Discussion:
Jupiter Ammon as Satan
(too old to reply)
JTEM
2012-02-05 19:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Was looking at an ancient Roman piece last
night, a lamp recovered from Pompeii, and it
was adorned with the image of Jupiter Ammon.
Funny thing though, it pretty much exactly
match many a common (popular) views of
Satan:

Loading Image...

That's Jupiter Ammon. Ammon/Amun/Amen
himself was often depicted as a human figure
with a Ram's head...

Loading Image...

It's not a coincidence. Period. It's just plain
not a coincidence.
Waldo Tunnel
2012-02-06 18:19:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Was looking at an ancient Roman piece last
night, a lamp recovered from Pompeii, and it
was adorned with the image of Jupiter Ammon.
Holy shit. Are you hopped up on screamers again?


[...]
Post by JTEM
It's not a coincidence. Period. It's just plain
not a coincidence.
Hey, it's not a coincidence mommie and daddy keep moving away while
you're at school.
JTEM
2012-02-07 23:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Was looking at an ancient Roman piece last
night, a lamp recovered from Pompeii, and it
was adorned with the image of Jupiter Ammon.
Funny thing though, it pretty much exactly
match many a common (popular) views of
http://s4.hubimg.com/u/4284203_f260.jpg
Interestingly enough, another model for the
Christian idea of Satan appears to be the
eastern European Jewish male.

Yes, a classic European view of Satan has all
the stereotypical facial features of an eastern
European Jewish man.

Interesting...
Waldo Tunnel
2012-02-08 07:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by JTEM
Was looking at an ancient Roman piece last
night, a lamp recovered from Pompeii, and it
was adorned with the image of Jupiter Ammon.
I bet you were stoked, dood.
Post by JTEM
Post by JTEM
Funny thing though, it pretty much exactly
match many a common (popular) views of
http://s4.hubimg.com/u/4284203_f260.jpg
Interestingly enough, another model for the
Christian idea of Satan appears to be the
eastern European Jewish male.
Yes, a classic European view of Satan has all
the stereotypical facial features of an eastern
European Jewish man.
You're repeating yourself.
Post by JTEM
Interesting...
What the ...? Where is YOUR TAG LINE, Ashley? And your link? What's
goin' on here??
JTEM
2012-02-12 09:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
 I bet you were stoked, dood.
You're trying WAY too hard. Instead of relying to
everything, reply only when you have something
to say. This way you won't come across as
both desperate and stupid.
Waldo Tunnel
2012-02-14 03:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
 I bet you were stoked, dood.
You're trying WAY too hard.
Where is your explanation for dropping your Ashley Bottoms link? I
don't hold your cross-dressing against you. Why some of my best...ok,
well that's a lie.

Regardless.

Why don't you tell us what you think an agnostic is? I bet that would
be funnier than anything on your website.
Geopelia
2012-03-09 11:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Was looking at an ancient Roman piece last
night, a lamp recovered from Pompeii, and it
was adorned with the image of Jupiter Ammon.
Funny thing though, it pretty much exactly
match many a common (popular) views of
http://s4.hubimg.com/u/4284203_f260.jpg
That's Jupiter Ammon. Ammon/Amun/Amen
himself was often depicted as a human figure
with a Ram's head...
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/matrix/images/matrix14.gif
It's not a coincidence. Period. It's just plain
not a coincidence.
Alexander was often shown wearing a horn of Ammon.

http://rg.ancients.info/alexander/portrait.html
A website of various coins.
(The reverse of one coin has a figure with a shield that reminds me of the
old British penny showing Britannia.)
JTEM
2012-03-09 19:01:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
Post by JTEM
That's Jupiter Ammon. Ammon/Amun/Amen
himself was often depicted as a human figure
with a Ram's head...
[...]
Post by Geopelia
Post by JTEM
It's not a coincidence. Period. It's just plain
not a coincidence.
Alexander was often shown wearing a horn of Ammon.
Alexander took the identity of "Son of Ammon" in life,
did he not? He also seemed to be revered as a
legitimate king by the Egyptians in a way that other
foreigners were not.
Geopelia
2012-03-09 20:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Geopelia
Post by JTEM
That's Jupiter Ammon. Ammon/Amun/Amen
himself was often depicted as a human figure
with a Ram's head...
[...]
Post by Geopelia
Post by JTEM
It's not a coincidence. Period. It's just plain
not a coincidence.
Alexander was often shown wearing a horn of Ammon.
Alexander took the identity of "Son of Ammon" in life,
did he not? He also seemed to be revered as a
legitimate king by the Egyptians in a way that other
foreigners were not.
It is said that he was told he was the son of Ammon by the oracle of Siwa.
JTEM
2012-03-10 20:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
It is said that he was told he was the son of
Ammon by the oracle of Siwa.
Which is weird, because in the ancient Egyptian
titulary the biggie was usually the "Son of Ra" --
or at least to us here -- the Prenomen. It is the
name we know the Pharaohs by.
Geopelia
2012-03-11 11:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Geopelia
It is said that he was told he was the son of
Ammon by the oracle of Siwa.
Which is weird, because in the ancient Egyptian
titulary the biggie was usually the "Son of Ra" --
or at least to us here -- the Prenomen. It is the
name we know the Pharaohs by.
Alexander came to Egypt more than a thousand years later than the Pharaohs
of the Middle Kingdom.
Ammon was sometimes thought to be Zeus.
JTEM
2012-03-11 12:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
Post by JTEM
Which is weird, because in the ancient Egyptian
titulary the biggie was usually the "Son of Ra" --
or at least to us here -- the Prenomen. It is the
name we know the Pharaohs by.
Alexander came to Egypt more than a thousand
years later than the Pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom.
We have the same convention for the New Kingdom.
Post by Geopelia
Ammon was sometimes thought to be Zeus.
Yes, but by the Egyptians? I don't think so. And he
was supposedly dubbed the "Son of Ammon" by
the Egyptian oracle....

If I may stroll off base here for a moment...

I always thought that Alexander may have served as
a proto-god in the ancient world. Not, not in name or
attributes, but in image. That, Helios an (later) Sol
Invictus were modeled on his features, or at least the
popular conception of his features.
Geopelia
2012-03-12 03:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Geopelia
Post by JTEM
Which is weird, because in the ancient Egyptian
titulary the biggie was usually the "Son of Ra" --
or at least to us here -- the Prenomen. It is the
name we know the Pharaohs by.
Alexander came to Egypt more than a thousand
years later than the Pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom.
We have the same convention for the New Kingdom.
Post by Geopelia
Ammon was sometimes thought to be Zeus.
Yes, but by the Egyptians? I don't think so. And he
was supposedly dubbed the "Son of Ammon" by
the Egyptian oracle....
If I may stroll off base here for a moment...
I always thought that Alexander may have served as
a proto-god in the ancient world. Not, not in name or
attributes, but in image. That, Helios an (later) Sol
Invictus were modeled on his features, or at least the
popular conception of his features.
That is possible. He seems to have been good looking, like a sun god would
be.

There is nothing odd about humans being regarded as gods.
The Pharaohs were god kings, and the Roman Emperors became gods after their
deaths.
The idea is widely accepted even today by Christians.
JTEM
2012-03-12 13:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
There is nothing odd about humans being regarded as gods.
The Pharaohs were god kings, and the Roman Emperors
became gods after their deaths.
The idea is widely accepted even today by Christians.
Agreed. As a matter of fact, the subject has come up
in the was-jesus-a-latter-day-invention debate.

It was not only mainstream enough to deify people in ancient
times, but it wasn't that unusual to invent new gods or to
merge existing gods.
Geopelia
2012-03-13 00:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Geopelia
There is nothing odd about humans being regarded as gods.
The Pharaohs were god kings, and the Roman Emperors
became gods after their deaths.
The idea is widely accepted even today by Christians.
Agreed. As a matter of fact, the subject has come up
in the was-jesus-a-latter-day-invention debate.
It was not only mainstream enough to deify people in ancient
times, but it wasn't that unusual to invent new gods or to
merge existing gods.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
There seems to be a lot on that website.
JTEM
2012-03-13 15:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
Post by JTEM
Agreed. As a matter of fact, the subject has come up
in the was-jesus-a-latter-day-invention debate.
It was not only mainstream enough to deify people in ancient
times, but it wasn't that unusual to invent new gods or to
merge existing gods.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
There seems to be a lot on that website.
For good reason! We are faced with a situation where our
view of religion in ancient times is untenable. It's wrong. Much
of what is passed done to us as history is wrong. And one
way to rectify the problem is to posit a major insertion/deletion
at some point along the line. And, Christianity fits that model
like a glove.

I am by no means suggesting that it is the only theory which
might solve the problems, or even that it doesn't in turn
present a few problems all on it's own, but I do stand by my
assessment that our history is wrong.
Geopelia
2012-03-14 04:20:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Geopelia
Post by JTEM
Agreed. As a matter of fact, the subject has come up
in the was-jesus-a-latter-day-invention debate.
It was not only mainstream enough to deify people in ancient
times, but it wasn't that unusual to invent new gods or to
merge existing gods.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
There seems to be a lot on that website.
For good reason! We are faced with a situation where our
view of religion in ancient times is untenable. It's wrong. Much
of what is passed done to us as history is wrong. And one
way to rectify the problem is to posit a major insertion/deletion
at some point along the line. And, Christianity fits that model
like a glove.
I am by no means suggesting that it is the only theory which
might solve the problems, or even that it doesn't in turn
present a few problems all on it's own, but I do stand by my
assessment that our history is wrong.
Of course our view of religion in ancient times is inaccurate. The further
back we go, the fewer facts are available.
There are some written sources for the Roman religion. But the Druid
religion of Britain and Gaul was passed on by word of mouth, and all we know
about it was written down by the Romans, who abolished it.

And what exactly was the religion of Crete? We know it involved bulls. The
Minotaur probably had some religious significance, but what?

Egypt had hieroglyphics and papyrus, and as translations become available we
can learn more. But unless we were Egyptians of those times how could we
understand?
e.g.They used to cut one leg off a living calf. What was the purpose of
that? (Has anyone found out recently?)

Further back in the Palaeolithic, all we have are the Venus figurines and
the cave art. What is the significance of the Trois Freres Sorcerer? It is
unlikely that we will ever know.

The Jews do have a record of their early religion, going back to Moses in
Egyptian times. But before that most would be legend.

Christians do know much of their history after Nicaea. But the earlier
days, back to Jesus himself, may be myth.

So I say, believe what you like, or nothing at all. But don't persecute
others for their beliefs.
Our descendants may have to make a choice between Christianity and Islam.
Let's hope it doesn't come to a religious war.
JTEM
2012-03-14 16:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
The Jews do have a record of their early religion, going back to Moses in
Egyptian times. But before that most would be legend.
Christians do know much of their history after Nicaea.  But the earlier
days, back to Jesus himself, may be myth.
It's all myth, both old and new testaments are myth, but you
misunderstood.

Though hardly ever explicitly stated, what we think of as
"Jews" today could not possibly have been "Jews" in
ancient times. For starters, there were far too many. They
were responsible for three major revolts -- and when
history says three history means four -- several of which
were on a very wide scale, engulfing much of the empire.

....and there is almost nothing written about any of it.

Some sources speak of a revolt so large & bloody that
for years afterwards any Jew stepping foot on Crete would
be killed. Others talk about Hadrian facing a Jewish army
of some 50,000 combatants outside Alexandria. That
particular revolt was supposed to be so large that it spread
across north Africa, through the Levant and up into northern
Anatolia. We;re talking "Big." Long before that ever happened
Jews were supposed to have been so troublesome that at
least two Emperors banned them from the city of Rome!

Almost no details exists.

Oddly, if we place the missing Jewish story alongside the
Christianity myth, things begin to line up....

We have, for example, the persecution of Christians, starting
with Nero, and no word of Jews. Why this is shockingly strange
is that it parallels the Jewish revolt! So we have Jews revolting,
but nobody is persecuting Jews. They're all persecuting
"Christians" according to the myth.

Now the traditional excuse is to say something like, "Well,
the earliest Christians were Jews." Which, oddly, makes no
sense as Jesus preaches AGAINST rebellion. He attacks
the Jews -- the religion itself through the temple and the
Priests -- and he preaches against rebellion.

Get it? Christianity -- the bible -- teaches that the Jews
are the bad guys, that the Romans are the good guys. The
Romans were so disgusted at the Jews murdering Christ
that Pilot literally "Washes his hands" of the whole thing. It's
the Jews who are completely responsible...

So we have a sect that preaches AGAINST rebellion, a
sect that teaches that Jews are bad and that the Romans
are good and this sect is being persecuted while the
Jews are not, and all this is happening precisely at the
same time that the Jews are staging a major revolt....

Of course, if you cross out "Christian" and write "Jew"
then suddenly you have a story that makes sense. You
now have uppity Jews being tossed to the lions during
a time when they were in revolt and posed a threat to
the state....

And Jesus? His whole "Jews are bad" and "Obey the
Roman law" not to mention "Don't rebel 'cus your
reward is in the next life and the more the status quo
crushes you now the bigger your reward later"....

Hey, it's the meek who shall inherit the earth, right? So
it's a good thing to be a poor, exploited, politically
disenfranchised peasant....

That's not the extant of it though. There's plenty of other
key points that don't make sense unless you scrub
Christianity from the picture....
Post by Geopelia
Our descendants may have to make a choice between
Christianity and Islam. Let's hope it doesn't come to a
religious war.
Islam is even more obviously contrived than the others,
as there is no historical obscurity. Islam only grew popular
because it grants a license to believers to exploit non
believers. It's no coincidence that Islam went charging out
of a small corner of Saudi Arabia so quickly.

When Christianity did the same thing in the west -- granted
a license to Christians to kill & plunder the non believers --
the EXACT SAME result was seen. We call it "The crusades."

for some inexplicable reason we are spoon fed the history
of the crusades as an example of Christian & western
flaws, and never reminded that Islam was confined to a
small corner of Saudi Arabia before the Islamic crusades
began. That, Islam conquered the Christian Levant, Egypt,
North Africa, Anatolia by the sword.

The Christian Roman Empire extended into Syria and
Jordan before the Muslim crusades....

Exact same results produced by the exact same claim:

"God says it's okay to kill, rape & plunder so long as it's
unbelievers."



"Cha-Ching!"

"What do you want? Wealth? Slaves? Satisfy a psychotic
lust for murder? God approves, so long as you do it to the
unbelievers!"
Geopelia
2012-03-14 21:20:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
The Jews do have a record of their early religion, going back to Moses in
Egyptian times. But before that most would be legend.
Christians do know much of their history after Nicaea. But the earlier
days, back to Jesus himself, may be myth.
It's all myth, both old and new testaments are myth, but you
misunderstood.

Though hardly ever explicitly stated, what we think of as
"Jews" today could not possibly have been "Jews" in
ancient times. For starters, there were far too many. They
were responsible for three major revolts -- and when
history says three history means four -- several of which
were on a very wide scale, engulfing much of the empire.

..............................

Perhaps Hebrews would be a better word for the ancient tribe.
Which revolts, and which empire?

Josephus describes the one in detail when the Temple was destroyed, though
the numbers he gives are probably not accurate.
Which were the others?
Do you include the Exodus from Egypt?
...............................................

....and there is almost nothing written about any of it.

Some sources speak of a revolt so large & bloody that
for years afterwards any Jew stepping foot on Crete would
be killed. Others talk about Hadrian facing a Jewish army
of some 50,000 combatants outside Alexandria. That
particular revolt was supposed to be so large that it spread
across north Africa, through the Levant and up into northern
Anatolia. We;re talking "Big." Long before that ever happened
Jews were supposed to have been so troublesome that at
least two Emperors banned them from the city of Rome!

Almost no details exists.

Oddly, if we place the missing Jewish story alongside the
Christianity myth, things begin to line up....

We have, for example, the persecution of Christians, starting
with Nero, and no word of Jews. Why this is shockingly strange
is that it parallels the Jewish revolt! So we have Jews revolting,
but nobody is persecuting Jews. They're all persecuting
"Christians" according to the myth.

...........................
The Christians Nero persecuted would probably have been Roman converts.
Some would have been slaves.
Rome was very tolerant of other religions, provided the official Roman
religion was respected.
It was the claim that there was only one god that was the problem.
.....................................

Now the traditional excuse is to say something like, "Well,
the earliest Christians were Jews." Which, oddly, makes no
sense as Jesus preaches AGAINST rebellion. He attacks
the Jews -- the religion itself through the temple and the
Priests -- and he preaches against rebellion.
................................
He attacked the narrow observance of religious laws, and the money changers
of the Temple.
....................................

Get it? Christianity -- the bible -- teaches that the Jews
are the bad guys, that the Romans are the good guys. The
Romans were so disgusted at the Jews murdering Christ
that Pilot literally "Washes his hands" of the whole thing. It's
the Jews who are completely responsible...
.....................
Matthew 27:24-25
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was
made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am
innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our
children

(Hasn't the Pope recently absolved the Jews of the blood guilt? That verse
may have been added later, anyway.)

....................................
So we have a sect that preaches AGAINST rebellion, a
sect that teaches that Jews are bad and that the Romans
are good and this sect is being persecuted while the
Jews are not, and all this is happening precisely at the
same time that the Jews are staging a major revolt....

Of course, if you cross out "Christian" and write "Jew"
then suddenly you have a story that makes sense. You
now have uppity Jews being tossed to the lions during
a time when they were in revolt and posed a threat to
the state....

And Jesus? His whole "Jews are bad" and "Obey the
Roman law" not to mention "Don't rebel 'cus your
reward is in the next life and the more the status quo
crushes you now the bigger your reward later"....

Hey, it's the meek who shall inherit the earth, right? So
it's a good thing to be a poor, exploited, politically
disenfranchised peasant....

That's not the extant of it though. There's plenty of other
key points that don't make sense unless you scrub
Christianity from the picture....

.........................

Jesus was giving very good advice to a colonised people who would have
little chance against the Romans, as later events proved.

....................
Post by Geopelia
Our descendants may have to make a choice between
Christianity and Islam. Let's hope it doesn't come to a
religious war.
Islam is even more obviously contrived than the others,
as there is no historical obscurity. Islam only grew popular
because it grants a license to believers to exploit non
believers. It's no coincidence that Islam went charging out
of a small corner of Saudi Arabia so quickly.

When Christianity did the same thing in the west -- granted
a license to Christians to kill & plunder the non believers --
the EXACT SAME result was seen. We call it "The crusades."

for some inexplicable reason we are spoon fed the history
of the crusades as an example of Christian & western
flaws, and never reminded that Islam was confined to a
small corner of Saudi Arabia before the Islamic crusades
began. That, Islam conquered the Christian Levant, Egypt,
North Africa, Anatolia by the sword.

The Christian Roman Empire extended into Syria and
Jordan before the Muslim crusades....

Exact same results produced by the exact same claim:

"God says it's okay to kill, rape & plunder so long as it's
unbelievers."

"Cha-Ching!"

"What do you want? Wealth? Slaves? Satisfy a psychotic
lust for murder? God approves, so long as you do it to the
unbelievers!"

.............................

That idea was replaced by attempts to convert the "heathen". But even that
is frowned on today.
JTEM
2012-03-15 02:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
Which revolts, and which empire?
Well the most important seems to be the
Bar Kochba revolt. But there was also
supposed to be the first century revolt that
destroyed Jerusalem, and there was a
Samaritan revolt... Maccabees...
Post by Geopelia
Josephus describes the one in detail when
the Temple was destroyed, though
the numbers he gives are probably not accurate.
Josephus is not a real cite.
Post by Geopelia
Which were the others?
Do you include the Exodus from Egypt?
Huh? There was no exodus.
Post by Geopelia
...........................
The Christians Nero persecuted would probably
have been Roman converts.
Or, Nero wasn't persecuting a pro Roman,
anti Jewish, anti rebellion cult after all....
Post by Geopelia
.....................
Matthew 27:24-25
 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was
made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am
innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Exactly. You're proving my point.
Post by Geopelia
(Hasn't the Pope recently absolved the Jews of the blood guilt?
I don't think that would have much of an impact of
4th century thinking....
Post by Geopelia
Jesus was giving very good advice to a colonised people who would have
little chance against the Romans, as later events proved.
Jesus didn't exist, and you're contradicting yourself,
not me. It makes no sense that anyone would be
persecuting such Christians while at the same time
NOT persecuting the Jews.... who were in open
rebellion....

.
Geopelia
2012-03-15 11:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
Which revolts, and which empire?
Well the most important seems to be the
Bar Kochba revolt. But there was also
supposed to be the first century revolt that
destroyed Jerusalem, and there was a
Samaritan revolt... Maccabees...
Post by Geopelia
Josephus describes the one in detail when
the Temple was destroyed, though
the numbers he gives are probably not accurate.
Josephus is not a real cite.
Post by Geopelia
Which were the others?
Do you include the Exodus from Egypt?
Huh? There was no exodus.
...........................

The Ten Plagues probably weren't exactly as described in the Bible. But
there could have been odd effects from the Thera eruption.
...........................
Post by Geopelia
The Christians Nero persecuted would probably
have been Roman converts.
Or, Nero wasn't persecuting a pro Roman,
anti Jewish, anti rebellion cult after all....
................................
Who knows now what Nero had in mind?
Post by Geopelia
.....................
Matthew 27:24-25
When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was
made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am
innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Exactly. You're proving my point.
Post by Geopelia
(Hasn't the Pope recently absolved the Jews of the blood guilt?
I don't think that would have much of an impact of
4th century thinking....
Post by Geopelia
Jesus was giving very good advice to a colonised people who would have
little chance against the Romans, as later events proved.
Jesus didn't exist, and you're contradicting yourself,
not me. It makes no sense that anyone would be
persecuting such Christians while at the same time
NOT persecuting the Jews.... who were in open
rebellion....
..........................................................

Whether it was the historical Jesus, somebody else or a committee that was
responsible for the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables, the advice is very
good.
(So is Solomon's advice in Proverbs.)

And would Nero have cared which minority he was attacking? Rome was a long
way from Palestine. News would take a long time to travel the distance.
Would a rebellion in some far off colony matter much in Rome? I wonder.
It was Titus, son of Vespasian, who destroyed the Temple.

Jews in Rome may have been there for some generations but had a country of
their own.
Christians were a new sect, Jews or Gentiles. They may have been slaves, or
Roman citizens who had been converted.
(See Romans 15.)
JTEM
2012-03-15 17:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
The Ten Plagues probably weren't exactly as described in the Bible. But
there could have been odd effects from the Thera eruption.
 ...........................
No. That would require the bible to be completely
wrong, as Thera happened at the wrong time for
the biblical timeline.
Post by Geopelia
Or, Nero wasn't persecuting a pro Roman,
anti Jewish, anti rebellion cult after all....
................................
Who knows now what Nero had in mind?
Well, i believe that I do. I believe that the claim
is better explained as a latter-day alteration,
a backwards insertion of the Christians into
history.
Post by Geopelia
Whether it was the historical Jesus, somebody else or a committee that was
responsible for the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables, the advice is very
good.
(So is Solomon's advice in Proverbs.)
I'm not arguing that point. Whether the stories have
meaning or not is something I can not address. I'm
not even denying that there was a Jesus figure
entirely. What I subscribe to is the credible notion
that Christianity was invented as a pro roman,
anti rebellion, anti Jew alternative to always
troublesome Judaism.

My focus isn't on Jesus, it's on Christianity. Christianity
is an latter day invention.

Yes, that does make the Jesus of the bible fiction
per se, or the fictionalized version of a real man...

I have no problem with that.

In fact, I'm certain that Simon Bar Kochba had to be
at least part of the basis for Jesus, though I am
open to the idea that I am wrong on that....
Post by Geopelia
 Jews in Rome may have been there for some generations but had a country of
their own.
This seems unlikely.

Grecco-Roman religion left a great deal to be desired
for the masses. It effectively pissed on them for being
poor, powerless and subjugated while it applauded the
rich and oppressive. And the afterlife they had to look
forward to? Sheesh!

Judaism offered a great deal more to the average person.
What's more, the so-called "Dead Sea Scrolls," the products
of an imaginary Essenes? They genuinely reflected the
common beliefs of the time, and they were filled with
promises of war between good (Jews) and Evil (The
Romans) where good had to win!

Judaism was an anti Roman religion! If you were
mired in poverty or a slave, here was a religion that
not only didn't shit on you, but promised to lead you
to victory IN THIS WORLD over your oppressors.

This much isn't speculation. It has long been known that
the fantasy of Qumran being a settlement of Essenes
is pure rubbish. "Biblical Archaeologist" as opposed
to real archaeologists, see what they want to see.
Geopelia
2012-03-16 04:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
The Ten Plagues probably weren't exactly as described in the Bible. But
there could have been odd effects from the Thera eruption.
...........................
No. That would require the bible to be completely
wrong, as Thera happened at the wrong time for
the biblical timeline.
........
Thera was about 200 years before, if the Exodus was around 1440 BC.
The huge Krakatoa eruption was in 1883. The region is still volcanic. Anak
Krakatoa, which rose in the crater, is still active.
Who knows how long after the great Thera eruption there may have been some
continuing activity?
........................................
Post by Geopelia
Or, Nero wasn't persecuting a pro Roman,
anti Jewish, anti rebellion cult after all....
................................
Who knows now what Nero had in mind?
Well, i believe that I do. I believe that the claim
is better explained as a latter-day alteration,
a backwards insertion of the Christians into
history.
........
Perhaps Nero just needed someone to blame for the great fire.
Some say Nero started it himself to clear space for his new palace.
.................
Post by Geopelia
Whether it was the historical Jesus, somebody else or a committee that was
responsible for the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables, the advice is very
good.
(So is Solomon's advice in Proverbs.)
I'm not arguing that point. Whether the stories have
meaning or not is something I can not address. I'm
not even denying that there was a Jesus figure
entirely. What I subscribe to is the credible notion
that Christianity was invented as a pro roman,
anti rebellion, anti Jew alternative to always
troublesome Judaism.
.............................

Pro Roman? anti Jew? I wonder.
Wouldn't the early Christians just have wanted to follow their religion at
peace with their neighbours?
The Old Testament encourages people to slay the heathen around them. The New
Testament just wants to spread the good word.
Do you agree with this? http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible5.htm

Psalm 137 (By the rivers of Babylon) last verses (usually omitted when
children are given the Psalm to learn)
" O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that
rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
stones."

I wonder what Jesus, as we see him in the Gospels, thought of that psalm.

..................................................

My focus isn't on Jesus, it's on Christianity. Christianity
is an latter day invention.
.............

When did Christianity really get going into established churches? New
Christian sects spring up all the time these days.

The Epistles are written to groups of Christians that might be considered
early churches, but would they have had organised services?
They may have had some form of Communion. Pliny talks about the Christians
assembling for a simple meal of innocent food.
..............................
Yes, that does make the Jesus of the bible fiction
per se, or the fictionalized version of a real man...

I have no problem with that.

In fact, I'm certain that Simon Bar Kochba had to be
at least part of the basis for Jesus, though I am
open to the idea that I am wrong on that....
Post by Geopelia
Jews in Rome may have been there for some generations but had a country of
their own.
This seems unlikely.
.................
They would have looked to Jerusalem as a spiritual home, like modern Jews
did
before Israel.

..................

Grecco-Roman religion left a great deal to be desired
for the masses. It effectively pissed on them for being
poor, powerless and subjugated while it applauded the
rich and oppressive. And the afterlife they had to look
forward to? Sheesh!
.........................

The Elysian fields? I wouldn't mind that! Preferably the fields of England
100 years ago, before today's over mechanised agriculture. Grantchester
etc.

But not Hades.

Sacrificing a hecatomb or building an enormous temple was a way to please
the gods.
But the poor would have had their household gods, and they could choose a
particular god as Catholics do with their saints.
........................

Judaism offered a great deal more to the average person.
What's more, the so-called "Dead Sea Scrolls," the products
of an imaginary Essenes? They genuinely reflected the
common beliefs of the time, and they were filled with
promises of war between good (Jews) and Evil (The
Romans) where good had to win!

Judaism was an anti Roman religion! If you were
mired in poverty or a slave, here was a religion that
not only didn't shit on you, but promised to lead you
to victory IN THIS WORLD over your oppressors.

This much isn't speculation. It has long been known that
the fantasy of Qumran being a settlement of Essenes
is pure rubbish. "Biblical Archaeologist" as opposed
to real archaeologists, see what they want to see.

................

When I was young, the gods of Greece were as real to me as the Bible
characters. I grew up with them.
I still talk to Poseidon at the beach. He's the earthquake god too. Tsunami
and Earthquake, makes you think these days.

But I wouldn't sacrifice a hecatomb. Best to leave one Commandment unbroken,
you never know! :-)
JTEM
2012-03-17 03:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
Thera was about 200 years before, if the Exodus was around
1440 BC.
There was no exodus. We can confidentially state this.
Post by Geopelia
........
Perhaps Nero just needed someone to blame for the great fire.
Some say Nero started it himself to clear space for his new palace.
Even if that were the case, he had the uppity Jews at the ready.
They were supposedly troublesome going back through his
TWO predecessors.
Post by Geopelia
Pro Roman? anti Jew? I wonder.
Jesus never preached anything but obedience to the Romans,
however Jewish religious figures in the N.T. are all bad guys.

The Romans didn't want to kill Jesus, according to the bible.
It was all the doing of the Jews. The Romans washed their
hands of it, they were so disgusted.
Geopelia
2012-03-17 04:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Geopelia
Thera was about 200 years before, if the Exodus was around
1440 BC.
There was no exodus. We can confidentially state this.
Perhaps not, as the Bible versiob has it. But there must have been a
movement from Egypt to Israel around that time.
Moses may not have been found in the bulrushes by Paraoh's daughter etc, but
there must have been some kind of leader.
Post by JTEM
Post by Geopelia
........
Perhaps Nero just needed someone to blame for the great fire.
Some say Nero started it himself to clear space for his new palace.
Even if that were the case, he had the uppity Jews at the ready.
They were supposedly troublesome going back through his
TWO predecessors.
Post by Geopelia
Pro Roman? anti Jew? I wonder.
Jesus never preached anything but obedience to the Romans,
however Jewish religious figures in the N.T. are all bad guys.
Simeon, of "Nunc Dimittis"?

Joseph of Arimathea?

Gamaliel, a Pharisee? (Acts 5:34-39.)
"And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if
this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to
fight against God."

Were those bad guys?
There are probably others.
Post by JTEM
The Romans didn't want to kill Jesus, according to the bible.
It was all the doing of the Jews. The Romans washed their
hands of it, they were so disgusted.
And released Barabbas instead, when the mob demanded it.

But Pilate had a very tricky job, ruling a stroppy subject people so far
from Rome.
He had to do the best he could, on behalf of Caesar, to prevent a serious
riot.
The unjust death of one unfortunate Jew was just collateral damage.

I wonder if Pilate left any record, perhaps his memoirs, which may yet be
found.
But I doubt it.
JTEM
2012-03-18 18:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
Perhaps not, as the Bible versiob has it. But there must have been a
movement from Egypt to Israel around that time.
The Egyptians conquered the Levant and held it until the 11th century
at least. The Egyptians were already campaigning as deep as Syria
by the time any so-called Exodus was supposed to have occurred.

You're literally claiming that they ran from Egypt to... Egypt.
Post by Geopelia
a Pharisee?
Where in the N.T. does Jesus put two good words together
concerning the Pharisees?

It's all an invention. It was written as a pro Roman, pro empire
alternative to the troublesome Jews.
Geopelia
2012-03-19 00:43:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Geopelia
Perhaps not, as the Bible versiob has it. But there must have been a
movement from Egypt to Israel around that time.
The Egyptians conquered the Levant and held it until the 11th century
at least. The Egyptians were already campaigning as deep as Syria
by the time any so-called Exodus was supposed to have occurred.
You're literally claiming that they ran from Egypt to... Egypt.
There seem to have been various tribes in the land where the Hebrews
settled, but not Egyptians, according to the Old Testament.
Post by JTEM
Post by Geopelia
a Pharisee?
Where in the N.T. does Jesus put two good words together
concerning the Pharisees?
The N.T. records what Jesus said against the hypocrisy of some of the
Pharisees.
But Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea would have talked with him.
Post by JTEM
It's all an invention. It was written as a pro Roman, pro empire
alternative to the troublesome Jews.
Here's a very interesting website about the Pharisees.
http://www.pfo.org/pharisee.htm

And here's the Gospel of Nicodemus
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob10.htm

Very interesting. Some of it appears in the other Gospels, but there are
other parts.
Well worth reading, and much food for thought.

Genuinely by Nicodemus, or a later invention? Probably later than the four
Gospels of the Bible.
JTEM
2012-03-19 03:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
There seem to have been various tribes in the land where the Hebrews
settled, but not Egyptians, according to the Old Testament.
I guess that's how we know the O.T. is useless as
history. It's filled with undefendable nonsense like that.
Geopelia
2012-03-19 11:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Geopelia
There seem to have been various tribes in the land where the Hebrews
settled, but not Egyptians, according to the Old Testament.
I guess that's how we know the O.T. is useless as
history. It's filled with undefendable nonsense like that.
Here's a website about Egyptians in Palestine.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1996/10/07-03.html

The discovery is from well before the time of Moses though.
If there was a large Egyptian presence there in his time, which would be
around the time of Ramses II, it is odd that the O.T. doesn't seem to
mention it.

Did the Golden Calf represent the Apis Bull? There are many websites about
this.
JTEM
2012-03-19 17:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
Here's a website about Egyptians in Palestine.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1996/10/07-03.html
Egyptians believed that they had to be buried in Egypt. What
this is establishing is that the Levant (or parts there of) were
already considered part of Egypt well back into the Old
Kingdom, if not Pre Dynastic times.

You've just supported MY point, that the territory was
Egyptian, and it's ridiculous to claim that any "Israelites"
fled from Egypt and into... Egypt.

In the time of Ramesses the Great, Egypt was fighting WAY
to the north of today's Jerusalem, in what is now Syria,
trying to win back what they had lost to the Hittites.

See: "Battle of Kadesh."

Put another way: You had to travel as far as Syria before
leaving Egyptian territory, and Syria is further than Israel.
Geopelia
2012-03-20 01:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Geopelia
Here's a website about Egyptians in Palestine.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/1996/10/07-03.html
Egyptians believed that they had to be buried in Egypt. What
this is establishing is that the Levant (or parts there of) were
already considered part of Egypt well back into the Old
Kingdom, if not Pre Dynastic times.
You've just supported MY point, that the territory was
Egyptian, and it's ridiculous to claim that any "Israelites"
fled from Egypt and into... Egypt.
In the time of Ramesses the Great, Egypt was fighting WAY
to the north of today's Jerusalem, in what is now Syria,
trying to win back what they had lost to the Hittites.
See: "Battle of Kadesh."
Put another way: You had to travel as far as Syria before
leaving Egyptian territory, and Syria is further than Israel.
That was a great battle. But was the battle ground settled Egyptian
territory, or just claimed to be Egyptian?

Fighting in a country isn't the same as settling in it. Look at America's
wars.

So Canaan was Egyptian territory in Moses' day? I wonder why he didn't go on
towards Ur.

Pharaoh's army drowning in the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds) is probably legend
too, unless there was a great tsunami at the time.
But how fast would the tide have come in?
(The Wash, in Britain, can be crossed in places at low tide. But King John
tried it and lost much of his train, including the Crown Jewels, when the
tide rushed back in.)
JTEM
2012-03-20 04:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Geopelia
So Canaan was Egyptian territory in Moses' day? I wonder why he didn't go on
towards Ur.
Look. I could try all day but I'm just never going to
believe that you're doing anything other than trolling.

If you want a real discussion, you let me know. Until
then, I'm not playing.
Geopelia
2012-03-20 10:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JTEM
Post by Geopelia
So Canaan was Egyptian territory in Moses' day? I wonder why he didn't go on
towards Ur.
Look. I could try all day but I'm just never going to
believe that you're doing anything other than trolling.
If you want a real discussion, you let me know. Until
then, I'm not playing.
I've been enjoying this debate, but probably I don't know as much as most
people here.

I don't think I'm trolling, just saying what occurs to me. It may be wrong,
but if people don't say what they think nobody can put them right.

I've always been interested in ancient Egypt, but never got closer than the
Egyptian items in the British Museum.
Anyway, I've been able to find a lot of interesting websites on Google
through talking here, and now have plenty to follow up.

Thank you for taking the time to talk to me.

Geopelia

Loading...