believed
that parts of the body of Osiris were buried in diverse locations
throughout Egypt. Therefore, they could not, and did not, believe
that Osiris was resurrected. The idea of the resurrection of
Osiris and other supernatural elements of the story were introduced
by Plutarch, writing after the time of Christ.
[Must have got confused with Graves.]
".... But others would have it that she buried an image of him in every
city, pretending that it was his body, in order that Orisris might be
worship in many places and if Typhone searched for the real grave he might
not be able to find it. "
>
> "Wherefore to this day each of the priests imagines that Osiris is
> buried in his country, and they honour the beasts that were consecrated
> in the beginning, and when the animals die the priests renew at their
> burial the mourning for Osiris."
> ...
> "Such is the myth or legend of Osiris, as told by Greek writers and
> eked out by more or less fragmentary notices or allusions in native
> Egyptian literature. A long inscription in the temple at Denderah
> has preserved a list of the god’s graves, and other texts mention the
> parts of his body which were treasured as holy relics in each of the
> sanctuaries. Thus his heart was at Athribis, his backbone at Busiris,
> his neck at Letopolis, and his head at Memphis." (Sir James George
> Frazer, The Golden Bough (1922))
"According to native Egyptian accounts, which supplement that of Plutarch,
when Isis found the corps of her husband Osiris, she and her sister Nephthys
sat down beside it an uttered a lament which in after ages became typical of
all Egyptian lamentations for the dead......
.....The lamentations of the two sad sisters were not in vain. In pity for
her sorrow sun-god Ra sent down from heaven the jackal headed god Anubis,
who with the aid of Isis and Nephthys, of Thoth and Horus, pieced together
the broken body of the murdered god and swathed it in linen bandages, and
observed all the other rites which the Egyptians were wan to perform over
the bodies of the departed. Then Isis fanned the cold clay with her wings:
Osiris revived, and henceforth reigned as king over the dead in the other
world...."
(Sir James Frazer - The Golden Bough (1922))
>
> > After she collected all of Osirs bits minus the phallus which was
> > eaten by a fish, so she made a copy of that to bolt on, she put
> > them together wrapped the in bandages, (i.e. the swaddling cloths
> > of Jesus) and pronounced the ritual of rebirth. So Osirs came back
> > to life long before any Christian Christ.
>
> The stories of the rebirth of Osiris, and of his coming back to life,
> and of his astral transfiguration into a star being, as described in
> the pyramid and funerary texts, appear to be inconsistent with the
> historical understanding that the Egyptian priests mourned over the
> holy relics of Osiris's body parts in each of the sanctuaries
> in diverse locations throughout Egypt.
>
So are you saying that the Egyptian priests alleged historical relics
predate the 2000 year old Pyramid texts ?
> These pyramid and funerary texts, that describe such stories, were
> "discovered" long after Christ's resurrection.
If they were written down in the Pyramids then they would have been known to
most contemporary Egyptians who sill believed in resurrection and the after
life else they would have not practiced the rituals. The Christians
obviously censored the accounts that came down to us.
Anyway I've been reading more of Frazer and found something very familiar in
the festival of Osiris.
"On the nineteenth day of the month the people went down to the sea, the
priests carrying a shrine which contained a golden casket. Into this casket
they poured fresh water, and thereupon the spectators raised a shout that
Osiris was found"
Sounds very similar to the Orthodox celebrations of Easter where a shrine is
carried around the village and then a shout of Xristos Anesti is raised.
Infact Frazer says that the Eastern Orthodox Easter was based on the rights
of Adonis, whereas as the Roman Easter on those of Attis. As for Christmas
that was based on the Egyptian/Syrian celebration of the Nativity of the Sun
at the winter solstice on 25 December when they retire into certain shrines
and at midnight cried out "The Virgin (considered to be Astarte) has brought
forth! The light is waxing! The Egyptians even depicted the Sun as a newly
born baby who they brought forth and exhibited to his worshipers. Christians
didnt Celebrate this festival until the 4th century.
>
> The point that these quotes make is that the priests and the people
> of Egypt at the time of Diodorus Siculus, and before, really believed
> that parts of the body of Osiris were buried in diverse locations
> throughout Egypt. Therefore, they could not, and did not, believe
> that Osiris was resurrected. The idea of the resurrection of
> Osiris and other supernatural elements of the story were introduced
> by Plutarch, writing after the time of Christ.
>
The Scrolls of the Dead say he was resurrected, the Pyramid Texts say he was
resurrected. What do you think happened Plutrach broke into a 2000 year old
Pyramids and added a few notes.
What was the when point of Mummification if the Egyptians didnt believe in
resurrection.
What give the Christens the monopoly on something they pinched along with
Christmas and Easter.
How do you know that the resurrection of Christ wasn't developed until the
4th century at the time as Christmas and Easter.
I agree with you in general -- but it may be worth mentioning that the
Egyptians apparently believed a person to comprise seven (?) "parts of the
soul" of which the physical body was only one element, and that the
"resurrection" attained after passage through the Tuat was not the same as
the "resurrection in the body" espoused by Christianity. The "coming forth by
day" was IIRC an activity of the _ka_ or "double"; while the preservation of
the physical body as a mummy was considered important to maintain the
integrity of the Osiris or "justified" person, the apocalyptic "Judgement
Day" scene of corpses arising from their graves was not part of the picture.
__________
--Odysseus
This is a quote by Frazer writing in 1922, and he could be referring
to others after the time of Plutarch (46 AD - c. 125AD) and after the
time of Apuleius (124 -170 A.D.), who both added and changed elements
to the story of Isis and Osiris.
According to Diodorus Siculus, what was buried in various locations
was mostly an image of out of wax and spices, corresponding to the
stature of Osiris, with one genuine part of his body attached.
> "According to native Egyptian accounts, which supplement that of
> Plutarch, when Isis found the corps of her husband Osiris, she and
> her sister Nephthys sat down beside it an uttered a lament which in
> after ages became typical of all Egyptian lamentations for the
> dead......
>
> .....The lamentations of the two sad sisters were not in vain. In
> pity for her sorrow sun-god Ra sent down from heaven the jackal
> headed god Anubis, who with the aid of Isis and Nephthys, of Thoth
> and Horus, pieced together the broken body of the murdered god and
> swathed it in linen bandages, and observed all the other rites
> which the Egyptians were wan to perform over the bodies of the
> departed. Then Isis fanned the cold clay with her wings:
> Osiris revived, and henceforth reigned as king over the dead in
> the other world...."
>
> (Sir James Frazer - The Golden Bough (1922))
Again, this is a quote by Frazer writing in 1922, and he is referring
to native Egyptian accounts that supplement that of Plutarch, in other
words, native Egyptian accounts *after* the time of Christ.
> > The stories of the rebirth of Osiris, and of his coming back to
> > life, and of his astral transfiguration into a star being, as
> > described in the pyramid and funerary texts, appear to be
> > inconsistent with the historical understanding that the Egyptian
> > priests mourned over the holy relics of Osiris's body parts in
> > each of the sanctuaries in diverse locations throughout Egypt.
>
> So are you saying that the Egyptian priests alleged historical
> relics predate the 2000 year old Pyramid texts ?
How do you know that the pyramid texts (and funerary texts) are 2000
years old? The Egyptian book of the dead was first published by Lepsius
in 1842. Pyramid texts were first discovered by Brugsch in the pyramid
of Pepi I in 1880, with incredible finds soon after in 1881, in the
pyramids of Unas, Pepi II, Neferirkara, and Teti.
The Egyptian pyramid texts, coffin texts, and book of the dead have
aroused much speculation regarding their origin because they emerge,
as a fully-fledged collection of mortuary texts, without any precedent
in the archaeological record. How such esoteric writing remained
undiscovered, and unvandalized, and unstolen, for centuries among
graverobbers and looters so prevalent in Egypt's history, in buildings
which attract attention from miles away on the flat desert sand,
remains a mystery to this writer.
> > These pyramid and funerary texts, that describe such stories, were
> > "discovered" long after Christ's resurrection.
>
> If they were written down in the Pyramids then they would have been
> known to most contemporary Egyptians who sill believed in
> resurrection and the after life else they would have not practiced
> the rituals. The Christians obviously censored the accounts that
> came down to us.
I cannot conceive of a probable mechanism by which such alleged
censorship by Christians would be at all effective.
The possibility exists, however, that the pyramid and funerary texts
were written in the nineteenth century AD, and placed in the various
monuments of Egypt soon thereafter.
> Anyway I've been reading more of Frazer and found something very
> familiar in the festival of Osiris.
>
> "On the nineteenth day of the month the people went down to the sea,
> the priests carrying a shrine which contained a golden casket. Into
> this casket they poured fresh water, and thereupon the spectators
> raised a shout that Osiris was found"
I cannot determine exactly from which writer Frazer is drawing this
information from. If you go on a little further Frazer starts to
refer to Lactantius (b. 240 AD - d. c. 320 AD): "Lactantius tells us
how on these occasions the priests ...".
> Infact Frazer says that the Eastern Orthodox Easter was based on the
> rights of Adonis, whereas as the Roman Easter on those of Attis.
The New Testament authors and the early church did not borrow ideas
from any alleged rites of Adonis or of Attis.
"Lambrechts has shown that there is no trace of a resurrection in the
early texts or pictorial representations of Adonis; the four texts that
speak of his resurrection are quite late, dating from the second to the
fourth centuries A.D." ("La 'resurrection' d'Adonis," in Melanges
Isidore Levy, 1955, pp. 207-40).
"There is no suggestion of Adonis rising (in either the Panyasisian
form or the Ovidian form of the myth)"..... "Only late texts, largely
influenced by or written by Christians, claim that there is a
subsequent day of celebration for Adonis having been raised from the
dead." (The Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 522, "Dying and Rising Gods",
by J. Smith)
"The complex mythology of Attis is largely irrelevant to the quesion
of dying and rising deities. In the old, Phrygian versions, Attis is
killed by being castrated, either by himself or by another; in the old
Lydian version, he is killed by a boar. In neither case is there any
question of his returning to life...Neither myth nor ritual offer any
warrant for classifying Attis as a dying and rising deity." (The
Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 523, "Dying and Rising Gods", by J. Smith)
Also see the section titled "The Cult of Cybele and Attis" at
http://www.mustardseed.net/html/topaganism.html
> As for Christmas that was based on the Egyptian/Syrian celebration
> of the Nativity of the Sun at the winter solstice on 25 December
> when they retire into certain shrines and at midnight cried out
> "The Virgin (considered to be Astarte) has brought forth! The
> light is waxing! The Egyptians even depicted the Sun as a
> newly born baby who they brought forth and exhibited to his
> worshipers. Christians didnt Celebrate this festival until the
> 4th century.
How do you know they were Christians? If they were celebrating some
festival, involving Astarte, obviously they were not Christians.
If they were worshipping the sun, obviously they were not Christians.
Plutarch borrowed elements of Christian teaching and applied them to
modify the story of Isis and Osiris. What I find to be really odd
and mysterious about the pyramid and funerary texts is how eminent
professors in universities and curators of prestigious museums in
Europe, who were very well connected with European royalty, were able
to find these texts in a short time on grandiose "scientific
expeditions", when centuries of multitudes of local people somehow
all failed. Also questionable and curious is why the Egyptian
authorities would allow the Europeans to walk off with these
treasures unrestricted.
> What was the when point of Mummification if the Egyptians didnt
> believe in resurrection.
The purpose of the mummification ritual was to preserve and keep the
corpse as intact as possible. The application of spices and perfumed
ointments was intended to minimize putrefaction. Since only the
wealthy were able to take advantage of mummification, did the Egyptians
believe only the wealthy could be transported to a spiritual afterlife?
> What give the Christens the monopoly on something they pinched along
> with Christmas and Easter.
No group of people, and no human-organized institution, has a monopoly
on granting salvation and eternal life to anyone.
> How do you know that the resurrection of Christ wasn't developed
> until the 4th century at the time as Christmas and Easter.
There is way too much historical fact and evidence that indicate
people believed in the resurrection of Christ before the 4th century.
>
> I cannot conceive of a probable mechanism by which such alleged
> censorship by Christians would be at all effective.
>
> The possibility exists, however, that the pyramid and funerary texts
> were written in the nineteenth century AD, and placed in the various
> monuments of Egypt soon thereafter.
LOL... LOl... LOL...
Now I've heard it all. And they wrote it on 4000 year old papyrus and drew
the frescos on fresh 4000 year old plaster, all with 4000 year old ink and
paint to make the carbon dating fit.
>
> > Anyway I've been reading more of Frazer and found something very
> > familiar in the festival of Osiris.
> >
> > "On the nineteenth day of the month the people went down to the sea,
> > the priests carrying a shrine which contained a golden casket. Into
> > this casket they poured fresh water, and thereupon the spectators
> > raised a shout that Osiris was found"
>
> I cannot determine exactly from which writer Frazer is drawing this
> information from. If you go on a little further Frazer starts to
> refer to Lactantius (b. 240 AD - d. c. 320 AD): "Lactantius tells us
> how on these occasions the priests ...".
>
> > Infact Frazer says that the Eastern Orthodox Easter was based on the
> > rights of Adonis, whereas as the Roman Easter on those of Attis.
>
> The New Testament authors and the early church did not borrow ideas
> from any alleged rites of Adonis or of Attis.
TWADDLE.
> "Lambrechts has shown that there is no trace of a resurrection in the
> early texts or pictorial representations of Adonis; the four texts that
> speak of his resurrection are quite late, dating from the second to the
> fourth centuries A.D." ("La 'resurrection' d'Adonis," in Melanges
> Isidore Levy, 1955, pp. 207-40).
Oh really.
How come Paphos in Cyprus was the centre of the Adonis Cult but according to
Paul this was the first place to become Christianised in AD 40 or someting.
Why did the Prostitution cult of Astarte cult continue in the same place
until the time of Constantine who abolished it and built a Church ontop of
her temple.
Can anyone really believe the Christians account of anything. My what the
Pauline texts are referring to was the conversion of the Romans to the cult
of Adonis not Christianity.
>
> "There is no suggestion of Adonis rising (in either the Panyasisian
> form or the Ovidian form of the myth)"..... "Only late texts, largely
> influenced by or written by Christians, claim that there is a
> subsequent day of celebration for Adonis having been raised from the
> dead." (The Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 522, "Dying and Rising Gods",
> by J. Smith).
Apollodorus.
Through the anger of Artemis, Adonis died in the hunt while he was still a
young boy, from a wound inflicted by a boar. According to Hesiod, however,
he was a son of [not of Cinyrus but] of Phoenix and Alphesibioea, while
according to Panyasis, he was a son of Theias, king of Assyria, who had a
daughter called Smyrna.
Smyrna was Adonis mother from whom he was born after her death after she was
turned by the Gods into a tree.
Smyrna was also the Sumerian goddess Myrna, Myrnie or Myriam, ie the
biblical Mary.
>
> "The complex mythology of Attis is largely irrelevant to the quesion
> of dying and rising deities. In the old, Phrygian versions, Attis is
> killed by being castrated, either by himself or by another; in the old
> Lydian version, he is killed by a boar. In neither case is there any
> question of his returning to life...Neither myth nor ritual offer any
> warrant for classifying Attis as a dying and rising deity." (The
> Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 523, "Dying and Rising Gods", by J. Smith)
Attis had the same rites as and Adonis and Osiris. If one rose from the dead
then so did the others.
>
> Also see the section titled "The Cult of Cybele and Attis" at
> http://www.mustardseed.net/html/topaganism.html
>
> > As for Christmas that was based on the Egyptian/Syrian celebration
> > of the Nativity of the Sun at the winter solstice on 25 December
> > when they retire into certain shrines and at midnight cried out
> > "The Virgin (considered to be Astarte) has brought forth! The
> > light is waxing! The Egyptians even depicted the Sun as a
> > newly born baby who they brought forth and exhibited to his
> > worshipers. Christians didnt Celebrate this festival until the
> > 4th century.
>
> How do you know they were Christians? If they were celebrating some
> festival, involving Astarte, obviously they were not Christians.
> If they were worshipping the sun, obviously they were not Christians.
And obviously if the Church celebrates Christmas and Easter then they are
not Chritians.
The myth of Osiris is the same as that of Adonis and Attis. All of these
myth go bach to the Sumerian myth of Enlil and Inanna, and the Babylonian
myth of Tammuz and Ishtar. It was the Christians that borrowed elements. Fod
gods sake they ripped off the old testament to invent Christ as the messiah.
> and mysterious about the pyramid and funerary texts is how eminent
> professors in universities and curators of prestigious museums in
> Europe, who were very well connected with European royalty, were able
> to find these texts in a short time on grandiose "scientific
> expeditions", when centuries of multitudes of local people somehow
> all failed. Also questionable and curious is why the Egyptian
> authorities would allow the Europeans to walk off with these
> treasures unrestricted.
Oh get real. The Egyptian peasants were illiterate so didn't apportion any
value to written texts.
>
> > What was the when point of Mummification if the Egyptians didnt
> > believe in resurrection.
>
> The purpose of the mummification ritual was to preserve and keep the
> corpse as intact as possible. The application of spices and perfumed
> ointments was intended to minimize putrefaction. Since only the
> wealthy were able to take advantage of mummification, did the Egyptians
> believe only the wealthy could be transported to a spiritual afterlife?
Mummification for the rich was more obviously advanced than for the poor,
but even the rich couldn't afford to have pyramids like the Pharoas. Even so
the rituals were the same for all groups, thus all believed in resurrection
long before the Christians adopted their beliefs.
Do you know if carbon-dating has been used, and if so, on what objects?
Even if carbon-dating has been used, there are major problems and
challenges to the carbon-dating techniques used and the conclusions
drawn.
A significant proportion of the world's population is hostile against
Christianity, and forgeries intended to discredit Christianity would
not be surprising. The following quotes, taken from "The Stairway To
Heaven", by Zecharia Sitchin, in the chapter "Forging The Pharaoh's
Name", show that forgery in Egyptian monuments is very possible.
"Forgery as a means to fame and fortune is not uncommon in commerce
and the arts, in science and antiquities. When exposed, it may cause
loss and shame. When sustained, it may change the records of history.
...
"Systematic and disciplined archaeological re-examination of pyramid
sites that were hurriedly excavated a century and a half ago (many
times by treaure hunters), has raised numerous questions regarding some
of the earlier conclusions.
...
"The damning evidence is a limestone stela (Fig. 141) which was
discovered by Auguste Mariette in the 1850s in the ruins of the temple
of Isis, near the Great Pyramid. Its inscription identifies it as a
self-laudatory monument by Khufu, erected to commemorate the
restoration by him of the temple of Isis and of images and emblems of
the gods which Khufu found inside the crumbling temple.
...
"The "Inventory Stela," as it came to be called, bears all the marks of
authenticity. Yet scholars at the time of its discovery (and many ever
since) have been unable to reconcile themselves to its unavoidable
conclusions. Unwilling to upset the whole structure of Pyramidology,
they proclaimed the Inventory Stela a forgery--an inscription made
"long after the death of Khufu" (to quote Selim Hassan, Excavations at
Giza), but invoking his name "to support some fictitious claim of the
local priests."
...
"The Inventory Stela was condemned as a forgery because only a decade
or so earlier the identification of Khufu as the builder of the Great
Pyramid appeared to have been undisputably established."
...
"... the conclusion that emerges is this: if a forgery had taken place,
it occurred not in ancient times but in the year A.D. 1837; and the
forgers were not "some local priests," but two (or three) unscrupulous
Engishmen...."
> How come Paphos in Cyprus was the centre of the Adonis Cult but
> according to Paul this was the first place to become Christianised
> in AD 40 or someting. Why did the Prostitution cult of Astarte cult
> continue in the same place until the time of Constantine who
> abolished it and built a Church ontop of her temple.
Cults have always coexisted with Christianity in the same geographical
areas, and will continue to do so until the end of the age. See Matthew
13:24-30, 13:36-43.
> Can anyone really believe the Christians account of anything.
Millions believe the Christian authors of the New Testament.
> My what the Pauline texts are referring to was the conversion
> of the Romans to the cult of Adonis not Christianity.
I cannot find the word "Adonis" in the Pauline texts or anywhere
else in the Bible.
> > "There is no suggestion of Adonis rising (in either the Panyasisian
> > form or the Ovidian form of the myth)"..... "Only late texts,
> > largely influenced by or written by Christians, claim that there
> > is a subsequent day of celebration for Adonis having been raised
> > from the dead." (The Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 522, "Dying and
> > Rising Gods", by J. Smith).
>
> Apollodorus.
>
> Through the anger of Artemis, Adonis died in the hunt while he was
> still a young boy, from a wound inflicted by a boar. According to
> Hesiod, however, he was a son of [not of Cinyrus but] of Phoenix
> and Alphesibioea, while according to Panyasis, he was a son of
> Theias, king of Assyria, who had a daughter called Smyrna.
>
> Smyrna was Adonis mother from whom he was born after her death
> after she was turned by the Gods into a tree.
This story is retold from pseudo-Apollodorus, The Library of Greek
Mythology. The Library, extant under Apollodorus' name, is not by
Apollodorus himself.
> Smyrna was also the Sumerian goddess Myrna, Myrnie or Myriam, ie the
> biblical Mary.
The KJV NT Greek Lexicon states Smyrna = "myrrh". Smyrna is known
as Myrrha, or myrrh. The gods supposedly turned her into a myrrh tree.
> And obviously if the Church celebrates Christmas and Easter then
> they are not Chritians.
A Christian can celebrate the birth of Christ, and the resurrection of
Christ, on any day of the year, without being faulted for that, and can
still be a Christian. According to Paul, Christans are to not let any
man judge them with respect to a holy day.
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of
an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
Colossians 2:16-17
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
"In the case of the Mesopotamian Tammuz (Sumerian Dumuzi), his alleged
resurrection by the goddess Inanna-Ishtar had been assumed even though
the end of both the Sumerian and the Akkadian texts of the myth of "The
Descent of Inanna (Ishtar)" had not been preserved. Professor S. N.
Kramer in 1960 published a new poem, "The Death of Dumuzi," that proves
conclusively that instead of rescuing Dumuzi from the Underworld,
Inanna sent him there as her substitute (cf. my article, "Tammuz and
the Bible," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXIV [1965], 283-90). A
line in a fragmentary and obscure text is the only positive evidence
that after being sent to the Underworld Dumuzi may have had his sister
take his place for half the year (cf. S. N. Kramer, Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 183 [1966], 31)."
> Fod gods sake they ripped off the old testament to invent Christ as
> the messiah.
Daniel's prophecy, of the seventy weeks, indicates that Christ had to
appear on earth when He did.
> > and mysterious about the pyramid and funerary texts is how eminent
> > professors in universities and curators of prestigious museums in
> > Europe, who were very well connected with European royalty, were
> > able to find these texts in a short time on grandiose "scientific
> > expeditions", when centuries of multitudes of local people somehow
> > all failed. Also questionable and curious is why the Egyptian
> > authorities would allow the Europeans to walk off with these
> > treasures unrestricted.
>
> Oh get real. The Egyptian peasants were illiterate so didn't
> apportion any value to written texts.
Many of these written texts come with elaborate and beautiful drawings.
Any Egyptian peasant would immediately recognize the value of such
manuscripts. For some examples see
http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/hss/rare/xegycat.htm
http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptafterlife.html
http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/HIGH/OIM_10486_72dpi.html
http://www.dia.org/collections/ancient/egypt/1988.10.13.html
> Mummification for the rich was more obviously advanced than for the
> poor, but even the rich couldn't afford to have pyramids like the
> Pharoas. Even so the rituals were the same for all groups, thus all
> believed in resurrection long before the Christians adopted their
> beliefs.
The pre-church age Egyptians did not believe that Osiris was
resurrected because they believed genuine body parts of Osiris were
buried in diverse locations throughout Egypt. According to funerary
texts, there was a belief that the body must continue intact for the
deceased to live in the next world, and that every living Egyptian had
a ba and a ka. Upon death, the ba and ka left the body but then had to
return to it in order for a person to live forever. The ba and the ka
had to recognize the body in order to return to it.
Mummification was too elaborate and too costly to ever be available for
the majority of Egyptians. Would the average poor Egyptian, who could
not be mummified, believe that the afterlife was unavailable as a
result?
Well we can easily sort this problem out on the spot.
The story of Enlil, Tammuz, Dumuzi(on), Zion, Baal-Marduk, Inanna, Ishtar,
Astarte, Anat, Baaleth or whatver you want to call them is preserved in the
Bible.
So after sorting out the verses into the right order here it is.
Isaiah 14.
(*Interpretation)
[Tammuz is no more]
4 kai lhmqh ton yrhnon touton epi ton basilea babulwnov kai ereiv en th
hmera ekeinh pwv anapepautai o apaitwn kai anapepautai o epispoudasthv
4 Here cometh the lamentation which is the king of Babylon’s. Risen is
the day when there is no more toil, and no taskmaster.
[Tammuz descends into underworld]
9 o adhv katwyen epikranyh sunanthsav soi sunhgeryhsan soi pantev oi
gigantev oi arxantev thv ghv oi egeirantev ek twn yronwn autwn pantav
basileiv eynwn
Hades from beneath is provoked to meet the one, and for the one have come
all the
Giants and Archons of the earth, the founders of the thrones of the kings of
nations
[The dead greet Tammuz]
10 pantev apokriyhsontai kai erousin soi kai su ealwv wsper kai hmeiv en
hmin de katelogisyhv
They all come out and say to you, "you have been taken even as we, we are
all reckoned"
[Crops fail, unrest descends on the nation]
6 pataxav eynov yumw plhgh aniatw {paiwn eynov plhghn yumou h ouk efeisato}
6 Smitten is a nation with outrage a plague incurable. {On the nation is
blown a plague of anger}.
(Funny how the same line is repeated twice. Must have been rendered from two
different sources so I will repeat it later on.)
[Why did it happen for Gods sake, the one who taught mankind about framing
and other wisdom is gone]
12 pwv exepesen ek tou ouranou o ewsforov o prwi anatellwn sunetribh eiv thn
ghn o apostellwn prov panta ta eynh
12 How did this fate come about from God*, the dawn-bringer, the morning
riser. Now procreating inside the earth is the one who went to all nations.
[The reason why]
13 su de eipav en th dianoia sou eiv ton ouranon anabhsomai epanw twn
astrwn tou ouranou yhsw ton yronon mou kayiw en orei uqhlw epi ta orh ta
uqhla ta prov borran
For you said in your heart, "to the Gods* I ascend, above the domain* of
(the
highest ) God* I set my throne, to sit on a high mountain among the highest
mountains to the north."
[Tammuz wanted to be the top God]
14 anabhsomai epanw twn nefelwn esomai omoiov tw uqistw
"I rise up above the clouds: I live like the Most High."
<Paragraph>
[Ishtars decent]
15 nun de eiv adou katabhsh kai eiv ta yemelia thv ghv
Now (Ishtar*) goes down to Hades and to the foundations of the earth
[Crops fail, unrest descends on the nation again.]
6 pataxav eynov yumw plhgh aniatw paiwn eynov plhghn yumou h ouk efeisato
6 and on the nation is blown a plague of anger.
[As Ishtar descends she is disrobed until she becomes a corpse (as in
Sumerian account)]
11 katebh de eiv adou h doxa sou h pollh sou eufrosunh upokatw sou
strwsousin shqin kai to katakalumma sou skwlhx
11 Coming down to Hades, is your glory, your great fertility, underneath you
spreads out decay and you are flooded with worms.
[The dead are in awe]
16 oi idontev se yaumasousin epi soi kai erousin outov o anyrwpov o
paroxunwn thn ghn seiwn basileiv
16 The ones that see you there wonder at you and say "this one is the
motivation of earth, the mover of kings".
[of Ishtar, who threatens to free the dead so that they outnumber the
living]
17 o yeiv thn oikoumenhn olhn erhmon kai tav poleiv kayeilen touv en
epagwgh ouk elusen
17 The Goddess* of everything all desolate, who cleanes out Hades* cities
**and comes to free everyone**
(**high degree of interpretive licence used)
[Ishtar fights on and wades her clothes drenched in the blood of the dead,
(as in the Canaanite account)]
19 su de rifhsh en toiv oresin wv nekrov ebdelugmenov meta pollwn
teynhkotwn ekkekenthmenwn macairaiv katabainontwn eiv adou on tropon imation
en aimati pefurmenon ouk estai kayaron
19 You suck of the desire of death, joined with many craftsmen and
skilful swordsmen that go down to Hades, who’s manner of garment is immersed
in blood that is not clean
[Battle continues in Hades]
31 ololuzete pulai polewn kekragetwsan poleiv tetaragmenai oi allofuloi
pantev oti kapnov apo borra ercetai kai ouk estin tou einai
31 The gates of cities are hollering and crying are those walled-in and
all*, since smoke form the north comes and nothing is to be of it.
[The God of underworld threatens Babylon if Ishtar continues]
23 kai yhsw thn babulwnian erhmon wste katoikein ecinouv kai estai eiv
ouden kai yhsw authn phlou barayron eiv apwleian
23 And I (will) make Babylon a desert, so that all that come there come to
nothing, and make it a chasm in the sand to finish it.
[Rhetoric]
24 tade legei kuriov sabawy on tropon eirhka outwv estai kai on tropon
bebouleumai outwv menei
24 This says Lord Saboath, is the way I have set out, this it is and this
that I have conceived it shall so remain.
[Ishtar is told to stop. every man has his place with the dead or the
living]
18 pantev oi basileiv twn eynwn ekoimhyhsan en timh anyrwpov en tw oikw
autou
18 So always the kings of nations will sleep in glory, every man in his own
house
<Paragraph>
[Because the people have stopped all procreation for Tammuz and are unaware
of the famine they have caused]
30 kai boskhyhsontai ptwcoi di autou ptwcoi de andrev ep eirhnhv
anapausontai anelei de limw to sperma sou kai to kataleimma sou anelei
And worshipping Tammuz* are the poor, for the poor men in peace rest, for
unaware of the famine are your seed and your wasting unforeseen
[the God of the underworld gives in to Ishtars demands and agrees to let the
go]
22 kai epanasthsomai autoiv legei kuriov sabawy kai apolw autwn onoma kai
kataleimma kai sperma tade legei kuriov
22 I will raise Tammuz* and Ishtar* up says the Lord Saboath and release
their names and essence and seed: so saith the Lord
[Tells Ishtar to take Tammuz back and not to stay]
20 outwv oude su esh kayarov dioti thn ghn mou apwlesav kai ton laon mou
apekteinav ou mh meinhv eiv ton aiwna cronon sperma ponhron
20 Neither him nor yourself are clean, because my world is bereaved and my
people slain, so don’t stay forever perspicacious seed
[God of Underworld claims the credit for saving earth by releasing
Tammuz]
32 kai ti apokriyhsontai basileiv eynwn oti kuriov eyemeliwsen siwn kai di
autou swyhsontai oi tapeinoi tou laou
32 And what answer have the kings of nations, that the Lord founded
Tammu-Sion and by him shall save the humblest of people.
[Ishtar and Tammuz return to build an new world]
21 etoimason ta tekna sou sfaghnai taiv amartiaiv tou patrov sou ina mh
anastwsin kai thn ghn klhronomhswsin kai emplhswsi thn ghn polewn
21 Make ready your children, blot out the sins of your fathers, that they
shall not re-appear, and inherit the earth and fill it up with cities
[Tammuz addresses the people]
26 auth h boulh hn bebouleutai kuriov epi thn oikoumenhn olhn kai auth h
ceir h uqhlh epi panta ta eynh thv oikoumenhv
26 This is the purpose that comes from the Lord to all and everyone, this
the
hand that is raised to all the nations everywhere
[Rhetoric]
27 a gar o yeov o agiov bebouleutai tiv diaskedasei kai thn ceira thn
uqhlhn tiv apostreqei
27 The Holy God makes real his purpose and takes back his raised
hand
[Celebrations on earth]
7 anepausato pepoiywv pasa h gh boa met eufrosunhv
7 With conviction on the earth are cries of joy
[Reference to the ritual of Tammuz rebirth]
8 kai ta xula tou libanou eufranyhsan epi soi kai h kedrov tou libanou af
ou su kekoimhsai ouk anebh o koptwn hmav
8 And the Wooden Idols of Lebanon join with you and Kedros of Lebanon, since
you laid down nor razed our (their) copts
>
> > Fod gods sake they ripped off the old testament to invent Christ as
> > the messiah.
>
> Daniel's prophecy, of the seventy weeks, indicates that Christ had to
> appear on earth when He did.
Daniel's prophesy had nothing to do with Christ. It refers to his own
lifetime or the time the book was written.
>
> > > and mysterious about the pyramid and funerary texts is how eminent
> > > professors in universities and curators of prestigious museums in
> > > Europe, who were very well connected with European royalty, were
> > > able to find these texts in a short time on grandiose "scientific
> > > expeditions", when centuries of multitudes of local people somehow
> > > all failed. Also questionable and curious is why the Egyptian
> > > authorities would allow the Europeans to walk off with these
> > > treasures unrestricted.
> >
> > Oh get real. The Egyptian peasants were illiterate so didn't
> > apportion any value to written texts.
>
> Many of these written texts come with elaborate and beautiful drawings.
> Any Egyptian peasant would immediately recognize the value of such
> manuscripts. For some examples see
> http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/hss/rare/xegycat.htm
> http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptafterlife.html
> http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/MUS/HIGH/OIM_10486_72dpi.html
> http://www.dia.org/collections/ancient/egypt/1988.10.13.html
The Egyptian peasants only recognised the value of Gold.
>
> > Mummification for the rich was more obviously advanced than for the
> > poor, but even the rich couldn't afford to have pyramids like the
> > Pharoas. Even so the rituals were the same for all groups, thus all
> > believed in resurrection long before the Christians adopted their
> > beliefs.
>
> The pre-church age Egyptians did not believe that Osiris was
> resurrected because they believed genuine body parts of Osiris were
> buried in diverse locations throughout Egypt. According to funerary
Oh yes. All of his 20 arms, 70 legs, 15 hands, 28 heads, 21 torsos, and so
on.
> texts, there was a belief that the body must continue intact for the
> deceased to live in the next world, and that every living Egyptian had
> a ba and a ka. Upon death, the ba and ka left the body but then had to
> return to it in order for a person to live forever. The ba and the ka
> had to recognize the body in order to return to it.
Ands thats why they put markers on ordinary peoples graves.
>
> Mummification was too elaborate and too costly to ever be available for
> the majority of Egyptians. Would the average poor Egyptian, who could
> not be mummified, believe that the afterlife was unavailable as a
> result?
Nobody really believed that the would come back to earth except the pharaohs
. The resurrection was in the afterlife.
In any case Orisirs wasn't the only God that came back form the dead.
Look at Herakles, who goes into Hades to rescue Theseus. Since I've
mentioned him, Theseus comes back and he's a mortal like Sisyphus, Orpheus,
Odysseus, and Pelops. Somehow I think that Pelops shoulder blade which was
eaten by Aphrodite was actually his genitals. This would then link his story
to that to Osiris, since Pelops was also cut into pieces, like Osiris and
fed to the Gods in a broth. When he was brought back to life his shouder
blade/genital organ was replaced, like Orisris with one carved from ivory.
Funny how a cult never grew around him though.
The translations of Isaiah 14 from the Masoretic Hebrew text and from
the Qumran Isaiah Scroll ( http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-12.htm ) do
not mention Enlil, Tammuz, Dumuzi(on), Baal-Marduk, Inanna, Ishtar,
Astarte, Anat, or Baaleth.
The "shining one" in Isaiah 14:12 (YLT) is the angel of light, Satan,
referred to in 2 Corinthians 11:14.
> > Daniel's prophecy, of the seventy weeks, indicates that Christ had
> > appear on earth when He did.
>
> Daniel's prophesy had nothing to do with Christ. It refers to his own
> lifetime or the time the book was written.
The ancient Jews, including the Essenes, believed that Daniel's
prophecy of the 70 weeks determined the time of the Messiah's
coming.
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make
reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."
(Daniel 9:24, KJV)
Seventy weeks, or seventy "sevens" of 360-day years, are determined for
Daniel's people, Israel.
"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the
Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street
shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."
(Daniel 9:25, KJV)
The commandment to restore and rebuild the street and the wall was
given by the Persian emperor Artaxerxes on March 14, 445 BC. The
Messiah the Prince is Christ. The time between the commandment and
the Messiah is seven weeks and threescore and two weeks, or 69 weeks.
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not
for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy
the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
(Daniel 9:26, KJV)
The Messiah, Christ, was "cut off", or rejected, on April 6, 32 AD,
Palm Sunday, when He offered Himself as King (Matthew 21:8-11).
The people of the prince (not Christ) are the Romans who destroyed
the temple in 70 AD.
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the
midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to
cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it
desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be
poured upon the desolate."
(Daniel 9:27, KJV)
The "one week" here is the seventieth week which has yet to occur.
> The Egyptian peasants only recognised the value of Gold.
The written texts with elaborate and beautiful drawings could
easily be exchanged for gold.
> Oh yes. All of his 20 arms, 70 legs, 15 hands, 28 heads, 21 torsos,
> and so on.
Of course, people started to exaggerate and extend the original story,
much like Plutarch. Nevertheless, the pre-church age Egyptians still
believed and claimed genuine body parts of Osiris were buried in
various locations throughout Egypt.
> > texts, there was a belief that the body must continue intact for
> > the deceased to live in the next world, and that every living
> > Egyptian had a ba and a ka. Upon death, the ba and ka left the
> > body but then had to return to it in order for a person to live
> > forever. The ba and the ka had to recognize the body in order to
> > return to it.
>
> Ands thats why they put markers on ordinary peoples graves.
Markers do not help the body to continue intact.
> > Mummification was too elaborate and too costly to ever be
> > available for the majority of Egyptians. Would the average poor
> > Egyptian, who could not be mummified, believe that the afterlife
> > was unavailable as a result?
>
> Nobody really believed that the would come back to earth except the
> pharaohs. The resurrection was in the afterlife.
"The Pyramid Texts are categoric that the king becomes a star soul
after death and, more specifically, joins Osiris-Orion in the sky.
Many passages leave us with no doubt in this matter:
...
"There can be little doubt that the Pyramid texts make a clear
statement that the dead kings become stars, especially seen in the
lower eastern sky. They also tell us that it is the souls of departed
kings which become stars:
...
"Thus the dead king was an Osiris and his soul was an Osiris soul,
whose depiction in the sky was Orion. The Pyramid Texts call the
starry afterworld of Osiris the Duat, and it is in this Duat region
that the astral souls become established."
("The Orion Mystery", p.90, Bauval & Gilbert)
> In any case Orisirs wasn't the only God that came back form the dead.
>
> Look at Herakles, who goes into Hades to rescue Theseus. ...
The twelve labours of Hercules are from the Library of Apollodorus,
which although are extant under Apollodorus's name, are not by him.
Hercules had to really struggle in the various contests. Unlike the
stories involving Hercules in Greek mythology, there is no contest
going on between Christ and Satan. Although Satan is vastly more
powerful than humans, he is completely powerless against Christ.
Christians are chosen and predestinated by Christ before the
foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5).
Oh what a load of infernal RUBBISH.
According to Revelation, Jesus Christ was perceived as the “Morning Star”..
{ Quotes are from the Authorised, King James Version (AV) and the original
Greek Bible (LXX + NT) (7=psi, 8=theta)}.
[AV] Revelation 2:28 And I will give him the morning star.
[NT] Revelation 2:28 kai dwsw autw ton astera ton prwinon
[AV] Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these
things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the
bright and morning star.
[NT] Revelation 22: 16 egw ihsous epem7a ton aggelon mou marturhsai umin
tauta epi tais ekklhsiais egw eimi h riza kai to genos dauid o asthr o
lampros o prwinos
But in the Authorised Version of Isaiah the “Morning Star” also known as
Lucifer to the Romans, rather than being portrayed as all sweetens and light
like Christ, is something which is Diabolical.
[AV] Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the
morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the
nations! {O Lucifer: or, O day star}
[LXX] Isaiah 14:12 pws exepesen ek tou ouranou o ewsforos o prwi anatellwn
sunetribh eis thn
ghn o apostellwn pros panta ta e8nh
How can Christ be the Morning Star or Lucifer, if Lucifer is a fallen angel
?
Literally the Latin word “Lucifer” means “Light Bringer” Lux-Ferre, from Lux
meaning light and from Fero meaning to bring forth, bear or carry as in
Christopher, Christ-barer, and was associated by the Romans with the Goddess
Venus.
The Latin “Lucifer” is the Roman equivalent of the Greek “Eosphoros”
(ewsforos) which is taken to be the “Dawn Bringer” or “Morning Star” and is
the son of the Titan Astreus (‘starry’) and Eos (the Dawn) known to the
Romans as Aurora (the Day), the Daughter of the Titan Hyperion and Titaness
Theia, sister of Helios (the Sun) and Selene (the Moon).
This meaning is clear when one looks at the original text of the
Septuagint:
(LXX) Isaiah 14:12 pws e3epesen ek tou ouranou o ewsforos o prwi anatellwn
sunetribh eis thn ghn o apostellwn pros panta ta e8nh
The Greek directly translates as:
Isaiah 14:12. how did it fall from Ouranos (the Sky), Eosphoros (the
dawn-bringer), the morning riser, partnered to the earth, the one sent
towards all nations.
The reference concerning Eosphoros (“dawn-bringer”) can be translated from
the Greek as either “the dawn-bringer, the morning riser, wisdom of earth,
the teacher of all nations” or “the dawn-bringer pro-creating on
the earth, the one sent to all nations” and the reference to Ouranou which
is the possessive form of Ouranos can either be translated as the Heavens or
the Sky.
Note that "sunetribh", "to rub together", according to Liddell-Scott should
be taken to literally mean the act of pro-creation. In his book “The Golden
Bough”, Sir James Frazer concludes by suggesting the God of Sky and Thunder
was the original deity of the Proto-Indo-Europeans who Jacob Grimm and W
Warde Foweler implied was associated with the Oak cult. The theory was that
the Sky God was originally derived from the worship of God of Oak since the
belief was that Sky God produced the spark of lightening by the friction of
rubbing two pieces of oak against each other in the same way as our
ancestors produced fire. Frazer reverses this by inferring that the Sky god
become associated with Oak because of the frequency at which Oak was hit by
lighting. Whichever interpretation one chooses it is clear that "sunetribh",
infers the production of lightening, or the pro-creation of Ouranos on
mother Earth.
If the Greek text is taken as the basis for the quotes from Revelation, with
all the kind Epithets for one supposedly demonic according to the Authorised
Version, the contradictions disappear. The Morning Star is Christ, the
teacher of all nations. It is evident the contradictions seem to have been
brought about by an error in interpretation or translation alone.
The next passage further consolidates the observation:
Isaiah 14:13 su de eipas en th dianoia sou eis ton ouranon anabhsomai epanw
twn astrwn tou ouranou 8hsw ton 8ronon mou ka8iw en orei u7hlw epi ta orh ta
u7hla ta pros borran
Isaiah 14:13. but you said in your heart, to Ouranos I ascend, above the
star of Ouranos I set my throne, to sit on a high mountain among the highest
mountains to the north.
(astrwn is orbiter. Liddell-Scott makes a mistake by making it mean the
stars since it has no knowledge of ancient cosmology . Numerous other parts
of the bible use Asteria to refer to stars in their own right so there is a
clear distinction between the Astrwn and the Asterakia that are fixed in the
Astrwn or orbit. There exists not just one Astrwn but there are at least 7
corresponding to the 7 heavens or the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter,
Saturn, the Sun and the Moon. This is abundantly clear from Plato’s
description of retrograde orbits. *see bottom )
It is obvious that the reference to “the star of Ouranos” is the Morning
Star of Revelation, Lucifer or Eosphoros, ie. Venus or Aphrodite the
Daughter of the Greek God Ouranos or Uranus. Thus the one who is fallen
cannot be Lucifer, otherwise why would he be acceding past his own star, ie.
himself.
Who then can the Epithets of Isaiah 14:12 be for. Obviously they the cant be
for the one who has fallen, so who is left. If Christ is called the Morning
Star then Lucifer, or Eosphoros must have been perceived as epithets by the
early Christians, leaving only one plausible candidate for the subject of
the passage.
The text says the subject is “the partner of Earth” and the “apostle to all
nations”, apostle being either traveller or teacher. These epithets for
Christ also sound like epithets for God. But God is not mentioned here, or
is he.
The Greek word “Ouranou” also has another possible translation, that of
“Sky God”. The fact that his name is in the possessive form Ouranou, rather
than the passive “Ourano”, makes it clear that he alone is the subject of
the epithets, “the dawn-bringer,” “the morning riser,” “the partner of
Earth,” and the “apostle towards all nations”.
After the Church realised the meaning of the Greek text of the LXX passage
from Isaiah it was Demonised in the Authorised Version to hide the reference
to an Ancient God, but the denomination backfired and resulted in the
contradiction’s that I have referred to above.
The diabolical nature of Lucifer can be traced back to the mistranslation of
the Septuagint by St Jerome who gave us the Latin Vulgate (4th Century AD,
700 years after the original).
The later Latin translation reads:
(JER) Isaiah 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris
corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
(JER) Isaiah 14:12 How cut from the engraving of Lucifer, that is the
morning riser, fallen to earth with mortal men.
And as a reminder the Greek:
(LXX) Isaiah 14:12 pws e3epesen ek tou ouranou o ewsforos o prwi anatellwn
sunetribh eis thn ghn o apostellwn pros panta ta e8nh
(LXX) Isaiah 14:12. how did it fall from Ouranos, the dawn-bringer, the
morning riser, partnered to the earth, the one who journeys towards all
nations.
This whole mess came about because the translator used "Caelo" engrave, (in
relief on metals), carve (on wood) or compose, instead of "Caelum", Sky or
Heaven or Glory to describe the Greek word Ouranos, (Caelum also means
engravers) and to make matters worse he rearranged and embellished the text.
But how could this mistranslation not have been caught. Any one reading the
Greek text would have seen that the reference to “Ouranou” is missing from
the Latin, and that there is no reference at all to engravings.
It is quite likely that the later Christians who had little understanding
that Uranus was Jehovah may have doctored the original Latin text by
reducing Caelum to Caelo thus demonising Lucifer, who according to Jerome
would otherwise have been God, making Lux-Fero into Lux-Furus or Ferox ie.
Light Destroyer, from Ferus meaning wild of uncivilised or Ferox meaning
warlike, rather than Light Bringer a common title for the supreme being.
It is clear to anyone that speaks Latin, even without the Greek text of the
Septuagint to compare it with, that Caelo has to be Caelum since cutting
something from an engraving, which is two dimensional is illogical.
Jerome’s successors, the illiterate uneducated politically appointed Popes
of the Franks, not only mixed up the Heavens with Engravings but they also
failed to read the true meaning of the Greek text.
Clearly if they had spoken Greek they would have realised like the early
Christians who wrote the Gospels, that Jehovah was the Sky God Uranus!
>
> > > Daniel's prophecy, of the seventy weeks, indicates that Christ had
> > > appear on earth when He did.
> >
> > Daniel's prophesy had nothing to do with Christ. It refers to his own
> > lifetime or the time the book was written.
>
> The ancient Jews, including the Essenes, believed that Daniel's
> prophecy of the 70 weeks determined the time of the Messiah's
> coming.
The Jewish sects of Qumran you are referring to are the Messianic Jews, the
Zelots, the Sicarri and possibly the Nazarenes depending on the origin of
the word. They never called themselves Essenes which is a Greek word.
> "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
> to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make
> reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
> and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."
> (Daniel 9:24, KJV)
>
> Seventy weeks, or seventy "sevens" of 360-day years, are determined for
> Daniel's people, Israel.
24 ebdomhkonta ebdomadev ekriyhsan epi ton laon sou kai epi thn polin siwn
suntelesyhnai thn amartian kai tav adikiav spanisai kai apaleiqai tav
adikiav kai dianohyhnai to orama kai doyhnai dikaiosunhn aiwnion kai
suntelesyhnai to orama kai eufranai agion agiwn
24 Seventy weeks are bestowed upon your people, and upon the city of Zion to
end the sin and your transgression. To lessen and blot out your
transgression, and to make the vision, and to give righteousness
everlasting, and to end the vision, and to join most holy.
It looks to me that the passage has been reconstructed form two separate
texts or doctored because part of it repeats itself.
Also I refuse to believe that the infinitive was used by the ancient Greeks
to represent the future tense, since in modern Greek it represents the
present. The Ancient Greeks did not conceive the flow of time or the future
as we do now, so I will translate the passage more correctly
"24 Seventy weeks transpire for your people and for the city of Zion. The
sin of your transgression comes to its end. Your transgression has been
lessened and ignored so the vision is assured. Everlasting righteousness is
given and the vision fulfilled bringing great holiness."
With this translation the original repetition is eradicated since the
passage is given its true meaning.
>
> "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the
> commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the
> Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street
> shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times."
> (Daniel 9:25, KJV)
>
> The commandment to restore and rebuild the street and the wall was
> given by the Persian emperor Artaxerxes on March 14, 445 BC. The
> Messiah the Prince is Christ. The time between the commandment and
> the Messiah is seven weeks and threescore and two weeks, or 69 weeks.
What has something fulfilled in 445 BC have to do with Christ in 32/3 AD.
In any case where does the stuff about messiah and seven weeks come form,.
It's not in the Septuagint.
25 kai gnwsh kai dianohyhsh kai eufranyhsh kai eurhseiv prostagmata
apokriyhnai kai oikodomhseiv ierousalhm polin kuriw
25 Love, friendship understanding and the discovery of things to come reveal
themselves and the building of Jerusalem the city of God.
>
> "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not
> for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy
> the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
> and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
> (Daniel 9:26, KJV)
26 kai meta epta kai ebdomhkonta kai exhkonta duo apostayhsetai crisma kai
ouk estai kai basileia eynwn fyerei thn polin kai to agion meta tou cristou
kai hxei h sunteleia autou met orghv kai ewv kairou sunteleiav apo polemou
polemhyhsetai
OK the first stumbling block is the time.
Translating to English we have
26 After seven and seventy and sixty two stands up.....
Where are the units ? days, weeks, months or years.
What sort of number is "seven and seventy and sixty two" anyway.
After discussing this with my dad we concluded the first figure 77 was
months since the lunar calendar could on have been used at the time. 77
lunar months also happens to be exactly 6 years. The next figure could with
be days or weeks. If its weeks then that would amount to 1 year and 12 weeks
to add on, giving 7 years and 12 weeks. If its days then we have 6 years and
62 days. Take your pick.
"26 After seven and seventy and sixty two (.....) the anointing takes place
and is no more. A king of a nation destroys the city and the holy place
after it, the place of anointment, and this is the end of him by an oath
that in time results in war."
This passage talks about NO messiah whatsoever. Anybody thinking it to be a
messiah must be a complete illiterate.
Messianic Judaism cannot evolve within the Jewish community since any Jew
would know better.
>
> The Messiah, Christ, was "cut off", or rejected, on April 6, 32 AD,
> Palm Sunday, when He offered Himself as King (Matthew 21:8-11).
> The people of the prince (not Christ) are the Romans who destroyed
> the temple in 70 AD.
The Bible makes NO mention of the Jewish rebellion and destruction of the
temple in AD 70. This is HIGHLY suspicious since the revolt occurs during
the supposed lifetime of Paul. If this was a fulfilment of prophesy the why
isn't it included in the Gospels.
Also why do all the Gospels mention that Christ if from the town Nazareth.
There was no Nazareth until after AD 70. Why don't any of the authors know
the real meaning of the world Nazarene. The gospels can't have been written
until way after AD 140 since anyone living in Nazareth when it was founded
in AD 70 would have told them that it had not exited at the time of Christ.
The authors cant have been Nazarenes or known Christ or known anyone that
knew Christ since they allowed this inaccuracy to go unchallenged.
>
> "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the
> midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to
> cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it
> desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be
> poured upon the desolate."
> (Daniel 9:27, KJV)
>
> The "one week" here is the seventieth week which has yet to occur.
The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the complete obliteration of the
Jews in Palestine in AD 135 would have made this prophesy laughable.
Why would anyone want to write a gospel of the messiah at this time.
The gospels therefore cannot have been written until the 3rd century AD. But
it still doesn't fit. Why claim Jewish Messiah has come when there were no
longer any Jews.
What is even more strange is why would anyone want to follow such as gospel.
The only solution that I have is that Christianity was INVENTED in the 3rd
centaury and prior to that, between AD 70 and 200 had NO followers
whatsoever.
Somewhere around this time the Resurrection was concocted by Jewish members
of the Attis cult who created the so called Mathew Q text, based on the
story of the crucifixion of a Jewish revolutionary claiming to be Moses, the
beheading of John the Baptist and the Plagiarised Life of Apollonius by
Philostratus. This would put the concoction of the first Gospel at about AD
230 and the gospel of John at 312.
I finally guessed what Josephus meant by referring to the Sicarri bandits
prophets as "Egyptians". "The Egyptian" is was the title the Romans gave to
Moses, and Josephus not recognising it in Roman records left it unaltered.
Obviously by Josephus time the claims had long ended.
The story of Jesus riding into Jerusalem, enraging the priesthood and being
taken to be crucified may have been based on a real event, of which there
were many.
The story of John the Baptist is probably a real event and was probably
plagiarised to give the account of the early life of Christ. But his
preaching about the anointed one is IMPOSSIBLE if he ware a Jew. As I have
shown by my translation.
The sermon on the mount, parables, miracles and journeys of Jesus were
plagiarised from Apollonius and interwoven with Messianic Prophesy invented
by the 3rd C Romans. This is blatantly obvious since in Mark 7:24-30 the
daughter of a Greek woman is cured by Christ but in Mathew 15:21-82 the same
woman become a Canaanite. Obviously changed. Where was Canaan. I thought the
Jews destroyed it. There is also mention of a servant of a Roman Centurion
being healed Mathew 8:1-13, Luke 7:1-10.
Since all the Gospels have the sermon on the Mount in different places (I
thin Luke has is twice) this was probably added later. Immediately following
the sermon in both Mathew and Luke comes the story of the Centurion, which
clearly indicates plagurisation form Apollonius.
The resurrection story is inconsistent in all the gospel so has obviously be
tampered with. Infact in the first 3 gospels there is indications that the
are in fact 2 separate accounts following each other. In the original
account the sepulchre is completely empty, end of story. Then bolted on to
this the final passage is repeated and Jesus is added to the new account
with the ending of the old accounts doctored so that Peter who is with the 2
Marys becomes an Angel, 2 Angels, or an unknown Man in the other 3. In fact
in Luke the repeated passage occurs twice. The last repetition in Luke is
probably the original text of the original ending.
The story of the nativity of Christ was of course the last bit to be added,
and clearly plagurised separately from Pagan, Hindu and Buddhist mythology.
> > The Egyptian peasants only recognised the value of Gold.
>
> The written texts with elaborate and beautiful drawings could
> easily be exchanged for gold.
Who would pay for them ? Are you saying that the local mafia bosses had
their own elicit art collections.
>
> > Oh yes. All of his 20 arms, 70 legs, 15 hands, 28 heads, 21 torsos,
> > and so on.
>
> Of course, people started to exaggerate and extend the original story,
> much like Plutarch. Nevertheless, the pre-church age Egyptians still
> believed and claimed genuine body parts of Osiris were buried in
> various locations throughout Egypt.
Why didn't they try putting him back together then. Obviously the believed
he had already been resurrected into a new body, hence the ritual of forming
spices and dough into crescents. The crescent be the Symbol of Tammuz, the
Star that of Ishtar, a portrayed on the Turkish flag.
>
> > > texts, there was a belief that the body must continue intact for
> > > the deceased to live in the next world, and that every living
> > > Egyptian had a ba and a ka. Upon death, the ba and ka left the
> > > body but then had to return to it in order for a person to live
> > > forever. The ba and the ka had to recognize the body in order to
> > > return to it.
> >
> > Ands thats why they put markers on ordinary peoples graves.
>
> Markers do not help the body to continue intact.
>
> > > Mummification was too elaborate and too costly to ever be
> > > available for the majority of Egyptians. Would the average poor
> > > Egyptian, who could not be mummified, believe that the afterlife
> > > was unavailable as a result?
> >
> > Nobody really believed that the would come back to earth except the
> > pharaohs. The resurrection was in the afterlife.
>
> "The Pyramid Texts are categoric that the king becomes a star soul
> after death and, more specifically, joins Osiris-Orion in the sky.
> Many passages leave us with no doubt in this matter:
Sky = Heaven
> ...
> "There can be little doubt that the Pyramid texts make a clear
> statement that the dead kings become stars, especially seen in the
> lower eastern sky. They also tell us that it is the souls of departed
> kings which become stars:
Then there must have been an unusually large number of visible supernovae in
ancient Egypt then. How come they are not documented.
> ...
> "Thus the dead king was an Osiris and his soul was an Osiris soul,
> whose depiction in the sky was Orion. The Pyramid Texts call the
> starry afterworld of Osiris the Duat, and it is in this Duat region
> that the astral souls become established."
> ("The Orion Mystery", p.90, Bauval & Gilbert)
>
> > In any case Orisirs wasn't the only God that came back form the dead.
> >
> > Look at Herakles, who goes into Hades to rescue Theseus. ...
>
> The twelve labours of Hercules are from the Library of Apollodorus,
They are also written about by Homer and Plutarch.
> which although are extant under Apollodorus's name, are not by him.
>
Meaning ?
> Hercules had to really struggle in the various contests. Unlike the
> stories involving Hercules in Greek mythology, there is no contest
> going on between Christ and Satan. Although Satan is vastly more
So what was the Temptation of Christ all bout then. Why do Luke and John
invoke Satan for leading Judas to betray Jesus then.
> powerful than humans, he is completely powerless against Christ.
Wants revelation all bout then. Christ needs and entire army to defeat
Satan.
> Christians are chosen and predestinated by Christ before the
> foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5).
CODSWALLOP - Chosen people racist bigotry.
Your attempts, to closely link Greek gods and mythological figures with
Egyptian counterparts, appear to be very similar to what Mary Lefkowitz
refers to as "Mystical Egyptian Hermeticism" in her book "Not Out of
Africa", an excerpt of which is available at
THE MYTH OF THE EGYPTIAN MYSTERY SYSTEM
http://www.proeuropa.gr/athenaeum/lefkowitz.htm
(some selected quotes)
"A striking quality of Freemasonry is its "imaginative attachment to
the religion and symbolism of the Egyptians."(50) The Egypt to which
the Masons refer is of course an imaginary one, but this was the Egypt
that was rediscovered in the Renaissance: for convenience, I shall call
it Mystical Egypt (to distinguish it from the historical Egypt that was
first explored scientifically and understood only in the nineteenth
century)."
...
"Among the magic arts was the mastery of the "symbolism" of
hieroglyphics. Even in antiquity, most educated Greeks and Romans
thought that hieroglyphs were used primarily as symbolic
representations, rather than as representations of specific sounds or
things, as is usually the case."
-----
Since all the learned Greek scholars, such as Diodorus and Plutarch,
did not understand the nature of hieroglyphic writing, the following
question arises:
Why did the Greeks, from the time when Alexander the Great conquered
Egypt and was crowned as pharoah in 332 BC, to the time when the
Rosetta stone was supposed to have been inscribed in 196 BC, and
after until they were conquered by the Romans, not obtain from the
Egyptians (who were their subjects) a simple hieroglyphic phonetic
alphabet chart, such as the one at
http://www.watson.org/rivendell/historyegypt.html (except, of course,
for Greek rather than English) ?
The Greeks used the services of Egyptian priests such as Manetho.
Ptolemy I, a Macedonian, established the library and museum in
Alexandria. The time, from 332 B.C. to 196 B.C and on, was a time of
great scholarship when works like the translation of the Hebrew Bible
into Greek were accomplished.
Why would the great sacred language of the Egyptians be completely
ignored? It seems rather incredible.
The phrase "son of the morning" in Isaiah 14:12 (AV) is not the same
as "morning star" in Revelation 2:28, 22:16.
For Isaiah 14:12, the Isaiah Dead Sea scroll and the Young's Literal
Translation (YLT) use the phrase "son of the dawn".
> The Greek directly translates as:
>
> Isaiah 14:12. how did it fall from Ouranos (the Sky), Eosphoros (the
> dawn-bringer), the morning riser, partnered to the earth, the one
> sent towards all nations.
The Greek translators of the Septuagint translated "ewsforos" from
the Hebrew word "heylel", which means "shining one".
Satan himself, the "shining one", is transformed into an angel of
light (2 Corinthians 11:14) in order to confuse people in identifying
him with Christ.
Likewise, false apostles, deceitful workers, transform themselves into
the apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13).
Isaiah 14:12-17 very clearly is not speaking of Christ. Christ does
not desire to be "like the most High" (Isaiah 14:14); Christ *is* the
most High. Satan is an imitator of Christ, trying to be "like the
most High".
> It looks to me that the passage has been reconstructed form two
> separate texts or doctored because part of it repeats itself.
Perhaps then you should rely more on the Hebrew rather than the Greek
Septuagint which is a translation of the Hebrew.
> The Ancient Greeks did not conceive the flow of time or the future
> as we do now, so I will translate the passage more correctly
The ancient Greeks did conceive of the flow of time and of the future.
> "24 Seventy weeks transpire for your people and for the city of Zion.
> The sin of your transgression comes to its end. Your transgression
> has been lessened and ignored so the vision is assured. Everlasting
> righteousness is given and the vision fulfilled bringing great
> holiness."
>
> With this translation the original repetition is eradicated since the
> passage is given its true meaning.
Daniel's people were still in captivity when Gabriel gave Daniel the
message. Everlasting righteousness was not ushered in at that time.
The following translation is widely accepted and conveys the proper
meaning.
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make
reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."
(Daniel 9:24, KJV)
Currently, transgression has not finished, an end of sins has not
been made, reconciliation for iniquity has not been made, and
everlasting righteousness has not been brought in for Daniel's people,
Israel. So the seventy weeks is not completed yet.
> > "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the
> > commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the
> > Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the
> > street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous
> > times." (Daniel 9:25, KJV)
> >
> > The commandment to restore and rebuild the street and the wall was
> > given by the Persian emperor Artaxerxes on March 14, 445 BC. The
> > Messiah the Prince is Christ. The time between the commandment and
> > the Messiah is seven weeks and threescore and two weeks, or 69
> > weeks.
>
> What has something fulfilled in 445 BC have to do with Christ in
> 32/3 AD.
>
> In any case where does the stuff about messiah and seven weeks
> come form,. It's not in the Septuagint.
A "week" in Israel commonly referred to a week of years, or seven
years, in which the seventh year was a sabbath of rest for the land,
which was to lie fallow (Leviticus 25-26). The Jewish calendar used a
360-day year.
69 times 7 times 360 is 173,880 days. From March 14, 445 BC to
April 6, 32 AD are 173,880 days.
> 26 After seven and seventy and sixty two stands up.....
>
> Where are the units ? days, weeks, months or years.
>
> What sort of number is "seven and seventy and sixty two" anyway.
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not
for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy
the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
(Daniel 9:26, KJV)
The 62 weeks follows the first seven weeks. So the term "after
threescore and two weeks" refers to after weeks 8 through 69, or,
after the completion of the 69th week.
> "26 After seven and seventy and sixty two (.....) the anointing takes
> place and is no more. A king of a nation destroys the city and the
> holy place after it, the place of anointment, and this is the end of
> him by an oath that in time results in war."
>
> This passage talks about NO messiah whatsoever. Anybody thinking it
> to be a messiah must be a complete illiterate.
>
> Messianic Judaism cannot evolve within the Jewish community since
> any Jew would know better.
In Daniel 9:26 (KJV), the word "Messiah" is from the Hebrew word
"mashiyach", which means "anointed, anointed one". Christ means
"anointed".
> > The Messiah, Christ, was "cut off", or rejected, on April 6, 32 AD,
> > Palm Sunday, when He offered Himself as King (Matthew 21:8-11).
> > The people of the prince (not Christ) are the Romans who destroyed
> > the temple in 70 AD.
>
> The Bible makes NO mention of the Jewish rebellion and destruction
> of the temple in AD 70. This is HIGHLY suspicious since the revolt
> occurs during the supposed lifetime of Paul. If this was a fulfilment
> of prophesy the why isn't it included in the Gospels.
Maybe the gospels were written before 70 AD. The destruction of the
temple circa 70 AD is well-documented. Paul died sometime shortly
after 62-64 AD.
> Also why do all the Gospels mention that Christ if from the town
> Nazareth. There was no Nazareth until after AD 70. Why don't any of
> the authors know the real meaning of the world Nazarene. The gospels
> can't have been written until way after AD 140 since anyone living
> in Nazareth when it was founded in AD 70 would have told them that
> it had not exited at the time of Christ.
Nazareth existed before the time of Christ but is not mentioned much
in ancient literature because people held the people that lived there
with contempt (John 1:46). It was taboo to even recognize them.
Christ, by dwelling in Nazareth and being called a Nazarene, fulfilled
Isaiah 53:3 in that he became "despised" of men.
> > "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in
> > the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation
> > to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make
> > it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined
> > shall be poured upon the desolate." (Daniel 9:27, KJV)
> >
> > The "one week" here is the seventieth week which has yet to occur.
>
> The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the complete obliteration
> of the Jews in Palestine in AD 135 would have made this prophesy
> laughable.
The resurrection of the whole house of Israel (Ezekiel 37:1-14) is a
future event and will occur at the start of the seventieth week.
The 69th week was completed at the triumphal entry of Christ into
Jerusalem. Christ foretold the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
> Why would anyone want to write a gospel of the messiah at this time.
>
> The gospels therefore cannot have been written until the
> 3rd century AD. But it still doesn't fit. Why claim Jewish
> Messiah has come when there were no longer any Jews.
All of the historical facts and documentation, involving the early
church, such as its letters and its persecution, and various teachings
contrary to and within the early church, require that the gospels be
written in the first century. For example, the Coptic church claims
that Mark brought Christianity to Egypt during the reign of the Roman
emperor Nero in the first century, a dozen years after the Lord's
ascension, and that he wrote the gospel bearing his name.
Christianity spread throughout Egypt within half a century of Mark's
arrival in Alexandria. Anybody creating new Christian documents in
the third century AD would be very well noticed and documented by
people, not just in Egypt, but throughout the known world. Late
3rd century documents could not be kept secret as to their time
of writing.
> What is even more strange is why would anyone want to follow such
> as gospel.
The only valid reason why so many followed the first century gospels
is because they were convinced Christ rose from the dead, and because
they believed in Christ.
> The only solution that I have is that Christianity was INVENTED in
> the 3rd centaury and prior to that, between AD 70 and 200 had NO
> followers whatsoever.
Then how do you explain the writings of Cornelius Tacitus, Flavius
Josephus, Seutonius, Lucian of Samosata, Plinius Secundus, Clement of
Rome, Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, Iranaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr,
the Pastor of Hermas, Athenagoras, Papias, Theophilus of Antioch,
Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian? How do you explain the
emergence of all the Gnostics between 70 and 200 AD, such as Simon
Magus, Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides? How do you explain the
emergence of Christian heresies before 200 AD?
> The sermon on the mount, parables, miracles and journeys of Jesus
> were plagiarised from Apollonius and interwoven with Messianic
> Prophesy invented by the 3rd C Romans. This is blatantly obvious
> since in Mark 7:24-30 the daughter of a Greek woman is cured by
> Christ but in Mathew 15:21-82 the same woman become a Canaanite.
> Obviously changed. Where was Canaan. I thought the Jews destroyed
> it.
In Christ's time, a "chanaanaios" meant a Phoenician. Phoenicia was
called Canaan. In the Septuagint, in Exodus 6:15, Shaul, the son of
a Canaanitish woman, is called the son of a Phoenician. Also in the
Septuagint, in Joshua 5:1, the kings of Canaan are called kings of
Phoenicia. Canaan's eldest son, Sidon (or Zidon), was the father of
the Phoenicians. The woman was called a Syrophenician because
Phoenicia was right next to Syria. At times, the word "Greek" was used
by the Jews to refer to Gentiles in general , i.e. those of other
nations.
> Since all the Gospels have the sermon on the Mount in different
> places (I thin Luke has is twice) this was probably added later.
The sermon on the mount was in a lower part of the mountain, on a
relatively level plain place on it, which could hold a lot of people,
but it was still upon the mount. The sermon on the mount is found in
Luke 6:17-49.
> Immediately following the sermon in both Mathew and Luke comes the
> story of the Centurion, which clearly indicates plagurisation form
> Apollonius.
The biography of Apollonius of Tyana was written by Philostratus.
Philostratus was writing on instructions from Empress Julia Domna who
reigned 193-211 AD and who wanted to counteract the influence of
Christianity on Roman civilization. Philostratus borrrows from the
New Testament, which was written in the first century. Inventing such
false biographies in imitation of Christ attests to the validity and
authenticity of the historical Christ as presented in the four gospels.
> The resurrection story is inconsistent in all the gospel so has
> obviously be tampered with. Infact in the first 3 gospels there is
> indications that the are in fact 2 separate accounts following each
> other. In the original account the sepulchre is completely empty,
> end of story. Then bolted on to this the final passage is repeated
> and Jesus is added to the new account with the ending of the old
> accounts doctored so that Peter who is with the 2 Marys becomes an
> Angel, 2 Angels, or an unknown Man in the other 3. In fact in Luke
> the repeated passage occurs twice. The last repetition in Luke is
> probably the original text of the original ending.
Harmonizing the resurrection accounts is not a problem; the key to
remember is that the gospel authors have various "snapshots" of the
event.
1. The women arrive at the tomb (Mark 16:1-4, Luke 24:1-2, John 20:1).
2. The women enter the tomb; Mary Magdalene is the first to enter
(Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3).
3. The two angels inside the tomb announce, but Mary Magdalene leaves
before the other women and misses the angels' announcement (Matthew
28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-7).
4. Mary Magdalene, now ahead of and separated from the other women,
tells Peter and John (John 20:2).
5. Peter and John run to the tomb, with John getting to the tomb first,
Peter trailing, and Mary Magdalene trailing far behind (John 20:3-5,
Luke 24:12).
6. Peter and John enter the tomb (John 20:6-9, Luke 24:12).
7. Peter and John leave the tomb; Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb
and the angels speak to her (John 20:10-13).
8. Jesus appears to Mary (John 20:14-17, Mark 16:9).
9. Jesus appears to the other women (Matthew 28:9-10).
10.Mary Magdalene and the other women tell the other disciples Jesus
has appeared (Mark 16:10-11, Luke 24:9-11, John 20:18).
> The story of the nativity of Christ was of course the last bit to be
> added, and clearly plagurised separately from Pagan, Hindu and
> Buddhist mythology.
Pagan mythology similarities to Christianity developed after the New
Testament was written. The Mahabharata and Bhagavata-Purana
were completed after the New Testament was written. Buddha did not
claim to be God, did not perform miracles, and was not born of a
virgin.
> Why didn't they try putting him back together then. Obviously the
> believed he had already been resurrected into a new body, ...
The pre-church age Egyptians believed Osiris's body was in several
pieces and was not resurrected.
"A long inscription in the temple at Denderah has preserved a list of
the god's graves, and other texts mention the parts of his body which
were treasured as holy relics in each of the sanctuaries. Thus his
heart was at Athribis, his backbone at Busiris, his neck at Letopolis,
and his head at Memphis." (The Golden Bough, Frazer)
"... this is nothing more than Egypt could do in regard to the relics
of Osiris. Egypt was covered with sepulchres of its martyred god; and
many a leg and arm and skull, all vouched to be genuine, were exhibited
in the rival burying-places for the adoration of the Egyptian
faithful." (The Two Babylons, Hislop)
> > The twelve labours of Hercules are from the Library of Apollodorus,
>
> They are also written about by Homer and Plutarch.
>
> > which although are extant under Apollodorus's name, are not by him.
>
> Meaning ?
Pseudo-writers, and multiple writers of the same stories, all go to
show that considerable confusion can arise when to trying to understand
and determine exactly when a particular element of some mythological
story was developed in history. Many key details of these stories
could have developed after the time of Christ. Things were added.
> > Hercules had to really struggle in the various contests. Unlike
> > the stories involving Hercules in Greek mythology, there is no
> > contest going on between Christ and Satan. Although Satan is
> > vastly more
>
> So what was the Temptation of Christ all bout then. Why do Luke and
> John invoke Satan for leading Judas to betray Jesus then.
The temptation of Christ was not a "contest" between Christ and Satan.
Luke and John do not "invoke", or "call on", or "appeal to" Satan.
> > powerful than humans, he is completely powerless against Christ.
>
> Wants revelation all bout then. Christ needs and entire army to
> defeat Satan.
All that Christ needs, to smite the nations, is the sharp sword that
proceeds out of his mouth (Revelation 19:15).
> > Christians are chosen and predestinated by Christ before the
> > foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5).
>
> CODSWALLOP - Chosen people racist bigotry.
People freely choose to reject Christ; God only chooses those that He
knows will not reject Him. There is no racism or bigotry involved
with this doctrine.
Mind you, only an idiot believes documents were only written at the
time of the earliest MS. Some atheists believe that Tacitus was forged
in the 14th century. Awkward for them that an 8th century MS exists.
Presumably they now imagine that most of classical literature was
written in the 9th century!
Best wishes,
Roger Pearse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tertullian home page: http://www.tertullian.org <><
Which FRAGMENT !
It wouldn't happen to be the introduction which in know to be plagiarized
from the Greeks.
TWADDLE
Revelation was written in GREEK because is was based on the GREEK
translation in the Septuagint, like all the so-called prophesies in the
gospel which are word for word quotes from the LXX.
Eosphors was what the write of Revelation took to be Jesus, or rather an
epithet for God which was passed on to Jesus.
> > The Greek directly translates as:
> >
> > Isaiah 14:12. how did it fall from Ouranos (the Sky), Eosphoros (the
> > dawn-bringer), the morning riser, partnered to the earth, the one
> > sent towards all nations.
>
> The Greek translators of the Septuagint translated "ewsforos" from
The were actually Greek speaking Jews hen the terrible grammar.
> the Hebrew word "heylel", which means "shining one".
Which is an epithet for GOD not Satan.
> Satan himself, the "shining one", is transformed into an angel of
> light (2 Corinthians 11:14) in order to confuse people in identifying
> him with Christ.
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves
into the apostles of Christ.
13 oi gar toioutoi qeudapostoloi ergatai dolioi metaschmatizomenoi eiv
apostolouv cristou
>
> Likewise, false apostles, deceitful workers, transform themselves into
> the apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13).
Why are you reading Corinthians backwards ?
2Cor 11:14 analogise Satan to false prophets not the other way round. It ha
nothing to with him being an angel of light or Isaiah.
>
> Isaiah 14:12-17 very clearly is not speaking of Christ. Christ does
> not desire to be "like the most High" (Isaiah 14:14); Christ *is* the
> most High. Satan is an imitator of Christ, trying to be "like the
> most High".
Isaiah 14:12-17 is speaking of the King of Babylon and is base on a
plagiarised and re-arranged poem about the decent Tammuz and Ishtar into
Hades. The reputation or duplication of certain key passages proves that
>
> > It looks to me that the passage has been reconstructed form two
> > separate texts or doctored because part of it repeats itself.
>
> Perhaps then you should rely more on the Hebrew rather than the Greek
> Septuagint which is a translation of the Hebrew.
LOL... LOL.... LOL....
The Hebrew also repeats itself and in an case the LXX is far older than to
oldest Hebrew text.
>
> > The Ancient Greeks did not conceive the flow of time or the future
> > as we do now, so I will translate the passage more correctly
>
> The ancient Greeks did conceive of the flow of time and of the future.
Oh did they.
RUBBISH.
Who was the Greek H G Wells then.
The closest the ancients got to writing story set in the future is the
precursor of the story of Rip-Van-Winkle which appears in the Koran (AD
700ish). Some boys and their dog go to sleep in a cave and when they wake
200 years have gone by. There is not descript of what has changed only that
the go doe to the village and the people the knew have gone. Of cause the
story was set in the PRESENT not the future since it recounts something that
has already happened, like all text of the time and prior.
Our conception of the future and the flow of time was developed only in for
the 20th century.
> > "24 Seventy weeks transpire for your people and for the city of Zion.
> > The sin of your transgression comes to its end. Your transgression
> > has been lessened and ignored so the vision is assured. Everlasting
> > righteousness is given and the vision fulfilled bringing great
> > holiness."
> >
> > With this translation the original repetition is eradicated since the
> > passage is given its true meaning.
>
> Daniel's people were still in captivity when Gabriel gave Daniel the
> message. Everlasting righteousness was not ushered in at that time.
>
> The following translation is widely accepted and conveys the proper
> meaning.
Being widely accepted doe not mean it is either accurate or authetinc.
>
> "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
> to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make
> reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
> and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."
> (Daniel 9:24, KJV)
>
> Currently, transgression has not finished, an end of sins has not
> been made, reconciliation for iniquity has not been made, and
> everlasting righteousness has not been brought in for Daniel's people,
> Israel. So the seventy weeks is not completed yet.
TWADDLE.
>
> > > "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the
> > > commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the
> > > Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the
> > > street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous
> > > times." (Daniel 9:25, KJV)
> > >
> > > The commandment to restore and rebuild the street and the wall was
> > > given by the Persian emperor Artaxerxes on March 14, 445 BC. The
> > > Messiah the Prince is Christ. The time between the commandment and
> > > the Messiah is seven weeks and threescore and two weeks, or 69
> > > weeks.
> >
> > What has something fulfilled in 445 BC have to do with Christ in
> > 32/3 AD.
> >
> > In any case where does the stuff about messiah and seven weeks
> > come form,. It's not in the Septuagint.
>
> A "week" in Israel commonly referred to a week of years, or seven
> years, in which the seventh year was a sabbath of rest for the land,
> which was to lie fallow (Leviticus 25-26). The Jewish calendar used a
> 360-day year.
The passage refers to MONTHS not years. The ancients principle calendar was
a lunar calendar. 13 lunations = 1 year.
8 ¶ And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times
seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee
forty and nine years.
8 kai exariymhseiv seautw epta anapauseiv etwn epta eth eptakiv kai esontai
soi epta ebdomadev etwn ennea kai tessarakonta eth
>
> 69 times 7 times 360 is 173,880 days. From March 14, 445 BC to
> April 6, 32 AD are 173,880 days.
>
> > 26 After seven and seventy and sixty two stands up.....
> >
> > Where are the units ? days, weeks, months or years.
> >
> > What sort of number is "seven and seventy and sixty two" anyway.
>
> "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not
> for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy
> the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
> and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
> (Daniel 9:26, KJV)
>
> The 62 weeks follows the first seven weeks. So the term "after
Its seven and seventy i.e. 77, and NO indication of the units is given.
Anyway I should have read the passage after it which explain the meaning.
Its still questionable since 77 lunar months is exactly 6 years, its on of
the golden numbers.
27 kai dunasteusei h diayhkh eiv pollouv kai palin epistreqei kai
anoikodomhyhsetai eiv platov kai mhkov kai kata sunteleian kairwn kai meta
epta kai ebdomhkonta kairouv kai exhkonta duo eth ewv kairou sunteleiav
polemou kai afaireyhsetai h erhmwsiv en tw katiscusai thn diayhkhn epi
pollav ebdomadav kai en tw telei thv ebdomadov aryhsetai h yusia kai h
spondh kai epi to ieron bdelugma twn erhmwsewn estai ewv sunteleiav kai
sunteleia doyhsetai epi thn erhmwsin
27 Strengthened is the belief for many, and it takes root on the plateaus
and in the heights. Now of the final day: After seven and seventy days,
(which is) sixty two lunation's to the day of final conflict, came the
desolation that was believed was to come. In the last of many weeks the
alter was joined to the pin, and infront of the sanctuary of the statues of
the gods the desolation stoped. So came the conclusion of the making of
desolation.
> threescore and two weeks" refers to after weeks 8 through 69, or,
> after the completion of the 69th week.
>
> > "26 After seven and seventy and sixty two (.....) the anointing takes
> > place and is no more. A king of a nation destroys the city and the
> > holy place after it, the place of anointment, and this is the end of
> > him by an oath that in time results in war."
> >
> > This passage talks about NO messiah whatsoever. Anybody thinking it
> > to be a messiah must be a complete illiterate.
> >
> > Messianic Judaism cannot evolve within the Jewish community since
> > any Jew would know better.
>
> In Daniel 9:26 (KJV), the word "Messiah" is from the Hebrew word
> "mashiyach", which means "anointed, anointed one". Christ means
> "anointed".
More Twaddle. I have already translated the passage and it talks about the
action of Anointing not about an anointed one.
>
> > > The Messiah, Christ, was "cut off", or rejected, on April 6, 32 AD,
> > > Palm Sunday, when He offered Himself as King (Matthew 21:8-11).
> > > The people of the prince (not Christ) are the Romans who destroyed
> > > the temple in 70 AD.
> >
> > The Bible makes NO mention of the Jewish rebellion and destruction
> > of the temple in AD 70. This is HIGHLY suspicious since the revolt
> > occurs during the supposed lifetime of Paul. If this was a fulfilment
> > of prophesy the why isn't it included in the Gospels.
>
> Maybe the gospels were written before 70 AD. The destruction of the
That does not account for the fact that they claim Jesus was form Nazareth a
town the did NOT exist before AD 70.
If they were written before AD 70 then they have obviously been DOCTORED.
> temple circa 70 AD is well-documented. Paul died sometime shortly
> after 62-64 AD.
>
> > Also why do all the Gospels mention that Christ if from the town
> > Nazareth. There was no Nazareth until after AD 70. Why don't any of
> > the authors know the real meaning of the world Nazarene. The gospels
> > can't have been written until way after AD 140 since anyone living
> > in Nazareth when it was founded in AD 70 would have told them that
> > it had not exited at the time of Christ.
>
> Nazareth existed before the time of Christ but is not mentioned much
There is NO archaeological evidence for that. NONE whatsoever.
> in ancient literature because people held the people that lived there
> with contempt (John 1:46). It was taboo to even recognize them.
> Christ, by dwelling in Nazareth and being called a Nazarene, fulfilled
> Isaiah 53:3 in that he became "despised" of men.
The Nazarenes were a sect of TERRORISTS that's why the were hated. And if
Christ was one of the then he was clealy no messaih. That might account for
the gospels being doctored. If this is so then the passages about the
Nativity were clear made up 100's of years later. Why would an outlaw, and
bandit come to be taxed.
> > > "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in
> > > the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation
> > > to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make
> > > it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined
> > > shall be poured upon the desolate." (Daniel 9:27, KJV)
> > >
> > > The "one week" here is the seventieth week which has yet to occur.
> >
> > The destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the complete obliteration
> > of the Jews in Palestine in AD 135 would have made this prophesy
> > laughable.
>
> The resurrection of the whole house of Israel (Ezekiel 37:1-14) is a
> future event and will occur at the start of the seventieth week.
You must be joking.
Two words. Nazi and Holocaust.
Why no mention.
> The 69th week was completed at the triumphal entry of Christ into
> Jerusalem. Christ foretold the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
He does nothing of the kind.
>
> > Why would anyone want to write a gospel of the messiah at this time.
> >
> > The gospels therefore cannot have been written until the
> > 3rd century AD. But it still doesn't fit. Why claim Jewish
> > Messiah has come when there were no longer any Jews.
>
> All of the historical facts and documentation, involving the early
> church, such as its letters and its persecution, and various teachings
> contrary to and within the early church, require that the gospels be
> written in the first century. For example, the Coptic church claims
> that Mark brought Christianity to Egypt during the reign of the Roman
> emperor Nero in the first century, a dozen years after the Lord's
> ascension, and that he wrote the gospel bearing his name.
And the priests of Osiris claimed to have parts of his body more than 1000
of them.
>
> Christianity spread throughout Egypt within half a century of Mark's
> arrival in Alexandria. Anybody creating new Christian documents in
> the third century AD would be very well noticed and documented by
They WERE.
Why do you think Eusebius spent all of his life fighting off claims of
plagurisation.
> people, not just in Egypt, but throughout the known world. Late
> 3rd century documents could not be kept secret as to their time
> of writing.
Which is why the Christians burnt down the Library of Alexandria and every
document they could lay their hands on.
Fortunately the Life of Apollonis survived so we know that the Christens
writings were forged.
>
> > What is even more strange is why would anyone want to follow such
> > as gospel.
>
> The only valid reason why so many followed the first century gospels
> is because they were convinced Christ rose from the dead, and because
> they believed in Christ.
The account of the Resurrection was ADDED in the 3rd century.
The main text that Mathew Q was based on ends at Christ butrial. What comes
afterwards is an obvious FORGERY since it shows no consitency.
>
> > The only solution that I have is that Christianity was INVENTED in
> > the 3rd centaury and prior to that, between AD 70 and 200 had NO
> > followers whatsoever.
>
> Then how do you explain the writings of Cornelius Tacitus, Flavius
> Josephus, Seutonius, Lucian of Samosata, Plinius Secundus, Clement of
Weve been through this before . Tacitus and Josephus are obvious FAKES and
the rest are 2nd C
> Rome, Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, Iranaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr,
> the Pastor of Hermas, Athenagoras, Papias, Theophilus of Antioch,
> Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian? How do you explain the
> emergence of all the Gnostics between 70 and 200 AD, such as Simon
> Magus, Valentinus, Marcion, and Basilides? How do you explain the
> emergence of Christian heresies before 200 AD?
The Gnostics were serial plagiarisers and they do not no mention Christ
before the 2nd C.
>
> > The sermon on the mount, parables, miracles and journeys of Jesus
> > were plagiarised from Apollonius and interwoven with Messianic
> > Prophesy invented by the 3rd C Romans. This is blatantly obvious
> > since in Mark 7:24-30 the daughter of a Greek woman is cured by
> > Christ but in Mathew 15:21-82 the same woman become a Canaanite.
> > Obviously changed. Where was Canaan. I thought the Jews destroyed
> > it.
>
> In Christ's time, a "chanaanaios" meant a Phoenician. Phoenicia was
> called Canaan. In the Septuagint, in Exodus 6:15, Shaul, the son of
> a Canaanitish woman, is called the son of a Phoenician. Also in the
> Septuagint, in Joshua 5:1, the kings of Canaan are called kings of
> Phoenicia. Canaan's eldest son, Sidon (or Zidon), was the father of
> the Phoenicians. The woman was called a Syrophenician because
> Phoenicia was right next to Syria. At times, the word "Greek" was used
> by the Jews to refer to Gentiles in general , i.e. those of other
> nations.
The fact still remains that she was Greek, thus suggesting plagurisation
form Apollonius.
>
> > Since all the Gospels have the sermon on the Mount in different
> > places (I thin Luke has is twice) this was probably added later.
>
> The sermon on the mount was in a lower part of the mountain, on a
> relatively level plain place on it, which could hold a lot of people,
> but it was still upon the mount. The sermon on the mount is found in
> Luke 6:17-49.
It also reoccurs in Luke 12:27 which corresponds with the Sermon on the
Mount in Mathew 6:28
>
> > Immediately following the sermon in both Mathew and Luke comes the
> > story of the Centurion, which clearly indicates plagurisation form
> > Apollonius.
>
> The biography of Apollonius of Tyana was written by Philostratus.
> Philostratus was writing on instructions from Empress Julia Domna who
So what. Josephus was also paid.
> reigned 193-211 AD and who wanted to counteract the influence of
> Christianity on Roman civilization. Philostratus borrrows from the
Says who. Why not Mythrasism or the Attis cult.
> New Testament, which was written in the first century. Inventing such
> false biographies in imitation of Christ attests to the validity and
> authenticity of the historical Christ as presented in the four gospels.
>
Its the other way around.
> > The resurrection story is inconsistent in all the gospel so has
> > obviously be tampered with. Infact in the first 3 gospels there is
> > indications that the are in fact 2 separate accounts following each
> > other. In the original account the sepulchre is completely empty,
> > end of story. Then bolted on to this the final passage is repeated
> > and Jesus is added to the new account with the ending of the old
> > accounts doctored so that Peter who is with the 2 Marys becomes an
> > Angel, 2 Angels, or an unknown Man in the other 3. In fact in Luke
> > the repeated passage occurs twice. The last repetition in Luke is
> > probably the original text of the original ending.
>
> Harmonizing the resurrection accounts is not a problem; the key to
> remember is that the gospel authors have various "snapshots" of the
> event.
Twaddle. Up to the burial of Jesus all the account matches, then suddenly
they differ.
>
> 1. The women arrive at the tomb (Mark 16:1-4, Luke 24:1-2, John 20:1).
> 2. The women enter the tomb; Mary Magdalene is the first to enter
> (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3).
> 3. The two angels inside the tomb announce, but Mary Magdalene leaves
> before the other women and misses the angels' announcement (Matthew
> 28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-7).
Mathew says only one angel and Mark says it was a man.
> 4. Mary Magdalene, now ahead of and separated from the other women,
> tells Peter and John (John 20:2).
> 5. Peter and John run to the tomb, with John getting to the tomb first,
> Peter trailing, and Mary Magdalene trailing far behind (John 20:3-5,
> Luke 24:12).
> 6. Peter and John enter the tomb (John 20:6-9, Luke 24:12).
> 7. Peter and John leave the tomb; Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb
> and the angels speak to her (John 20:10-13).
> 8. Jesus appears to Mary (John 20:14-17, Mark 16:9).
> 9. Jesus appears to the other women (Matthew 28:9-10).
> 10.Mary Magdalene and the other women tell the other disciples Jesus
> has appeared (Mark 16:10-11, Luke 24:9-11, John 20:18).
John say it was Jesus who told Mary to tell the deciples. The other accounts
say it was the angels or the man in the tomb.
It looks to me that the account of the resurrection was bolted onto the
exiting text. Its firts form was of a man in the tomb telling the Mary's to
seek Jesus (Mark), then it becomes an angel (Mathew), then 2 angels (Luke
and John), then Jesus himself (Mark again and Luke and John). That why Mark
closes at 15:8 and then starts a new account at 15:9.
> > The story of the nativity of Christ was of course the last bit to be
> > added, and clearly plagurised separately from Pagan, Hindu and
> > Buddhist mythology.
>
> Pagan mythology similarities to Christianity developed after the New
> Testament was written. The Mahabharata and Bhagavata-Purana
Rubbish.
> were completed after the New Testament was written. Buddha did not
> claim to be God, did not perform miracles, and was not born of a
> virgin.
Neither was christ. Who ever heard of a virgin giving birth.
Persus was concaved in a shower of Gold. Since Mithrasim evolved form a
Perses cult that infers that this is the original source of Christ's
immaculate conception.
>
> > Why didn't they try putting him back together then. Obviously the
> > believed he had already been resurrected into a new body, ...
>
> The pre-church age Egyptians believed Osiris's body was in several
> pieces and was not resurrected.
>
> "A long inscription in the temple at Denderah has preserved a list of
> the god's graves, and other texts mention the parts of his body which
> were treasured as holy relics in each of the sanctuaries. Thus his
> heart was at Athribis, his backbone at Busiris, his neck at Letopolis,
> and his head at Memphis." (The Golden Bough, Frazer)
Frazer also says the Pyramid texts also says Oriris. was Resurrected
>
> "... this is nothing more than Egypt could do in regard to the relics
> of Osiris. Egypt was covered with sepulchres of its martyred god; and
> many a leg and arm and skull, all vouched to be genuine, were exhibited
> in the rival burying-places for the adoration of the Egyptian
> faithful." (The Two Babylons, Hislop)
>
> > > The twelve labours of Hercules are from the Library of Apollodorus,
> >
> > They are also written about by Homer and Plutarch.
> >
> > > which although are extant under Apollodorus's name, are not by him.
> >
> > Meaning ?
>
> Pseudo-writers, and multiple writers of the same stories, all go to
> show that considerable confusion can arise when to trying to understand
> and determine exactly when a particular element of some mythological
> story was developed in history. Many key details of these stories
> could have developed after the time of Christ. Things were added.
Oh gve me a break.
Mathew, Lark Luke and John were all written by multiple writers or more
likely compilers.
The accounts of the nativity all differ, which means they were bolted on to
Mathew Q, so do those of the Resurrection, again bolted on. John differ som
much from Mathew and the other that Mathew Q is clearly base on an earlier
account Mathew QA which includes only the entry in to Jerusalem to Christs
burial. The Sermon on the Mount was once separate text since Luke includes
it twice and the others don't include it at all (I didnt find it in Mark and
I don't know if it appears in John). It's probabley plagiarised from
Apollonius since immediately following it in Mathew and Luke Christ heals
the servant of a centurion. The story of John the Baptist is also a seperate
text since it is repeated twice in John. Then these Christs ministry to the
Samaritan which only starts to develop from Luke onwards. Christ's gathering
of the apostles is a separate text since it appear in all gospels including
John who doe not use the Mathew Q thext. His clearing of the temple of the
money lender is also a separate text since John has Christ going to
Jerusalem twice, and the others have Christ teaching in the temple
afterwards. This would have been impossible since by then Christ would have
not been welcome, thus the original Mathew QA did not have the moneylenders
part included.
>
> > > Hercules had to really struggle in the various contests. Unlike
> > > the stories involving Hercules in Greek mythology, there is no
> > > contest going on between Christ and Satan. Although Satan is
> > > vastly more
> >
> > So what was the Temptation of Christ all bout then. Why do Luke and
> > John invoke Satan for leading Judas to betray Jesus then.
>
> The temptation of Christ was not a "contest" between Christ and Satan.
> Luke and John do not "invoke", or "call on", or "appeal to" Satan.
Christ fasts and hallucinates Satan just like Daniel fasted and hallucinated
God.
>
> > > powerful than humans, he is completely powerless against Christ.
> >
> > Wants revelation all bout then. Christ needs and entire army to
> > defeat Satan.
>
> All that Christ needs, to smite the nations, is the sharp sword that
> proceeds out of his mouth (Revelation 19:15).
Claptrap
>
> > > Christians are chosen and predestinated by Christ before the
> > > foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5).
> >
> > CODSWALLOP - Chosen people racist bigotry.
>
> People freely choose to reject Christ; God only chooses those that He
> knows will not reject Him. There is no racism or bigotry involved
> with this doctrine.
Tell that to Pope Innocent III
"The earliest known fragment of a New Testament papyrus manuscript
dates from about A.D. 125 or 140. It is commonly called the
Rylands Fragment because it is housed in the John Rylands Library of
Manchester, England. A mere 6 cm x 9 cm (2-1/2 in. by 3-1/4 in.), the
fragment contains a portion of John 18:32-33, 37-38. Archaeologists
recovered the Rylands fragment from the ruins of a Greek town in
ancient Egypt."
(caption to a picture) "Papyrus 52 ... It contains several lines from
John 18, and was copied between A.D. 125 and 140. This indicates that
the Gospel of John itself was written much earlier--most likely during
the first century."
(The Bible Almanac, p. 72 (c) 1980, by Packer, Tenney, & White, Thomas
Nelson Publishers)
Very interesting. This looks like it consolidates my theory that John
predated Mathew Q.
> (caption to a picture) "Papyrus 52 ... It contains several lines from
> John 18, and was copied between A.D. 125 and 140. This indicates that
> the Gospel of John itself was written much earlier--most likely during
> the first century."
No it does not.
It indicates that the trial of a Jew betrayed by the priesthood and own
people was written down by the Romans, in Latin then translated to Greek or
Aramaic and doctored by the Egyptian Jews to invent the myth of Jesus.
As I said before the Gospels consist of several different text bolted
together in various orders.
At their center in the Trial and Crusifiction - minus the toppling of the
table of the money lenders and the account of the fig tree withering - the
closest rendering to the original is in John.
Then the the Evangelism of John - who is transfigured to Jesus who then
finds the Disciples - then the Sermon on the Mount - plagiarised from
Apollonius along with most of the miracles and other non Jewish teachings -
then the invention of the resurrection bolted onto the internment in the
sepulchre text - and finally the wholesale plaguristion of the nativity form
the Egyptian festivals of Osiris, Hinduism and Buddhism.
Thus all the gospels contain up to 5 separate texts ontop of their authors
(plural) personal views.
Ah, you poor thing. Can't you feel it seeping away from you, day by
day, post by post, rebuttal by rebuttal, line by line???
What seeps away from you? That wall in word that you call "Faith".
Slowly, slowly... reason penetrates, permeating your mind, eating away
the wall. And what will you see at long last, when you cannot escape
the truth, when the last brick has fallen?
The blackness of the abyss that awaits you....
--
Cryonics: Gateway to the Future?
http://www.cryonet.org
--
Cryonics: Gateway to the Future?
http://www.cryonet.org
I'm afraid normal people deduce nothing about relative dates of
composition from MSS survivals. The latter is mostly chance.
> > (caption to a picture) "Papyrus 52 ... It contains several lines
> > from John 18, and was copied between A.D. 125 and 140. This
> > indicates that the Gospel of John itself was written much earlier--
> > most likely during the first century."
>
> No it does not.
I am going to be polite. Please don't tempt people like this.
It does, unless, that is, you imagine texts were disseminated
instantly. The original publication, in the Bulletin of the John
Rylands library, made the point that, while it is theoretically
possible that the document was written and instantly disseminated to
every obscure hamlet in the Nile valley, 'it is the reverse of
likely'. It tends to suggest that the traditional date of around AD90
is approximately correct.
The original article makes very interesting reading, btw. Order it on
inter-library loan.
Best wishes,
Roger Pearse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tertullian home page: http://www.tertullian.org <><
> > > (caption to a picture) "Papyrus 52 ... It contains several lines
> > > from John 18, and was copied between A.D. 125 and 140. This
> > > indicates that the Gospel of John itself was written much earlier--
> > > most likely during the first century."
> >
> > No it does not.
>
> I am going to be polite. Please don't tempt people like this.
>
> It does, unless, that is, you imagine texts were disseminated
It does NOT.
It only indicates that a a FRAGMENT which eventually was incorporated into
John was disseminated at that time. A FRAGMENT, NOT the entire work.
> instantly. The original publication, in the Bulletin of the John
> Rylands library, made the point that, while it is theoretically
> possible that the document was written and instantly disseminated to
The FRAGMENT not the entire work of John.
I have PROVEN by my translations that the book of Daniels was written by
more than one author and contains MANY different passages written at
different time by different contributors. That fact that the Churches
version bares NO resemblance whatsoever to the original LXX text indicates
that over the course of time the Jews TAMPERED with it.
> every obscure hamlet in the Nile valley, 'it is the reverse of
> likely'. It tends to suggest that the traditional date of around AD90
> is approximately correct.
It tends to suggest that the transcript and office paper concerning the
trial of Jewish Rabbi was STOLEN form the Romans by Jewish curators, or most
likely read and partially memorised, then written down in their histories,
in the same way the Book of Daniel which covers the 250 years between the
advent of Alexander and the fall of Egypt to Octavian was DISSEMBELD from
exiting documents that were known to the Jews and added to over time. The
fact that if fall short of being coherent proves it.
All you have to do is to read Daniel 10 and 11 in the ORIGINAL Ancient Greek
and then the Church version to see the Myth making process in action.
If you have evidence of a fragment of John in separate circulation,
other than the Woman Taken in Adultery fragment, you had better produce
it. You don't seem to know much about this. Does WRITING IN CAPITALS
makes it true?
I wonder if you realise that P52 is from a codex? That is, that it has
writing on the back? That is, it has the next bit of John on it too.
Of course your imaginary fragment must have had the same order and
spacing as John... But isn't this fantasy getting a bit strained?
> > every obscure hamlet in the Nile valley, 'it is the reverse of
> > likely'. It tends to suggest that the traditional date of around
> > AD90 is approximately correct.
>
> It tends to suggest that the transcript and office paper concerning
> the trial of Jewish Rabbi was STOLEN form the Romans by Jewish
> curators, or most likely read and partially memorised, then written
> down in their histories,
This is just fiction. Unless you can produce 1st or 2nd century
documents saying these things, of course (which, being kind, I can tell
you do not exist).
This sort of argument was used to 'prove' Jesus wasan astronaut, 20
years ago. Complete with CAPITALS!
It was FORGED.
> other than the Woman Taken in Adultery fragment, you had better produce
> it. You don't seem to know much about this. Does WRITING IN CAPITALS
> makes it true?
>
> I wonder if you realise that P52 is from a codex? That is, that it has
> writing on the back? That is, it has the next bit of John on it too.
Oh it has writing in the back..... Ha Ha Ha..... So what ?
You're telling me that this FRAGMENT form the end of John carries on into
Acts....
Yer... Course it does.
>
> Of course your imaginary fragment must have had the same order and
> spacing as John... But isn't this fantasy getting a bit strained?
I can just as easily copy a Reuters press release about the EU summit at
Niece from AltaVista and then follow it with one from Associated Press. What
would that prove if all the paragraphs were in the same order, apart form
that I plagiarised both accounts.
>
> > > every obscure hamlet in the Nile valley, 'it is the reverse of
> > > likely'. It tends to suggest that the traditional date of around
> > > AD90 is approximately correct.
> >
> > It tends to suggest that the transcript and office paper concerning
> > the trial of Jewish Rabbi was STOLEN form the Romans by Jewish
> > curators, or most likely read and partially memorised, then written
> > down in their histories,
>
> This is just fiction. Unless you can produce 1st or 2nd century
No the Gospels are fiction.
> documents saying these things, of course (which, being kind, I can tell
> you do not exist).
You've just shown one in you codex.
>
> This sort of argument was used to 'prove' Jesus wasan astronaut, 20
> years ago. Complete with CAPITALS!
Next you'll be telling me that all of Daniel was written at the time of the
Macabees even though it describes the greatest ever navel battle known to
history between Mark Anthony and Octavian, which occurred 100 years later.
The book had MANY authors over a considerable time and plagiarised many
sources as did the Gospels.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Roger Pearse
I answered you points.
> there's no purpose in my replying further. I'm glad to see that anti-
> Christians are now driven to take refuge in nonsense; but sorry for
> you, because it's just too easy to make oneself stupider than one
> really is, by churning out such stuff. Why not junk this tripe and
> take up an interest in *real* history?
Why no learn classical Greek and read the original documents instead of
Church FORGERIES and you'll see that they are all a pack of lies.
BTW after doing a bit of research I have reason to believe that the first
part of Daniel 10 was Plagiarised from Zoroaster.
Is there noting sacred that the Jews have not stolen ?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Roger Pearse
You *are* a silly boy, aren't you? Are you telling me that any of
these documents are written in Attic? As opposed to Koine?
By all means reply in Greek or Latin. If you can.
Roger Pearse
(Author of QuickLatin)
Cut your crap. Greek has essentially remained the same language for over
3500 years irrespective of dialect..
>
> By all means reply in Greek or Latin. If you can.
an tha sou 'grapsa eis sta, attica, ei sta makadonika, ei kypraika, ei
katholou, to skato pou einai sti kele sou antis kephalion, den tha ta
katalaben kata pantos vre suntrvisti.
Satanas metaschematizo eis aggelos phos
Satanas = Satan
metaschematizo = is transformed
eis = into
aggelos = angel
phos = of light
> I have PROVEN by my translations that the book of Daniels was written
> by more than one author and contains MANY different passages written
> at different time by different contributors.
Your translations, from earlier on in this thread, of a few verses of
the book of Daniel, were from the Septuagint.
> That fact that the Churches version bares NO resemblance whatsoever
> to the original LXX text indicates that over the course of time the
> Jews TAMPERED with it.
Except that we do not have "the original LXX text".
> The fact that if fall short of being coherent proves it.
The book of Daniel does not "fall short of being coherent".
> All you have to do is to read Daniel 10 and 11 in the ORIGINAL
> Ancient Greek and then the Church version to see the Myth making
> process in action.
For Daniel 10-11, the differences between the Masoretic text and the
Dead Sea Scroll fragments are so minor and insignificant that the
meaning conveyed by Masoretic text can be considered to be basically
the same as, and unchanged from, the Hebrew text from before the time
of Christ.
> BTW after doing a bit of research I have reason to believe that the
> firstpart of Daniel 10 was Plagiarised from Zoroaster.
Your belief, "that the first part of Daniel 10 was Plagiarised from
Zoroaster", will be impossible to prove, since the Avesta (the
Zoroastrian scriptures) and the Gathas (older hymns) were not written
down until the Sasanian period (224-651 AD), well after the New
Testament was written.
"His (Zoroaster's) teachings were handed down orally in his community
from generation to generation, and were at last committed to writing
under the Sasanians, rulers of the third Iranian empire. The language
then spoken was Middle Persian, also called Pahlavi; and the Pahlavi
books provide invaluable keys for interpreting the magnificent
obscurities of the Gathas themselves."
("Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices", p.17, Mary
Boyce, 1979)
So the actual teachings and doctrine of Zoroastrianism were not
documented prior to the Sasanian period (224-651 AD). To counter
your "belief", people may alternatively claim that Zoroastrianiam
plagiarized from Judaism and Christianity.
YOU MUST BE JOKING.
It is clear that the Churches translation (KJV) does not resemble the
Septuagint text in any way.
It is obvious to anyone that bits were added and others taken away and other
deliberately miss translated..
The second part of Daniel 10 is completely divergent form the Churches
version and the end of Daniel 9 make no mention of any messiah in the LXX
version. As for Daniel 11, the Churches version is a complete pack of lies.
This is no prophesy but instead it talks about Roman history circa 50BC
after covering the conquests of Alexander.
LOL... LOL.... LOL....
Lets look at YHWHisms track record.
Do you deny that is has plagiarised Sumerian and Babylonian Flood and
Creation Myths, or are you saying that a copy of the Bible was through a
worm hole and travelled back in to ancient Sumeria where it was copied.
Do you deny that the decent of Tammuz into the underworld was copied in
Isaiah 14.
Do you deny that the Psalms were based on plagiarised poetry to honour Baal.
These are well established facts.
With a record like that how can you deny that Daniel refers to the Romans of
the time of Julius Caesar and the Alexandrian Greeks and Zoroaster, and that
the Gospels were plagiarised from earlier pagan cults.
There are way too many ocincideces. Why would anyone want to plagiarise the
Jewish scriptures. They are are completely incoherent and as far as the
quality of the prose goes they are nowhere near the quality of Greek
Philosophy and Literature, Zoroastrianism or the Gilgamesh saga.
Too many people around here seem to have a need to be abusive of the Jewish
and, even more so, the Christian traditions. Points made in such a way say
a lot more about the writer than the topic.
Babylonian, Sumerian, Hebrew mythologies and their inter-relations are all
serious topics - never mind the difficult matter of identifying exactly, or
even roughly, what the religious practice of Israel was - it is worth all
our whiles to do proper research before reaching for the big book of
cliches.
I particularly liked your phrase 'these are all established facts' - the
mark of someone who has yet to enter the deep waters I think. (oops, a
cliche)
Iain
You wrote, amongst other things:
For Isaiah 14, the English translation of the Septuagint, available at
http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=brenton&bookID=lxx&page=849&v
iew=png
http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=brenton&bookID=lxx&page=850&v
iew=png
makes no mention at all of "Tammuz", or "Ishtar", or "the Goddess of
everything".
The Brenton translation of Isaiah 14 is very different than your
translation of Isaiah 14.
No that is the Churches interpretation and not a true translation.
>
> makes no mention at all of "Tammuz", or "Ishtar", or "the Goddess of
> everything".
>
> The Brenton translation of Isaiah 14 is very different than your
> translation of Isaiah 14.
Its a PACK OF LIES.
How the hell can you possibly translate the following as
21 Prepare thy children to be slain for the sins of their father; that they
arise not, and inherit the earth, nor fill the earth with wars.
This is pure bullshit.
21 etoimason ta tekna sou sfaghnai taiv amartiaiv tou patrov sou ina mh
anastwsin kai thn ghn klhronomhswsin kai emplhswsi thn ghn polewn
Word for word the Greek reads like this.
21 make-ready the children of-yours, blot-out the(plural) sins of-the father
of-you so-that-they not rise-up, and the(singular) earth inherit, and fill
the(singular) earth cities/many.
21 make ready your children, blot out the sins of your fathers, that they
shall not re-appear, and inherit the earth and fill it up with cities
Where does it talk about slaying children or wars.
Where does it get the last nor from. Its not even in the Greek text.
I was referring to "the differences between the Masoretic text and the
Dead Sea Scroll fragments", not to the differences between the Greek
Septuagint and the KJV. The Qumran fragments conform very closely to
the Masoretic text in Daniel 10-11.
VanderKam, comparing the LXX and the Hebrew text, writes: "The Greek
translations (there are several, all having their own histories of
transmission and varieties of manuscripts) differ at times from the
Masoretic Text. In fact, thousands of variations exist between them,
but most of the differences are quite minor, ones that would not be
noticed by the casual reader of the Bible. For example, the Greek
might read the word "the" with a noun and the Hebrew word lack it, or
the two versions might spell a name somewhat differently."
("The Dead Sea Scrolls Today" p.124, James C. VanderKam, 1994)
> The second part of Daniel 10 is completely divergent form the
> Churches version and the end of Daniel 9 make no mention of any
> messiah in the LXX version.
I do not consider the second part of Daniel 10 (KJV) to be "completely
divergent" with the English translation of the Septuagint found at
http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=brenton&bookID=lxx&page=1066&
view=png
"Christ the prince" is referred to in Daniel 9:25 at
http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=brenton&bookID=lxx&page=1065&
view=png
> As for Daniel 11, the Churches version is a complete pack of lies.
> This is no prophesy but instead it talks about Roman history circa
> 50BC after covering the conquests of Alexander.
The Brenton English translation of the Septuagint has been published
by private corporations, not the church. The book of Daniel, written
by Daniel in the 6th century BC, is prophetic and predicts the Roman
empire. When Alexander the Great entered Jerusalem in 332 BC, he was
shown passages in the book of Daniel which he believed referred to him.
Daniel 11:1-35 discusses events up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes
and Judas Maccabaeus; Daniel 11:36-45 is future prophecy. This is why
people refer to "Daniel the prophet".
Not quite. Old Persian versions of the Gathas still exist, though they
have been translated into the more modern Avestan.
From http://www.askwhy.co.uk/awscrip/jm1/0550ZoroastInf.html
"The Avesta is all that remains of the 21 Nards, and these were only part
of an even larger collection of works that existed before Alexander
destroyed the sacred texts of the Persians, as Diodorus, the historian,
relates. The Zoroastrian bible was probably complete by about 400 BC. The
Persian archives were held at Persepolis yet Alexander
uncharacteristically burnt the city and murdered many of Persia's leading
scholars. The Dinkard, a ninth century Persian work says there were only
ever two copies of Zoroaster's monumental work, one of which was burned
and the other was confiscated by the Greeks.
"Alexander was not normally disposed to offending the people he
conquered. He had just captured Babylon where the priests of Marduk
welcomed Alexander, and Alexander showed respect to them, consulting them
on the proper way to worship the Babylonian god, Marduk, taking him by
the hand and offering animal sacrifices to him. He ordered Marduk's
statues and temples to be restored. Earlier he had honoured the Jewish
god and the God, Amun, in Egypt. Perhaps Alexander was merciful to those
who surrendered without trouble but, after the battle of Issus, Darius
was practically offering surrender to Alexander, so the brutality must
have been in revenge for the Greek war with Xerxes.
"The priests collected what remained of the burnt fragments, together
with portions that had been copied for special devotional purposes and
whatever could otherwise be remembered and, in the second century BC,
Volosges (Valkash), one of the Arsacid kings, had the fragments preserved
and sought to reconstruct the holy works. Evidently it was a long slow
process because it was not finished until the Sassanids ruled in the
third or fourth century AD. This also was savaged a few centuries later
by the Muslims and the Tartars, so the Avesta is only scraps of a vast
collection of Zoroastrian sacred work.
"The only complete Nard extant is the Vendidad, one of the parts of the
Avesta. The other books of the Avesta are either fragments of the lost
Nards or precompiled extracts of them that survived the destruction.
Fortunately Zoroaster's Gathas, being particularly sacred, seem to have
existed in enough copies to have survived essentially unaltered. "
It is not clear why Alexander so savagely suppressed the religion of the
Magi. It may be that they were accustomed to considering themselves the
equals of kings and refused to submit to him.
--
The curse of the Earth is Mankind, and
The curse of Mankind is overpopulation.
> Do you deny that is has plagiarised Sumerian and Babylonian Flood and
> Creation Myths, or are you saying that a copy of the Bible was
> through a worm hole and travelled back in to ancient Sumeria where
> it was copied.
The Genesis account is quite different than the Sumerian and Babylonian
flood and creation myths, and I am unaware of any evidence the Hebrew
Bible borrows from these myths.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
"Genesis 1 and "Enuma Elish." Ever since H. Gunkel's famous book
Sch"pfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (1895), scholars have taken
it for granted that the Hebrew teh"m in Genesis 1:2 has its
mythological background in the ancient Babylonian goddess Tiamat of the
"creation" myth "Enuma elish," in which the storm-god Marduk fights
with and wins over the sea dragon Tiamat, establishing the cosmos.[10]
I have thoroughly reexamined the problem from a linguistic point of
view, and it is now clear that it is phonologically impossible to
conclude that teh"m 'ocean' was borrowed from Tiamat. The Hebrew teh"m
'ocean' together with the Ugaritic thm, the Akkadian tiamtu, the Arabic
tihamat, and the Eblaite ti-'...-ma-tum /tiham(a)tum/ is simply a
reflection of a common Semitic term *tiham- (1989: 45-52).
"While the Hebrew and Akkadian terms refer to the "primeval" water, as
Lambert notes, "the watery beginning of Genesis in itself is no
evidence of Mesopotamian influence" (Lambert 1965: 293). He also notes
that while the horizontal division of the cosmic water in Genesis 1:6-8
has its parallel description in Ee IV 135-V 62, "the case for a battle
as a prelude to God's dividing of the cosmic waters is unproven." In
other words, "neither on the Hebrew side nor on the Mesopotamian is
there any clear proof that a battle is necessarily tied to the dividing
of the waters." So, Genesis 1 and "Enuma elish," which was composed
primarily to exalt Marduk in the pantheon of Babylon,[11] have no
direct relation to each other. Not only is the creation by divine fiat
in Genesis unique in the ancient Near East, the creation of light as
the first creating act appears only in Genesis (Lambert 1980: 71;
1965). Thus the creation in the Genesis story is quite different from
the idea of "order out of chaos," though the latter is also often
called "creation" (McCarthy 1967).
"It is not correct to say that "Enuma elish" was adopted and adapted by
the Israelites to produce the Genesis stories. As Lambert holds, there
is "no evidence of Hebrew borrowing from Babylon" (1965: 296). Sj"berg
accepts Lambert's opinion that "there was hardly any influence from
that Babylonian text on the Old Testament creation accounts" (1984:
217). Hasel thinks rather that the creation account of Genesis 1
functions as an antimythological polemic in some cases (e.g., with the
"sun," the "moon," and tnnm ('sea monsters'?), etc. (1974). One thing
is clear with regard to the religious nature of the creation story of
Genesis: in Genesis 1 and 2 no female deity exists or is involved in
producing the cosmos and humanity. This is unique among ancient
creation stories that treat of deities having personality."
...
"Chaos in Genesis 1:2? (a) toh- waboh-. The expression toh- waboh-,
which is traditionally translated in English as "without form and void"
(RSV) or the like, is often taken as signifying the primeval "chaos,"
in direct opposition to "creation." I have demonstrated, however, that
the phrase toh- waboh- has nothing to do with primeval chaos; it simply
means 'emptiness' and refers to the earth in a "bare" state, without
vegetation and animals as well as without humans. This "unproductive
and empty, uninhabited" earth becomes productive with vegetation and
inhabited by animals and humankind by God's fiats (Tsumura 1989:
41-43).
"I have also pointed out that in Genesis 1:2 ha'ares and teh"m are a
"hyponymous" word pair and hence the 'ocean' (teh"m) is a part of the
'earth' (ha'ares), since the term ha'ares, which constitutes an
antonymous word pair with hassamayim 'the heavens' in Genesis 1:1, must
refer to everything under the heaven.[13] However, vv. 6ff. suggest
that the water of teh"m in Genesis 1:2 covered all the 'earth' (Tsumura
1989: 78-79). This water-covered earth is described in this passage by
a pair of expressions, toh- waboh- // hosek, not yet normal, that is to
say, not yet productive or inhabited and without light. But it was not
chaotic. It should be noted that even in "Enuma elish" the initial
mingling of Apsu and Tiamat (Ee I 5) was orderly, not chaotic (Tsumura
1989: 60 n. 70)."
(The above quotes are taken from "I Studied Inscriptions From Before
the Flood', ed., R.S. Hess and D.T. Tsumura, Winona Lake IN:
Eisenbrauns, pp. 27-34.)
Clearly the Genesis account is unique.
> Do you deny that the decent of Tammuz into the underworld was copied
> in Isaiah 14.
The translations of Isaiah 14 from the Hebrew Masoretic text and from
the Qumran Isaiah Scroll (available from
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm#c12 ) do not mention Tammuz at
all.
> Do you deny that the Psalms were based on plagiarised poetry to
> honour Baal.
Even though the Israelites fell into the worship of Baal, the captivity
put worship of this idol to an end (Zephaniah 1:4-6). Psalms does not
advocate Baal worship.
> These are well established facts.
No, they are not.
> With a record like that how can you deny that Daniel refers to the
> Romans of the time of Julius Caesar and the Alexandrian Greeks and
> Zoroaster, and that the Gospels were plagiarised from earlier pagan
> cults.
The prophet Daniel, writing in the sixth century BC, predicted the
Greek and Roman empires.
The Gospels were not "plagiarised from earlier pagan cults." See
http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
http://www.mustardseed.net/html/topaganism.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
With respect to your suggestion that Daniel refers to Zoroaster, it is
probable that Zoroastrianism was influenced by Judaism. Maneckji
Nusservanji Dhalla, Ph.D.,Litt.D., who was High Priest of the Parsis
in Karachi, India, wrote in his book "History of Zoroastrianism" (1938)
(p.309-310), in a section titled "Legend grows about the prophet of
Iran that obscures his personality.":
"The Pahlavi works that give us the account of the happenings in the
life of Zaratusht* have been written in about the ninth century, or
about two thousand years after the passing away of the prophet. The
holy figure has grown very distant and dim. The real events of his life
have been obscured by the long centuries, particularly the five
centuries of chaos that followed Alexander's conquest of Persia. The
piety of the adherents of his faith has burnt so much incense in his
sacred memory that his face has got almost beyond recognition. We know
everything of the life of Mohammed; we know something of the lives of
Buddha and Jesus; we know practically nothing of the life of Zoroaster.
The materials that we have in the Pahlavi works relating to him are not
historical and authentic; they are legendary and mythical. Portents
herald his birth and archangels attend his nativity. Legendary accounts
of the miraculous conception and birth and childhood of Zaratusht
supersede the matter-of-fact information that the Gathas give. The
Pahlavi writers have before them the examples of the legendary stories
of the miraculous incidents connected with the lives of Moses, Buddha,
and Jesus, circulated in Iran by the followers of these prophets. It is
probable that their writings have been influenced by these foreign
sources."
*Explanatory Note: With respect to Zaratusht, Dhalla writes: "I have
distinguished between the Avestan, Pahlavi and Persian forms by writing
Zarathushtra for the first, and Zaratusht for Pahlavi and Zartusht for
Persian as they actually occur in these languages; but I have adopted
the more familiar form Zoroaster for general use."
> There are way too many ocincideces.
There are way too many people distorting facts and trying to change
history in their unsuccessful efforts to try to discredit Christianity.
> Why would anyone want to plagiarise the Jewish scriptures. They are
> are completely incoherent and as far as the quality of the prose goes
> they are nowhere near the quality of Greek Philosophy and Literature,
> Zoroastrianism or the Gilgamesh saga.
Many people disagree with the above statement and have expressed their
disagreement with their wallets, since the Bible is by far the
best-selling book of all time. If you cannot understand Jewish
scripture, that automatically disqualifies you from passing any
intelligent judgment or opinion on it.
"His (Zoroaster's) teachings were handed down orally in his community
from generation to generation, and were at last committed to writing
under the Sasanians, rulers of the third Iranian empire. The language
then spoken was Middle Persian, also called Pahlavi; and the Pahlavi
books provide invaluable keys for interpreting the magnificent
obscurities of the Gathas themselves."
("Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices", p.17, Mary
Boyce, 1979)
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,80561+1+78456,00.htm
l?query=zoroaster
"The student of Zoroastrianism is confronted by several problems
concerning the religion's founder. One question is what part of
Zoroastrianism derives from Zoroaster's tribal religion and what part
was new as a result of his visions and creative religious genius.
Another question is the extent to which the later Zoroastrian religion
(Mazdaism) of the Sasanian period (ad 224-651) genuinely reflected the
teachings of Zoroaster. A third question is the extent to which the
sources--the Avesta (the Zoroastrian scriptures) with the Gathas (older
hymns), the Middle Persian Pahlavi Books, and reports of various Greek
authors--offer an authentic guide to Zoroaster's ideas.
"A biographical account of Zoroaster is tenuous at best or speculative
at the other extreme. The date of Zoroaster's life cannot be
ascertained with any degree of certainty. ...."
In article <MPG.14a4b38d8...@news.teleport.com>,
Larry Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> wrote:
> From http://www.askwhy.co.uk/awscrip/jm1/0550ZoroastInf.html
>
> "The Avesta is all that remains of the 21 Nards, and these were only
> part of an even larger collection of works that existed before
> Alexander destroyed the sacred texts of the Persians, as Diodorus,
> the historian, relates. The Zoroastrian bible was probably complete
> by about 400 BC. The Persian archives were held at Persepolis yet
> Alexander uncharacteristically burnt the city and murdered many of
> Persia's leading scholars. The Dinkard, a ninth century Persian work
> says there were only ever two copies of Zoroaster's monumental work,
> one of which was burned and the other was confiscated by the Greeks.
"Pahlavi was the court language of the Sasanians and it survived the
downfall of their empire by at least three centuries. Extensive Pahlavi
literature that came into existence under the Sasanians has mostly
perished. The works that have reached us were written after the
downfall of the Sasanian empire, mostly during the Abbasid period. The
compilation of the most important work of the period, the Dinkard, for
example, was commenced by the learned high-priest Atarfarnbarg
Farokhzad in the beginning of the ninth century and completed by one of
his successors, Adarbad Hemed, towards the end of the ninth century.
The Dinkard, Vijirkard-i Dinik, and the Persian Rivayets give us
summaries of the lost Nasks. We gather from the contents of the lost
Nasks given in the Dinkard that, with the exception of the eleventh
Nask, altogether twenty Avestan Nasks, nineteen along with their
Pahlavi commentaries and one without it, still existed in the ninth
century. The greater part of these works has perished during the
unsettled times when Persia fell under the barbarous rule of the
Tartars."(p.5)
"The materials that have been preserved in the Dinkard, the Selections
of Zatsparam, and some scattered passages in other Pahlavi works make
up the literature on the life of the prophet that came into existence
during the Pahlavi period." (p. 310)
> "Alexander was not normally disposed to offending the people he
> conquered. He had just captured Babylon where the priests of Marduk
> welcomed Alexander, and Alexander showed respect to them, consulting
> them on the proper way to worship the Babylonian god, Marduk, taking
> him by the hand and offering animal sacrifices to him. He ordered
> Marduk's statues and temples to be restored. Earlier he had honoured
> the Jewish god and the God, Amun, in Egypt. Perhaps Alexander was
> merciful to those who surrendered without trouble but, after the
> battle of Issus, Darius was practically offering surrender to
> Alexander, so the brutality must have been in revenge for the Greek
> war with Xerxes.
>
> "The priests collected what remained of the burnt fragments, together
> with portions that had been copied for special devotional purposes
> and whatever could otherwise be remembered and, in the second century
> BC, Volosges (Valkash), one of the Arsacid kings, had the fragments
> preserved and sought to reconstruct the holy works. Evidently it was
> a long slow process because it was not finished until the Sassanids
> ruled in the third or fourth century AD. This also was savaged a few
> centuries later by the Muslims and the Tartars, so the Avesta is only
> scraps of a vast collection of Zoroastrian sacred work.
"One of the five kings of this royal house that bore the name
Vologeses, ordered a collection to be made of the scattered fragments
of the manuscript material that might have survived the period that for
nearly five centuries threatened the utter destruction of the sacred
scriptures of Zoroaster's faith and menaced even that which was
preserved in oral tradition. Nevertheless, Dinkart informs us that
all that could be recovered of the lost Zoroastrian canon at this time
was only as much as could be retained by any one Dastur in his memory."
(p. 295)
> "The only complete Nard extant is the Vendidad, one of the parts of
> the Avesta. The other books of the Avesta are either fragments of the
> lost Nards or precompiled extracts of them that survived the
> destruction. Fortunately Zoroaster's Gathas, being particularly
> sacred, seem to have existed in enough copies to have survived
> essentially unaltered. "
"The most extensive literature on Zoroastrianism is written in Avestan.
This period, which I have called Later Avestan period, extends to the
early part of the Pahlavi era and goes even beyond it. When the two
periods thus overlap each other, it often becomes difficult to
determine whether a certain phase of religious thought is on one side
or the other of the dividing line between them. The Avestan works, in
the form in which they were written in the Avestan period, no longer
exist. They were scattered by the storm that swept over Persia when
Alexander conquered the country, and shook her religious edifice to its
base. The form in which the Avestan texts have reached us is that which
was given them during the Pahlavi period." ... "The Pahlavi period ...
covers a period of about eight centuries. Although it is most
productive under the Sasanian rule, it does not close with the collapse
of this, the last of the Zoroastrian empires, but survives it by at
least three centuries in Moslem Persia."(p.xxxii)
" The Pahlavi works are written by many hands in successive periods.
Though the canon was declared closed by the edict of Shapur II, the
work of rendering the Avestan texts into Pahlavi with exegetic
commentaries, and the composition of original works in the court
language, continued throughout the Sasanian period, and even long after
the downfall of the empire. Few if any of the exegetical works of
Zoroastrianism written during the Sasanian period have survived the
devastating hands of the conquering hordes of the Arabs, and almost all
the important Pahlavi works that we possess to-day were written under
the Abbasid Caliphs. The Persians in whose veins flowed the kingly blue
blood had helped the Abbasids in overthrowing the Umayyads, thus
avenging themselves upon their national foes, the Arabs. This greatly
elevated the position of the Zoroastrians at the royal court of Bagdad.
During this period it was that the composition of the Pahlavi treatises
was undertaken with renewed vigour. To the ninth century we owe much of
the Pahlavi literature that has come down to us. Thus the Pahlavi
literature covers a period of about seven centuries, beginning from the
first Sasanian ruler, Ardashir, or still earlier, and stretching
downwards to the times of the illustrious Caliph of the Abbasid
dynasty, al-Ma'mum, or even later." (p.320-321)
> It is not clear why Alexander so savagely suppressed the religion of
> the Magi. It may be that they were accustomed to considering
> themselves the equals of kings and refused to submit to him.
>
> --
> The curse of the Earth is Mankind, and
> The curse of Mankind is overpopulation.
>
TWADDLE.
The Masoretic Text is a later RE-WRITE of the Septuagint and differs on
thousands of occasions form both that and the Samaritan Laws which more
closely resemble the Septuagint and are closer to the original scriptures.
The difference as NOT subtle, they are glaring obvious to anyone with the
slightest bit of understanding of ancient Greek.
>
> > The second part of Daniel 10 is completely divergent form the
> > Churches version and the end of Daniel 9 make no mention of any
> > messiah in the LXX version.
>
> I do not consider the second part of Daniel 10 (KJV) to be "completely
> divergent" with the English translation of the Septuagint found at
> http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=brenton&bookID=lxx&page=1066&
> view=png
YOU MUST BE JOKING or completely of your trolley.
The firts half of Daniel 10 recounts him fasting and then having a
hallucination in public by the river where the people believe he is mad and
leave. The he is spotted by a Persian seedier and helped up. This account
was almost certainly plagiarised form Zoroasters vision of an angel.
After this the translation completely diverges form the Greek text. The
translation is either completely illiterate or a fraudulent charlatan.
In the second half of Daniel 10, Daniel recalls his experience to the Jews,
and the account he gives is EXACTLY the same as in the first half, as I have
shown in my translation, and then the Persion soldier has tro leave because
the Greeks are coming, meaning Alexander, and meaning it was written in 312
BC.
Anybody claiming this to be prophesy is a COMPLETE AND UTTER LIAR.
>
> "Christ the prince" is referred to in Daniel 9:25 at
> http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=brenton&bookID=lxx&page=1065&
> view=png
RUBBISH.
Daniel 9:
25 kai gnwsh kai dianohyhsh kai eufranyhsh kai eurhseiv prostagmata
apokriyhnai kai oikodomhseiv ierousalhm polin kuriw
25 Love, friendship understanding and the discovery of things to come reveal
themselves and the building of Jerusalem the city of God (or the lord).
Where is christ anything let alone prince.
The version of the Septuagint you quote form is a Church FAKE.
"ierousalhm polin kuriw" in the original has been changed at a later data to
"ierousalhm eos Xristou."
Its obvious that the text has been tampered with and edited since ancient
Greek did not contain any punctuation or capitalisations of pro nouns or
accents on letters.
I suggest you download the original LXX text form the Online Bible company.
Program + Authorised Version
http://streams.omroep.nl/eo/olb/windows/english/olbstartpack.exe
Dictionary
http://streams.omroep.nl/eo/olb/windows/easton.exe
Greek Septuagint
http://streams.omroep.nl/eo/olb/windows//lxx.exe
Greek Septuagint Apocrypha
http://streams.omroep.nl/eo/olb/windows/lxxapc.exe
Greek New Testement
http://streams.omroep.nl/eo/olb/windows/tr.exe
>
> > As for Daniel 11, the Churches version is a complete pack of lies.
> > This is no prophesy but instead it talks about Roman history circa
> > 50BC after covering the conquests of Alexander.
>
> The Brenton English translation of the Septuagint has been published
English translation of The Septuagint by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton,
originally published in 1851.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/TheWord/Files/Bibles/lxxe.exe
> by private corporations, not the church. The book of Daniel, written
The person is a complete CHARLESTON.
I have read his account and it was because it was clear that his translation
did not match the original Greet text, that I was forced to translate it
myself.
> by Daniel in the 6th century BC, is prophetic and predicts the Roman
TWADDLE. The first half of Daniel 10 was plagiarised form a Zoroastrian text
from about that time, but the rest was written at the time of Alexander and
later..
Daniel may have started writing the book but he did NOT complete it, many
others did that over 100's of years.
> empire. When Alexander the Great entered Jerusalem in 332 BC, he was
> shown passages in the book of Daniel which he believed referred to him.
Daniel was written during or after Alexander's conquest Persia. That fact
that Daniel 10 ends with "the Greeks are coming" proves it. It was NO
prophesy.
> Daniel 11:1-35 discusses events up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes
> and Judas Maccabaeus; Daniel 11:36-45 is future prophecy. This is why
> people refer to "Daniel the prophet".
RUBBISH.
Daniel 11:1-35 refers to Alexander and then to arguments between the first
Seleucids and Ptolemy's. After that it refers to one or both of the Slaves
Revolts. It can in no way be construed as referring to Antionichus or Judas
Maccabaeus since these events were a complete pack of LIES invented by the
Jews in the 1st C AD and have no basine in fact. Antionichus was the most
benevolent king the Jews ever had an treated them with the utmost respect.
His reward form them was to be demonised.
Daniel 11:36-45 refers to Julius Caesar followed by Marc Anthony and ends
with the Naval Battle with Octavian.
See my translation.
The original point in question was if Zoroastrian text could have
influenced the book of Daniel.
1. The Gathas date from as early as the 5th century bce,
2. We have historical accounts that Alexander burned a large quantity of
Zoroastrian texts and suppressed the Magian religion, which had been
influential in Persia to that point.
3. The Jewish temple was under the sponsorship of both Cyrus and Darius,
and at the time that Daniel was written (167 bce), Judaea had been under
the hegemony of Persia for 300 years.
4. All of Judaism showed heavy Zoroastrian influence by the time of
Daniel. Apocalyptic prophecies are pure quill Zoroastrian.
It makes no difference what form the Avesta took 500 years later. That
had no influence at all on Selucid Persia. There is ample evidence that
there was an active Zoroastrian religion long before Daniel was written,
and the Jews were well within its sphere of influence. It is
particularly tellling that there was no apocalyptic tradition within
Judaism before contact with the Zoroastrians.
I already told you that the aforementioned translation is inaccurate and
does not reflect the original Greek text..
> states:
>
> "How has Lucifer, that rose in the morning, fallen from heaven ! He
> that sent orders to all the nations is crushed to the earth."
RUBBISH.
There is NOTHING about giving orders or crushing anyone.
12 pwv exepesen ek tou ouranou o ewsforov o prwi anatellwn sunetribh eiv thn
ghn o apostellwn prov panta ta eynh
12 how, fell/occured of the(possessive) uranus, the(singular masc.)
dawn-bringer, the(singular masc.) morning riser, rubs-together to/at/on
the(sing. fem.) earth, the (sing. masc.) sent-out in-face all the(plural)
nations.
12 how did it fall from Uranus, the dawn-bringer, the morning riser,
procreating on the earth, the one who goes to all nations.
>
> An all-powerful omnipresent "big-G" God cannot be said to be "crushed
> to the earth" or "fallen from heaven".
Who said he was. The one fallen is Tammuz ie. Zion. God is Uranus and also
the Dawn Bringer and Morning Riser ad the Latin vulgate makers perfectly
clear. God is Lucifer.
>
> At Isaiah 14:12 the focus changes from the king of Babylon to Satan.
CRAP.
The order of the paragraphs is incoherent. It is clear ot anyone with the
simple knowledge of ancient Greek thn and earlier account was pieced
together form a broken tablet and similar verses were put together. This is
why 14:6 repeats the same thing twice. Either that or the Jews decide to
take the piss out of the Babylonians by rearranging their poem to Tammuz and
Ishtar in the wrong order.
>
> > > The story about Satan being cast down from heaven is in my Bible:
> > >
> > > "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from
> > > heaven."
> > > Luke 10:18
> >
> > The above verse is clearly a FORGERY. It is completely out of context
> > with the surrounding passage and the Greek version reads as nonsense
> > "ethewroun" is 3rd person plural, not 1st person singular. Chirst
> > beheld nothing because the verse has been DOCTORED.
>
> In the KJV, beheld is translated from "theoreo", which can be used
> with the first person singular, as it is so used in John 4:19, Acts
NO !!!
Not in the context of this passage. Anyone who reads Greek can tell you
that.
18 eipen de autoiv eyewroun ton satanan wv astraphn ek tou ouranou pesonta
18 said-he, of them they-see the(sing.) adversary in-the-manner lightening
of unranus falling(present active)
"He said they saw the adversary like lightening falling from the sky."
Now this becomes even more startling when you read the previous verse.
17 upestreqan de oi ebdomhkonta meta carav legontev kurie kai ta daimonia
upotassetai hmin en tw onomati sou
"17 The seventy returned with joy and they said lord the daemons are
subjected to us by your name"
now put it with 16 and you get
"18 He said they saw the adversary like lightening falling from the sky."
Jesus is replying and saying that the Daemons saw their adversary like
lightening falling from the sky.
The Daemons adversary was Jesus and the apostles. In the context of the two
verses Jesus is SATAN.
But because neither you or the illiterate dissemblers of the church can
understand a word of Greek you fail to realise that Satana in Greek is NOT
the Devil but any Adversary, which is the same as the meaning of the Arabic
word Shaitan.
> 7:56, 17:22, & 27:10. Christ beheld Satan fall when iniquity was
> found in him (Ezekiel 28:15).
BULLSHIT.
>
> Luke 10:18 is in context with the verses before and after it.
> Notice the following phrases which indicate Luke 10:18 is in context:
> "which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell(Luke 10:16);
> "even the devils are subject unto us" (Luke 10:17); and,
> "I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over
> all the power of the enemy" (Luke 10:19).
>
> Therefore, we have every reason to believe Luke 10:18 is genuine and
> authentic.
BULLSHIT SQUARED.
You have no concept of ancient Greek or Semitic so you cannot possibly
understand the meaning of the passage after is has be Mistranslated by the
Church..
>
> > > Cornelius Tacitus, Flavius Josephus, Seutonius, Lucian of Samosata,
> >
> > Tacitus, and Josephus are clear forgeries and not 1st C, neither are
> > the other names.
>
> I am unaware of any reasons to believe or claim "Tacitus, and Josephus
> are clear forgeries". Tacitus wrote the reference to Christ and
> Christians in Annals in the second century circa 110 A.D.
The reference to Christ as the messiah are incomplatable with Josephus own
personal beliefs and the comment does NOT appear in any of the versions of
Josephus held by the Jews. The account of Tacitis is not even refereed to
and does not even show up until over 1500 years after it was allegedly
written.
>
> > > Plinius Secundus, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch,
> > > Iranaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, the Pastor of Hermas,
> > > Athenagoras, Papias, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, Clement of
> > > Alexandria, and Tertullian, in addition to the authors of the
> > > New Testament? How do you explain all of Christ's followers in
> > > the early church and the phenomenal growth of Christianity in
> > > the first century? Even Christ's
> >
> > There is NO evidence of the existence of Christianity in the 1st C.
> >
> > Credible evidence does not appear until the 3rd, ie Churches and
> > Complete Gospels and Epistles.
>
> > > enemies of the first century did not claim He was a myth. Where
> > > are all the people from the first and second centuries that should
> > > have been claiming Christ was a myth?
> >
> > There was no Christ which is why he is not mentioned by any of the
> > major Roman Historians.
>
> http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=0170F000
>
> "Ignatius of Antioch, Saint
A CHRISTIAN FORGER.
>
> "Ignatius of Antioch, Saint bishop of Antioch and one of the Apostolic
> Fathers of the Church. During the reign of the Roman emperor Trajan,
> Ignatius was condemned to be devoured by wild beasts. On his way from
> Antioch to Rome, where the execution was to take place, he wrote seven
> letters. Of these, five were addressed to the Christian communities
> of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Philadelphia, and Smyrna—cities in Asia
> Minor that had sent representatives to greet him as he passed through.
> The other letters were addressed to Polycarp (see Polycarp, Saint),
> the bishop of Smyrna, and to the Christian community of Rome. Polycarp,
> in a letter to the Philippians, expressed his assumption that Ignatius
> had suffered martyrdom in Rome, although he was not certain. Likewise,
> Eusebius of Caesarea could report only hearsay concerning the death
> of Ignatius.
LOL... LOL.... LOL......
Eusebius THE CHIEF FORGER of them all.
>
> "The letters of Ignatius are an important source of information about
> the beliefs and organization of the early Christian church. Ignatius
> wrote them as warnings against heretical doctrines, thus providing his
> readers with detailed summaries of Christian doctrine. He also gave a
> vivid picture of the church as a community organized in strict
> subordination to a presiding bishop assisted by a council of presbyters
> (elders) and deacons. He was the first Christian writer to stress the
> virgin birth and to use the term catholic church as a collective term
> for the faithful."
>
> ("Ignatius of Antioch, Saint," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia
> 2000)
>
> In 107 AD Ignatius was sentenced to death under the Emperor Trajan.
> Trajan exchaged letters with Plinius Secundus (also known as Pliny the
> Younger (62-113AD) ). These letters, which refer to Christians,
> are documented at
> http://members.aol.com/pilgrimjon/private/LEX/Pliny.html
Where is the original LATIN or Greek text. I refuse to read an illiterate
church translation.
>
> > > So the quick answer is "common sense". Glenn Kimball made the
> > > comment recently on a radio talk show that the claim that Jesus
> > > was a myth is "short-sighted thinking from someone that does not
> > > use a library card".
> >
> > Glenn Kimball should stick to singing Country and Western.
>
> I was referring to Glenn Kimball, author of the books "Hidden Politics
> of the Crucifixion" and "Hidden Stories of the Childhood of Jesus",
> and *not* to Glen Campbell, singer of the songs "Rhinestone Cowboy"
> and "Southern Nights".
I think that Rhinestone Cowboy was more meaning full.
>
> > The people though Daniel to be an MAD MAN. So much for prophesy.
>
> "And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw
> not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled
> to hide themselves."(Daniel 10:7, KJV)
>
> The reason why the men that were with Daniel fled is because "a great
> quaking fell upon them". They did not consider Daniel to be mad.
> Daniel was highly respected among both the Jews and the Babylonians.
C-R-A-P CRAP
Ther is NO mentiom of quaking in the Sptuagints. Stop basing your argument
on illiterate Church dissemblances.
7 kai eidon egw danihl thn orasin thn megalhn tauthn kai oi anyrwpoi oi
ontev met emou ouk eidosan thn orasin tauthn kai fobov iscurov epepesen ep
autouv kai apedrasan en spoudh
*And I Daniel saw the great sight that was, but the men who were with me did
not see the sight that was, and great alarm came to them, and they left in
haste.
The passage in question is"kai fobov iscurov epepesen ep autouv kai
apedrasan en spoudh"
"and fear/uneasiness great fell on them, and took-to-their-feet in
haste/good-mind."
The thought Daniel was a lunatic and they left so that they wound'nt be
hurt.
>
> Daniel is among the children in Daniel 1:4 described as "in whom was
> no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning
> in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in
> them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the
> learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans."
>
> "And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none
> like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they
> before the king. And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that
> the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the
> magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm."
> Daniel 1:19-20
I cannot believe this SHIT.
Daniel 1:9 is CLEARLY referring it the King of Babylon and "kurios" NOT
Jehovah.
9 Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of
the eunuchs.
9 kai edwke kuriov tw danihl timhn kai carin enantion tou arcieunoucou
"9 and the lord (of Babylon) gave Daniel position and enjoyment in the
manner of the chief eunuchs."
Daniel was CASTRATED by the King of Babylon.
(AV, LXX, LXXE)
10 And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king,
who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your
faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye
make me endanger my head to the king.
10 kai eipen o arcieunoucov tw danihl agwniw ton kurion mou ton basilea ton
ektaxanta thn brwsin umwn kai thn posin umwn ina mh idh ta proswpa umwn
diatetrammena kai asyenh para touv suntrefomenouv umin neaniav twn allogenwn
kai kinduneusw tw idiw trachlw
10 And the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, I fear my lord the king,
who has appointed your meat and your drink, lest he see your countenances
gloomy in comparison of the young men your equals; also shall ye endanger my
head to the king.
Translating very quickly in raw form
"and said the chief eunuch to Daniel, recognise my lord the king cuts your
*genitals* and your *penis*, so that he does not see the faces of your
things-that-should-be-turned-away-from, and reaches after the
sexual-engagement of us young men in the other-way and moves the same
neck-mouth"
I cant believe the extreme VULGARITY of this. I should cross post this the
alt.homosexuality
Lets see what's next.
11 Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over
Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,
11 kai eipen danihl abiesdri tw anadeicyenti arcieunoucw epi ton danihl
ananian misahl azarian
11 And Daniel said to Amelsad, whom the chief of the eunuchs had appointed
over Daniel, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias.
"and said Daniel (to) Amelsad that they-agreed-to-be-made chief eunuchs, of
Daniel, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias"
BLOODY HELL.
12 Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse
to eat, and water to drink.
12 peirason dh touv paidav sou ef hmerav deka kai doyhtw hmin apo twn
ospriwn thv ghv wste kaptein kai udropotein
12 Prove now thy servants ten days; and let them give us pulse, and let us
eat, and let us drink water:
"molested they the children of-you for ten days and gave them to us of the
pulse of the earth that-they gulp down and drink water."
13 Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the
countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and
as thou seest, deal with thy servants.
13 kai ean fanh h oqiv hmwn diatetrammenh para touv allouv neaniskouv touv
esyiontav apo tou basilikou deipnou kaywv ean yelhv outw crhsai toiv paisi
sou
13 And let our countenances be seen by thee, and the countenances of the
children that eat at the king’s table; and deal with thy servants according
as thou shalt see.
"and not visible our sight, turned away from the other children present of
the kingdom unless someone wants some pleasure of your children."
14 So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.
14 kai ecrhsato autoiv ton tropon touton kai epeirasen autouv hmerav deka
14 And he hearkened to them, and proved them ten days.
"and consented they this place, and the molested them 10 days"
Repetition I think.
15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter
in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat.
15 meta de tav deka hmerav efanh h oqiv autwn kalh kai h exiv tou swmatov
kreisswn twn allwn neaniskwn twn esyiontwn to basilikon deipnon
15 And at the end of the ten days their countenances appeared fairer and
stouter in flesh, than the children that fed at the king’s table.
"after the ten days appeared their sight good, and the portion of their
flesh they anointed the other children there of the kingly meal"
In the name of Zeus and all the is holy, this is the most DISGUSTING and
PERVERTED thing I have ever read. The alluded double meanings are repulsive.
16 Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they
should drink; and gave them pulse.
16 kai hn abiesdri anairoumenov to deipnon autwn kai ton oinon autwn kai
antedidou autoiv apo twn ospriwn
16 So Amelsad took away their supper and the wine of their drink, and gave
them pulse.
"and Amelsad took-up-of/dedicated the supper of them, and the wine of them,
and rewarded them of the pulse"
THIS IS SICK.
Pulse and anything based on the Greek verb "to rub-together" are allusions
to the sexual act and meat and water and wine are allusions to sexual organs
and seaman or blood.
Daniel and his companions agree to be made into chief eunuchs and bum boys
for the pleasure of the royal court and have their genitals removed which
they then present to the head eunuch for the dedication ceremony.
Now we know what the communion of the last supper is supposed to represent.
It stands for the castrated genitals and last seamen of Chest, so that
instead of going through castration all you have to do is eat the sacrament.
SICK... SICK.... SICK....
>
> Belteshazzar stated to Daniel that the people believed "light and
> understanding and excellent wisdom" was found in Daniel. (Daniel 5:14).
I thought Belteshazzar WAS Daniel.
I'll see the text later. I've spent so long translating and feeling repulsed
that I now need a rest.
>
> Additionally, Daniel held a very high office in the kingdom (Daniel
> 6:1-3).
>
> > This guy was on DRUGS.
>
> The reason why no strength remained in Daniel was because of the
> greatness of the vision which Daniel saw.
I have never heard so much BULLSHIT in my life.
Will someone tell me exactly WHERE in the book of Daniel the prophesy
occurs.
I have read it in the original Greek and there is NO prophesy only a
historical account written in the past or present tense.
The so-called prophesies occur only after in the 1st C AD onwards after the
Jews doctored the original text to hide its meaning. If this is your idea of
prophesy then you must be a follower of Velikovski.
Also after reading Daniel it is becoming incensing obvious that this in not
just one book but TWO.
When one accent finishes it is then repeated from the beginning with exactly
the same details recurring over again twice. It as if someone merged two
separate accounts of the same even together.
For example Daniel 10 tell of Daniels hallucination and then half way it
repeats the vision. Daniel 1 tells of his castration, but near the end the
account of his initiation into him becoming a eunuch is repeated a second
time in more detail. It may even be possible that Daniel 11 also repeats
half way through. In that case it would be referring to the suicide of
Darius twice. The account is so incoherent that its impossible to be
certain.
If the Zoroastrian text were remonstrated at a later period then the
so-called prophesies the may also have been concocted in the same manner.
The repetitions in the Koran are son frequent that at least a dozen
independent texts must have been used for its construction.
There was a lot of ninth century AD re-editing and enlarging.
" There are also Zoroastrian sources for the history of the community
in the ninth century, for much of the surviving Pahlavi literature
consists of works which were composed or re-edited at that time - the
last century under Islamic rule when the Zoroastrians still had the
means and energy to engage in creative work on any scale. The Hudinan
peshobays were themselves leaders in this activity, so that it is
possible to identify from their writings the members of a family who
held this office for over a hundred and fifty years. The first one
known is Adurfarnbag Farrokhzadan, a pious and distinguished man who
lived at the time of Ma'mun (813-33), and ably defended the Zoroastrian
faith in debate at his court."
("Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices", p.153, Mary
Boyce, 1979)
"Doctrinal arguments are also presented in the Dinkard or 'Acts of the
Religion', the longest extant Pahlavi work. This great compilation
(written unfortunately for the most part in a style as difficult as
Manushchihr's) was begun by the first known Hudinan peshobay,
Adurfarnbag Farrokhzadan, and was re-edited and enlarged by his
descendant Adurbad Emedan, who probably held the same office at the end
of the ninth century. It contains a great variety of matter, and
includes at the end a summary of the contents of nineteen books of the
Great Avesta, and a detailed analysis of three of them."
("Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices", p.155-6, Mary
Boyce, 1979)
> "The priests collected what remained of the burnt fragments, together
> with portions that had been copied for special devotional purposes
> and whatever could otherwise be remembered and, in the second century
> BC, Volosges (Valkash), one of the Arsacid kings, had the fragments
> preserved and sought to reconstruct the holy works. Evidently it was
> a long slow process because it was not finished until the Sassanids
> ruled in the third or fourth century AD. This also was savaged a few
> centuries later by the Muslims and the Tartars, so the Avesta is only
> scraps of a vast collection of Zoroastrian sacred work.
" It may be that the magi had already evolved such traditions in
Achaemenian times in order to sustain their religious authority among
the Medes and Persians; or they may have felt the spur to do so within
the Parthian period, as a means of re-asserting this authority then
within Median borders. The tolerant Arsacids seem unlikely to have
resented such developments as long as they remained unobtrusively
local, but this tolerance did not arise from any indifference to the
faith, as is shown by the following account of the activities of a king
Valakhsh or Vologeses (a name borne by several rulers in the first and
second centuries A.C.): ' Valakhsh the Arsacid commanded that a
memorandum be sent to the provinces (instructing them) to preserve, in
the state in which it had come down in (each) province, whatever
had survived in purity of the Avesta and (its) Zand, and also every
teaching deriving from it which, scattered by the havoc and disruption
of Alexander, and by the pillage and looting of the Macedonians,
had survived, whether written or in authoritative oral transmission'
(DkM, 412. 5-11, ZZZ 8). These lines come from a general account,
brought down to the sixth century A.C., of the transmission of the
Zoroastrian holy texts; and one interesting point is the reference in
them to writing in connection with 'teachings' derived from the Avesta,
although the implication seems to be that the Avesta itself,
with its commentary (Zand), was still wholly in oral transmission at
that time."
("Zoroastrians, Their Religious Beliefs and Practices", p.94, Mary
Boyce, 1979)
> "The only complete Nard extant is the Vendidad, one of the parts of
> the Avesta. The other books of the Avesta are either fragments of the
> lost Nards or precompiled extracts of them that survived the
> destruction. Fortunately Zoroaster's Gathas, being particularly
> sacred, seem to have existed in enough copies to have survived
> essentially unaltered. "
"Legend grows about the prophet of Iran that obscures his personality.
The Pahlavi works that give us the account of the happenings in the
life of Zaratusht ["Zaratusht" is Pahlavi for "Zoroaster" - DPW] have
been written in about the ninth century, or about two thousand years
after the passing away of the prophet. The holy figure has grown very
distant and dim. The real events of his life have been obscured by the
long centuries, particularly the five centuries of chaos that followed
Alexander's conquest of Persia. The piety of the adherents of his faith
has burnt so much incense in his sacred memory that his face has got
almost beyond recognition. We know everything of the life of Mohammed;
we know something of the lives of Buddha and Jesus; we know practically
nothing of the life of Zoroaster. The materials that we have in the
Pahlavi works relating to him are not historical and authentic; they
are legendary and mythical. Portents herald his birth and archangels
attend his nativity. Legendary accounts of the miraculous conception
and birth and childhood of Zaratusht supersede the matter-of-fact
information that the Gathas give. The Pahlavi writers have before them
the examples of the legendary stories of the miraculous incidents
connected with the lives of Moses, Buddha, and Jesus, circulated in
Iran by the followers of these prophets. It is probable that their
writings have been influenced by these foreign sources."
("History of Zoroastrianism" p.309-310, Maneckji Nusservanji Dhalla,
1938)
> The original point in question was if Zoroastrian text could have
> influenced the book of Daniel.
>
> 1. The Gathas date from as early as the 5th century bce,
The Gathas were not put down into writing until the Sasanian period
(224-651 AD), as they were passed down orally until that time. The
oral tradition may have changed significantly in the early Christian
era. Today, no one can document exactly what the Gathas stated prior
to the Sasanian period. Daniel was written in the sixth century BC.
> 2. We have historical accounts that Alexander burned a large quantity
> of Zoroastrian texts and suppressed the Magian religion, which had
> been influential in Persia to that point.
We have no way of documenting and determining exactly what was
stated on the texts that Alexander allegedly burned. A lot of what
we read could be propaganda against Alexander and the Greeks.
> 3. The Jewish temple was under the sponsorship of both Cyrus and
> Darius, and at the time that Daniel was written (167 bce), Judaea
> had been under the hegemony of Persia for 300 years.
Daniel was written in the sixth century BC.
> 4. All of Judaism showed heavy Zoroastrian influence by the time of
> Daniel. Apocalyptic prophecies are pure quill Zoroastrian.
By "the time of Daniel" I understand you mean (incorrectly) 167 BC.
The above statement requires an assumption about the nature of
Zoroastrianism prior to 167 BC. Because of points #1 and #2 above,
we have no way of knowing exactly what was the nature of Zoroastrianism
prior to 167 BC.
> It makes no difference what form the Avesta took 500 years later.
If the Avesta was significantly different, changed, altered, or
enlarged, it sure does make a difference what form the Avesta took
500 years later.
> That had no influence at all on Selucid Persia.
We cannot assume that Judaism did not influence Persia after the fall
of Babylon to the Persians in 539 BC.
> There is ample evidence that there was an active Zoroastrian
> religion long before Daniel was written,
But there is no documentation on the exact nature of the Zoroastrian
religion "long before" 167 BC.
> and the Jews were well within its sphere of influence.
And Zoroastrianism was well within the sphere of influence of Judaism.
> It is particularly tellling that there was no apocalyptic tradition
> within Judaism before contact with the Zoroastrians.
The word "apocalyptic" is from the Greek word "apokalypsis" which means
"revelation", or "an uncovering, a revealing".
I will use a date of 588 BC for the "first Zoroastrians", using the
following dating method:
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,80561+1+78456,00.htm
l
"According to Zoroastrian tradition, he (Zoroaster) flourished "258
years before Alexander." Alexander the Great conquered Persepolis, the
capital of the Achaemenids, a dynasty that ruled Persia from 559 to 330
BC, in 330 BC. Following this dating, Zoroaster converted Vishtaspa,
most likely a king of Chorasmia (an area south of the Aral Sea in
Central Asia), in 588 BC. According to tradition, he was 40 years old
when this event occurred, thus indicating that his birthdate was 628
BC."
My Compton's Complete Multimedia Bible (CD-ROM, 1995), gives the
following "pre-588 BC" dates for the following Hebrew Bible books, all
of which contain apocalyptic verses (and which is not a comprehensive
list):
Psalms
"tenth century B.C. and later"
Isaiah
"eighth century B.C."
Joel
"probably eighth century B.C."
Zephaniah
"shortly before 621 B.C."
Amos
"eighth century B.C."
Hosea
"eighth century B.C."
Additionally, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jeremiah (which all contain
apocalyptic verses as well) were witten in the "sixth century B.C."
prior to the Gathas (according to your claim in point#1 above that the
"Gathas date from as early as the 5th century bce").
> Daniel was written in the sixth century BC.
No. The *setting* of Daniel is the 6th century. The book was written in
the 2nd century. Daniel was not mentioned in Ben Sirach's catalog of the
great men of Israel, written in 190 bce.
> By "the time of Daniel" I understand you mean (incorrectly) 167 BC.
> The above statement requires an assumption about the nature of
> Zoroastrianism prior to 167 BC. Because of points #1 and #2 above,
> we have no way of knowing exactly what was the nature of Zoroastrianism
> prior to 167 BC.
The composition of Daniel is easily established between 169 and 164 bce.
Not only did the author get his history wrong (Belshazzar was not the son
of Nebuchadrezzar) but he got all the details of the reign of Antiochus
Epiphanes right on the money up until 164, when he suddenly started
blowing smoke.
Daniel was written by many authors and there are at least two different
versions. One is written in the 1st person and the other is in the 3rd.
Other portions are written into the second.
Daniel may have been started in the 6th C BC, most like plagiaried form
Zoroaster, but it was not completed until the 6th C AD.
The earliest surviving account is in the Septuagint and in this Daniel 11
refer to Alexander, Julius Caesar and to the battle between Mark Anthony and
Octavion. This text had been extensively Doctored by the Jews and the Church
so that certain ignorant parties think it refer to Antionichs. Going by this
pattern its is most likely that the original form of the text referred to
some other event and people at an earlier era and over the years was
rigorously dissembled. I may be possible to do convolve it but basically
the book is a pack of LIES and not worth the effort..
> > 2. We have historical accounts that Alexander burned a large quantity
> > of Zoroastrian texts and suppressed the Magian religion, which had
> > been influential in Persia to that point.
>
> We have no way of documenting and determining exactly what was
> stated on the texts that Alexander allegedly burned. A lot of what
> we read could be propaganda against Alexander and the Greeks.
Rubbish.
The Persians didn't have time to invent propaganda. Alexander hit them like
a sudden storm.
The Zoroastrian religion was suppressed because is was Racist, Despotic and
a form of Monotheistic NAZIism, and since Alexander wanted to Unite the
world he could not allow it to continue.
Socrates plagiarised a high degree of Zoroastrian thought and because of it
was considered a Fascist and executed.
>
> > 3. The Jewish temple was under the sponsorship of both Cyrus and
> > Darius, and at the time that Daniel was written (167 bce), Judaea
> > had been under the hegemony of Persia for 300 years.
>
> Daniel was written in the sixth century BC.
RUBBISH.
Daniel was continuously put together and dissembled for over 1000 years.
>
> > 4. All of Judaism showed heavy Zoroastrian influence by the time of
> > Daniel. Apocalyptic prophecies are pure quill Zoroastrian.
>
> By "the time of Daniel" I understand you mean (incorrectly) 167 BC.
> The above statement requires an assumption about the nature of
> Zoroastrianism prior to 167 BC. Because of points #1 and #2 above,
> we have no way of knowing exactly what was the nature of Zoroastrianism
> prior to 167 BC.
RUBBISH.
Read Plato and Socrates who extensively plagiarised Zoroaster. Greece was
occupied by the Persians long enough for that to have been common place.
>
> > It makes no difference what form the Avesta took 500 years later.
>
> If the Avesta was significantly different, changed, altered, or
> enlarged, it sure does make a difference what form the Avesta took
> 500 years later.
>
> > That had no influence at all on Selucid Persia.
>
> We cannot assume that Judaism did not influence Persia after the fall
> of Babylon to the Persians in 539 BC.
OH YES WE CAN.
Judaism DID NOT EXIST.
The entire religion was concocted after Babylon fell as a form of Fascistic
Nationalism to lay claim to Palestine by a Semitic sect of worshippers of
Leviathan.
>
> > There is ample evidence that there was an active Zoroastrian
> > religion long before Daniel was written,
>
> But there is no documentation on the exact nature of the Zoroastrian
> religion "long before" 167 BC.
Try Plato.
>
> > and the Jews were well within its sphere of influence.
>
> And Zoroastrianism was well within the sphere of influence of Judaism.
>
Judaism dint exist.
> > It is particularly tellling that there was no apocalyptic tradition
> > within Judaism before contact with the Zoroastrians.
>
> The word "apocalyptic" is from the Greek word "apokalypsis" which means
> "revelation", or "an uncovering, a revealing".
It means understanding of history. It has NOTHING to do with predating the
future.
>
> I will use a date of 588 BC for the "first Zoroastrians", using the
> following dating method:
>
> http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,80561+1+78456,00.htm
> l
> "According to Zoroastrian tradition, he (Zoroaster) flourished "258
> years before Alexander." Alexander the Great conquered Persepolis, the
> capital of the Achaemenids, a dynasty that ruled Persia from 559 to 330
> BC, in 330 BC. Following this dating, Zoroaster converted Vishtaspa,
> most likely a king of Chorasmia (an area south of the Aral Sea in
> Central Asia), in 588 BC. According to tradition, he was 40 years old
> when this event occurred, thus indicating that his birthdate was 628
> BC."
>
> My Compton's Complete Multimedia Bible (CD-ROM, 1995), gives the
> following "pre-588 BC" dates for the following Hebrew Bible books, all
> of which contain apocalyptic verses (and which is not a comprehensive
> list):
>
> Psalms
> "tenth century B.C. and later"
Plagiaried form Baalist poetry by the Jews in the 5th or 6th Century. Cant
have been 10th century since the Jews did not have a written language until
the 7th to 8th, and the present Hebrew script did not evolve until much
later..
>
> Isaiah
> "eighth century B.C."
Parts of it existed as Tammuzian scriptures from that date but were
plagiarised and dissembled by the Jews again in the 5th or 6th Century.
>
> Joel
> "probably eighth century B.C."
>
> Zephaniah
> "shortly before 621 B.C."
>
> Amos
> "eighth century B.C."
>
> Hosea
> "eighth century B.C."
>
> Additionally, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jeremiah (which all contain
> apocalyptic verses as well) were witten in the "sixth century B.C."
TWADDLE.
They were dissembled and altered over many centuries. There is adequate
proof that this was going on eve during the Christian period.
> "sun," the "moon," and tnnm ('sea monsters'?), etc. (1974). One thing
> is clear with regard to the religious nature of the creation story of
> Genesis: in Genesis 1 and 2 no female deity exists or is involved in
> producing the cosmos and humanity. This is unique among ancient
> creation stories that treat of deities having personality."
>
RUBBISH.
What is Elohim them. Not only is it Feminine but itis also Plural, just
liker the Gnostic Holy Spirit.
...
> Clearly the Genesis account is unique.
A unique form of unparalleled Plagiarism.
> > Do you deny that the decent of Tammuz into the underworld was copied
> > in Isaiah 14.
>
> The translations of Isaiah 14 from the Hebrew Masoretic text and from
> the Qumran Isaiah Scroll (available from
> http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm#c12 ) do not mention Tammuz at
> all.
They DO.
Tammuz is Zion.
>
> > Do you deny that the Psalms were based on plagiarised poetry to
> > honour Baal.
>
> Even though the Israelites fell into the worship of Baal, the captivity
They don not fall into the worship of Baal. They ALWAYS worship Baal. The
Jews were descended from the cult of Baal along with other cults including
Leviathan.
Just look at their list of Gods.
El, Elah, or Elohim
Adon, or Adonai
Jah Jehovah
Sabaoth
Jh
El Shaddai
El Olam
El Gibbor
El Elyon
> put worship of this idol to an end (Zephaniah 1:4-6). Psalms does not
> advocate Baal worship.
>
> > These are well established facts.
>
> No, they are not.
Yes they are. The Jews cannot have written them at the alleged time they
were written because the did not have a written script. (And in any case the
Jews did not eve exist, nor did the religion)
>
> > With a record like that how can you deny that Daniel refers to the
> > Romans of the time of Julius Caesar and the Alexandrian Greeks and
> > Zoroaster, and that the Gospels were plagiarised from earlier pagan
> > cults.
>
> The prophet Daniel, writing in the sixth century BC, predicted the
> Greek and Roman empires.
Daniel was NO prophet and his book contains the work of at least two
different authors writing in different persons.
>
> The Gospels were not "plagiarised from earlier pagan cults." See
> http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html
> http://www.mustardseed.net/html/topaganism.html
> http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html
>
> With respect to your suggestion that Daniel refers to Zoroaster, it is
> probable that Zoroastrianism was influenced by Judaism. Maneckji
HA... HA.... HA....
Judaism did not even exist at the time Zoroastrianism develped..
> > There are way too many ocincideces.
>
> There are way too many people distorting facts and trying to change
> history in their unsuccessful efforts to try to discredit Christianity.
It is abundantly clear that Charlatans and Jews were dissembling and
altering their scripture well into the 6th century. Infact later if we are
to include doctrine in this context.
>
> > Why would anyone want to plagiarise the Jewish scriptures. They are
> > are completely incoherent and as far as the quality of the prose goes
> > they are nowhere near the quality of Greek Philosophy and Literature,
> > Zoroastrianism or the Gilgamesh saga.
>
> Many people disagree with the above statement and have expressed their
Most people agree with it.
> disagreement with their wallets, since the Bible is by far the
> best-selling book of all time. If you cannot understand Jewish
LOL... LOL... LOL....
Nope. The best selling book of all time is the Highway Code. Everyone that
has ever held a driving licence has had a copy issued to them.
>If you cannot understand Jewish
> scripture, that automatically disqualifies you from passing any
> intelligent judgment or opinion on it.
>
LOL^2... LOL^2... LOL^2....
Look whos talking....
If you cannot understated either Ancient Greek or Ancient Hebrew and have to
rely on biased translation that automatically disqualifies you from passing
any intelligent judgment or opinion on the scriptures.
The most likely explanation is that a scribe started to translate the
book into Hebrew, but didn't finish. That is why the first half of the
book is in Hebrew and the second half of the book is in Aramaic.
> Daniel may have been started in the 6th C BC, most like plagiaried form
> Zoroaster, but it was not completed until the 6th C AD.
If Daniel was that old you would think somebody would have heard of
Daniel before the 2nd century bce. Apparently nobody did. OTOH, the
book of Daniel was well known by the Roman conquest of Judaea. It is
included in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so a 6th century ce date is nonsense.
Daniel 2:4b-7:28 is in Aramaic. The portions which were written in
Hebrew were of a more particular Jewish interest.
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_05_01.html
"The mere fact of Aramaic being the language of the text means little;
Aramaic was the lingua franca of a territory ranging from India to
Egypt, and from Arabia to Assyria and Persia. It is the language we
would expect an exile to use in the court of a foreign king [Lacq.Dan,
14]."
The Aramaic of Daniel is actually a strong argument for a sixth-century
BC time of composition. A comparison of documents from Qumran with the
book of Daniel shows that the vocabulary, morphology, and syntax are
linguistically older than the Qumran texts.
> If Daniel was that old you would think somebody would have heard of
> Daniel before the 2nd century bce. Apparently nobody did.
Anyone who read Ezekiel after he wrote in the sixth century BC
certainly knew about Daniel because Ezekiel mentions him in
Ezekiel 14:14, 14:20, and 28:3. Most, however, learned of Daniel
because of his fame and success in Babylon.
> No. The *setting* of Daniel is the 6th century. The book was
> written in the 2nd century.
The book of Daniel was composed in the sixth century BC.
Josephus, in Contra Apionem 1:8, wrote:
"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us,
disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,]
but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past
times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong
to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of
mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three
thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the
reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the
prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their
times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God,
and precepts for the conduct of human life. It is true, our history
hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not
been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers,
because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that
time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own
nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have
already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to
them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but
it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very
birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to
persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them."
"... as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of
Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who
were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen
books."
The phrase "till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia" refers to
until 423 B.C when Artaxerxes was suceeded by Darius II. The
"prophets, who were after Moses," includes Daniel. The book of Daniel
was one of the thirteen books.
"It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very
particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with
the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact
succession of prophets since that time;"
Josephus is stating that the writings since 423 B.C. are not considered
to be divine scripture. The succession of prophets ended during the
reign of Artaxerxes. If Daniel had been written after the time of
Artaxerxes, this above phrase of Josephus would contradict Christ's two
references to Daniel as a "prophet" (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14).
Christ's two references, to Daniel as a "prophet", demand that Daniel
be divine scripture, and demand that Daniel be written prior to 423
B.C.
" ... and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own
nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have
already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to
them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them:"
The phrase "so many ages as have already passed" refers to the time
since "the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after
Xerxes". Josephus is stating that since 423 B.C., no one has been so
bold as either to add anything to divine scripture, to take anything
from divine scripture, or to make any change in divine scripture.
> Daniel was not mentioned in Ben Sirach's catalog of the
> great men of Israel, written in 190 bce.
See "Canon Fire II: Sorry, Ben Sirach" at
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_05_01.html#sirach
> The composition of Daniel is easily established between 169 and 164
> bce. Not only did the author get his history wrong (Belshazzar was
> not the son of Nebuchadrezzar) ...
"The inscriptions make it clear that Belshazzar was the eldest son of
Nabonidus and heir apparent to the throne. No actual blood tie existed
between Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar, on his father's side, at least.
Nabonidus was just one of a band of conspirators who murdered the
boy-king Labashi-Marduk, actual grandson of Nebuchadnezzar and last
of his line. Why then is Belshazzar spoken of as the son of
Nebuchadnezzar, both by Daniel and the queen mother?
We can well believe that, as his own celebrated stele tells us,
Nabonidus was eager to legitimize his claim to the throne. He told
how he was unanimously elected by the other conspirators to be
their delegate on the throne. He appealed to "Nebuchadnezzar and
to Nergal-sharezer" as "the kings my predecessors" and adds "their
delegate am I: their hosts to my hands they entrusted."
With such a strong urge to secure his throne rights, Nabonidus
made sure he married into the royal family of Nebuchadnezzar. It
seems probable that at least one of Nabonidus's sons was thus a
blood descendant of Nebuchadnezzar.
Belshazzar himself had no such lineage. He was born many years
before Nabonidus took the crown. He must be regarded as "the son"
(i.e., grandson), or descendant of Nebuchadnezzar only in a technical
sense. Evidently it was court etiquette to speak of Belshazzar and
to treat him as the legitimate son of Nebuchadnezzar. It would be
as much as anyone's life was worth not to keep up the pretense.
Thus the queen mother addressed him in a stylized form: "The king
Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father" (5:11).
Belshazzar's mother was dead; she had died in the camp at Sippora
in the ninth year of Nabonidus, as we learn from the Annalistic Tablet.
Who then was the woman spoken of as the queen mother (5:10)? The
suggestion has been made that she was the widow of Nebuchadnezzar
and that Nabonidus had married her as part of his scheme to legitimize
his claim to the throne, in which case she would be Belshazzar's
stepmother. Nabonidus, on that fateful night, was already a prisoner
in the hands of the enemy so, naturally, his queen would assume the
position of queen mother. (See Pusey, pp. 115-117.)"
"Exploring The Book Of Daniel" by Phillips and Vines, Appendix 16,
"Belshazzar")
> ... but he got all the details of the reign of Antiochus
> Epiphanes right on the money up until 164, when he suddenly started
> blowing smoke.
Daniel 11:1-35 discusses events up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes
and Judas Maccabaeus; Daniel 11:36-45 is future prophecy which will be
completed during the first half of the seventieth week of Daniel 9:27.
By that argument the Iliad was written in 1500 BC.
>
> Josephus, in Contra Apionem 1:8, wrote:
> "... as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of
> Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who
> were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen
> books."
>
> The phrase "till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia" refers to
> until 423 B.C when Artaxerxes was suceeded by Darius II. The
> "prophets, who were after Moses," includes Daniel. The book of Daniel
> was one of the thirteen books.
RUBBISH. Daniel is not mentioned and was ushered of.
>
> "It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very
> particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with
> the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact
> succession of prophets since that time;"
>
> Josephus is stating that the writings since 423 B.C. are not considered
> to be divine scripture. The succession of prophets ended during the
> reign of Artaxerxes. If Daniel had been written after the time of
> Artaxerxes, this above phrase of Josephus would contradict Christ's two
> references to Daniel as a "prophet" (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14).
> Christ's two references, to Daniel as a "prophet", demand that Daniel
> be divine scripture, and demand that Daniel be written prior to 423
> B.C.
BULLSHIT.
Christ is NOT mentioned even once in Daniel let alone twice.
I provided you with a translation showing that the term use ment to anoint
and the place of anointment. Why haven't you commented on it.
Why is the no mention of Daniel in the NT either. Nobody in the 1st C knew
of Daniel or any prophesy of his. His book was constructed by pieced
together broken fragment of other histories and Gnostic texts. Why else
would there be two different version of the same events written following
each other in different persons.
>
> The phrase "so many ages as have already passed" refers to the time
> since "the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after
> Xerxes". Josephus is stating that since 423 B.C., no one has been so
> bold as either to add anything to divine scripture, to take anything
> from divine scripture, or to make any change in divine scripture.
Josephus is stating that after Artaxerxes the Romans were already aware that
the Jewish texts were FAKED or dissembled because they did not agree with
their own written records
>
> > Daniel was not mentioned in Ben Sirach's catalog of the
> > great men of Israel, written in 190 bce.
>
> See "Canon Fire II: Sorry, Ben Sirach" at
> http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_05_01.html#sirach
>
> > The composition of Daniel is easily established between 169 and 164
> > bce. Not only did the author get his history wrong (Belshazzar was
> > not the son of Nebuchadrezzar) ...
>
> "The inscriptions make it clear that Belshazzar was the eldest son of
> Nabonidus and heir apparent to the throne. No actual blood tie existed
> between Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar, on his father's side, at least.
> Nabonidus was just one of a band of conspirators who murdered the
> boy-king Labashi-Marduk, actual grandson of Nebuchadnezzar and last
> of his line. Why then is Belshazzar spoken of as the son of
> Nebuchadnezzar, both by Daniel and the queen mother?
As Daniel was also called Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzars Bum-Boy and Bed
Partner that would be obvious.
Belshazzar was probably the title of an office of state rather than a
person. Thus there could have been several. See translation of Daniel 10.
> > ... but he got all the details of the reign of Antiochus
> > Epiphanes right on the money up until 164, when he suddenly started
> > blowing smoke.
>
> Daniel 11:1-35 discusses events up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes
Except that nether are mentioned.
> and Judas Maccabaeus; Daniel 11:36-45 is future prophecy which will be
> completed during the first half of the seventieth week of Daniel 9:27.
No. Daniel 11:36-45 is certainly NOT a prophesy. It refers explicitly to
ROMANS and Roman Broad Swards. See my translation.
Aggie-Tom wrote:
Creation myths? Rubbish. The Sumerian and Hebrew creation stories are unrelated.
As far as the flood story, don't forget that Abraham was a Mesopotamian. Both
stories are from the same source.
> Do you deny that the decent of Tammuz into the underworld was copied in
> Isaiah 14.
Yep. Even if this passage does contain references to the (a) Tammuz story, is
this not entirely appropriate (and ironic) when dealing with the fall of
Babylon, which the passage describes?
> Do you deny that the Psalms were based on plagiarised poetry to honour Baal.
Yep. Prove that whatever hymns in honour of Baal you have read were written
before the biblical Psalms
> These are well established facts.
>
> With a record like that how can you deny that Daniel refers to the Romans of
> the time of Julius Caesar and the Alexandrian Greeks and Zoroaster, and that
> the Gospels were plagiarised from earlier pagan cults.
Don't you know that copies of Daniel have been found amongst the Qumran
fragments, dated to 100 BCE? The Gospels convey a message without parallel in
religious literature. What pagan religion proclaimed self-sacrifice, love,
non-violence, and the brotherhood of man as its tenets? (refs Matt 20:28, John
13:35, Matt 26:52, Acts 17:26-28, Acts 10:34,35)
> There are way too many ocincideces.
You need a new spell-checker
> Why would anyone want to plagiarise the
> Jewish scriptures. They are are completely incoherent and as far as the
> quality of the prose goes they are nowhere near the quality of Greek
> Philosophy and Literature, Zoroastrianism or the Gilgamesh saga.
Purely subjective
Regards,
Michael Creevey
> Anyone who read Ezekiel after he wrote in the sixth century BC
> certainly knew about Daniel because Ezekiel mentions him in
> Ezekiel 14:14, 14:20, and 28:3.
Different Daniel. The Daniel that Ezekiel mentions is a prehistoric
culture hero like Noah and Moses, not a contemporary.
> What pagan religion proclaimed self-sacrifice, love,
> non-violence, and the brotherhood of man as its tenets?
> (refs Matt 20:28, John 13:35, Matt 26:52, Acts 17:26-28,
> Acts 10:34,35)
Buddism?
from: Spirit Of The Real Makedon
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
........The heart of Macedonia was always Greek
> > LOL... LOL.... LOL....
> >
> > Lets look at YHWHisms track record.
> >
> > Do you deny that is has plagiarised Sumerian and Babylonian Flood and
> > Creation Myths, or are you saying that a copy of the Bible was through a
> > worm hole and travelled back in to ancient Sumeria where it was copied.
>
> Creation myths? Rubbish. The Sumerian and Hebrew creation stories are
unrelated.
It is accepted by most scholars that the Hebrew story is based on the
Akkadian story of Marduks slaying of the chaos dragon Timat, ie Tehom,
followed the ordering of the universe.
> As far as the flood story, don't forget that Abraham was a Mesopotamian.
Both
> stories are from the same source.
Same source as the Deukalion story.
>
> > Do you deny that the decent of Tammuz into the underworld was copied in
> > Isaiah 14.
>
> Yep. Even if this passage does contain references to the (a) Tammuz story,
is
> this not entirely appropriate (and ironic) when dealing with the fall of
> Babylon, which the passage describes?
>
> > Do you deny that the Psalms were based on plagiarised poetry to honour
Baal.
>
> Yep. Prove that whatever hymns in honour of Baal you have read were
written
> before the biblical Psalms
The Jews could not have written them down at the time they were alleged to
have done since they did not have a written script. Therefore they must have
orginaly been written by the Canaanites/Phoenicians and then copied.
Ps. 74 refers to the the Ugratic water Dragon Lotan slain by Baal. Ps. 48:14
refers to Mot as in the Ugratic myth, and Ps. 104 uses epithets consistent
with those of Baal and describe the abode of Ea.
>
> > These are well established facts.
> >
> > With a record like that how can you deny that Daniel refers to the
Romans of
> > the time of Julius Caesar and the Alexandrian Greeks and Zoroaster, and
that
> > the Gospels were plagiarised from earlier pagan cults.
>
> Don't you know that copies of Daniel have been found amongst the Qumran
> fragments, dated to 100 BCE? The Gospels convey a message without parallel
in
Were they Complete ? Do they include all of Daniel 11. I think not. Which
proves my point.
And in any case the Qumran Scrolls date from between 100 BC and 150 AD so
could have all been written after the fall of the temple as postulate in
"the Dead Sea Scrolls Deception"
> religious literature. What pagan religion proclaimed self-sacrifice, love,
> non-violence, and the brotherhood of man as its tenets? (refs Matt 20:28,
John
> 13:35, Matt 26:52, Acts 17:26-28, Acts 10:34,35)
Hellenism, Pythagorism and Platonism which is where the teachings of the
Gospels and Act were plagiarized from
The Qumran Scrolls advocate killing and terrorism. Why else would they have
a War Scroll among them
>
> > There are way too many ocincideces.
>
> You need a new spell-checker
MS need to write on that can reconnects body text form quoted and show the
context of the misspellings. Why can they allow Word to be used with Outlook
Express.
>
> > Why would anyone want to plagiarise the
> > Jewish scriptures. They are are completely incoherent and as far as the
> > quality of the prose goes they are nowhere near the quality of Greek
> > Philosophy and Literature, Zoroastrianism or the Gilgamesh saga.
>
> Purely subjective
They come nowhere near Shakespeare, Dickens or even Tolkein either. CS Lewis
did a better job at concealing his plagurisation of cotemporary religion.
>
> Regards,
> Michael Creevey
>
Larry Caldwell wrote:
> In article <91h7og$shv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dpwo...@ocii.com writes:
>
> > Daniel was written in the sixth century BC.
>
> No. The *setting* of Daniel is the 6th century. The book was written in
> the 2nd century. Daniel was not mentioned in Ben Sirach's catalog of the
> great men of Israel, written in 190 bce.
But he was mentioned in Ezekiel.
> > By "the time of Daniel" I understand you mean (incorrectly) 167 BC.
> > The above statement requires an assumption about the nature of
> > Zoroastrianism prior to 167 BC. Because of points #1 and #2 above,
> > we have no way of knowing exactly what was the nature of Zoroastrianism
> > prior to 167 BC.
>
> The composition of Daniel is easily established between 169 and 164 bce.
> Not only did the author get his history wrong (Belshazzar was not the son
> of Nebuchadrezzar)
The mention of Belshazzar gives credence to an early date of composition for
the book of Daniel.
Belshazzar is not mentioned in Herodotus or the work of any other ancient
historian, IIRC. How did an Alexandrian jew of the 2nd Cent know about
someone no-one else in the world did at that time? The Book was questioned
precisely on the basis that Belshazzar did *not* exist until the 19th cent
when Belshazzar was 'rediscovered'.
It is possible that Nabonidus married into the royal house; this would give
him a degree of legitimacy which he could not claim from a birth-right. This
would explain the reference to Belshazzar's being 'son' (or descendant, just
as Jesus was the 'Son' of David).
> but he got all the details of the reign of Antiochus
> Epiphanes right on the money up until 164, when he suddenly started
> blowing smoke.
Yet Jesus Christ said that part of those events attributed to Antiochus'
reign were to be fulfilled in the future. Surely if you're going to falsify
something well, you'd surely edit when things aren't going to plan. Do you
really believe the Jews would accept something as of quasi-divine origin when
its such an obvious fake, riddled with obvious lies? Why was Daniel accepted
as canonical so soon after its writing, whereas Sirach has never been
accepted as being canonical (not even by the Catholic Church, unless you
consider itsdesignation as pseudigraphical a statement of canonicity).
Its easy to say that a book of prophecy was written after the events it
describes, particularly if the prophecies are correct.
The most telling prophecy in Daniel is the one regarding the Messiah, It
depends somewhat on the chronology used, but if you count 69 weeks of years
from 455 (the 20th year of Artaxerxes II promulgated the order to commence
the reconstruction of Jerusalem- note: there are other chronologies as to the
actual date, admittedly) one comes to 29 CE the year of Jesus' baptism. This
fulfills Daniel 9:24-26, which was certainly written well before Jesus'
birth. So why would God use a forgery to relate prophecies? This is one of
the most remarkable prophecies ever uttered.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Larry Caldwell wrote:
> In article <91o34t$2pr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dpwo...@ocii.com writes:
>
> > Anyone who read Ezekiel after he wrote in the sixth century BC
> > certainly knew about Daniel because Ezekiel mentions him in
> > Ezekiel 14:14, 14:20, and 28:3.
>
> Different Daniel. The Daniel that Ezekiel mentions is a prehistoric
> culture hero like Noah and Moses, not a contemporary.
And how do you know that?
The only biblical culture hero called Daniel, is well, Daniel. The only
cultural heroes of the Hebrews before the 5th cent. BCE are in the
Bible. What information would Ezekiel have consulted to conjure up this
pseudo-Daniel?
In Ezekiel 28:3 the King of Tyre is described as being 'wiser than
Daniel'. This would only make sense if it referred to Daniel, or
Belteshazzar, one of Nebuchadrezzar's 'wise men' (Magi I believe the
term is, however in Daniel's case it didn't have implications in terms
of holding services etc in the local religion).
In no other instance in the OT is a character referred to without some
other information being proffered as to who that person is. Even
Melchizedek is described as being King of Salem. This person is just
Daniel, who is wise. And he's mentioned 3 times, for no apparent reason
(according to your assertions)
Regards,
Michael Creevey
The Canaanite hero Daniel is featured in the story "Aqhat" (named for that
Daniel's son), found among the Ugaritic texts and dating to about 1400
BCE, a number of centuries before any written mentions of the Daniel from
Nebuchadnezzar's court. For a synopsis of that Daniel's role in that
Canaanite legend, see his entry in the Canaanite Mythology FAQ at:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/canaanite-faq.html#Daniel
While set in the same timeas the Shadrack, Meschak & Abedneggo story, the
Apocryphal portion of the Biblical Book of Daniel, known as "Bel and the
Dragon", casts Daniel as a legendary dragon-slayer of sorts and arguably
harkens back to a character predating the neo-Babylonian period of
Nebuchadnezzar. That Daniel may be a hybrid of the two other Daniels, or
may be a Daniel all to himself.
Chris Siren ICQ# 17091740
cbs...@cisunix.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren
Myths and Legends: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/myth.html
UNH Observatory: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/observatory.html
> The most telling prophecy in Daniel is the one regarding the Messiah, It
RUBBSIH. UTTER AND ABSOLUTE RUBBISH.
Daniel 9 makes NO MENTION WHOSOEVER of a Messiah. It talks about Anointment
and the place of anointment. Anointment "Chrisma" could mean anything from
being smeared with oil, to swearing an oath of allegiance to the King of
Babylon, or induction, to learning to obey orders.
--
Daniel 9
20 kai ewv egw elaloun proseucomenov kai exomologoumenov tav amartiav mou
kai tav amartiav tou laou mou israhl kai deomenov en taiv proseucaiv
enantion kuriou yeou mou kai uper tou orouv tou agiou tou yeou hmwn
*20 And as I was speaking, in supplication and confessing my sins and the
sins of my people Israel in the supplications in front of my lord god and
above the mountain of my god.
21 kai eti lalountov mou en th proseuch mou kai idou o anhr on eidon en tw
upnw mou thn archn gabrihl tacei feromenov proshggise moi en wra yusiav
esperinhv
*21 And while I was speaking in my supplications and I saw the same man in
my trance as in the beginning, Gabriel, summoned here, acknowledging me in
the hour of the evening sacrifice.
22 kai proshlye kai elalhse met emou kai eipen danihl arti exhlyon
upodeixai soi dianoian
*22 And (he) conversed and spoke with me, and said Daniel, orders have
come, show respect.
23 en arch thv dehsewv sou exhlye prostagma para kuriou kai egw hlyon
upodeixai soi oti eleeinov ei kai dianohyhti to prostagma
*23 At the beginning of your supplication, came a message from the lord (of
Babylon), and I came to tell you that you are pitiful and here is revealed
what is to be.
24 ebdomhkonta ebdomadev ekriyhsan epi ton laon sou kai epi thn polin siwn
suntelesyhnai thn amartian kai tav adikiav spanisai kai apaleiqai tav
adikiav kai dianohyhnai to orama kai doyhnai dikaiosunhn aiwnion kai
suntelesyhnai to orama kai eufranai agion agiwn
*24 Seventy weeks have been given to your people and for the city of Zion.
End your sins and lessen your transgressions. Understand the message and
show unwavering respect. And the message ended and demanded great respect.
25 kai gnwsh kai dianohyhsh kai eufranyhsh kai eurhseiv prostagmata
apokriyhnai kai oikodomhseiv ierousalhm polin kuriw
*25 And know and understand and take note, and whatever you find (wrong)
split (it) apart and build Jerusalem as a city for the lord (of Babylon).
26 kai meta epta kai ebdomhkonta kai exhkonta duo apostayhsetai crisma kai
ouk estai kai basileia eynwn fyerei thn polin kai to agion meta tou cristou
kai hxei h sunteleia autou met orghv kai ewv kairou sunteleiav apo polemou
polemhyhsetai
*26 And after seven and seventy and sixty two (.....) take anointment, and
the king of nations will not come and destroy the city, and the holy place
of anointment, and make and end of it with anger and in the final day make
war.
27 kai dunasteusei h diayhkh eiv pollouv kai palin epistreqei kai
anoikodomhyhsetai eiv platov kai mhkov kai kata sunteleian kairwn kai meta
epta kai ebdomhkonta kairouv kai exhkonta duo eth ewv kairou sunteleiav
polemou kai afaireyhsetai h erhmwsiv en tw katiscusai thn diayhkhn epi
pollav ebdomadav kai en tw telei thv ebdomadov aryhsetai h yusia kai h
spondh kai epi to ieron bdelugma twn erhmwsewn estai ewv sunteleiav kai
sunteleia doyhsetai epi thn erhmwsin
*27 And the treaty it holds sway over many, and he returns again and sets up
on planes and mountains at the (time of) last day, after seventy seven days,
and sixty two months towards to the enjoinment of war. And taken issue is
desolation in the order of the treaty after many weeks, and at the end of
the week(s) the sacrifice is joined to the pin, and in front of the
sanctuary of the statues of the gods the desolation come to an end. And an
end comes to the desolation.
> depends somewhat on the chronology used, but if you count 69 weeks of
years
> from 455 (the 20th year of Artaxerxes II promulgated the order to commence
> the reconstruction of Jerusalem- note: there are other chronologies as to
the
> actual date, admittedly) one comes to 29 CE the year of Jesus' baptism.
This
Convenient isn't it that he birthday of Christ was set by the Church to
coincide with this.
> fulfills Daniel 9:24-26, which was certainly written well before Jesus'
> birth.
This chapter should really belong AFTER Daniel 10. Before I translated
Daniel 10 it made no sense at all, and I started barking up the wrong tree,
but now all is revealed.
Daniel is praying to his god and is again hallucinating. The Persian Soldier
who rescued him before while in his previous trance (in Daniel 10) who he
thinks is Gabriel re appears and gives him a message from the King of
Babylon which carries orders that the Jews must stop their transgressions of
his laws and cease their unrest or faces destruction. The don't so his
armies come and destroy Jerusalem.
>So why would God use a forgery to relate prophecies? This is one of
> the most remarkable prophecies ever uttered.
What had this got to do with God. THERE IS NO PROPHESY.
Daniel who is a drug crazed mad man, an absolutely powerless imbecile and
weakling, a PUPPET of his overlord is ORDERED by the King of Babylon/Persia
to get his house in order and stop his peoples transgressions,or else
Jerusalem will be razed to the ground.
> Regards,
> Michael Creevey
>
Baltazar or Belteshazzar is the title of an "Office" of state. (see my
translation later)
> >term is, however in Daniel's case it didn't have implications in terms
> >of holding services etc in the local religion).
> >In no other instance in the OT is a character referred to without some
> >other information being proffered as to who that person is. Even
> >Melchizedek is described as being King of Salem. This person is just
> >Daniel, who is wise. And he's mentioned 3 times, for no apparent reason
> >(according to your assertions)
>
> The Canaanite hero Daniel is featured in the story "Aqhat" (named for that
> Daniel's son), found among the Ugaritic texts and dating to about 1400
> BCE, a number of centuries before any written mentions of the Daniel from
> Nebuchadnezzar's court. For a synopsis of that Daniel's role in that
> Canaanite legend, see his entry in the Canaanite Mythology FAQ at:
>
> http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/canaanite-faq.html#Daniel
>
> While set in the same timeas the Shadrack, Meschak & Abedneggo story, the
> Apocryphal portion of the Biblical Book of Daniel, known as "Bel and the
> Dragon", casts Daniel as a legendary dragon-slayer of sorts and arguably
> harkens back to a character predating the neo-Babylonian period of
> Nebuchadnezzar. That Daniel may be a hybrid of the two other Daniels, or
> may be a Daniel all to himself.
KJV version
LXX version
*Tranlation of LXX
Daniel 10:
1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto
Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the
time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding
of the vision. {long: Heb. great}
1 n tw eniautw tw prwtw kurou tou basilewv perswn prostagma edeicyh tw
danihl ov epeklhyh to onoma baltasar kai alhyev to orama kai to prostagma
kai to plhyov to iscuron dianohyhsetai to prostagma kai dienohyhn auto en
oramati
*In the presence (or stead) of the first lord of the king of Persia, bowing
down Daniel accepts the title of Baltasar and the trappings of the position,
and the salary. The great multitude give their tribute, and this unfolds in
ceremonial fashion.
2 In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. {full…: Heb. weeks
of days}
2 en taiv hmeraiv ekeinaiv egw danihl hmhn penywn treiv ebdomadav
*In those days from thence I/we Daniel gave-penance three weeks
3 I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither
did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.
{pleasant…: Heb. bread of desires}
3 arton epiyumiwn ouk efagon kai kreav kai oinov ouk eishlyen eiv to stoma
mou elaion ouk hleiqamhn ewv tou suntelesai me tav treiv ebdomadav twn
hmerwn
*I ate no permitted bread and meat and wine did not enter my mouth. I burned
no oil until the three weeks ended to the day.
4 And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the
side of the great river, which is Hiddekel;
4 kai egeneto th hmera th tetarth kai eikadi tou mhnov tou prwtou kai egw
hmhn epi tou ceilouv tou potamou tou megalou ov esti tigrhv
*And so came to pass the twenty fourth day of the first month and I was on
the great river Heilous until it reached the Tigiris.
5 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed
in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: {a…: Heb. one
man}
5 kai hra touv ofyalmouv mou kai eidon kai idou anyrwpov eiv endedumenov
bussina kai thn osfun periezwsmenov bussinw kai ek mesou autou fwv
*And I rubbed my eyes and looked out, and I saw a man clothed in linen and
his loins were held in linen and from inside him there was light.
6 His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of
lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in
colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a
multitude.
6 kai to swma autou wsei yarsiv kai to proswpon autou wsei orasiv astraphv
kai oi ofyalmoi autou wsei lampadev purov kai oi bracionev autou kai oi
podev wsei calkov exastraptwn kai fwnh laliav autou wsei fwnh yorubou
*And his body was like Tharsis, and his face was like the appearance of
shinning light and his eyes like lamps of fire and his arms and feet like
shining brass and the voice of his words like the voice thunder.
7 And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not
the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide
themselves.
7 kai eidon egw danihl thn orasin thn megalhn tauthn kai oi anyrwpoi oi
ontev met emou ouk eidosan thn orasin tauthn kai fobov iscurov epepesen ep
autouv kai apedrasan en spoudh
*And I Daniel saw the great sight that was, but the men who were with me did
not see the sight that was, and great alarm came to them, and they left in
haste.
8 Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained
no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I
retained no strength. {comeliness: or, vigour}
8 kai egw kateleifyhn monov kai eidon thn orasin thn megalhn tauthn kai ouk
egkateleifyh en emoi iscuv kai idou pneuma epestrafh ep eme eiv fyoran kai
ou katiscusa
*And I was left alone, and I saw the great sight that was, and no strength
was left in me so my breath retuned to me like a torrent, and I passed out.
9 Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his
words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground.
9 kai ouk hkousa thn fwnhn laliav autou egw hmhn peptwkwv epi proswpon mou
epi thn ghn
*And I did not hear what his voice spoke. I/we was fallen with my face on
the ground.
10 And, behold, an hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the
palms of my hands. {set: Heb. moved}
10 kai idou ceira proshgage moi kai hgeire me epi twn gonatwn epi ta icnh
twn podwn mou
*And I saw a hand take hold of me and it lifted me to my knees and the balls
of my feet.
11 And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the
words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now
sent. And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling.
{greatly…: Heb. of desires} {upright: Heb. upon thy standing}
11 kai eipen moi danihl anyrwpov eleeinov ei dianohyhti toiv prostagmasin
oiv egw lalw epi se kai sthyi epi tou topou sou arti gar apestalhn epi se
kai en tw lalhsai auton met emou to prostagma touto esthn tremwn
*And he said to me, Daniel, man of pitty, underdressed the meaning of what I
say to you, and stand in your place. I just reached you in time. And from
the words he said to me of what occurred it looked terrible.
12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou
didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God,
thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.
12 kai eipen prov me mh fobou danihl oti apo thv hmerav thv prwthv hv
edwkav to proswpon sou dianohyhnai kai tapeinwyhnai enantion kuriou tou yeou
sou eishkousyh to rhma sou kai egw eishlyon en tw rhmati sou
*And he said unto me, don’t fear Daniel for from the first day you gave your
face, it is understood and reckoned with the lord your god. He herd your
words and he sent me as of your words.
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty
days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I
remained there with the kings of Persia. {chief: or, first}
13 kai o strathgov basilewv perswn anyeisthkei enantion mou eikosi kai mian
hmeran kai idou micahl eiv twn arcontwn twn prwtwn ephlye bohyhsai moi kai
auton ekei katelipon meta tou strathgou tou basilewv perswn
*And the soldier of the king of Persia stayed with me twenty and one days.
And I saw Michael in the man who was the only one to help me, and then the
one there went with the army of the king of Persia.
14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in
the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.
14 kai eipen moi hlyon upodeixai soi ti upanthsetai tw law sou ep escatou
twn hmerwn eti gar orasiv eiv hmerav
*And he told me there have come letters of what your people say concerning
the day that you had a vision in the morning.
15 And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the
ground, and I became dumb.
15 kai en tw auton lalhsai met emou ta prostagmata tauta edwka to proswpon
mou epi thn ghn kai esiwphsa
*And in that discussion with me, (were) the things that happened (to me
when) I set my face on the ground and I went silent.
16 And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips:
then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O
my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no
strength.
16 kai idou wv omoiwsiv ceirov anyrwpou hqato mou twn ceilewn kai hnoixa to
stoma mou kai elalhsa kai eipa tw esthkoti apenanti mou kurie kai wv orasiv
apestrafh epi to pleuron mou ep eme kai ouk hn en emoi iscuv
*And (I recalled) I saw something like the a hand of a man touch my lips and
I opened my mouth and spoke and said to the one that stood before me, lord,
and like a vision it returned to my side, inside of me, and not in me was
any strength.
17 For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as
for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there
breath left in me. {the…: or, this servant of my lord}
17 kai pwv dunhsetai o paiv lalhsai meta tou kuriou autou kai egw hsyenhsa
kai ouk estin en emoi iscuv kai pneuma ou kateleifyh en emoi
*And how is it possble the servant asked his lord. And I (was) withered and
inside of me was no strength and the breath run out of me.
18 Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man,
and he strengthened me,
18 kai proseyhke kai hqato mou wv orasiv anyrwpou kai katiscuse me
*And it happend that stood in front of me, like of a miracle, (was) a man,
and he came down to me.
19 And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be
strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened,
and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me.
19 kai eipe moi anyrwpov eleeinov ei mh fobou ugiaine andrizou kai iscue
kai en tw lalhsai auton met emou iscusa kai eipa lalhsatw o kuriov mou oti
eniscuse me
*And he said to me man of pity, do not fear, come on act like a man, and
have strength, and from words [with me] I was strengthened, and I said out,
my god strengthened me.
20 Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I
return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the
prince of Grecia shall come.
20 kai eipen prov me ginwskeiv ti hlyon prov se kai nun epistreqw
diamacesyai meta tou strathgou basilewv twn perswn kai egw exeporeuomhn kai
idou strathgov ellhnwn eiseporeueto
*And he said to me, do you know what happened to you, and now I (have to)
return to fight with the army of the king of Persia, I have to go back, look
the Greek soldiers are in motion.
21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and
there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.
{holdeth: Heb. strengtheneth himself}
21 kai mala upodeixw soi ta prwta en apografh alhyeiav kai ouyeiv hn o
bohywn met emou uper toutwn all h micahl o aggelov
*And an unfortunate outcome (has came) to you the first of the writing of
truth. And no one else was to help me except for him, and the messenger
Michael.
=======
Comments
Daniel is promoted to a high position among his people (probably a fake,
since this is written in a different person to the rest of the text.).
He fasts for 3 weeks and at the riverside he hallucinates and passes out.
Fortunatly a Persian soldier finds him and makes him well who Daniel
perceives as the angel Michael. Daniel then recalls what happened to him.
The Persian soldier then has to go and fight since the Greeks are attacking.
Obviously the only time the Greeks were in the vicinity of Persia inorder to
be able to attack was in 324 BC so had to have been written at the time of
Alexander.
Daniel was just one a string of mad men that thought the saw Jehovah and
when writing the Septuagint the Jews took all the accounts and put them
together to convince the Ptolomies that their god existed.
The fact that the story is repeated twice which is part of an obvious
pattern in the entire work indicates that two different books of Daniel
originally existed. Possibly one in Hebrew and one in Aramaic which were the
later combined.
The Hebrew words Michael and Gabriel most probably mean "A Messenger" the
same as the Greek words Aggelos and Hermes.
Aggie-Tom wrote:
>
>
> KJV version
> LXX version
> *Tranlation of LXX
>
> Daniel 10:
>
> 1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto
> Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the
> time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding
> of the vision. {long: Heb. great}
> 1 n tw eniautw tw prwtw kurou tou basilewv perswn prostagma edeicyh tw
> danihl ov epeklhyh to onoma baltasar kai alhyev to orama kai to prostagma
> kai to plhyov to iscuron dianohyhsetai to prostagma kai dienohyhn auto en
> oramati
>
> *In the presence (or stead) of the first lord of the king of Persia, bowing
> down Daniel accepts the title of Baltasar and the trappings of the position,
> and the salary. The great multitude give their tribute, and this unfolds in
> ceremonial fashion.
>
Question -- isn't "kurou" the dative form of Cyrus (or Kyros or Kuros), and
if so, why didn't you include the name in your translation? -- oh, and I've
been having some difficulties with your transliterations, I gather from "danihl"
that you're using "h" to transliterate "eta" and "e" only for "epsilon",
correct?
>
> 2 In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. {full…: Heb. weeks
> of days}
> 2 en taiv hmeraiv ekeinaiv egw danihl hmhn penywn treiv ebdomadav
>
> *In those days from thence I/we Daniel gave-penance three weeks
>
> 3 I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither
> did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.
> {pleasant…: Heb. bread of desires}
> 3 arton epiyumiwn ouk efagon kai kreav kai oinov ouk eishlyen eiv to stoma
> mou elaion ouk hleiqamhn ewv tou suntelesai me tav treiv ebdomadav twn
> hmerwn
>
> *I ate no permitted bread and meat and wine did not enter my mouth. I burned
> no oil until the three weeks ended to the day.
>
> 4 And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the
> side of the great river, which is Hiddekel;
> 4 kai egeneto th hmera th tetarth kai eikadi tou mhnov tou prwtou kai egw
> hmhn epi tou ceilouv tou potamou tou megalou ov esti tigrhv
>
> *And so came to pass the twenty fourth day of the first month and I was on
> the great river Heilous until it reached the Tigiris.
>
Further transliteration questions. Since "tou potamou tou megalou" is obviously
"the great river", then "Heilous" must be "ceilouv" -- I presume agan the e is
epsilon, the i iota, the l lambda, the o omicron, and the u upsilon. Which
leaves the "v" and the "c" for which I don't understand your system of
transliteration. Since "n" must be nu, then the "v" cannot be.
"f" for phi, n'est-ce pas?
and "w" for omega -- what do you use for theta, chi (or khi) and psi?
--
Kice, writing from Iowa City
"There are things we do not understand.
Yet they exist nonetheless." -- Lt. Worf
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
> > In article <91o34t$2pr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, dpwo...@ocii.com writes:
> >
> > > Anyone who read Ezekiel after he wrote in the sixth century BC
> > > certainly knew about Daniel because Ezekiel mentions him in
> > > Ezekiel 14:14, 14:20, and 28:3.
> >
> > Different Daniel. The Daniel that Ezekiel mentions is a prehistoric
> > culture hero like Noah and Moses, not a contemporary.
>
> And how do you know that?
Scholarship.
> The only biblical culture hero called Daniel, is well, Daniel. The only
> cultural heroes of the Hebrews before the 5th cent. BCE are in the
> Bible. What information would Ezekiel have consulted to conjure up this
> pseudo-Daniel?
It is not "pseudo-Daniel," but actually the hero of a Canaanite
hero-story. In the Aqhat cycle we're treated to the story of a man named
Dan'el. Once one has read Aqhat and studied the Ezekiel passage in
context, the connection is clear.
> In Ezekiel 28:3 the King of Tyre is described as being 'wiser than
> Daniel'. This would only make sense if it referred to Daniel, or
> Belteshazzar, one of Nebuchadrezzar's 'wise men' (Magi I believe the
> term is, however in Daniel's case it didn't have implications in terms
> of holding services etc in the local religion).
> In no other instance in the OT is a character referred to without some
> other information being proffered as to who that person is. Even
> Melchizedek is described as being King of Salem. This person is just
> Daniel, who is wise. And he's mentioned 3 times, for no apparent reason
> (according to your assertions)
See above.
John
--
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not
become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks
into you.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"To proto kyrou tou basileos person" means "The first lord of the king or
Persia". Kyrou is and abbreviation for Kyriaos or lord. "The first Cyprus of
the king of Persia" make no sense at all.
> if so, why didn't you include the name in your translation? -- oh, and
I've
Because it is clear form the grammar that this is not a name.
> been having some difficulties with your transliterations, I gather from
"danihl"
> that you're using "h" to transliterate "eta" and "e" only for "epsilon",
> correct?
h = ita
v = end sigma
w = omega
j = psi
y = thita
c = hi
x = ksi
>
>
> >
> > 2 In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. {full.: Heb.
weeks
> > of days}
> > 2 en taiv hmeraiv ekeinaiv egw danihl hmhn penywn treiv ebdomadav
> >
> > *In those days from thence I/we Daniel gave-penance three weeks
> >
> > 3 I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth,
neither
> > did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.
> > {pleasant.: Heb. bread of desires}
> > 3 arton epiyumiwn ouk efagon kai kreav kai oinov ouk eishlyen eiv to
stoma
> > mou elaion ouk hleiqamhn ewv tou suntelesai me tav treiv ebdomadav twn
> > hmerwn
> >
> > *I ate no permitted bread and meat and wine did not enter my mouth. I
burned
> > no oil until the three weeks ended to the day.
> >
> > 4 And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the
> > side of the great river, which is Hiddekel;
> > 4 kai egeneto th hmera th tetarth kai eikadi tou mhnov tou prwtou kai
egw
> > hmhn epi tou ceilouv tou potamou tou megalou ov esti tigrhv
> >
> > *And so came to pass the twenty fourth day of the first month and I was
on
> > the great river Heilous until it reached the Tigiris.
> >
>
> Further transliteration questions. Since "tou potamou tou megalou" is
obviously
> "the great river", then "Heilous" must be "ceilouv" -- I presume agan the
e is
> epsilon, the i iota, the l lambda, the o omicron, and the u upsilon.
Which
> leaves the "v" and the "c" for which I don't understand your system of
v = end sigma
h = hi (chi gia touys ahristous enggezous)
> transliteration. Since "n" must be nu, then the "v" cannot be.
>
> "f" for phi, n'est-ce pas?
> and "w" for omega -- what do you use for theta, chi (or khi) and psi?
>
>
See above.
Spelling errors corrected. Hope it now makes sense.
Aggie-Tom wrote:
Thanks, in doing what little further research I can do here at work (which
means basically my old 1st edition American Heritage Dictionary), I came upon
"Kyrie eleison" which the AHD derives from Greek Kurie eleEson {their
transliteration has that third "e" with a dash over it -- I'm betting that's how
they represent eta to differentiate from epsilon}. They describe Kurie as
"vocative of kurios, lord, master, powerful (one), from kuros, power, supreme
authority. -- this suggests that kurios developed from kuros rather than that
the latter is an abbreviation of the former -- but it's also obvious that both
forms mean essentially the same thing -- which brings another question to mind,
specifically with reference to the person of Cyrus the Great per se. Now that
I'm seeing "Cyrus" (Kuros) as a title, I'm wondering whether that's a Greek
translation of a Persian title or whether the Greeks just "came up" with that
title for one of their great enemies. Finally, do we know this Persian king's
name -- is he known to the Greek historians also by another name (along with
Kuros)?
Cyrus = Kurash in Persian. Obviously Kuros is the Greek word for power
rather Cyrus name.
Kyrou from the context of the above quoted passage can only be a contraction
of lord Kyr(i)ou when acted on by Proto (first) and Tou (belonging to) and
had nothing to do with Cyrus.
From The Kurash Prism:
I am Kurash [ "Cyrus" ], King of the World, Great King, Legitimate King,
King of Babilani, King of Kiengir and Akkade, King of the four rims of the
earth, Son of Kanbujiya, Great King, King of Hakhamanish, Grandson of
Kurash, Great king, King of Hakhamanish, descendant of Chishpish, Great
king, King of Hakhamanish, of a family which always exercised kingship;
whose rule Bel and Nebo love, whom they want as king to please their hearts.
When I entered Babilani as a friend and when I established the seat of the
government in the palace of the ruler under jubilation and rejoicing,
Marduk, the great lord, induced the magnanimous inhabitants of Babilani to
love me, and I was daily endeavoring to worship him.... As to the region
from as far as Assura and Susa, Akkade, Eshnunna, the towns Zamban,
Me-turnu, Der as well as the region of the Gutians, I returned to these
sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris the sanctuaries of which have
been ruins for a long time, the images which used to live therein and
established for them permanent sanctuaries. I also gathered all their former
inhabitants and returned them to their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled
upon the command of Marduk, the great lord, all the gods of Kiengir and
Akkade whom Nabonidus had brought into Babilani to the anger of the lord of
the gods, unharmed, in their former temples, the places which make them
happy.
Aggie-Tom wrote:
"Carl KICE Brown" <Kice-...@UIOWA.EDU> wrote in message
news:3A42870E...@UIOWA.EDU...
>
much snipped
>
> Thanks, snip snip snip -- which brings another question to mind, specifically with reference to the person of Cyrus the Great per se. Now that I'm seeing "Cyrus" (Kuros) as a title, I'm wondering whether that's a Greek translation of a Persian title or whether the Greeks just "came up" with that title for one of their great enemies. Finally, do we know this Persian
king's > name -- is he known to the Greek historians also by another name (along with Kuros)?
Cyrus = Kurash in Persian. Obviously Kuros is the Greek word for power
rather Cyrus name.Kyrou from the context of the above quoted passage can only be a contraction
of lord Kyr(i)ou when acted on by Proto (first) and Tou (belonging to) and
had nothing to do with Cyrus.
Thanks again, BTW yesterday I hit upon the idea of finding a copy of the LXX Daniel in Greek (without transliterations) and comparing it to your transliterations. At first I wondered why the version I discovered didn't agree with your transliteration word for word. So I did a little more research and discovered there were two "LXX" versions of Daniel out there -- one marked Daniel-OR and apparently from the Origen text the other (which corresponded to your transliteration) marked Daniel-TH and apparently from the Tehodotion text.
"Carl KICE Brown" <Kice-...@UIOWA.EDU> wrote in message news:3A436B39...@UIOWA.EDU...
Hares both versions of Daniel 9 and 10. The version that I have been using is first and it is obvious that this was the original source before the Church doctored it. Joshua and Judges also have variants.
20
kai ewv egw elaloun proseucomenov kai exomologoumenov tav amartiav mou kai tav amartiav tou laou mou israhl kai deomenov en taiv proseucaiv enantion kuriou yeou mou kai uper tou orouv tou agiou tou yeou hmwn21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
kai en tw auton lalhsai met emou ta prostagmata tauta edwka to proswpon mou epi thn ghn kai esiwphsa16
kai idou wv omoiwsiv ceirov anyrwpou hqato mou twn ceilewn kai hnoixa to stoma mou kai elalhsa kai eipa tw esthkoti apenanti mou kurie kai wv orasiv apestrafh epi to pleuron mou ep eme kai ouk hn en emoi iscuv17
18
19
20
kai eipen prov me ginwskeiv ti hlyon prov se kai nun epistreqw diamacesyai meta tou strathgou basilewv twn perswn kai egw exeporeuomhn kai idou strathgov ellhnwn eiseporeueto
================
20
kai eti emou lalountov kai proseucomenou kai exagoreuontov tav amartiav mou kai tav amartiav tou laou mou israhl kai riptountov ton eleon mou enantion kuriou tou yeou mou peri tou orouv tou agiou tou yeou mou21
kai eti emou lalountov en th proseuch kai idou o anhr gabrihl on eidon en th orasei en th arch petomenov kai hqato mou wsei wran yusiav esperinhv22
kai sunetisen me kai elalhsen met emou kai eipen danihl nun exhlyon sumbibasai se sunesin23
en arch thv dehsewv sou exhlyen logov kai egw hlyon tou anaggeilai soi oti anhr epiyumiwn su ei kai ennohyhti en tw rhmati kai sunev en th optasia24
ebdomhkonta ebdomadev sunetmhyhsan epi ton laon sou kai epi thn polin thn agian sou tou suntelesyhnai amartian kai tou sfragisai amartiav kai apaleiqai tav anomiav kai tou exilasasyai adikiav kai tou agagein dikaiosunhn aiwnion kai tou sfragisai orasin kai profhthn kai tou crisai agion agiwn25
kai gnwsh kai sunhseiv apo exodou logou tou apokriyhnai kai tou oikodomhsai ierousalhm ewv cristou hgoumenou ebdomadev epta kai ebdomadev exhkonta duo kai epistreqei kai oikodomhyhsetai plateia kai teicov kai ekkenwyhsontai oi kairoi26
kai meta tav ebdomadav tav exhkonta duo exoleyreuyhsetai crisma kai krima ouk estin en autw kai thn polin kai to agion diafyerei sun tw hgoumenw tw ercomenw kai ekkophsontai en kataklusmw kai ewv telouv polemou suntetmhmenou taxei afanismoiv27
kai dunamwsei diayhkhn polloiv ebdomav mia kai en tw hmisei thv ebdomadov aryhsetai mou yusia kai spondh kai epi to ieron bdelugma twn erhmwsewn kai ewv sunteleiav kairou sunteleia doyhsetai epi thn erhmwsin1
en etei tritw kurou basilewv perswn logov apekalufyh tw danihl ou to onoma epeklhyh baltasar kai alhyinov o logov kai dunamiv megalh kai sunesiv edoyh autw en th optasia2
en taiv hmeraiv ekeinaiv egw danihl hmhn penywn treiv ebdomadav hmerwn3
arton epiyumiwn ouk efagon kai kreav kai oinov ouk eishlyen eiv to stoma mou kai aleimma ouk hleiqamhn ewv plhrwsewv triwn ebdomadwn hmerwn4
en hmera eikosth kai tetarth tou mhnov tou prwtou kai egw hmhn ecomena tou potamou tou megalou autov estin eddekel5
kai hra touv ofyalmouv mou kai eidon kai idou anhr eiv endedumenov baddin kai h osfuv autou periezwsmenh en crusiw wfaz6
kai to swma autou wsei yarsiv kai to proswpon autou wsei orasiv astraphv kai oi ofyalmoi autou wsei lampadev purov kai oi bracionev autou kai ta skelh wv orasiv calkou stilbontov kai h fwnh twn logwn autou wv fwnh oclou7
kai eidon egw danihl monov thn optasian kai oi andrev oi met emou ouk eidon thn optasian all h ekstasiv megalh epepesen ep autouv kai efugon en fobw8
kai egw upeleifyhn monov kai eidon thn optasian thn megalhn tauthn kai ouc upeleifyh en emoi iscuv kai h doxa mou metestrafh eiv diafyoran kai ouk ekrathsa iscuov9
kai hkousa thn fwnhn twn logwn autou kai en tw akousai me autou hmhn katanenugmenov kai to proswpon mou epi thn ghn10
kai idou ceir aptomenh mou kai hgeiren me epi ta gonata mou11
kai eipen prov me danihl anhr epiyumiwn sunev en toiv logoiv oiv egw lalw prov se kai sthyi epi th stasei sou oti nun apestalhn prov se kai en tw lalhsai auton prov me ton logon touton anesthn entromov12
kai eipen prov me mh fobou danihl oti apo thv prwthv hmerav hv edwkav thn kardian sou tou sunienai kai kakwyhnai enantion tou yeou sou hkousyhsan oi logoi sou kai egw hlyon en toiv logoiv sou13
kai o arcwn basileiav perswn eisthkei ex enantiav mou eikosi kai mian hmeran kai idou micahl eiv twn arcontwn twn prwtwn hlyen bohyhsai moi kai auton katelipon ekei meta tou arcontov basileiav perswn14
kai hlyon sunetisai se osa apanthsetai tw law sou ep escatwn twn hmerwn oti eti h orasiv eiv hmerav15
kai en tw lalhsai auton met emou kata touv logouv toutouv edwka to proswpon mou epi thn ghn kai katenughn16
kai idou wv omoiwsiv uiou anyrwpou hqato twn ceilewn mou kai hnoixa to stoma mou kai elalhsa kai eipa prov ton estwta enantion emou kurie en th optasia sou estrafh ta entov mou en emoi kai ouk escon iscun17
kai pwv dunhsetai o paiv sou kurie lalhsai meta tou kuriou mou toutou kai egw apo tou nun ou sthsetai en emoi iscuv kai pnoh ouc upeleifyh en emoi18
kai proseyeto kai hqato mou wv orasiv anyrwpou kai eniscusen me19
kai eipen moi mh fobou anhr epiyumiwn eirhnh soi andrizou kai iscue kai en tw lalhsai auton met emou iscusa kai eipa laleitw o kuriov mou oti eniscusav me20
kai eipen ei oidav ina ti hlyon prov se kai nun epistreqw tou polemhsai meta arcontov perswn kai egw exeporeuomhn kai o arcwn twn ellhnwn hrceto21
all h anaggelw soi to entetagmenon en grafh alhyeiav kai ouk estin eiv antecomenov met emou peri toutwn all h micahl o arcwn umwnSorry to be a pain chaps but you're off on a wild goose chase here. If you look again at the LXX text which you are citing.
kurou - is not a dative form at all. It is genitive. nom. - Kuros, acc - Kuron, gen - Kurou, dat - Kuro (with iota subscript).
Therefore we should read
en to eniauto to proto (in the first year - all dative after 'ev') Kurou tou basileou Person (of Cyrus, the king of the Persians) etc. Kuros tou basileu - gen singular and Person - gen plural
Hence the following misreads the text -
Kyrou from the context of the above quoted passage can only be a contraction
of lord Kyr(i)ou when acted on by Proto (first) and Tou (belonging to) and
had nothing to do with Cyrus.