Its a crown of twelve stars showing the woman as bride with one star as the highest point being the 13th star. This is mary magdalene prophecy showing the bride. Its not mary the mother in end time stuff. Its a marriage to a princess that one star reprsenting the ONE. Mother , dauther, sister, bride. Its about marriage not about birth.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
I do not really follow. Yes, man as lingham, woman as yoni--that I get. Put the two together and you get a Magen David (Shield or Star of David). Where does the 12-13 stars come into this?
In end time prophecy the woman is human and divine , literally from the heavenly kingdom and incarnated into the human egg so the body itself is half human half angelic. The crown is a princess crown because its like an engagement until the marriage takes place. The crown has six stars on one side and six on the other side with a golden diamond in the middle. Thats the thirteenth star and the crown. Its literally about prophecy. The eutruscan mummy they found had a scroll wrapped around in in the form of bandages and is the mummy of a woman that has this prophecy on it. The mary magdalene doctrines were not about jesus being married back then but are about prophecy concerning this marriage. The 12 stars reprsent half being female showing its human but also divine and the one star showing its the ONE. Each male has a female counterpart. The question is who is each ones counterpart. So this prophecy doesnt just talk about human beings but also fallen angels because the body is human and angelic. Understand?
Its the JEHOVAH crown. That symbol the 13 is the JEHOVAH symbol. understand.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
MBS, ball is in your court. If the references are a bit much, try going to Google scholar, should be able to find most of them there, if that does not work, visit local library, I know they can get copies. They are obscure but academically important publications.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Seems we have our answer.
What was the question, you ask?
"I am horribly afraid what mojobadshah posted is (1) just very poor research or (2) another anti-Semitic rant."
And did not even bring the Nash Papyrus into play. It is a fragment with the ten commandments and the beginning of the Shema prayer dated (with very high confidence because it has been studied for over 100 years) to 200 BCE.
So add it to the 9 pre-Josephus Septuagint fragments and the about 200 pre-Josephus Qumran biblical fragments and you get 210 verifiable data points that refute mojobadshah's thesis. Since each of these items is reference in Google Scholar about 2,000 times, let us safely say there are 250,000 references (academic or published, using far less than the 2,000 hits-per-item).
THere we have it. There are 210 actual instances of written OT scriptures which pre-date Josephus and 250,000 references to that fact. MBS can believe as he will, but the fact is he is just incorrect, scientifically.
Lacking a response acknowledging his sub-par research on the topic one can infer that case (2) above is applicable.
What was the question, you ask?
"I am horribly afraid what mojobadshah posted is (1) just very poor research or (2) another anti-Semitic rant."
And did not even bring the Nash Papyrus into play. It is a fragment with the ten commandments and the beginning of the Shema prayer dated (with very high confidence because it has been studied for over 100 years) to 200 BCE.
So add it to the 9 pre-Josephus Septuagint fragments and the about 200 pre-Josephus Qumran biblical fragments and you get 210 verifiable data points that refute mojobadshah's thesis. Since each of these items is reference in Google Scholar about 2,000 times, let us safely say there are 250,000 references (academic or published, using far less than the 2,000 hits-per-item).
THere we have it. There are 210 actual instances of written OT scriptures which pre-date Josephus and 250,000 references to that fact. MBS can believe as he will, but the fact is he is just incorrect, scientifically.
Lacking a response acknowledging his sub-par research on the topic one can infer that case (2) above is applicable.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Don't taunt, radar, not everyone checks interfaith every two hours 
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
My bad. Because he was jumping on or trolling me so often, I thought he'd notice (he has been on line).
M
mojobadshah
Guest
I gave you my analysis of the facts. The bigger linguistic picture aside, the closest thing to monotheism before Zarathushtra are the Acheamenid inscriptions. The Greco-Romans make several references to at least he Behistun. The Platonic school c400 BCE at least acknowledge Zarathushtra, the father of the Magians, and the son of Ahuramazda, and that THE PERSIANS WERE FOLLOWERS OF ZOROASTER, though their interpretation of the religion is garbled. They speak of "gods," but there's consistent references to Ahuramazda in the Old Persian inscriptions as the highest of the "gods," and only mention of Ahuramazda until later. And it's obvious that the Zarathushtrian compositions or scriptures preceded the Old Persian inscriptions. First there are Zoroastrian forms in Old Persian like Ahuramazda < Mazda Ahura, and secondly there is no mention of either Persian or the Medes in the Zarathushrian scriptures which also supports that they were attested before the Persians and Medes had come to power. When does anyone other than the Jews themselves make reference to Jewish anomalies other than 1. David 2. Ahab 3. Yahweh 4. Israel before Josephus? And actually describe who Yahweh was?
I'm saying for all we know he could have been because we don't have any other references to any of the phenomenon mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (aside from the aforesaid names a brief details) until Josephus.
I've corresponded with Bob X. He's a great linguist. But he has put way too much weight on the archaisms in language as a means to attribute an early date to language. For example he states:
"More objectively, P is distinguished from J and E by serious changes in the language: where J and E differ linguistically in a way typical of regional dialectal differences, P reflects centuries of subsequent change."
For all we know those were different dialects of Hebrew being spoken all at the same time.
He also states however:
"The Chaldeans introduced the seven-day week: prior to that time, a week was a quarter-phase of the moon, usually seven days but sometimes eight as required."
I think this is an interesting point, but the calendrical system alluded to in Genesis points to a post-Acheamenid period. The calendrical system in Genesis was based developed by the Chaldaeans and so were the Calendars used by the Acheamenids. What is also interesting is that if you are going to use calendrical systems as a means to date a composition, well, the Zarathushtrian scriptures also allude to a calendrical system, but it was based on the quarter-phase week. That points to a pre-Acheamenid date. If the calendar in Zarathushtrian scriptures was post-Acheamenid it would have resembled the calendars that were in use among the Acheamenids.
Are you talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Those aren't references to the Septuagint. Those are fragments of the Hebrew Bible themselves.
Thanks. I wasn't aware that it was possible to radio-carbon date ink. It was my understanding that there is no chemical process to date a text. It's the first time I've heard of anything like it. But the link concerning the radio carbon dating of ink "THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS SCIENCE AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES," from what it only allows me to see places the scrolls much later than 300BCE earliest or 167BCE and 233CE latest. The late date is over 100 years after Josephus.
No the same can't be said of the Old Testament. We only know of 4 references (above) to Old Testament material before Josephus. And nothing to show a monotheistic belief system. The rest of the details might have well been made up during or after Josephus. UNLESS we take the earlier date for radio carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls into account.
What the Dead Sea scrolls which may have been attested as late as 233CE or the Septuagint itself that no one makes reference to until Josephus 75CE?
Originally Posted by radarmark
If your grandeous "Aryan Bible" theory is really only founded upon a few faint scribbings of some ancient empire that has returned to the sands, or the writings of the Greeks (who never ever, as I have pointed out, and you have yet to refute, considered Zarathustra any kind of monotheist) and my "Old Testament" theoiry upon the vast corpus of the Qumran find, which should I choose? Why not both?
No, but they mentioned Zarathushtra and show that the Persians were followers of Zarathushtra. Plutarch 100-200 mentions both Ahuramazda and his rival Ahriman. Still a bit garbled, but you're not going to understand how the religion of Zarathushtra was monotheistic unless you read it in it's pure or native form.
What I'm saying is that the Avesta shows clear signs of monotheism. The Greeks do make the Zarathushtrian religion out to be polytheistic. But that is clearly not the case. The Acheamenid inscriptions alone make a way better case for monotheism than every version of the Hebrew Bible. It's not until the Jews begin mentioning the Persians that their mythology does start appearing monotheistic.
And my point is that I think it's a joke that you're even calling it a history. The way I see it Judeo-Christians, and scholars have used 5 historical references (1. the name David and nothing more 2. Ahab and a battle waged, nothing more 3. the name Yahweh, and nothing more 4. the name Isreal, and battle waged) to prop up a mythology and coheres people into thinking there is some authenticity to it. It's so delusional.
I am being fair. I'm using the historical method for both the Aryan Bible and the Hebrew Bible. And no one is stopping you from making your points either.
I don't appreciate that comment. I'm not anti-Semitic. I'm just not a kiss-ass. As a matter of fact I battle anti-Semitism indirectly everytime I try to get it through to the people in this part of the world that the Irano-Afghans are the "most just" Aryans, not for example, the KKK or Aryan Nation, or any other neo-nazi and fascist organization and hate group.
I told you that a fragment in itself is not secondary source. That could have been written anytime or did they use radio-carbon dating here too. And lastly its just a fragment. That's hardly proof that everything in the Hebrew Bible had been composed when it was composed.
I don't understand how you're dating these fragments? Radio carbon dating ink I can believe, but is that what they did? That's nice that they were written, but nobody ever mentions them. They could have been written at anytime.
WHAT 250,000 REFERENCES? Like in Greco-Roman literature? After Josephus? What are you talking about? Judeo-Christianity didn't even thrive in the west until 300CE when Constantine made the religion official.
Howcome I've never hear about how they've been radio-carbon dated then? All I ever see is that they've been dated through extralinguistic or paleolinguistic methods. That is the standard. The earliest New Testament dates back to 250CE. The earliest reference to the New Testament is 1st or 2nd Clement. These are sources that can be corroborated. No one ever speaks of the Jews as completely as Josephus does until Josephus.
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Mojo, if you're interested in history you should find out more about dating. Carbon dating just one of many ways and is actually not used primarily in some cases. If you didn't know, carbon dating can be used on anything with carbon in it, and there's carbon in all organic material which has been used for a great many thing throughout civilization.
Thought you might be interested in these from the dead sea scrolls by the prophet Isaiah written over 2500 years ago, the scrolls are over 2000 years old and if they were copies then the jews must have had a bible of their own.
Chapter 15 : Verse 1
The burden of Moab. For in the night that Ar of Moab is laid waste, he is brought to ruin; for in the night that Kir of Moab is laid waste, he is brought to ruin.
Chapter 15 : Verse 2
He is gone up to Baith, and to Dibon, to the high places, to weep; upon Nebo, and upon Medeba, Moab howleth; on all their heads is baldness, every beard is shaven.
Chapter 15 : Verse 3
In their streets they gird themselves with sackcloth; on their housetops, and in their broad places, every one howleth, weeping profusely.
Chapter 15 : Verse 4
And Heshbon crieth out, and Elealeh; their voice is heard even unto Jahaz; therefore the armed men of Moab cry aloud; his soul is faint within him.
------------------------------------------------
English translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll
(Masoretic Version) learn more
Chapter 15 : Verse 1
The burden of Moab. For in the night that Ar of Moab is laid waste, he is brought to ruin; for in the night that Kir of Moab is laid waste, he is brought to ruin.
Chapter 15 : Verse 2
He is gone up to Baith, and to Dibon, to the high places, to weep; upon Nebo, and upon Medeba, Moab howleth; on all their heads is baldness, every beard is shaven.
Chapter 15 : Verse 3
In their streets they gird themselves with sackcloth; on their housetops, and in their broad places, every one howleth, weeping profusely.
Chapter 15 : Verse 4
And Heshbon crieth out, and Elealeh; their voice is heard even unto Jahaz; therefore the armed men of Moab cry aloud; his soul is faint within him.
------------------------------------------------
English translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll
(Masoretic Version) learn more
M
mojobadshah
Guest
I'm aware that radio-carbon dating is used for archeology. As you say yourself it can only be used to date ORGANIC material e.g. bones, plants. That means that archeologists can estimate when a pot, for example, was crafted by radio-carbon dating all the bones at the site where the pot was found. But they can't radio-carbon date the pot itself. So apparently ink has carbon in it. This site shows that the earliest scrolls could have been written as late as 203BCE (Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Another site shows all the scrolls could have been written as late as 68CE (Radiocarbon Dating of Dead Sea Scrolls Confirm Paleographic Dates). The first link shows Pslams was written as late as 126CE.... after Josephus. These in my opinion are the best examples scholars have of a near to complete Hebrew Bible other than Josephus's references to the material in the Hebrew Bible.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
See my reply (if you are interested) at New Beginning Posts #27-#29