FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-22-2007, 05:42 PM   #31
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: US Citizen (edited)
Posts: 1,948
Default Conclusion of # 30

Love is great and is indeed the principal moral norm, as Cicero saw, but this come from Cicero the jurisprudent, who also knows that love is not the wisdom of what is right and what is wrong. As a social principle, love is a sufficient norm for a tribal society which does not hold property and holds all things in common (as the monastic Essenes of Galilee and as the Israelitic Christians did. [See Acts of the Apostles.]

The Isra-ELites and the YUdaeans were ultimately incompatible, just as El and Yuh are, just as a tribe and a nation are, just as the shepherds, children of Abel, and the agrarians and craftsmen, children of Cain, were; and ethnically (with theirown lnguistic and other traditions) partially different as the Araboid Galileans and the Caucasoid Judeans were. It was the nation of Judea that went into the babylonian captivity, where they edited the traditional tales and composed the Books (from a Judean perspective), that fought to preserve a Judean royalty, and fled after the destruction of Yahweh's Temple. At the same time, as far the people's allegiance was concerned, the Nation of Judea did not supersede the Tribe, though no longer named Israel. Hence, the Jews in exile, who had lost a kingdom, reformed as a nameless Tribe, and lived in hosting countries by the laws of survival.
_____________________________--
An inevitable question arises: How come that a small village like Rome became a republic (where the legislative Jous/ Juppiter evolved into jurisprudents) and that the kingdom of David did not evolve into a republic (wherefore the temple in Jerusalem would be the reasoning house of jurisprudents)?

Any other possible reason aside, Rome started as a monarchic city/nation. If Romulus' kingdom had not been overcome by the Etruscan kings, the Roman monarchy may have been perpetuated as long as the Davidic monarchy. Now, whereas David founded a kingdom, the Roman people who liberated themselves from the Etruscan kings CHOSE to be free rather than becoming subjects of a king of their own. It was the free Romans that established a republic for themselves... and the rest is history. There was no evolution from a kingdom into a republic; so, it lies in the the might of David's kingdom and in the Biblical teachings (which make Yahweh anoint David) that the subjects never created a republic for themselves, and could not turn against the God-appointed monarch. The religion/theology of the Judeans was already different from the religion/theology of the Romans and of the Greeks. The authority of the rabbinical teachings, that God releaved what is true, what is good, and what is delighful precluded the Jurisprudence of the Romans, the Philosophy and History of the Greeks, and the arts of the Greeks and the Italians. The minds of the Judeans have been forever locked [through their systematic indoctrination] in the Age of Gods and the Age of Heroes. The Age of Men is foreign to them; it is a Gentilistic/Foreign Age unto them.
Amedeo is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 06:26 PM   #32
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amedeo View Post
Quintilian was not an etymologian. He never possessed the criteria for COGNATES and, therefore, he inferred on the basis of epithets of a single subject that the epithets were synonymous. (Actually, not he, but some readers of his, make fallacious inferences.)

Mary, the ever virgin, is the mother of wisdom. Therefore, [for the people who do not hear English words distinctly], "ever virgin" means "mother of wisdom."

Maria semper virginis mater sapientiae dicitur. Ergo una est virginitas et maternitas sapientialis...........

There is a guy called Jove. He used to be called Bright Sky. Therefore "jove" means "bright sky".

There is a guy called Yah. He used to be called El. Therefore, "yah" means "el."

There used to be my father's god, called El; and and my mother's god, called Yah. But there is only one god. Therefore, El and Ya are different names of the one god. Consequently, "el" and "ya" mean the same thing: "god."

(I think that by now I have accumulated enough material for my book on deranged THINKING.)
Autobiographies aren't very popular at the moment.
spin is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 07:05 PM   #33
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amedeo View Post
Misreading is not a virtue...
Neither is purveying false etymologies for tendentious purposes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amedeo View Post
I did not go into a discussion on the ancient suggestion about IUVARE, because "JUare" would have been a more feasible verb after Juppiter -- with reference to doing what Juppiter does, not JUbere or commanding, legislating, but something else. Since a euphonic V occurs in Latin and some neo-Latin languages, under some phonological conditions, it may be a historical fact that Gellius' "JU(v)are" was an activity attributed to Jupiter -- not according to his being personified Right and legislator, but as the Bright Sky or "Day".
Juppiter was a helpful kind of guy -- sounds better in Latin though, don't it?

But you didn't provide this information about the verb iuuo as relevant to anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amedeo View Post
Your evaluations of what I write come from faith as to what is and what is not, not from knowledge.
I'm hacking out all the lengthy invective which is apparently based on almost nothing than the urge to flood out a previous comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amedeo View Post
Jurisprudence [reasoning about and proffering Right] used to be conducted in the temple of Jupiter, on Capitoline Hill.
Very interesting, Amedeo, but it doesn't help you deal with the indications of the writers I cited. It doesn't help you support your claimed etymology. We are left with Livy, Varro, and Quintilian using forms of Diiouis.

In fact you've just put up three posts which avoid your etymology. I guess you can see that it's not worth a pinch of cow dropping and that you'll just get on with your original stuff without the pseudo-linguistic trappings. That means, though, you don't even have the pretend etymology to give the stuff any veneer of seriousness.

And do in the future try to avoid couching your propaganda in false etymologies and baseless linguistic judgments such as "poverty of language". You need to know something substantial about a language's resources before you can give any meaningful evaluations about it.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 09:03 PM   #34
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: US Citizen (edited)
Posts: 1,948
Default

Continuing the Etymological research....

From Wikipedia

.... The Tribe of Judah (the fourth son of Jacob)...

Quote:
Biblical and Middle Eastern origins: The Jews in their land

There is some scholarly controversy over whether Judaea is a patronymic or if it was a purely geographic term of uncertain Semitic origin. If indeed it is patronymic, it corresponds to the Hebrew y'hudi (יהודי) (or yehudi) connected to Judah in English, a member of the Twelve Tribes of the Children of Israel, i.e., Jacob's sons. According to Genesis, Judah was the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob, from whom the tribe descended. It is suggested that the word, "Jew" originally derived from the Tribe of Judah ......

The Jewish ethnonym in Hebrew is Yehudim (plural of yehudi) (יהודים). Classical Rabbinic literature has a tradition which traces the word Jew to Genesis 29:35 [1] which says that Judah's mother — the matriarch Leah — named him Yehudah (i.e. "Judah") because she wanted to "praise God" for giving birth to so many sons: "She said, 'This time let me praise (odeh אודה) God (יהוה),' and named the child Judah (Yehudah יהודה)." Thus combining "praise" and "God" into one new name.
As for Yeh/Yuh/Yah/Yoh (Yahweh), we have already spoken, though not completely.

As for Odeh, that's the classical Greek word ODE (0mega, delta, eta), contraction of AOIDE (alpha, omicron, iota, eta), which means: song of praise; specifically: lyric song; (magically) charming song.
The affine verb is AEIDO (alpha, epsilon, iota, delta, omega), "ancient and poetic form of the Attic A(i)DO" (= to sing). / AIODOS = singer./ AIODOTHETES = song-composer/ AIDOTOKOS = originator of songs, chants, poems..

Undoubtedly the Jewish scholar, Yehudah, who found that some 600 etyms in Biblical Hebrew can be found in Homer's Iliad, found also "odeh." (The few surving copies of his book are under lock and key in a couple of libraries.)
Amedeo is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 09:17 PM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

I'm through arguing with Amedeo. If anyone is confused and actually thinks that Amedeo is right, then by all means I'll answer questions, but I'm through dealing with anti-Semites.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 09:30 PM   #36
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: US Citizen (edited)
Posts: 1,948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer View Post
I'm through arguing with Amedeo. If anyone is confused and actually thinks that Amedeo is right, then by all means I'll answer questions, but I'm through dealing with anti-Semites.
All you need now, is to pass the information to the Jewish ADL: They will hold the kangaroo court and start the lynching!

(Sorry. Cross out "Jewish". Why derogate such an Indo-European word?)
Amedeo is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 09:37 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amedeo View Post
All you need now, is to pass the information to the Jewish ADL: They will hold the kangaroo court and start the lynching!

(Sorry. Cross out "Jewish". Why derogate such an Indo-European word?)
Jew or non-Jew, all your made-up etymology so far has been working towards discrediting the validity of a Semitic language, positing YHWH and other words to be Indo-European. I've dealt with this before, and I'm in no mood to deal with it again. Maybe others here will be more passionate than I, but ask spin, I'm not a kind person, and thus I'm not going to put up with your BS.

Once again, if anyone sincere is wanting to know more, that's fine.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 10:38 PM   #38
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

This thread seems to have veered away from Biblical Criticism and/or History. I don't see anything productive coming out of it.

Closed before something worse is posted.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:39 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.