spin

When he talks of Kennedy being assassinated, there is no reason to think that he was talking about John Fitzgerald Kennedy, son of Joseph. He just says "Kennedy"; it could have been the assassination of any person by that name, who just happened to be in Dallas in November 1963. He doesn't say anything about this Kennedy being shot, so obviously he wasn't shot. I'm sure Kennedys and other people have been assassinated with knives, bombs, poison and any number of other means. It's preposterous to assume, simply because he talked of Kennedy being assassinated... in Dallas... in November 1963..., that he was referring to the one-time POTUS. In fact he might have mispronounced the name and really meant (Alphonse) Capone.


npsi

spin

(Shh, there's a heavy breathing marker used to do the job.)

Yup, if you look at LXX Ex 17:10 you'll find the nominative, IHSOUS, and the context (the exodus and fighting with Amaleq -- no, not you!), if you only had the LXX, would make it clear which IHSOUS it was.


spin

Toto

The SH of Joshua becomes the S of Jesus because Greek does not have that sound (or does not distinguish it from S.) Nothing to do with H or heavy breathing.

Sheshbazzar

Simply? Can a Grecian frame to pronounce "SHBBOLETH"? or rather, would some few amongst them humble themselves to so speak?
There has always been a way to distinguish between and separate the goats from the sheep of the flock.
But take no heed to the sound of that wind that is even now passing over your head, for its words are not for spiritual Ephraimites;
But every Gileadite warrior born, hears and keeps that one and the same word.
Let the gainsayers come, even they who say "it makes no difference" and whom cannot discern the difference which lies between that which is profane, and between that which is sacred.
Yes, let declare their vain word, that they might also perish by the sword.
And when 139,999 of these degenerates are lain dead round about, will that last one still be so vain and foolish to open his lips to pronounce his vile "Sibboleth"?

J-D is the Hebrew "yod-he-wau-shin-ayin" really indistinguishable from "yod-shin-wau-ayin"? I suggest that you really ought to be more careful in your assertions.

spamandham

That's a fair assessment of what I've said.

mountainman

Dear Spin,

Did you catch the Kennedy reference at the end of Gore Vidal's book Julian?

Best wishes,


Pete

spamandham

Like I said before, I don't think Pete's idea is the simplest, but I don't think this evidence rules it out either. If he's correct that Eusebius set out to create a grand fraud, then obfuscating that fact by portioning out bits and pieces of pre-existing stories into the 4 gospels is no more far fetched than the premise.

If I were going to create a new religion, I'd probably do something similar - draw on bits and pieces of familiar texts to churn them into something new. Isn't that how the thousands of Protestant sects basically formed?

spin

The original Hebrew version of the name was YHW$(, "Yehoshua". There is an /h/ in the name, which the Greeks might have represented with the breathing sign (many ancient Greek words have come into English with an /h/, including hypothesis, hypno-, hyperbole and all English compounds with hyper-, etc), but they didn't. :constern01:

It may be of course that there is confusion about the common transliteration of eta in the name Jesus, ie "H" -- IHSOUS.


spin

spin

The fragment shows that the basics of the religion already existed. Jesus, Galilee, apostles, Jerusalem, crucifixion. You are projecting, not a new religion onto mountainman's mess but one that already had the main elements. Oooh, let's create a religion about the crucifixion of a Jesus in Jerusalem, which involved a council member named Joseph who was from Arimathea and was a disciple of Jesus, along with Zebedee and Salome.... Whaddaya mean, it's already been done? The fragment shows that any notion of "bits and pieces" of familiar texts is irrelevant, because the bulk is already implied by the fragment from Dura Europos.




spin

spamandham

I'm certainly making no argument against that.

Is that what you think Christianity is about?