Larsguy47

Thanks for that little bit of information. It might interest you to see the movie "The Good Shepherd" recently revealed on DVD. They show how the Skull and Bones secret society actually control the CIA, thus the CIA is really a puppet for the secret society. People loyal to their private causes and their brotherhood above all else.

LG47

Weltall

Nobody here but you thinks that DaVinci Code is anything other than a third-rate potboiler. Now, while you seem pathologically incapable of backing up a single claim you make, I'm going to request one more time that you produce the title or author of the book you claim supports your position. You know, so we can evaluate your claims instead of having to take you at your word (which ain't worth much).
You're taking Hollywood movies as evidence now? Lars, you have reached a new low. I'll just bet that all the people who work for the company will be very surprised to find out that a kook on the internet has figured out who they really work for. I thought that information was supposed to be buried along with the Area 51 file and the Ark of the Covenant.

Larsguy47

I used the movie as a reference to the REALITY of how Mary Magdalene was being substituted for John. Simply to demonstrate this was not an original idea or my idea.

You know, what? I think I'm not sure of the general disposition of most of the readers here. Some things I refer to is taken in a way that is less or more than I intend to. I don't think I'm communicating effectively because you think I'm talking about one thing and I'm talking about some other aspect of that thing. For instance, all I wanted to establish is that some people substitute John for Mary Magdalene. I wasn't using that as a source beyond that.


Again, I think I'm misunderstood. Like the reference to Manetho and when Joseph came during the reign of Apophis. Some immediately think that has to be confirmed and they attack that as a source, when my only reference was just that it was THERE. My point was that there was an extra-Biblical source, good or bad, that could be used to date the Exodus to a specific pharoah. That's all. That was my point. But then people started attacking it as perhaps a questionable source. That seemed irrelevant to me since some think the Bible iself isn't history, so the reliability of that source is irrelevant. I don't need that source to confirm the Exodus date, only noting that it would be one source, proven or not that was consistent with what I believe the Bible's chronology is. But just mentioning it I get people wanting to qualify it. So they missed the point, or they missed MY point.


Only in a limited way. If I say there is FICTION out there that sometimes substitutes John for Mary Magdalene, and I name a movie where that takes place. That's my only point. But here, someone thinks I'm trying to claim that Mary Magdalene and John are the same person and they want proof of that from some other source. That wasn't my point.

Perhaps in your mind I have. I'm not that concerned. But you're entitled to that view. That view might change later on, depending.

Thanks for sharing.

LG47

mountainman

The quote I provided came from the fourth century.
It was an assessment in the fourth century that the
bible was a fabrication and a fiction of wicked men.

Weltall

I was using your book as an example of how you consistently claim to have proof of your claims and then refuse to provide it. Until you can back up a prior claim, you have no business expecting us to believe any new ones. Do you want us to take you seriously? Then this alleged book of yours would be a great place to start.So, do you have any proof for your CIA claim or was this just you talking out your ass?
My view will ONLY change when you stop lying and either produce the title and author of the book you claim proves that Socrates and Aristotle were lovers or admit that you made it up.

Larsguy47

Well, reports sometimes protect a source for various reasons, with the understanding that you can dismiss the evidence if you wish. So if you refuse to believe that Socrates and Aristotle were lovers, then it doesn't bother me and I can't blame you for not believing me if I don't provide a source, right? I don't mind saying "allegedly" or "suspicious for."


You don't understand. I could care less if you don't feel "confirmed" about my claim that Aristotle and Socrates were lovers. By all means, refuse to believe that until you do get more convincing proof. For that matter, my reference may be a weak source as well, likely "hearsay"! I'm just noting it was interesting coming across that reference since I know they were contemporaries for at least 20 years, and it was interesting that Socrates, who did have a young lover, Phaedo, was the same age as Aristotle.

ON ARISTOTLE: Little is known about Aristotle's early years, though he was almost certainly meant to become a doctor like his father, who died when Aristotle was ten years old. As his mother had died some years earlier, Aristotle was brought up by Proxenus of Atarneus, possibly a family friend or uncle. Proxenus taught Aristotle poetry, Greek, and public speaking; Aristotle had already learned science as a part of his early medical training by his father. At seventeen, Proxenus sent Aristotle to Athens to continue his education under Plato.

ON PHAEDO: According to one interpretation, Socrates and Phaedo were lovers, and it was Socrates who set the latter free. In ancient Athens, as well as other Greek cities, sex between adult men and young males who had reached puberty was culturally acceptable. It was often part of a mentoring program intended to educate the male youth by exposing them to the activities in which they were expected to participate. These activities included politics, economics, training for war, and sex. Thus, what would be sexual abuse by contemporary standards in Western culture, was an expected part of growing up for the affluent youth of ancient Greece. Such a "practicum" in same sex love-making would make national news today, especially in the supermarket tabloids!

Thus, since Aristotle didn't become a physician, is it reasonable to presume that he was tutored and trained in the art of philosophy by some lover-mentor? That was the custom. That's what happened to Phaedo. So who trained Aristotle to become a philosopher?

Thus it is incidental whether Socrates and Aristotle were actually lovers since we know Socrates had male lovers and Aristotle would have been expected to have one too to teach him philosophy.

So if at some point Socrates and Aristotle were lovers it wouldn't be any big deal, since that was the custom.

LG47

Weltall

Dodge dodge dodge. Socrates was dead when Aristotle was born so yes, the two being lovers would be a very big deal. You claim to have evidence that the two were contemporaries and lovers. No other source claims that they coexisted. If you want us to believe you, produce the book. Your continued weaving around the issue is getting old. <edit>. Come on, why don't you shut me up by proving me wrong?

Larsguy47

The DELIAN PROBLEM SAYS:
------------

Doubling the Cube

Doubling the Cube, the most famous of the collection, is often referred to as the Delian problem due to a legend that the Delians had consulted Plato on the subject. In another form, the story asserts that the Athenians in 430 B.C. consulted the oracle at Delos in the hope to stop the plague ravaging their country. They were advised by Apollo to double his altar that had the form of a cube. As a result of several failed attempts to satisfy the god, the pestilence only worsened and at the end they turned to Plato for advice.

-------------------


See that date? 430 B.C. ? Plato was born in 428 B.C. That means he was consulted three years before he was born? I know that might seem logical to you, but for the rest of us, it's impossible. What it means is that there has been a historical revision where the PPW was adjusted so far back it now happens before Plato was born. With that empirical presumption, we assume the true date of the war was at least 20-25 years later than the birth of Plato for this to occur. Fortunately a strategic eclipse allows an excellent redating to 403BCE when Plato was 25.

In that case, with Socrates 32 years old when the war begins, he would have been born in 435BCE and died c. 466/465BCE at 69/70, a time when Aristotle, born in 384 BCE would have been 18/19, around the age of "Phaedo" when Socrates died. Thus the connection. Were they lovers? Did they know each other? Who knows?

ON ARISTOTLE:
Aristotle was born in 384 B.C.E. in Stagirus, Macedonia, Greece, the son of Nicomachus, a medical doctor, and Phaestis. Little is known about Aristotle's early years, though he was almost certainly meant to become a doctor like his father, who died when Aristotle was ten years old. As his mother had died some years earlier, Aristotle was brought up by Proxenus of Atarneus, possibly a family friend or uncle. Proxenus taught Aristotle poetry, Greek, and public speaking; Aristotle had already learned science as a part of his early medical training by his father. At seventeen, Proxenus sent Aristotle to Athens to continue his education under Plato.


Phaedo was 18 when Socrates dies. He was also a raised by others, Socrates was his lover, after which he was sent under the charge of Plato to become his student. So both Phaedo and Aristotle would have become students of Plato about the same time. Another "coincidence"? Of course!

Here's a quote from Aristotle about Socrates


The "old Socrates used to say"? Did he know him?


LG47

Weltall

Once again, you gracelessly dodge around the point-blank request. This is what, the twentieth time you've refused to prove that your book exists?'The rest of us' don't see any reason to believe a story that was first mentioned 200 years after Plato died as containing truth. You're the only one who does that. Please don't ascribe your thinking to everyone else.
I don't see how you can possibly extrapolate that from your quote. Does Nietzsche mentioning 'old Socrates' mean that the two were contemporaries?

Larsguy47

[QUOTE]I have addressed this directly and I told you I was treating this as a "private source" much like a reporter protects a private source. So if you wish to believe there is no such book then be my guest. Presume it does not exist and that the basis for thinking that Phaedo and Aristotle were linked historically to cover for revisions can be based on the other evidence or suppositions. But we know Aristotle quotes form Socrates and mentions him over 80 times in his works. We know Phaedo and Aristotle would have been of similar age when Socrates' death is moved down to 366BCE. We know both apparently were brought up by others during their teen years and then sent to Plato when their guardian died or was no longer in the picture. We know that for some reason Xenophon and Plato focus on "Phaedo" who relates a lot of the history for Socrates, thus hearsay from Phaedo. But if Xenophon and Plato were part of the revisionism and needed to preserve the history of Socrates without giving themselves away as been there, then a substitute historical character that was invented to relate these earlier things is a logical, obvious move. In the meantime, Aristotle must be taken out of the life of Socrates completely. So it is a viable "clue" and theory that must be considered, regardless of whether it ever gets confirmed, which is why my source about Socrates and Aristotle being lovers is only a possible true reference which could be based on hearsay as well. So it's not an important source other than tipping me off about the potential connection between Socrates and Aristotle. Therefore, since I'm not quite ready to spring my source, I'll use "alleged" or "suspected" substitution of Phaedo for Aristotle, even though it is apparent that a key student and lover of Socrates would have been expected to reach great heights as a philosopher with such a springboard. I hear little of Phaedo, but Aristotle became one of the greatest icons of classic philosophy. So who mentored Aristotle in his early days of philosophy? Or did he just pick it up and run with it when he became the student of Plato at 18?

Who cares? You have no choice but to consider WHY that reference (The Delian Problem) exists and doesn't work chronologically. A historian looking at revisionism would understand clearly that there was a revisionism and that eitehr Plato was born too late or the PPW was much too early. But since Plato would at least need to be a young adult, 20-25, that's where you'd look for the discpreancy. Since the eclipse that occurs that first year is better relocated to 402BCE, forcing the redating to a later period, it would seem as though the date of Plato's birth in 428BCE is correct, making him 25 years of age in 403BCE when the war really happened, explaining where the story about the Delian Problem came from associated with Plato. Sorry, you can't just brush the evidence you don't like under the rug and pretend it's not relevant.

So what? I have LOTS OF OTHER DATA restructuring this time period that you have no clue about. This isn't the only reference. And it won't be the first time even the "experts" are behind the research. You can go to NASA and look up information about predictable eclipses for these earlier periods prior to 300 BCE, for instance, and they will tell you the ancients were not able to do it. Look up information on "THALES" and the experts will claim there was no way it was possible. But I found out exactly how they did it.

http://www.geocities.com/ed_maruyama/thalesx.html

So where does that place you? If you don't think for yourself and do the research yourself, and thus rely on the latest "expert" information, then you'd be out of date. So just because some people with inadequate background or information decide among themselves based upon that inferior information about something doesn't mean they are correct; expecially when there is direct proof that updates that.

"The Delian Problem" is thus not put forward to prove anything, only to establish a "reasonable cause" for presuming revision for this period, but specifically that Plato was 20-25 when the war began, however, that dating theory may work out. As it is now, the evidence is pointing to lowering the dating of the war to 403BCE, making Plato 25 and thus explaining why history survives that he was consulted during the war.

Again, you have a premise of suspicion that Socrates and Arisotle might have known each other. This is very fundamental and EMPIRIC. Once you use the eclipse redating to redate the PPW down from 431 to 403BCE, then you have to recalculate the people specifically connected with that war and look at scenarios resulting from that redating. In this case, a 69-70 year old Socrates who was 32 years old when the war began dies c. 366BCE. That means he was born in 435BCE rather than 469BCE. That means instead of being 41 years older than Plato, he's only 7 years older than Plato. We then COMPARE that with what has survived about the relationship between Plato and Socrates, that being that Socrates knew Plato in his youth when he was at their home visiting his older brothers who were close to the age of Socrates. So if Plato was at least 10 years of age, were these two 50-year old brothers along with Socrates still hanging out at home? Or were these brothers just a little older, 17 and 18 still at home who enjoyed the company of the young Plato? The latter is more consistent with Socrates being born in 435BCE, but more importantly it doesn't contradict that history. That is, the revision didn't make Socrates younger than Plato so that this part of the story is now contradicted.

Same with Aristotle, who would have been 18-19 when Socrates died. Did he know him? Was he his student? My "spurious reference" goes a bit farther and suggests that they were lovers. I have no proof beyond that, but once you make the comparisons it is clear this cannot be immediately dismissed. Aristotle and Phaedo are about the same age, have similar histories of being raised by someone from 10-18 before being turned over to Plato. So it remains a potential. Partly because Phaedo was known to be the lover of Socrates and partly because youth studying in their field career often are the lovers of their mentors. That's how it was done. So Aristotle would presumably have had such a mentor as well since his chosen career was philosophy. So who was it? Didn't he do the usual thing to get into the field? If Aristotle indeed was a student and potential lover of Socrates one would expect him to mention him and quote form him. HE DOES! Over 80 times. If he never knew the man, one would expect a few references perhaps. So the leaning is toward him knowing him and since he quotes from him, knowing him intimately. You're not going to get any closer than that at an actual "admission" otherwise everybody would know this secret. You are only going to confirm this circumstantially. Everything considered, though, there is no problem introducing Socrates into the life of Aristotle, even as his former lover.

So just deal with this. Deal with it purely as THEORY at this point. The only way to dismiss this is to DISPROVE IT absolutely by some reference but I haven't been able to yet. Phaedo might have been a real person, maybe as a substitute to cover for what Aristotle did, but I couldn't find a bust of him that survives, though Aristotle has several! It was also said that Phaedo was beautiful and Aristotle certainly had classic good looks...



So, I'm still putting together clues and details, but you can forget about there being no revision for this period. There's too much evidence to the contrary. Keep your head buried in the sand if you wish though. If what I say is true I'll only find something else to support it as I research more.

LG47