Toto

Allan_Kardec

What did he predict?

Littlejohn

.

Hi Toto!


I think talking about it later ..

Greetings


Littlejohn S

.

steve_bnk

Yet more quoting of biblical verses as fact and part of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_...name_for_Jesus

'...Original name for Jesus

The English name Jesus derives from the Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates the Koine Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs.

In the Septuagint and other Greek-language Jewish texts, such as the writings of Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs is the standard Koine Greek form used to translate both of the Hebrew names: Yehoshua and Yeshua. Greek Ἰησοῦς or Iēsoûs is also used to represent the name of Joshua son of Nun in the New Testament passages Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. (It was even used in the Septuagint to translate the name Hoshea in one of the three verses where this referred to Joshua the son of Nun—Deut. 32:44.)

During the second Temple period (beginning 538 BC – 70 AD), Yeshua first became a known form of the name Yehoshua. All occurrences of Yeshua in the Hebrew Bible are in I Chron. 24:11, II Chron. 31:15, Ezra, and Nehemiah where it is transliterated into English as Jeshua. Two of these men (Joshua the son of Nun and Joshua the High Priest) are mentioned in other books of the Hebrew Bible where they are instead called Yehoshua [25] (transliterated into English as Joshua).....In the documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus, archeologist Amos Kloner stated that the name Yeshua was then a popular form of the name Yehoshua and was "one of the common names in the time of the Second Temple."[27] In discussing whether it was remarkable to find a tomb with the name of Jesus (the particular ossuary in question bears the inscription "Yehuda bar Yeshua"), he pointed out that the name had been found 71 times in burial caves from that time period'


Even the use and meaning of the name muddies the water. It seems a plausible hypothesis the translators arbitrarily assigned a common name to a number of differenet references pointing to the gospels being a composite story. Not unlike a modern fiction based on known events using fabricted historical conposite chracters. Considering the communications of the time it should be expected as time passed.

Given the known political turmoil of the time, wandering disaffected Jewish rabais calling out hypocicy of the Jewish and temple power elite would be expected.

As to invoking multiple versions of the NT, one only has to look at the vast proliferation and growth of books based on interpeting the bible and NT story. Intepretive books being cited as refernces for other books, all of which fabrications.

The fact that a number of versions of the story exist is not a proof. We see how the embelishment grows even today. The issues of faith in question at Nicea points to lack o a consistent story plagued with interpretations.


Little John, you are doing it yourself. You are attempting to flesh out a tale of unkown origins and scant details adding ypur personal salnt.

I think it plausible a single person or a movement was the basis for the stories. Jewish prophets predicting doom and gloom were not excatly new.

Sheshbazzar

Yes. I express my reservations.
You may think they are 'OBJECTIVE testimonies'.
Most Atheists and Freethinker's would likely disagree. Religious crapola produced by religionists are seldom objective. And most 'testimony' produced by religionists is of highly questionable accuracy.

But with reference to ..."his radical ideas", it is not the content of these ancient rabbinical and mandaean religious writings that I am speaking of, but what you attempt to fashion -from- their writings that is your 'radical ideas', that you continually avoid providing provenance for, and to which I object.
I can tell you already, that the sources which you employ (to the degree that you have revealed such) are such as no Atheist nor critical scholar would assign much weight, or accept as proof of such things which you wish to use them to prove.
Oh we are willing to read them (when you are willing to reveal what it is that you are trying to crib from them) and 'take the(m) into account', but doing so they almost always fail in either being credible, or upon close examination supporting the imaginary bridges that you trying to construct.
You need to read more.
That is good to know. I'm sure I'll be pleased to provide you with many targeted questions in the future.
Would you care to 'spill' some of these 'really extraordinary' magic beans here?
It would give us all something to examine and discuss.

Littlejohn

This topic has been discussed extensively a few years ago. On that occasion I brought forward some topics which leave not space at the doubt about it.

First, Jerome, who would not refer to the LXX, so much that he decided to go to Palestine to learn Hebrew and to translate it from the original Hebrew by itself (*), has translated the Hebrew YEHOSHUAH (Ieosuah) with the Latin IOSUE (see book of Joshua into Vulgate), phonetically very similar to Hebrew, and NOT with Iesous!.

Keep in mind that the Septuagint was rejected by the Rabbinical Synod of Jamnia of 90s, which take away to it any value, and certainly that was the reason that Jerome decided to ignore it and refer to the Tanakh of the Jews of Palestine

Besides that, I quoted Eusebius of Caesarea and Cyril of Jerusalem, who said that the word Iesous is of Greek origin and does mean HEALER! ... Still in doubt? ....

"..Little John (Littlejohn), you are doing it yourself. You are attempting to flesh out a tale of unkown origins and scant details, adding your personal salt..."

I assure you that I did not need to 'flesh out' anything, since that I set forward it is already fleshy and with 'salt' on his own!

Greetings

Littlejohn S
.

Sheshbazzar

Darn! here I was, really waiting for him to spill some of those 'really extraordinary' Allan Kardec magic beans.

Littlejohn

.

Before I address this topic, try asking around if anyone knows of a 'strange' or particular prophecy of Allan Kardec, regarding the truth about the true origins of Christianity ..


Littlejohn S

.

Sheshbazzar

I've already read quite enough of Kardec's 'Spiritist' garbage to last me for an entire lifetime.

You got something 'really extrordinary' from Allen Kadec the Spiritist Fraud that's setting your shorts on fire, then just spill it, 'cause I am sure as hell am not about to go around asking lunatic questions about this ancient fruitcake fraudster from every person I meet.

Littlejohn

Frankly I think you are not right for the exegetical task ... Perhaps it is best that you return to hoe ...

.

Littlejohn

No post