aa5874

You seem not to understand the rational of people of antiquity.

Do you not see that it is documented for hundreds of years in the Canon of the Jesus cult that Jesus was born AFTER his mother was made pregnant by the Holy Ghost? See Matthew 1 and Luke 1

Do you not see that it is documented for hundreds of years in the Canon that the Holy Ghost entered Jesus when he was baptized by John? See Mark 1

Do you see that it is documented for hundreds of years in the Canon that Jesus came to Baptize people with a Holy Ghost?? See Mark 1

The rational of people of antiquity is that the Holy Ghost was one of the significant figure of history.

Mark 3:29 NIV We must first understand the RATIONAL of people of antiquity.

The Holy Ghost is the most significant figure of history in the rational of people of antiquity of the Jesus cult of Christians.

It was people from antiquity who accepted Acts of the Apostles where it is documented that the Promised Holy Ghost--Not Jesus--- gave the disciples the POWER to start the Jesus cult.

Acts 2

Sheshbazzar

The Hebrew word translated as 'GOD' is 'ELOHIM', and is also applied to men who are regarded as powerful religious leaders or accounted authoritative 'judges' (authorities) (ELOHIM= 'judges' in Ex 21:6, 22:8-9, 1 Sam 2:25)

If one accepts that 'Jesus' was a powerful religious leader, holding authority to judge, then he was 'ha ELOHIM', but being recognized as 'ha ELOHIM' in itself does not entail that he was 'GOD',
as the word/TITLE 'ha ELOHIM' has more than the single sense of 'god' in Hebrew.

So he could rightly be accounted as being 'ha' ELOHIM' ('The ELOHIM'= 'The Judge' or Authority) while at the same time not be 'THE ELOHIM' ('THE GOD')

Actually a somewhat moot point to me as I do not believe that there ever was any 'Jesus' of Nazareth'.

ralfellis

That is what I said.

So the Holy Ghost must be a Holy Dildo. So can you still get one at a chemist?


.

outhouse

Manetho was using the OT as a source, and writing almost 900 years after displaced Canaanites factually evolved into Israelites.



Show sources that Egyptologist follow a Hyksos exodus, because there is ZERO evidence connected with Israelites.

ralfellis

Actually, the Aramaic Eli became the Greek Helios, which obviously refers to the Sun-god. So Eli was a Sun-god. But Eli (Elah) also became Elohim which is the plural of Eli. So the Jewish single monotheistic god-figure is actually a dualist pair.

Why? Because of the Egyptian original.

The right eye of Horus was Ar, the Sun, which became Al or El on transliteration to Aramaic, and Helios in the Greek.
The left eye of Horus was Ah, the Moon.

Thus the two eyes of Horus (the Sun and Moon) were called Allah or Elah. And because this was a duality, a plural, it became Elohim.


So the Israelite god was an Egyptian dualist combination of stellar-gods, which is why the Jews banned people from spelling god's name. This was a religio-political hot potato, and they did not want people to discover the truth.


But in the Arabic they still call these dualist Sun and Moon gods Allah, which is why symbol of Islam is the Moon and the Sun combined. So Islam still overtly venerates the two eyes of Horus, and demonstrate that reality through their symbolism.






.

ralfellis

But Manetho was writing some 2,300 years before us, which means he probably had access to material we do not. Texts like the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, for instance, which has details of Ahmose I attacking Hyksos towns.


Perhaps you need to read Donald Redford's Hyksos in History. It does not appear to be online, unfortunately, but this book quotes from it:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=noKI...exodus&f=false



And of course Josephus Flavius agreed with Manetho, when he said that the Hyksos and the Israelites were the same people. And yet this is unusual. Why would Josephus agree to this, if it were not true. It seems like an unusual history for the Israelites, if one only looks from the modern Orthodox Jewish perspective:

Quote:
Josephus identified the Hyksos as the patriarchal Jews, equating their appearance in Egypt with the Joseph story in Genesis and their subsequent expulsion with the biblical tale of Exodus.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...9_0_09361.html


.

outhouse

Redford has been furthered by Finklestein and he has the real answers here.



Manetho was using the OT. It is ludicrous to think ancient man using the OT as a source knew more then modern man who has not only compiled all sources, but has cultural anthropology to back them up as well.


Not only that your wrong and keep dodging the fact that Israelites FACTUALLY evolved from displaced Canaanites. From 1200 -1000 BC there is no difference in the pottery of Israelites and Canaanites and the houses and settlements are identical.

There is ZERO evidence for Hyksos in Israel



Much of archeology has proven Manetho's work to fictitious, and he is not a reliable source.

ralfellis

That, is nonsense. The whole point about Manetho's account, is that although it is complimentary it is substantially different to the biblical one.

For instance, Manetho clearly has two Exoduses, and not one (which is correct). Manetho's account of the second Exodus is also clearly based upon the Amarna regime of Akhenaton - its construction and its demise.

And yes, while the biblical Exodus account is also partly based in part on the establishment Amarna (the making of bricks for pharaoh, and the midwives killing all the boys (of Akhenaton) etc, it is also clear that these are two separate versions of these events.







That again is nonsense. The Israelite four-room house is quite obviously based upon the Hyksos four-room construction. Check out Manfred Bietak's excavations.


The four-room house. The top two are from Israel, the bottom two are Hyksos constructions from Avaris.







.

spin

The ralfellis blather machine is back at work. After having been shown that the mangling of the 21st dynasty to force David into it was complete piffle, now it's back with more utter garbage. Take the claim about the side lock. The Egyptian side lock was ever only one. ralfellis is unable to demonstrate that ancient Hebrews used a side lock, but he is able to show modern photographs showing curly side locks on each side of the face, totally unlike the Egyptian situation, but hey one side lock or two doesn't matter to the blather machine.

Then we get another nutty equation: "the Aramaic Eli became the Greek Helios". What utter rot. "Helios" is Indo-European as a little investigation will demonstrate. "Eli" simply means "my god" from the Hebrew, but we know El is well established in Semitic culture from Ugarit. Even more significant, the name is found at Ebla c.2300 BCE. Crash goes another ralfellis fantasy.

Shit, he churns them out with such diarrheic excess.

Another: "Eli (Elah) also became Elohim which is the plural of Eli." I've already indicated that Eli actually means "my god", so obviously Elohim certainly isn't "the plural of Eli." The blather machine is running hot.

And "The right eye of Horus was Ar"? "Ar"? Really? Or are we dealing with another ralfellis mangling to make things look more like his theories?

How about this crap: "So the Israelite god was an Egyptian dualist combination of stellar-gods, which is why the Jews banned people from spelling god's name." Great concoction of nonsense. The Jews banned people from spelling god's name?? There is certainly evidence that the pronouncing of the name was discouraged. But ralfellis has the blather machine turned up spewing nonsense claims like a dualist combination of stellar-gods. You wonder how he could produce such drivel without any tinge of guilt.

As to ralfellis's inability to understand history, he is happy to quote Manetho, Strabo and Josephus, all writing well over 1000 years after the fact, as significant sources. History is too hard for ralfellis's theories.

And the four-room houses, did it ever dawn to ralfellis to ask why it was that the examples from Avaris feature an entry door into the transverse room, whereas those from Israel feature the door in the central of the three long rooms? Nah, just as long as they looked vaguely similar.

The blather machine chugs on, asserting what needs to be shown.

Another poster totally without understanding of scholarly methodology. This sort of nonsense must stop. Moderators?

ralfellis

.



Quote:
Elohim has been explained as a plural form of Eloah or as plural derivative of El.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05393a.htm

(And sometimes Elohim is written with a plural verb and noun, proving that it was originally a true plural.)



Quote:
The most common of the originally appellative names of God is Elohim, plural in form though commonly construed with a singular verb or adjective.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...5-names-of-god



And just in case the obvious needs pointing out to you, the Israelites and the United Monarchy worshipped many gods, which is why Elohim was originally a plural (it referred to Judaism's polytheistic past). However, Pharaoh Akhenaton founded monotheism in the 14th century BC, and ever since there has been an ongoing theological battle between polytheism and monotheism. That battle goes on today, with Orthodox Judaism still denying the obvious - that Elohim was originally the plural of El.



BDB Aramaic dictionary:

Elohiym El-o-heem'

plural of El

KJV - God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2, angels 1, exceeding 1, God-ward + 04136 1, godly 1; 2606

1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods


.