Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-24-2013, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Sorry if it upset you.

He's a real mushugana. I wouldn't worry about it.

Roger Pearse · 01-24-2013, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Sorry if it upset you.

He's a real mushugana. I wouldn't worry about it.

Thanks. Actually I don't worry about that sort of thing. I was just curious to see someone reacting with rage over something like that.

Someone pointed me at a list of stereotypes online here, with cartoons. Some are better than others. Some of it is acutely observed. Picador I have seen in action.

Which one are we? I think I'm an Ent.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

MrMacSon · 01-24-2013, 02:42 PM

.
There are some quite fascinating claims -

Quote:

Histories of Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were crafted during the Renaissance by humanists and clergy mostly on the basis of documents of their own making.
The Old Testament is a rendition of events of the 14th to 16th centuries AD in Europe and Byzantium, containing 'prophecies' about 'future' events related in the New Testament, which is a rendition of events of AD 1152 to 1185.
The history of religions runs as follows:
1. the pre-Christian period (before the 11th century and JC),
2. Bacchic Christianity (11th-12th century, before and after JC),
3. JC Christianity (12th-16th century) and
4. its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam.
The most probable prototype of historical Jesus was a Byzantine emperor, Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD 1152 to 1185), known for his failed reforms, his traits and deeds reflected in 'biographies' of many real and imaginary persons.[16]
The Almagest of Claudius Ptolemy, traditionally dated to around AD 150 and considered to be the cornerstone of classical history, was compiled in 16th and 17th centuries from astronomical data of the 9th to 16th centuries.
37 complete Egyptian horoscopes found in Denderah, Esna, and other temples have unique valid astronomical solutions with dates ranging from AD 1000 and up to as late as AD 1700.
The Book of Revelation, as we know it, contains a horoscope that is dated to 25 September - 10 October 1486 compiled by cabbalist Johannes Reuchlin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chr...#Brief_summary
.

though based on these assertions -

Quote:

Different accounts of the same historical events are often 'assigned' different dates and locations by historians and translators, creating multiple "phantom copies" of these events. These "phantom copies" are often misdated by centuries or even millennia and end up incorporated into conventional chronology.
This chronology was largely manufactured by Joseph Justus Scaliger in Opus Novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606), and represents a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major cabbalistic numbers 333 and 360. This chronology was completed by Jesuit Dionysius Petavius in De Doctrina Temporum, 1627 (v.1) and 1632 (v.2).
Archaeological dating, dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating, numismatic dating, carbon dating (and other methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts known today) are erroneous, non-exact or dependent on traditional chronology.
There is not a single document in existence that can be reliably dated earlier than the 11th century. Most 'ancient' artifacts may find other than consensual explanation.

stephan huller · 01-24-2013, 02:49 PM

sounds like mountainman on steroids

jakejonesiv · 01-24-2013, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdg

I was wondering what the forum members have to say about Fomenko's view of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chr..._%28Fomenko%29

Quote:

The New Chronology is a fringe theory in pseudo-history, which argues that the conventional chronology is fundamentally flawed, that events attributed to antiquity such as the histories of Rome, Greece and Egypt actually occurred during the Middle Ages, more than a thousand years after the time to which they have conventionally been assigned. The central concepts of the New Chronology are derived from the ideas of Nikolai Morozov,[1] although Jean Hardouin can be viewed as an earlier predecessor.[2]

Jean Hardouin (1646-1729)

From Bossuet to Newman, Owen Chadwick, Second Edition, Cambridge, 1987 (1957):

Quote:

In a work of 1693 he hinted; in a work of 1709 he affirmed; in posthumous works of 1729 and 1733 he shouted—a bewildering but simple thesis. Apart from the scriptures—that is the Latin scriptures—and six classical authors, all the writers of antiquity, profane or ecclesiastical, were forged by a group of writers in the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries. This group of forgers he never defined or discussed, but always referred to them generically as 'the impious crew', 'maudite cabale'.

Its unclear to me what he means by Ecclesiastical writers. But if by Ecclesiastic writers we assuming Hardouin meant the authors of the gospels, acts and Paul's letters, and the mass of church father writings labelled "Eusebius", I think the theory is untenable.

Besides the Christian archaeology IMO there exists a "silver bullet" for this revised chronology with respect to the new testament literary evidence, and that is the gJudas C14 test results of 290 CE plus or minus 60 years. A codex (Coptic) telling a story about Jesus and the Twelve Daimons therefore appears to have been manufactured by gnostics in the 3rd or early 4th century. It is reasonable to infer that these authors had the canonical Jesus stories before them when they wrote. Most historians and biblical scholars make this assumption.

This chronological evidence effectively appears to rule out the possibility that the 'the impious crew', 'maudite cabale' fabricated this stuff in the 13th or 14th century. It just moves the upper bound (latest) possible chronology of the authorship operation to a thousand years earlier.

Jean Hardouin--a Jesuit scholar--believed that the New Testamant was mostly authentic. He just didn't like the Church Fathers and Roman classics. He thought all these were forgeries by monks of an opposing order in the 14th century. See the _The Prolegomena of Jean Hardouin_, edited and reissued by H.Detering.

This is the "mother of all" church conspiracy theories, and those who want to "roll their own" conspiracy should read this book. When Jean Hardouin started his descent into madness he pretty much gave a blue print of how to answer every rational objection to a crackpot theory.

Jake

mountainman · 01-24-2013, 06:51 PM

Thanks Jake

mountainman · 01-24-2013, 06:56 PM

FYI the Journal of Hellenic Studies referee called it a "revival".

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

sounds like mountainman on steroids

Referee Report: Editor JHL, October 2007
BROWN ON CONSTANTINE’S INVENTION OF CHRISTIANITY

Quote:

This is a revival of the theses of Athanasius Kircher and the AbbÈ Hardouin .................

semiopen · 01-25-2013, 05:15 AM

I looked at Formenko briefly a few years ago and was mainly surprised that when I Googled him there was almost nothing discussing how nuts this was.

Now reading the link in the OP

New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29

Quote:

Chess master Garry Kasparov is a supporter of Fomenko;[31][32] Billington writes that the theory "might have quietly blown away in the wind tunnels of academia" if not for Kasparov's writing in support of it in the magazine Ogoniok.[33] Kasparov met Fomenko during the 1990s, and found that Fomenko's conclusions concerning certain subjects were identical to his own. Specifically, regarding the alleged Dark Ages, Kasparov was incredulous of the usual view that art and culture died and were not revived until the Renaissance. Kasparov also felt it illogical that the Romans and the Greeks living under the banner of Byzantium could fail to use the mounds of scientific knowledge left them by Ancient Greece and Rome, especially when it was of urgent military use. However, Kasparov does not support the reconstruction part of the New Chronology.[34]

The link below is [31] in the quotes.

Mathematics of the Past
by
Garry Kasparov

Where he makes several interesting points, such as

Quote:

The Roman numeral system discouraged serious calculations. How could the ancient Romans build elaborate structures such as temples, bridges, and aqueducts without precise and elaborate calculations? The most important deficiency of Roman numerals is that they are completely unsuitable even for performing a simple operation like addition, not to mention multiplication, which presents substantial difficulties

Since Kasparov is one of the people I could reach by making a few phone calls, I'd tend to look at his take on all this. Unfortunately a lot of the references are in Russian.

semiopen · 01-25-2013, 05:30 AM

I ran some lines of Answers of Kasparov through google translate

Quote:

Я не являюсь сторонником теории Фоменко-Носовского. Но как человек с аналитическим складом ума, привыкший анализировать получаемую информацию, я очень скептически отношусь к построениям и выводам официальной истории. На мой взгляд, Фоменко-Носовский правильно отметили многочисленные неувязки, нестыковки в официальной концепции. Но вместо того чтобы продолжать работу именно по задаванию вопросов и разрушению зачастую мифологических построений, они выступили с новой теорией, которая, к сожалению, страдает теми же проблемами. Потому что очевидно, что информации для выстраивания другой, альтернативной концепции, сегодня еще не хватает. И поэтому основные атаки на труды Фоменко-Носовского, они как раз связаны не с их критической частью, а с тем, что пытаются сегодня подать в качестве позитива

Quote:

I am not a supporter of the Fomenko-Nosovsky. But as a person with analytical mind, accustomed to analyze the received information, I am very skeptical about the constructions and the conclusions of the official history. In my view, the Fomenko-Nosovsky correctly noted numerous discrepancies, inconsistencies in the official concept. But instead of continuing to work on it asking questions and destruction often mythological constructions, they came out with a new theory, which, unfortunately, suffers from the same problems. Because it is obvious that the information for building the alternative concepts, today is not enough. And so the main attack on the works of Fomenko-Nosovsky, they just are not associated with their critical part, and that are now trying to apply as a positive.

Roger Pearse · 01-25-2013, 05:42 AM

I wonder whether the Roman text books on measuring things -- such as the agrimensores -- exist in Russian translation (or even English translation).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-24-2013, 02:49 PM	#14
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	sounds like mountainman on steroids

01-24-2013, 06:51 PM	#16
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Thanks Jake

01-25-2013, 05:42 AM	#20
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I wonder whether the Roman text books on measuring things -- such as the agrimensores -- exist in Russian translation (or even English translation).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.