RED DAVE

Still no evidence worth shit that Socrates and Aristotle were lovers.

Sock still dead before Ari born so either advanced necrophilia or historical fantasy.

The Boys in the Symposium

An intense, hard-driving look at the dirty underside (and underwear) of classic Greek society.

- Find out at last: what did Socrates carry under his robe?

- Find out at last: who actually rode on Plato's back (Plato's actual name, Platon, means "broad shoulders")

- Find out at last: what actually happened when the sky went dark in 432 BC (or was it 403)

- Find out at last: who was that cute guy that Soc was romping with at the Symposium: was it Phaedo, Xenophon, Plato or was it Ari (Soc, they say, liked 'em real young

- Find out at last: was it hemlock Soc drank or something else

Opening soon on a thread near you.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

Ezra 6:14,15 is compared with Daniel 11:2 as a basis for identifying "Artaxerxes" as historical Xerxes:

"And the older men of the Jews were building and making progress under the prophesying of Hag´gai the prophet and Zech·a·ri´ah the grandson of Id´do, and they built and finished [it] due to the order of the God of Israel and due to the order of Cyrus and Da·ri´us and Ar·ta·xerx´es the king of Persia. 15 And they completed this house by the third day of the lunar month A´dar, that is, in the sixth year of the reign of Da·ri´us the king."

The above merely reflects the "accession dating" system where the first year of the king begins in the spring and the year remains named after the year of the king who began the year. If the ruling king dies, it becomes the "accession year" of the next king. Thus year 6 of Darius is the accession year of "Artaxerxes." In this case, the Bible uses his newly adopted name "Artaxerxes" and not his name "Xerxes" by which the Greeks knew him.

COMPARE Daniel 11:2

2 And now what is truth I shall tell to you:

“Look! There will yet be three kings standing up for Persia, and the fourth one will amass greater riches than all [others]. And as soon as he has become strong in his riches, he will rouse up everything against the kingdom of Greece."

This s a prophecy about the successor to Darius. Here are the kings in line from Cyrus:

1st Cambyses aka "Ahasuerus" in the Bible.
2nd Bardiya/Smerdis, imposter king called "Artaxerxes" in the Bible (Ezra 4:11)
3rd Darius I, the Great

The fourth king would be the richest of all the Persian kings. This king would make a big campaign against Greece. This is the well-known invasion of Xerxes by land and sea of Greece. But not it inserts some time here. It would be after he becomes strong in his riches, and thus not so immediately after he becomes king. If Darius died at Marathon as I propose, then it would be ten years before Xerxes invaded Greece, using mostly his own funds! He was an extremely wealthy man.

But obviously, Ezra 6:14, 15 suggests that "Artaxerxes" completed the temple, that is was the king who had the last hands-on to complete it, but in the last month of the sixth of Darius. Since the 4th king after Cyrus would attack Greece and be the richest king, that suggests Artaxerxes and Xerxes were the same king. Xerxes certainly was not as rich as Artaxerxes


The scenario is that when Themistocles fled to Persia and discovered Xerxes was also going by the name of "Artaxerxes" he convinced him it would be politically advantageous to claim he was his own son. But, of course, his own son was Darius and some story had to be made up why Artaxerxes was now on the throne instead of Darius. So they claimed he killed his father and then his "brother" (Artaxerxes) killed him. Thus a legitimate king "Artaxerxes" was on the throne. Since this was a government-sponsored disinformation plan, of course later the Persians would change inscription, create fake business tablets and even create a new tomb for "Xerxes" at Naqshi-Rustam. But as noted, Artaxerxes is buried between Darius I and Darius II, just where he should be in tomb #2. Tomb #4 was a later thought much later. Thus in this case, any inscriptions saying that Xerxes was the father of Artaxerxes would be part of the disinformation plan to hide Xerxes' identity. So you can't go by inscriptions, which are easily changed and added. But the actual architecture and buildings and art is something else. There are lots of inscriptions claiming Xerxes was the father of Artaxerxes.


The Nabonidus Chronicle itself says that it is a "copy" from the time of Darius II. If a document is "copied" it is presumed to be for revisions. Since the 6-year rule of Darius, the Mede was completely suppressed, his character was divided into two; one conquering Babylon with Cyrus and the other dividing up the empire in satrapies. Both are assigned to Darius the Mede in the Bible.


Nobody said Ezra mentions "Darius, the Mede", it doesn't and it comes during the Persian Period after Cyrus. Darius the Mede was a "Mede" not a Persian Acaemenid. He ruled for six years right after the fall of Babylon while the Jews were still in exile. Just look up "Darius the Mede" on the net and read about what is said about him.

No one is asking you to read any of my threads and further I do my share of quoting my sources and explaining things. There is plenty of supportive evidence for this position.

Why don't you, for instance, comment on Artaxerxes' cupbearer being so similar to Xerxes' cupbearer?








Question: Is this the same person? Do you know?

Things to consider:

1) Each person wore the particular dress from their nation. The Persians had fluted caps and the Medes round. This next in office to the king is neither Mede nor Persian. Quite unusual in a king ruled by Medes and Persians.

2) This individual has a covered beard, a potential indication he was a eunuch.

3) He carries a cuptowel his "badge of office" confirming he is the cupbearer. The Bible identifies Nehemiah has Artaxerxes' cupbearer.

If Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king and Xerxes liked Nehemiah then he would have maintained him in that position when he became sole ruler and thus he would have been the same person. Most would have to assume that obviously this is the same person.

So just because you don't accept the evidence I provide doesn't mean there isn't any. I post lots of links, charts and grafts. What's that? I think you just don't like my evidence.

Besides, what's wrong with posting an "opinion" or a suspicion. Here lots of non-believers challenge even the historicity of Christ with absolutely no basis for dismissing him. Still it is interesting to hear their views and I support their freedom of speech though I don't agree with them.

Larsguy47

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
Lars, baby, how many times have I told you: we cannot do this scenario. First of all, who plays Themistocles? Gere is in Tibet and Cruise doesn't like the religious thing. And, anyway, they just did the Artaxerxes thing in "300." Okay, maybe we fiddle with the numbers, call it "305."

Let's do lunch Monday.

From Larsguy47:
Lars, bubbula, I've told you, these father/son things don't work. Okay, maybe we could try "Two Rivers Run Through It."

Let's do lunch Monday.

From Larsguy47:
Larsie, bubby, now you want a conspiracy/thriller thing? Okay, maybe we can get Will Smith. Do a sequel: "Enemy of the (Persian) State II."

Let's do lunch Monday.

From Larsguy47:
Lars, sweetie, now you want to do the mummy thing with tombs and all that? Maybe. But, personally, I think it's been done to death.

Let's do lunch Monday.

From Larsguy47:
Okay, maybe, sweetheart. I'll call Hanks. "DaVinci II" is a possible.

Let's do lunch Monday.

RED DAVE

spin

If you ignore the rest of Ezra, you can take the verse out of its context and bastardize its meaning. You are not being honest with your source text. You are citing a part which is obvious about Darius II and Artaxerxes II. Please look at the post in which I dealt with the relative chronology of Ezra. Here it is yet again. Please reread and check Ezra to see that you've got your source wrong.

See also Herodotus 6.98, "the three following generations of Darius the son of Hystaspes, Xerxes the son of Darius, and Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes".

These are merely a list of decrees, not a genealogy. The decree of Cyrus (1:1), Darius II (6:1) and Artaxerxes I (4:19). The best you can do is quibble about the order.

This is unsubstantiated claptrap.

Do you honestly believe that you should rename anybody you want to fit your elastic scenario? You have no way of checking that these silly renamings have any value, especially when the current data indicates that the original names work just fine.

The four kings are prior to the rise of Alexander, whose kingdom when he dies will be scattered to the four winds, the diadochi (also see 8:8). But of course, you don't understand Daniel 11, which is a blow by blow description of the struggles between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies (the king of the north and the king of the south) up to the reign of Antiochus IV.

It's Darius II referred to in 6:15.

Xerxes I was referred to in 4:6 and Artaxerxes I was referred to in 4:7. The text clearly shows that they are two separate kings.

??

Darius II was the (illegitimate) son of Artaxerxes I.

Do biblical texts get copied presumably for revisions??

Pure fantasy.

In fact the only text which mentions Darius the Mede, is the one whose validity is under question, ie Daniel. There is nothing besides Daniel which might make anyone even contemplate the existence of something as silly as a "Darius the Mede". That Ezra doesn't mention it means that the name has no importance in the Hebrew tradition at the time of Ezra, apparently during the reign of Artaxerxes II.

To justify this strange juxtaposition of Darius (a Persian name) with the epithet "Mede" a subjected people in the Persian kingdom, who is as you would have it supposed to be a king of the Persians, you rename anyone and everyone you have to. To construct a fragile artiface to hold your theory.

I guess books are not worthy of your perusal.

The comment was not directed at you.

Evidence is what you lack. You have speculation, opinion and error to support you.

Perhaps you might comment on the stereotypical aspects of Persian art some other time.

If you really want to see something funny. There is a painting by Raphael in the Vatican which shows shows a pope riding to meet Attila the Hun and behind him is a cardinal with exactly the same face. Why? Raphael had represented the cardinal as a cardinal of his own time, intending to paint the pope at the time as the pope in the painting, but the pope died and the cardinal became the new pope, so Raphael substituted the (ex-)cardinal's face as the pope. Now that's funny. (So check this out for a Persian equivalent.)

So what makes you think you have sufficient evidence to be able to understand Persian iconography?

You seem to have problems understanding the difference between data and evidence.

People don't hold your presuppositions. They don't necessarily start convinced that the material you accept has any validity. It doesn't masquerade as history.

My complaint was the fact that you've splattered a ton of shite on this forum without showing any inclination to look beyond your cursory approach to it all to see how others see it.


spin

Larsguy47

POSTED FROM SK400 ASTROTEXT THREAD SINCE 3DJay wants to prove that Socrates and Aristotle could not have been lovers. But now he has sparked my renewed interest in the topic so I plan to research it further to find more interesting loose ends. Of great suspicion is that if Phaedo was a cover character for Aristotle and the works of Socrates had to be chunked, then naturally anybody trying to establish a historical identity for Phaedo would be a co-conspirator. So this is interesting! At the same time, not wanting to dissolve the legacy of Socrates just revise it, they needed an eyewitness to his life, who was Aristotle, so naturally Socrates through the eyes of Phaedo becomes an important perspective. But clearly if you're trying cover history you've personally destroyed, you need to cover it as good as possible so everyone participated in making Phaedo seem like a real live person. He was, only he was Aristotle.

As far as the "history" of the real-life Phaedo, none of his works survive and very little can be confirmed of his actual works, but yet to be compared is how his history compares when everything is moved down 28 years!! A close comparison can show you what they lied about but that usually tells you WHY they lied and that leads to more discovery!

So "I'LL BE BACK" (said in the voice A. Schwartzenegger!)

Thanks 3DAY! for the references. This will be fun.

LG



I didn't know that much history existed for "Phaedo" but I know that both Aristotle and Socrates and I think Xenophon dedicate chapters to him. I can't tell for sure if he was a reason person used for shadowing Aristotle out of convenience or if, indeed, he was wholly invented. Remember, the chronology won't change whether or not we succeed in getting Aristotle into Socrates' bossom. If they were two separate people, they were the same age and around the same people. Maybe that's why all three of them wrote about him and dedicated entire chapters of "Phaedo".

If you were going to create a person, of course, you need documentation from various sources! So maybe Aristotle, Xenophon and Plato decided to make reference of him by dedicating a chapter to him as if he were a real person, thus substantiating his reality. But it's OVERKILL at this point because nobody otherwise has heard of him and his works totally disappeared save for one ascribed to him. But here's a question? When did Phaedo die? I have to do more research but he couldn't have set up his school until later on his life and he was a contemporary of Aristotle. The more I look at this the more it seems that Phaedo had to be invented in order to preserve the legacy of Socrates since all of Socrates' writings had to be destroyed since they likely had too much historical information in them. So Xenophon and Plato wrote what Phaedo related in detail as hearsay, when in fact both of them were likely right there. They sacrificed the writings of their friend Socrates but didn't want to sacrifice his legacy, so Phaedo had to become a true historical person! That's why they all mention him and why there is little else about him. He's far too prominent in Xenophon and Aristotle and Plato to be so obscure historically. But if he's an invention, of course, he has to be established artificially and so each was obligated to mention him!

I'll have to do more research on this and get back to you what I find. This is suddenly interesting again. I'll get back to you. INTERESTING. thanks. But if you want to pursue this, let's start another thread on it! I don't want this topic to highjack the astronomical post, if you don't mind!

Forget it, the chronology has been changed by the eclipse reset. There's nothing we can do but try to sort out the history. But I assure you, the more you dig the clearer the picture becomes. Now you have me CURIOUS about hwy Phaedo is such a prominent character for the three conspirators in the revisions. He HAD to be their witness to the life of Socrates since they couldn't be!

MORE LATER! Thanks!!!

Peace[/QUOTE]

3DJay

Start with the Spartan-Elis War (401-400) and King Amyntas III (Greek Αμύντας Γ΄ ), son of Arrhidaeus, grandfather of Alexander the Great, was king of Macedon from 393 (or 389) to 369 BC.

Aristotle's father was Amyntas' doctor and Aristotle grew up in his court. Phaedo was said to have been captured, as a youth/teen in the Spartan-Elis War. Fix that.


Peace

Larsguy47

I have renewed interest in confirming whether Phaedo was a real person and comparing him to Aristotle as much as possible.

I found several different busts made of Aristotle, suggesting he was quite handsome. I couldn't find any bust of Phaedo. But interestingly he appears in this painting by Jacques-Louis DAVID, a profile where he has a distinctly straight nose, just as Aristotle does. Is that just a coincidence?

You have to consider if David knew secretly that Phaedo was actually Aristotle it would explain his interest in doing the painting. With Aristotle's most striking feature being his straight nose, the best way to show that feature would be the profile rather than the face. So this is suspicious of this secret of Aristotle being Phaedo being known in circles of artists familiar with this story. But once you know that Aristotle's strongest feature was his very straight nose, it helps us to understand why Phaedo is posed the way he is with a strict profile emphasizing his very straight nose.



Now lots of people will say: "Ah, that's just a COINCIDENCE!" But you must only consider the similar noses, you must consider that if the painter knew this and wanted to emphasize this that the profile would show off the nose much better than a full face! In that way, it is quite effective as Aristotle's most striking feature is shown at best advantage. It's even clever! Because his identity as Aristotle is wholly his pointed nose and thus he is covering his face so you cannot see his face for comparison but it doesn't matter since it's his nose that is the only likely truly characteristic feature one would try to confirm/compare.

Now this is how RESEARCH is done. Now that I know this secret was handed down in secret circles, known apparently to many during the 18th century, it explains my reference entirely as well. Ancient secrets are transferred via art and literature, folklore and stories, all with hidden meaning, like Herodotus' story of a warrior with a huge beard at Marathon, a reference to placing Darius at Marathon. It's Darius' beheading at Marathon that led Xerxes to try to exterminate the Athenians. They knew this. They knew he was not coming to conquer but to kill out of revenge. So they fled and abandoned their city.

But this would be the second suggestion to me that the secret of Aristotle being the lover of Socrates was known in some circles and thus the revision in the chronology was also known, at least as far as the Greek part of the history is concerned.

The next thing is to check out the works of DAVID to see if they lean toward Freemasonry as did Da Vinci, who also hid secret messages in his artwork.

Talk with you later! This was fun!!

LG47

RED DAVE

Gobbledygook and bullshit. You promised us a secret book, which, I firmly believe, does not exist.

This thread needs to be ~E~ mailed.

RED DAVE

spin

I've just wasted effort trying to communicate with this guy on another thread, RED DAVE. Why don't I learn?


spin

3DJay

2) Greek nose: a straight line from top to bottom, if viewed from profile

Just because you find two guys attractive, isn't evidence that they're the same guy. It's just evidence that you find more than one guy attractive.


Peace