Adam

I doubt you understand what peer review is.
Editors assign interesting submissions to anonymous associates with the requisite expertise. Probably David Bossman at this point would not himself know who these were. Perhaps their approval of my article was sufficient for him to notify me he would publish it, but his own (presumably less qualified) opinion was not strongly favorable enough to override his loyalty to the previous Editor (who probably appointed him as the new Editor of Biblical Theology Bulletin) who wanted his own (perhaps not peer-reviewed) article on John published instead.

Given that my article was not published in a scholarly journal, no relevant scholars ever saw it to comment upon it. We do have FRDB members who are at a much higher scholarly level than other places where I have presented Significance of John (or at least Gospel Eyewitnesses, which got no replies at all at Christian Forums), but as we have seen, none have critiqued my peer-reviewed article. They (spin at least) have questioned whether it was in fact peer reviewed, but no one has claimed that the content is below what could have passed peer review in 1980. It's a little short on footnotes (and length of footnotes!) by today's standards, but no one has even challenged my claim that it remains ahead of the field on source-criticism of John even after the passage of 30 years.

If no one posts on these two threads of mine, I will soon document my Gospel Eyewitnesses thread back to the relevant eyewitnesses on Significance of John. That should put an end (at least as to gJohn) to the lame claim that I never presented evidence, as no one has claimed that I did not present evidence in Significance of John.

Sheshbazzar

Yes the case needs to be made, ......and Adam's foray into mathematical probabilities is utterly faulty and failing to make it.
Is it correct mathematics to add speculated 'probabilities' together and play math games to arrive at a totally imaginary composite probability?
"Each additional 'eyewitness" is begging the question here, as there is no evidence that any of Adam's speculated individuals at all ever were eyewitnesses, __ or even ever existed outside of the pages of religious fantasy books, and no non-religious reason for which to ever 'assume' that they did.

Question: If we add seven invisible and non-existent apples together, how many apples do we have?
What are the probabilities that any of these seven apples will be edible?

Answer: None and zero.

Adam has failed to provide any solid evidence for the existence of even one of his imagined Gospel 'eyewitness', much less the seven that his imaginative speculations would wish us to assume and accept.
Nothing seven times, adds up to nothing, divided by seven, it is still nothing.

Adam

You implicitly acknowledge that you do not know what peer review is.
By not challenging Stringbean or spin you implicitly acknowledge that anything not peer reviewed has no value as evidence.
If so, how much is there of value in FRDB? Well, at least "Significance of John", by that criterion.

Sheshbazzar

Let's see if I understand you correctly, per the above, David Bossman thought it 'interesting' but did not consider himself qualified to review or critique your submission, so he turns it over to anonymous associates, whom he don't know, they in turn pass it on without critique or commentary for publication.

You essentially had zero exchange of ideas with any of these anonymous associates or experts?

So exactly how then did you determine that they were your 'peers'?
If they didn't question, or ask you for clarifications about any of the statements or claims you made, how do you know that anyone even bothered to actually read what you wrote?

At least the participants here have asked you questions about various aspects of your claims.

Were your 'peers' peers only because they didn't ever question or reject any of your claims and submission?

Just saying. I have 'peers' and we rake one another's ideas over the coals daily. If we didn't, we wouldn't be peers.

Stringbean

I am still at a loss as to how math proves eyewitnesses.

Adam

Sorry, I had thought "anonymous" might confuse you, but failed to define the meaning in this case. No, Bossman would have to know the peers in order to know who specialized in John/source-criticism/statistics whatever, but their names are not revealed when the submission gets published (except maybe for books, the jacket comments if so desired).

I guess spin should explain this, as you are not likely to believe me, but it looks like you are saying that the peers don't even give a pass/fail on the submission. (And the editor himself would have to have enough expertise to see the article was worth sending to peer review and to whom it was worth sending it.) No, they give their opinions to the editor, who will likely reject anything that gets unfavorable peer review. I would guess that their ratings in my case were more favorable than Bossman's own, as he ultimately never published it.

Back in the days before computers or even word processing, I did not have the option of sending my manuscript to some other scholarly publication because Bossman had required me to type up my article in his journal's unique style sheet (as you can see for yourself in my
Significance of John thread). That's something else spin can confirm when he checks out my story about Biblical Theology Bulletin.

ralfellis

Except that the early 'Christians' did say that Jesus was just a normal but important human. But the Arian creed lost out to the Holy Ghost brigade, after the Council of Nicaea, and the rest is history.

But if Jesus was a real person, then he should be visible in the historical record. And he is - the biblical King Izas-Em-Manuel was King Izas-Manu VI of Edessa.


.

In fact, several challenges were made recently by academics, regarding my assertion that the principality known as Adiabene was a reference to Edessa. However, rather than destroying my arguments, the references cited actually reinforce this new assessment of Romo-Syriac history. But if Adiabene was Edessa, then the royal family who started the Jewish Revolt in AD 68 must have been the Edessan monarch of that era: King Izas-Manu VI.** However, my previous books have already proved that the minor revolt that the biblical Jesus was involved in was the Jewish Revolt. Ergo, the biblical King Jesus must have been King Izas-Manu VI of Edessa.

The new sections in v4.4 are reproduced here:
http://www.edfu-books.com/update1.html

And this certainly makes a great deal more sense than the Roman version of these eastern campaigns. And it also makes a great deal more sense than the sugar-coated biblical narrative.



** Josephus Flavius calls this king Izas.


.

ralfellis

.


Of course they can.

You just have to decide what a myth is. Is it a complete fiction, written for pleasure or profit, or is it something deliberately mis-written as a fantasy? The latter is a distinct possibility, if a powerful lobby (the Church) threatens you with a horrible death if you say the wrong things.

Thus many mythologies may well be based upon historical facts that were now taboo. I think the King Arthur legend is one of those taboo mythologies. And another is the Adam and Eve story.



So who was Adam and Eve?

a. Well, Eden was in Egypt. We know this because the river ran through Eden and split into four branches. (Gen 2:10) Only one river in this region did this - the Nile.

b. But if you read the Genesis story, it is clear that this is a copy of the Hymn to the Aten (Hymn to the Aden), by Pharoh Akhenaton.

c. Thus the Garden of Eden was the Garden of Aden - the garden dedicated to the Aten-god in Amarna.

d. This is why the Hebrew god is called Adhon.

e. This is why Adam and Eve were said to be naked in the Garden. If you look at any imagery from Amarna, Akhenaton and Nefertiti are always shown near-naked or naked.

f. But when Amarna (Eden) collapsed and they were evicted, they would indeed have had to put on some clothes.

g. So Adam and Eve were actually Pharaoh Akhenaton and Queen Nefertiti.

h. Which is why the Nazarene (of Jesus) venerated the 'Primaeval Adam' as a 'hermaphrodite'.

i. As you may have noticed, Pharaoh Akhenaton was always depicted as being not exactly gender neutral, but more a pseudohermaphrodite.

j. Thus the Nazarene venerated Pharaoh Akhenaton. Which is interesting, because if this is so it implies that the true identity of Adam and Eve was known in the 1st century.




So who was King Arthur?

a. My analysis of Romo-biblical history indicates that King Jesus (King Izas of Adiabene-Edessa) was exiled to England in AD 70.

b. In Chester, the Romans built a 'prison fortress' in AD 72 called Dewa, which contained a Temple of Pisces (based upon the Vesica Piscis).

c. This Temple of Pisces is unique in the Roman Empire, and was the most prestigious building in England at the time.

d. The sect that venerated Pisces (the fish) was Christianity. These were the Fishers of Men whose symbol was the Vesica Piscis.

e. So the only sect who would want a Temple of Pisces (in a 'prison fortress) were the exiled leader(s) of the Jewish Revolt - who was King Izas.

f. But mentioning that Jesus was alive in the AD 70s in England was, well, akin to committing suicide - on a bonfire.

g. So an alternative mythology was essential for self-preservation. But what sort of mythology?

h. Ah, I know. King Jesus and the 12 armed disciples of the Last Supper Table could become ..... err ..... King Arthur and the 12 knights of the Round Table.

i. (The Vulgate Cycle says that the Round Table was a copy of the Last Supper Table, and the symbolism of the knights was based upon the symbolism of the disciples.)

j. But the symbolism of the Round (Last Supper) Table was based upon the 1st century Hamat Teverya zodiac in Galilee (which is a precessional zodiac).

k. Thus Jesus and the 12 disciples (or Arthur and his 12 knights) are merely the Sun (of God) surrounded by the 12 constellations on a circular 'table'.

l. So Jesus originally sat in the center of this symbolic Round (Last Supper) Zodiac Table, surrounded by his 12 disciple-constellations.

m. But why the name-change from King Izas to 'King Arthur'.

n. Well, a zodiac has two views - solar or celestial - the center of the zodiac is either the Sun (of God) or the northern stars of the celestial pole.

o. But the constellation of the northern celestial pole is Ursa Major, the Great Bear. But the Great Bear is called Arktos in Greek (meaning bear).

p. It is from the Greek Arktos (bear) that the Latin Arctus (north) the English Arctic (north) and the Celtic Art-fawr (Arthur-bear) were derived.

q. So the center of the Round (Last Supper) Zodiac Table can either be occupied by the Sun (of God), with his solar halo, or by Arthur (the Great Bear).

r. Ergo, King Izas (King Jesus) became the mythologized King Arthur.

s. And if you look at the Vulgate Cycle, most of the events take place in the 1st century, not the 6th century.

t. So now you were safe. You could wax lyrical about King Arthur and his daring battles with the Romans (in the 6th century?!?), and nobody could touch you. And the fact that you were talking about King Izas (King Jesus) fighting the Jewish Revolt against the Romans in Judaea, was only known to a select few initiates.




.

spin

When only one is insufficient.

Stringbean

This is off topic. But I saw this in the link that was written in this book:

Cleopatra to Christ

Cleopatra was of Greek descent. Jesus was supposedly Jewish. Where's the connection?

http://www.ducksters.com/history/anc...opatra_vii.php

If memory serves me correct she was the only non Egyptian to ever have ruled Egypt.