Gamera

Ironically they are the same hoops by which we reconcile Tacitus, Herodotus, Thucydides and any other "historian" from antiquity with reality. All have an agenda and all use fabulous elements to understand events.

As the biblical flaws, I agree. The Hebrew and Christian texts get some historical facts wrong, just like Tacitus et al do.

There is no categorical difference.

Larsguy47

I don't want to produce the evidence. I found the reference in a book and then matched the dating! The eclipse of 402BCE redates the PPW beginning in 403BCE. Socrates was 32 years old when the war began so must have been born in 435BCE. Phaedo was 18-19 when Socrates died. If Socrates died at 69 or 70 then it means Phaedo would have been born in 384BCE, the same year Aristotle was born. Interesting.

But a coincidence? Maybe. Well if the two knew each other one would think something would have survived to support that. For instance, did Aristotle ever mention him and if so, is there something in the context of those quotes that would confirm they were lovers? Aristotles mentions Socrates over 80 times in his works!! And guess what, you can tell by the reference that he presumed his readers knew Socrates. So Socrates was definitely a contemporary of Plato. Further it is clear Aristotle was still very much in love with Socrates.

But fare more interesting than that, if I found this in a book, it means it's a deep dark secret in some scholarly circles; somebody already knows about this or has heard the rumor they knew each other and were lovers.

Further, don't you think that Socrates, who allegedly (but didn't) was the teacher of Plato that if he personally took a lover and mentored him that he would have amounted to something? Compare that with what the substitute "Phaedo" character became compared to Aristotle!

Furthermore, Xenophon, Aristotle and Plato become prominent historical icons, but if they destroyed everybody else's work, leaving only their own preserved, that was inevitable! The only Greek historian's work that survives in toto is one: Xenophon!

The only question is, did Xenophon know any Persians and was he in any way focussed on Persian history? Answer: Yes! He wrote Cyropaedia, about the life of Cyrus.

Now, Dave, here's where being a little smart, not so smart or really smart comes in. Why are the most two prominent Greek historians, Herodotus and Xenophon, so focussed on PERSIAN HISTORY?

It's because if you have to CHANGE history, you have to publish a new version of history. You can't merely destroy the records. Since the Persians were the ones changing their history, Persian history becomes the focus.

Thus Plato, Aristotle and Xenophon became famous in later times because they manipulated history. Socrates servives because Plato and Xenophon wanted his "dialogues" preserved. But his actual history had to be chucked since he likely mentioned too many historical characters known to be related to later times.

Into this context we put "The Delian Problem" where Plato is consulted to help out with the Peloponnesian War. You see, you can't change folklore that easily and this was a popular story. They mention Plato and 431BCE in the same text and don't realize Plato wasn't born yet!!!

And yet you come here, proposing to resolve this! Did you write the encyclopeadia to tell them they have the wrong Plato?

Oh, I forgot, your EXCUSE and your own acceptance of that explanation has "refuted" everything else.

So, no, I'm not giving up all my sources and therefore I can't blame you for not accepting this as fact. But I don't need you too, it can remain a "possibility". It's only a detail I happen to know about that you'd have to investigate anyway (not the love affair but Aristotle being alive while Socrates was) once you correct the chronology.

When it comes to revisionism, the closest you get sometimes is just the suspicion and "loose ends", like the Delian Problem. But that's all you need to dismiss the history as potentially revised.

So as I said, you can't prove Aristotle and Socrates were not lovers or that Xenophon wasn't paid by the Persians to revise Greek history. You can't. You can't PROVE that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were two different kings. You can't.

I can prove they were by the Bible's reference though. Even so, if I gave you my reference for Socrates and Aristotle being lovers, you still might not accept it and claim it is unfounded like some people do with the gospels! So why should I give it to you?

It's far more tantilizing to just tell you I didn't make it up but found it in an old book I happen see in a dustry old used book store in San Pedro.

You want PROOF before you believe, do you DAVE? It doesn't work that way. There's a videotape of Socrates and Aristotle having sex but the person who has it wants too much money for it, otherwise, I'd buy it and send you caopy so you'd "believe". Oh wait, then you'd claim it wasn't real, it was fake because they didn't have video back then! SEE! I can't please you, Dave! It's impossible. :huh:

LG47

Larsguy47

Speaking of Parisian Wars, have you seen the recent movie hit "300"? It's about Xerxes at the beginning of his invasion of Greece. Great movie, great effects! But you can see what they thought Persian "fashion" was.

Interesting how they depict Xerxes, as someone wanting worship. But all Xerxes wanted was revenge from the Athenians for killing his father. That was his motivation. He wasn't interested in conquering the Greeks. Sparta got dragged into this because the Athenians convinced them that if they didn't help them out Persia would cause a problem for the whole region, and even though they had their own local differences, they as the racist group of Greeks that they were, certainly had the common cause to oppose the racially inferior "barbarian".

What the movie leaves out though, is that Xerxes burned king Leoidis on pyre once he was captured. It survives in some Greek pottery. The historians turned it around and depict Cyrus as burning Croesus on a pyre.

So that's a little hint. Don't overlook the "history" that comes down to us through Greek pottery and other works of art!

Or HOW SMART ARE YOU?

Look at this DARIC:



Notice how Darius is running on this coin, the position of the legs.

Now notice Artemis depicted on her temple at Corfu:



Artemis temple, Corfu

Notice the running stance.

Notice also this is MEDUSA. In Greek times, the Persians were not known as the "Persians" as much as they were called "the MEDE."

No connect MEDE with MEDUSA. Compare the representation.

Are they connected?

No? Just a coincidence?

And you see that figure sitting down on the left? A king on a throne? Don't you think it resembles Darius sitting on his throne? See how both figures are holding up a staff? Is this a depiction of DARIUS? and MEDUSA a symbol of the evil of the MEDES? Is this temple commorating the Greek pride in the fact that they killed the great king of Persia, Darius? In fact, beheaded him? That's the story of MEDUSA, you know, how Pericles beheads Medusa. Coincidence? or Connection?




So you see, some things are not apparent unless you can see them from square #9. But some people don't let themselves get past square #5.

Dave, you're going to need more blinders, obviously.



LG47

Weltall

This would be the book you're afraid to reveal the title of, lest the Men in Black swoop in to cover up the evidence? Yeah, 'some thing wot I read in a book' isn't evidence until you can produce the book and you can demonstrate that what's in the book is valid. I can find you dozens of books that insist that all human society has its roots in Atlantis and they even have photographs showing where the lost continent was. So, are you ready to embrace Atlanticism yet?
Check your history books and try to recall what major events were going on at the time they were writing. Now try and think if these current events might, just might have prompted writers to focus on Persia.
I think you're confusing 1984 with fact.
How many times must we point out that the source you're relying on here isn't trustworthy?Speculation of adverse consequences for providing the evidence is no excuse for not providing the evidence. I claim that you have no evidence and are just making shit up. Feel free to prove me all the other naysayers wrong by providing this book of yours. We still may not agree with your conclusion but at least we'll know you weren't lying about having a book.

FatherMithras

Can anyone else tell this is the work of (at best) a recent high school graduate? I mean honestly, when someone doesn't even understand the burden of proof, how can you argue with them? Especially when they keep bringing up refuted talking points... My favorite bit.

Which is why you have to accept that Jesus and Peter were gay lovers. If not why would Peter be "the rock"? Clearly, Jesus was referring to gay sex, since the Church is the Bride, and will be on his "rock". You can't prove this isn't true.

Julian

[MOD]
Remember to attack the argument and not the poster. Ad Hominem attacks are not allowed whereas attacks on the substance of the posts are encouraged. Make sure to read your posts before you submit them and make certain that they impugn the writing of a poster and not the person behind them regardless of how you may feel.

Julian
Moderator BC&H
[/MOD]

3DJay

Thucydides, Book IV:

1. That 7th year (ending in the spring) equates to 425-424 BCE, a standard year of death, given for Artaxerxes (reigned: 465 - 424 BCE).

2. Your source calls him the son of Xerxes.

Book I:

4. "Fifty years elapsed between the retreat of Xerxes and the beginning of the war". Thucydides' year one, of the war, is said to be 431 BCE. The year given for Xerxes retreat, is 480 BCE, so 50 years, fits just fine.

Darius I the Great (522-486)
Xerxes I (486-465)
Artaxerxes I Makrocheir (465-424)

What's the problem?


Peace

-Jay-

floc·ci·nau·ci·ni·hil·i·pil·i·fi·ca·tio n

Rare. the estimation of something as valueless (encountered mainly as an example of one of the longest words in the English language).

"floccinaucinihilipilification." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 06 Apr. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/floccinaucinihilipilification>.

:notworthy:

v/r
NinJay

Weltall

That was a real word?!

-Jay-

You betcha. If nothing else, this place is great for vocabulary building!

v/r

NinJay