Littlejohn

Sorry, I just do not understand .....

What you have reported, and that shows you have understood very well, I have obtained it through the "machine translated"....

When I entrust to the "machine translated" the text to be translated, almost never I get the correct translation of what I have written in italian and then I must intervene, in accordance with the knowledge that I have of the English language. I recognize that such knowledge is not complete and is also for this reason I post in forums in English, in order to complete this knowledge, besides the pleasure to inform those who are interested in what I go on writing.

As regards the form of my writings, which appears inconsistent to someone (but to others, "curiously enough", seems sufficiently understandable), I try to adapt my writing to English that appears in English written books, by English autors, and not that of your messages. Almost always, reading the books' pages written in English, I translate to "view", ie. instantaneously, while I read. On the contrary, very often reading your messages I have frequently to use the dictionary; this is often insufficient also, and this force me to look for in web pages similar modes of expression, but, in the end, I almost always rely on my intuition. Perhaps your English is that you used every day, "stuffed" by "technical slang" and idiomatic phrases, difficult to understand for those who do not live in close contact with your daily life.

Now I wonder: it is worth close a thread just because a "forumista" (forum's person) is not making up his messages under a "canonical" form, but which nevertheless appears understandable to almost everyone, given the frequency of contacts about the threads in which I post? ... Even those in which there are only messages of my ... Logic would like that those who are judging "incoherents" my messages, would be they abstain from them. But why close a thread? ... Why deprive those, involved by curiosity, to read my posts ??... This, in my opinion, it makes no sense ....

If then, behind all this, it is hidden the intention to prevent me from posting in this forum, would be appropriate say it.... In that case I will try to move in "Existence of God (s)", where the moderators seem more tolerant, at least as regards the form.


Littlejohn

__________

PS: If anyone thinks that I am writing here for the sole purpose of being "advertising", as I was once reproached, when I started to post on your forum, then to this "someone" I must point out that a thread, that I opened in an Italian forum, with currently about 222 posts, has reached, in this moment, well 101,484 contacts! Not only that, but I can provide evidence that my posts are monitored constantly by some "hell" authorities! .. I can also prove that Google.it (surely come in the economic interests of the "holy" roman empire) it shamelessly is boycotting me!... And excuse me if it is just little...

.

Littlejohn

I agree perfectly!... He is much similar even to Berlusconi!....

One thing at a time.

".. How could you possibly accept Reatino <- reato?"

Indeed. Only those who have little familiarity with the Italian language, could accept the derivation of "reatino" (inhabitant of the city of Rieti, the capital-city of Sabina) from the word "reato" (crime), which has, obviously, quite a different meaning.

".. It's a load of rubbish, as is your Aton -> Adon.. "

I think, seem to me, that I have specified that in the Semitic languages, according to what the glottologist affirm, the letter "t" was perfectly substitutable by the letter "d", without the word on the subject changed of meaning. An identical phenomenon occurs in the Hebrew words for the letters "v" and "b" (eberim = everim, f.e.)

"..or your "gol-gath-tah" -> Golgotha (both the Greek and the Syriac [GGLWT)] come from the Hebrew GLGLT) "

According to the amenities contained in the Gospels, Jesus was "crucified" on a hill called "Golgotha." The Gospels themselves then explain that this word means "skull"

I already had prepared a post to tackle this issue. Opportunity, this, to anticipate the content.

First, it should be noted that a hill with that name, near the city of Jerusalem, is completely unknown to Jewish tradition and not mentioned neither in the writings of the OT, nor in any part of the rabbinic literature. This should already to do suspicious readers. Now let's see the following:

GOL-GATH-TAH [became in the Gospels GOLGOTH (T)A (H)]

GOL (or gal) = Hebrew word meaning a container for liquid, a tank and a small pit (or well);

Gath (or goth) = Hebrew word meaning oil mill (or mill for "shemen", being the latter hebrew word for 'olives');

TAH = hebraic completion of the Hebrew phrase, that indicates the relationship between the first two terms.

THE HEBREW WORD FOR SKULL (or crania) is GULGULTAH and not GOLGOTHAH!!

By exploiting the special phonetic similarity of the two words (the result of agglutination of most words) the hardly-crafty counterfeiters ("furbastri" counterfeiters in italian) they did believe that Golgotha (or Golgothah) meant skull!

In actuality, Jesus was executed (and not just arrested) in a place (a plot of land) where there was a mill and a small pit, functional to it (ie. to collect the liquid of pressing of olives). After being stoned to death, Jesus was hung to a tree (most likely a tree of olive). Almost certainly, the plot of land where Jesus was executed, was nearby of the town of Lydda (today Lud)

The theme of the tree, which was hung inert body of Jesus, occurs in the apocryphal and gnostic documents, as well as in the Rabbinic Talmud.

"..or your '"Beny-Yah-Min" or Benjamites'... "

There are still Jewish surnames in the form "Benyyamin"(*). This is, almost certainly, the contracted form of the original "Beny-Yah-Min." It is from this expression that, quite surely, was obtained after the name "Benjamin", doing believe that it was the patriarch of the tribe of' 'Benjamin': a patriarch existed only in the minds of counterfeiters reforming hebraism of the origins.

The expression "Beny-Yah-Min", according to "tamed" meaning that counterfeiters gave to the word "Yah" (made it a synonym for God), one should read: "Children of God Min", having been Min the creative spirit of Amon/Amen (ie. Min, in the sentence in question, was about to Amen/Amon). More correctly, the phrase should be read in a significantly different way, from that which it appears, and that's also related to the true meaning of the term "Elhoim".

"..(did you know that there werebani-yamini at Mari?).. "

I did not understand the meaning of the sentence ... Where is Mari?... The territory occupied by benjamites one stretched between the north-eastern of the Judea and the Jordan River. Was this area also called "Mari"?...

"..Your version should look like this: moschiah. "

I searched in vain for the exact etymology of the word "moschah" (in Aramaic "meshiah). But I think it, however, comes from two Hebrew words: 'mosch' and 'Yah'. Philo of Alexandria translates Mosch'ah by "Theochristos", literally "anointed by God". Since in Hebrew Yah is became synonymous with God, it means that 'mosch' is as well as anointed.

"..(And moschiahim is simply "christs".) "

Not exactly: moschiahim (a Hebrew plural) in greek should be translated as "christianoi", while in Latin as "christiani."


_____________________
Note:

(*) - I obtained this information several years ago, through a website which, sadly, is now no longer existing. If someone can provide a link about such an aspect, would be welcome thing...

Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

In practice, "Beny-Yah-Min" (that's Benjamites, namely the inhabitants of the tribe of Benjamin) were of the same lineage of the "Beny Ammon" (cited in the Hebrew Bible), otherwise known yet as "Ammonites". That it was of the same ethnic group, it is demonstrated by the fact that Benjamites, as well as the Ammonites, also worshiped the idol of "Moloch", which the same Solomon had erected altars in the land of Benjamites. (nothing to wonder, since Solomon was the grandson of King Saul, in turn Benjamite)

Despite denigrating cynical attempts by the Jewish religious, in making believe that "Moloch" (from Semitic 'melek' or 'malek', ie. Lord, King, master, etc..) was the representation of a "monster" deity, presententing body of man and the head of an ox, in reality it was simply an idol portraying Amon/Amen: the greater Egyptian deities. Both in Egypt and outside its borders, this god could be represented in a completely anthropomorphic form, or as even in "bi-morphic" form. In the latter case, the idol could have the body of a man and the head of an ox or a ram, they being sacred animals to the god Amon/Amen. Almost certainly, the Chemosh of the Moabites was also a representation of Amen/Amon.


Littlejohn
.

spin

Ancora lo scopo mancato. The point still missed. There was an analogy that you need to see about basing arguments on false etymological claims.

The v/b contrast is a non sequitur. It is not attested in ancient times and the quality change of the consonants is diffferent from t/d which is -voice/+voice. What the "glottologist" affirms needs for you to cite a scholarly source for the Hebrew context.

The Hebrew GLGLT and the Aramaic GLGLT) both indicate skull. The Greek is simply from the Aramaic with the second LAMED lost and the TAW becoming a theta in Greek as is common. Golgotha is a simple Greek transcription of the Aramaic. Nothing more, especially given the Greek translation the text gives.

I'll leave you to these conjectures. (And you live in olive country. It wouldn't be easy to hang someone from one.)

Have you ever tried to date any of this information?? No.

That is, you haven't got one clue for your conjecture. So, what follows is just butterfly logic. Cio'e', non hai neanche un'indizzio per la tua congettura. Quindi quello che segue e' una farfalleria.

Who was the source of this stuff?

I can understand you don't know about Mari. Mari is an ancient city on the Euphrates, where a lot of ancient documents were found. They explain that the city had conflicts with a semi-nomadic group called the bani-yamini. The name Benjamin is much older than the Jews and your etymology is simply spurious.

Look it up in a Hebrew lexicon, as you should. As I told you the term in Hebrew and Aramaic has a YOD, transliterated in Hebrew as M$YX (Aramaic just adds an ALEF), so your transcription should be "moshiah".

Cazzata pura. Se non capisci un cacchio della filologia ebraica, sia meglio stare zitto. Dai, pensare un po' prima di dire scemenze!

Insisti!

Exact citation? I'd prefer to check what Philo says, before commenting on his work.

Yes, exactly.

You know that's wrong. You know that MASHIACH is in Greek xristos. You also know that MASHIACHIM is the plural of MASHIACH, ie christ/christs. Further, you know that -ian- is a Latin suffix indicating derivation or origin. The Greek xristianoi is made up of the Greek xrist- plus the Latin suffix plus the plural, meaning altogether "the ones of christ". Don't insist on your claim about MASHIACHIM: xristoi isn't xristianoi.

Try books, preferably books written by reputed scholars.


spin

Littlejohn

I in vain waited for intervention by the moderator (of Biblical Criticism & History section), so I will speak in person in order to censure a written which purpose also it is unequivocal: trying to induce the readers to believe, through a clear, insipid "ad hominem" attack, that I do not have the academic skills necessary for affirm and support what I have so far posted here, in the Infidels.org forum, which is why, according to this, I would be dismissed of credibility, and with me all that I posted up until today also.

About 'spin': to reach your goal, you've written so many "scemenze" (idiocies) that it's impossible that you have not aroused the hilarity in skilled people, which are certainly not lacking in this forum. But let's go on with order.

I learned it several years ago, by reading "Moses and the Monotheism" by Sigmund Freud. I know (but I don't know for you) that Freud was a jew and since he was also a great scholar, I believe that he wrote was authoritative.

".. The Hebrew GLGLT and the Aramaic GLGLT)"

In fact! It's exactly what I said. The two consonant groups, when full whith vowels, then they become:

GuLGuLTah, namely "skull" or "crania".

The consonant group for GOLGOTHAH, instead, it is:

"GLGT : As anyone can verify it, the two groups of consonants are significantly different. If you are not yet convinced, try to set on the Google the keyword" Gulgultah "

Even a child also would have understood everything; which leads me to believe that you are a kind of "pasdaran" sent to the "loss"

You are wrong! They aren't at all my conjectures! Try to have a look at the Talmud, so you could be convinced ...

I'll tell you also more: the year in which Jesus of Nazareth was executed was the 72. Taking into account that the Nazarene was born in 6 D.C. (you believe it or not), there are two ways to reach this year: through what is narrated in the rabbinic literature and through the ancient Hebrew calendar, taking into account also what is narrated by Josephus.

I well know this chorus ... I'is the one same frequently used by apologists in Italian forums!

The full current dating of ancient documents, about tthe Christianity, it is the result of dating a "tamed"! No one of the current canonical Gospels were written in the first century, as 'heralded' by the counterfeiter clergy until today. This information can be found also online on Catholic Enciclopedia (www.newadvent.org/), where it's given as "not excluded".

Catholicism-Christianity was founded in Rome, between 140-150, and was in such headquarters that were drawn up the present canonical Gospels, by using material 'protoevangelic' drafted in the first century, as well as oral sources. Despite this, there is still those who, among ineffable apologists, argue that the Gospels were written just a few decades after the Jesus' death.

The first father of the catholic church that clearly spoke about the Gospels, was Irenaeus, who wrote his works between 180 and 203. The fathers "apostolic" before him, (such as Clement Roman, Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch) completely ignored these texts.

The fact that their alleged writings (actually works pseudoepigraphic) are phrases or names common to the four Canonical Gospels, it has pushed the apologists of all times to say that these characters (ie. apostolic fathers) knew the gospels and they were therefore already in circulation. The truth was also much simpler: the so-called evangelists in order to settle their Gospels, used various sources to obtain the needs data that we today read in the canonical Gospels. Among these sources there were also so-called "apostolic fathers".

By assuming that the origin of affirmation under that "the Gospels were written just a few decades after the death of Jesus," it lies in historic 'nucleus' of the cardinals who it hand down, from generation to generation, burning secrets about the origins of Christianity (as well as the control of those documents), it is possible that such sources are intented, as the date of death of Jesus, just 72 (the date that the "conservatives of the truth" know perfectly!). In this case, adding two or three decades to the true date of death of Jesus, we reach a time's period ranging from 92 to 102: the period in which counterfeiters have placed the composition of the John's gospel!

It is not excluded that, in fact, someone in that period (Cerinto?) might have written a sort of gospel, attributed then, for reasons of authority, to John. Certainly it was not the Gospel of John that we today knowledge, since it was an ebionite document (see the statements of the priest Gaius of Rome), but the counterfeiters utilised such a work to build on the Gospel of John, to we today familiar.

For historical reasons, the "kerigma Petrou", collected by 'evangelist' Mark (in fact this character was not an evangelist!) it was already in the hands of counterfeiters and that from the time of Nero. The material collected by the 'apostle "Matthew (a mere collection of sayngs/oracles of Jesus), was in the hands of the ebionite-jesuans' sect. Through the treason of one of the them, this material came into the hands of the "Roman "(*), ie in the hands of counterfeiter founders whose gave rise to syncretistic Catholic-Christian worship.

It is not excluded that this "traitor" could have been Polycarp of Smyrna, of which Irenaeus was a "worthy" disciple. The Church Fathers have said that he was "martyred": but martyred through whom? ... Certainly not by the Romans, since it was the imperial power-Senate to sponsor the birth of the catholic-christianity! .. If it is true that Polycarp was killed, this could be due to a revenge for his betrayal. All the "martyrs" of the second century, claimed by catholic clergy, were in fact the martyrs of the gnostic-world jesuan, which it was already divided into various sects.

...to be continued..


Littlejohn

.

Wiploc

I'm sending this back to BC&H, merging it back into its parent thread.

Littlejohn

Sorry, I had decided to continue the discussion in this section, since I had the impression that in 'Biblical Criticism & History' was subject to a 'creeping' censorship. However, I will see what happens going on. I please the moderation would make clear to me the eventual circumstances that my posts are not welcome in Infidel.org. In that case I will refrain forever from post to this forum, looking for accommodation elsewhere. Tanks


Littlejohn



PS: does my thread "Littlejohn's angle-space" has been closed ?.... Why? ..

.

bacht

What is it that you want to tell us LJ? There are lots of people here with academic training, and many who have read the primary and secondary Biblical literature. Generally the skeptic attitude is welcomed here, rather than faith-based arguments, which are available all over the internet.

Toto

Hi Littlejohn - we do not censor for ideas, but we try to run an orderly forum.

For an English speaker, "angle space" makes no sense at all. What are you trying to say?

The problem with your posts is deciphering your machine translsation. I will leave this open, but I give no guarantee that anyone will understand.

Littlejohn

".. For an English speaker, "angle space" makes no sense at all. What are you trying to say?"

I understand....

If I had written simply "Littlejohn's angle", would have been clear it the concept?.. (namely a little reserved area in which to write)

"..The problem with your posts is deciphering your machine translsation. "

I do not think there is a problem of machine-translation. What the 'robot' for the traslation produces, I always correct it: obviously second my personal knowledge of English. I cannot adapt me to your 'slang', and so I refer to literary English, ie that of books.

Often I happened to converse, in Italian forums, with people of English mother tongue. Some of them had difficulties to express themselves correctly in Italian, but it has NEVER happened that someone of us have done 'to weigh' anything to the stranger guest, but everyone has tried, according to their skills, to help him to express himself properly. It seems to me that here in the U.S. things work differently .... or this is a typical feature of this forum?


Greetings


Littlejohn
.