Larsguy47

I'm presuming the source that the DATES I presented for the temple. I don't have the actual rabbinical text to show the dates so I could have been making them up to make them match up. But Praxeus' source that published the dates as above (one year off from mine but consistent) shows I didn't make up the rabbinical dates.

Well, now YOU will have to be specific on that one, but I'd say yes until further specific evaluation. But true, I was only talking about that specific source that confirmed independently that the Rabbis had published those dates. True.

No. Not on that point. Only on giving us the source or reference to those temple dates only. True.

What I've been "hinting" at is that some Jews know, such as these rabbis. So if they know and are putting out cryptic references then they don't intend to share with the Christians, and why should they? Christians have only killed and suppressed them. So let's presume this. Let's presume that 99% of the Jewish scholars already know, but consider it politically incorrect to weigh in on this topic because of the historical and social problems involved? They would understand this and know this already but can't respond. Thus it would seem as though they don't agree by their silence, but that's misleading. It just means they can't come "out" officially and recognize this, that's all.

A lot of this is self evident. You can make an excuse, for instance, as to why there is folklore showing Plato being alive and consulted at the beginning of the PPW that loosely explains it, but a researchologist and historiologist would know at some point you have to presume there was a revision and that the original PPW war date was moved but Plato's birthdate was not, thus you have a contradiction now. These are called "loose ends", little things in history that survive after a revision that don't quite add up, but when you test against another implied chronology, such as the PPW dated to a better eclipse event in 402BCE, then it makes sense; Plato would have been 25.

Now some people will fight every single presumption and "clue" tooth and nail since unless something is up front, plain, repeated 5 times and in black and white, they have no capacity to presume they are looking at evidence of fabrication, and especially if they're college professor hasn't endorsed for them every little thing since they have lost much of their independent thinking. If it's not "validated" by science then it's just not true to them.

But that's okay. Because those who already know and those who do suspect revisionism who have established their own timeline, like Martin Anstey in "Romance of Bible Chronology" who long ago surmised there were 82 years too many between the 1st of Cyrus and the baptism of Christ are benefited from any kind of theories or proof supporting revisionism.

So in this case, without absolutely saying anything, it just shows there is a "coincidence" of primary temple-related intervals that can be used to convert those dates to the apparent original chronology. People can take it from there, but one suggestion is that it is a cryptic reference to the original chronology which was passed down in some Jewish circles.

Apparently, on the Greek historical end of things someone seems to think that Aristotle and Socrates were lovers. Now Socrates could have had ten boy lovers for all we know, after all, he was killed for "corrupting the youth", but the ages of Phaedo and Aristotle are extremely close, both would have been 18-19 when Socrates died in 366-365BCE at 69-70 years of age.

So, just THEORIES AND TALK. You can make up your own mind.

Thanks for the comments.

LG47

Toto

Larsguy outed posts split off here

Sauron

You failed to answer the question. Let's try again:

1. Prax gave a series of links.
2. You claimed that one of them supported you.
3. Which one?


My only specific claim is about your statement

One of your sources confirms the RABBINICAL DATING I present, except for one year off:

Which of praxeus' sources are you talking about? The question is clear; I don't know why you pretend to misunderstand it.

Which doesn't answer the second half of my point:

Your comment above about praxeus' links shows that you narrowed the list of allegedly supporting sources to "one". That means you realize that the the other ones do not support you. What makes you think you can ignore sources that don't support you?

And yet you cannot produce any such rabbis.

1. You haven't explained why rabbis in the 21st century should care about something as silly as secretly trying to re-date the Persian king list and the various wars.

We presume nothing. You're talking about a world-wide conspiracy of rabbis that has been kept intact for thousands of years - even including ex-rabbis, rabbis-turned-agnostics, etc. trying to keep a secret reordering of hi

Not only that, but your conspiratorical history-twisting doesn't match up with what we know from other sources.

On the contrary: it is silly beyond belief. And when asked to show evidence for it, all you can do is wave your hands and whisper about some secret knowledge that you think might be out there. Somewhere. Someplace.

You wouldn't have to repeat it five times if you'd just provide evidence one time.

No problem there. When dealing with matters of the natural world, science is the final arbiter. That's how we tell the difference between:

a. reality and
b. crackpot conspiracy theories

Hint.

It shows nothing of the kind, as these many threads and pages demonstrate.