avi

Are the 1100 year old manuscripts attributed to Aristotle also, overtly forged?

Such documents do contain notes in the margins, and additions to the text by 13th century scholars.....

My position is this:

let's stick for the moment to Aristotle: The distortions to the text appear, to my casual reading, (not detailed examination of the original manuscript itself,) to represent additions, not alterations of the text, which, as I understand it, is a translation into English, from a Greek copy of the original, dated to the 1st century BCE.

On the surface then, at least, this situation is quite different from the manuscript evidence from Tacitus, where the substance of the document in question has clearly been tampered with.

Then, the question arises, how much tampering has there been? When the document was first copied, was it deliberately altered, as well?

Then the question arises, for both Aristotle and Tacitus: Were the original Greek/Latin documents in the custody of clerics with an agenda, for a significant amount of time? From our rose colored spectacles, those clerics were criminals, but from their perspective, they may have imagined that they were performing a service to humanity, by teaching us the path of righteousness, correcting the "errors" of Tacitus (or Aristotle).

All one has to do, to understand this situation, is change the documents in question from Tacitus/Aristotle, to Mohammed/Quran, and voila, universal agreement that this whole business is fake.

Steve!!!! Do you sincerely imagine that only the Muslims created fake documents? I don't.

avi

aa5874

There is NO VOWEL in the word that was translated as CHRISTUS.

And there is NO "R".

LOOK at the word CHRISTIANOS and examine the first "RI"

LOOK at the word translated as CHRISTUS and examine the third letter.

DO you SEE the difference?

Can you SEE any "RI" combination?

SHOW ME the "RI" combination in CHRISTIANOS.

SHOW ME the letter for "R" in CHRISTUS.

SHOW ME the letter for "R" in CHRISTIANOS.

DO YOU SEE the difference?

Can you see?

We know how the greek letter for "R" should look by EXAMINING the "R" in CHRISTIANOS.

We know how the the greek letters for the "RI" combination should look by EXAMINING the "RI" in CHRISTIANOS.

CHRISTUS in the MEDICEAN manuscript does NOT contain an "R" or an "RI" combination like CHRISTIANOS.

CAN YOU SEE?

We have a MASSIVE FRAUD on our hands.

BE QUIET. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UgO8...eature=related

The MEDICEAN Manuscript is in the LAURENTIAN LIBRARY.

We CAN SEE how the "R" and "RI" combination look in CHRISTIANOS in the MEDICEAN manuscript and they are NOT found in the word translated as CHRISTUS.

hjalti

Wow...the letters just keep on disappearing!

Of course "Christianos" doesn't look like normal "ri"..... because the "i" was originally an "e"!

Just look at the very next word on the page. The name Tiberius.

Jaybees

Just for kicks, let's assume that the current copies of Tacitus famous statement about Xtians are exact copies of his original writings.

Having made that assumption, how sure can we be that Tacitus was able, several generations after the "fact", to distinguish Xtians--an obscure sect even in his own day--from the Jewish religion they sprang from? And, since many of the earliest Xtians were slaves, could he have assumed that since slaves were killed by Nero that they were probably some of that minor sect he'd heard about? Could he even be sure that the killings occurred?

Keep in mind that there was no TV, no Internet, no photographs, no certificates of authenticity, no old newspapers, and very few written sources (Tacitus refers to none in this instance, by the way) for him to refer to.

Even a brilliant historian, under those circumstances, could be completely mistaken.

aa5874

Do you actually understood what you have just done?

You have SHOWN that anyone who understood Greek writing since the very first time the MEDICEAN manuscript was SEEN should have KNOWN for HUNDREDS of years the word CHRISTIANOS was MANIPULATED by looking at the word TIBERIUS.

Remarkably, astonishingly there was NO NEED for any ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT.

With the NAKED EYE, Just look at TIBERIUS and you know the CHRISTIANOS is FAKE.

We now had a MASSIVE FRAUD and a COVER-UP. Why have NOT Christians Scholars PUBLISHED that the "RI" in CHRISTIANOS is FAKE?

It is just INCREDIBLE how easy it was to DETECT that TACITUS ANNALS was manipulated. Just look at the "RI" combination in TIBERIUS and the FRAUD is UNCOVERED. AMAZING.

But, now the "RI" combination in Tiberius is still NOT like the "RI" in the word translated as CHRISTUS.

Juststeve

Jaybees:

Of course he could be mistaken, just as modern historians might be mistaken about what really happened at the Battle Of Bull Run. Demanding certainty leads to the conclusion that we know nothing at all.

Steve

aa5874

You have made probably the MOST SIGNIFICANT observation.

With the NAKED EYE, it can be deduced that CHRISTIANOS in the MEDICEAN DOCUMENT has been manipulated by simply observing the "RI" combination in TIBERIUS.

FANTASTIC. AMAZING. INCREDIBLE.

couch_sloth

I don't think he is demanding certainty.
I believe he is saying that it was generally harder during that period for historians to be accurate about what happened in the past (e.g. Even just several generations previously).

I would also add that because of the lack of collaborating evidence (e.g. News papers, mass media, published private & official accounts) it would have been easier for someone to knowingly re-write (as well as be mistaken about) the details of history... or unknowingly pass-on an already altered history.
e.g. I would think that modern historians are more likely to have a better view of what happened at Bull Run than Tacitus did of what obscure sect was being blamed for what during Nero's time.

But then I tend to take the details of such ancient histories with a large grain of salt... especially when they aren't backed by other evidence.

hjalti

aa5874, yes, people noticed that the i in Christians was strange.

And what greek letters are you talking about? (Doesn't he realise that this isn't greek?)

Now tell me aa5847, don't the letters on the left look just like the letters on the right?

avi

Thanks, hjalti, yes, you are correct. It is written in Latin, not Greek, however, the two words under discussion, are Greek, right?

yes, hjalti, you are correct, the letters are identical.

Now that I have watched the three salient Youtube videos, I understand, better, what spin has been arguing.

I think spin is correct.

avi