FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
History: Fiction or Science?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PETRARCH : The creator of the "Dark Ages" myth can't find any "ancient" buildings when visiting Rome


Even wikipedia describes Petrarch (1304-1374) as a poet who creates the concept of The Dark Ages.
Quote:
Disdaining what he believed to be the ignorance of the centuries preceding the era in which he lived, Petrarch is credited with creating the concept of a historical "Dark Ages"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrarch


This is HILARIOUS. Petrarch visits Rome,Italy for the first time in 1337, fully expecting to see signs of an ancient city...but he can't finy any old or great buildings like the one's he's read about so much. So he's reduced to describing how great the "ruins" are. Most likely, the "great city" in the books Petrarch read were referring not to the Rome in Italy, but instead to "Rome on the Bosporus," a.k.a. Constantinople.


EXCERPTS from Chapter 7, pp. 410-411
Quote:
According to our reconstruction, in the early XIV
century the small Italian town of Rome was officially
decreed (on paper!) to be the capital of "the Great
Ancient Rome." To this end, the events which had re-
ally occurred in a completely different Rome - the
Rome on Bosporus, the City of the Czars, Constan-
tinople, a truly great city of the Middle Ages - were
transferred to the Italian Rome (again, only formally,
on paper). A large part of Constantinople's history
was severed and attributed to the Italian Rome. In-
terestingly enough, we are in a position to give a more
or less precise assessment of when this "surgical trans-
plantation of history" really took place. Let us turn
to the XIV century history.

....

In 1337 he visited the Italian Rome for the first time
( [ 644] , page 59). What did he see there? Petrarch writes
(if these are indeed his real letters, and not the result
of subsequent editing), "Rome seemed even greater to
me than I could have imagined - especially the great-
ness of her ruins" ( [ 644] ). Rome in particular and XIV
century Italy in general had met Petrarch with an utter
chaos of legends, from which the poet had selected the
ones he considered to fit his a priori opinion of "the
greatness of Italian Rome:' Apparently, Petrarch had
been among those who initiated the legend of "the
great ancient Italian Rome" without any solid basis.
A
significant amount of real mediaeval evidence of the
correct history of Italy in the Middle Ages was rejected
as "erroneous:' It would be of the utmost interest to
study these "mediaeval anachronisms" considered pre-
posterous nowadays, if only briefly.

According to mediaeval legends, "Anthenor's
sepulchre" was located in Padua ( [ 644] ). In Milan, the
statue of Hercules was worshipped. The inhabitants
of Pisa claimed their town to have been founded by
Pelopsus. The Venetians claimed Venice to have been
built of the stones of the destroyed Troy! Achilles was
supposed to have ruled in Abruzza, Diomedes in
Apulia, Agamemnon in Sicily, Euandres in Piemont,
Hercules in Calabria. Apollo was rumoured to have
been an astrologer, the devil, and the god of the Sara-
cens! Plato was considered to have been a doctor, Ci-
cero a knight and a troubadour, Virgil a mage who
blocked the crater of the Vesuvius, etc.


All of this is supposed to have taken place in the
XIV century or even later! This chaos of information
obviously irritated Petrarch, who had come to Rome
already having an a priori concept of the "antiquity"
of the Italian Rome. It is noteworthy that Petrarch left
us no proof of the "antiquity of Rome" that he pos-
tulates.
On the contrary, his letters - if they are in-
deed his real letters, and not later edited copies - paint
an altogether different picture. Roughly speaking, it
is as follows: Petrarch is convinced that there should
be many "great buildings of ancient times" in Rome.
He really finds none of those. He is confused and writes
this about it:

"Where are the thermae of Diocletian and Caracal-
Ius? Where is the Timbrium of Marius, the Septizon-
ium and the thermae of Severus? Where is the forum
of Augustus and the temple of Mars the Avenger?
Where are the holy places of Jupiter the Thunder- Bear-
er on the Capitol and Apollo on the Palatine? Where
is the portico of Apollo and the basilica of Caius and
Lucius, where is the portico of Libya and the theatre
of Marcellus? Where are the temple of Hercules and the
Muses built by Marius Philip, and the temple of Diana
built by Lucius Cornifacius? Where is the temple of
the Free Arts of Avinius Pollio, where is the theatre of
Balbus, the Amphitheatre of Statilius Taurus? Where are
the numerous constructions erected by Agrippa, of
which only the Pantheon remains? Where are the splen-
dorous palaces of the emperors? One finds everything
in the books; when one tries to find them in the city, one
discovers that they either disappeared [sic!] or that only
the vaguest of their traces remain
".
([ 644 ] )




Maybe not relevant, but the wiki says Petrarch's son died of bubon-tasia while in his early-to-mid 20s, and the family fled the plague the year after. So, the family survived, but the strapping lad in his prime died. (Maybe he died of too much...Christianity?)...ALSO, Petrarch's CAREER IN THE CHURCH MADE HIM UNABLE TO MARRY, BUT HE HAD TWO KIDS ANYWAY.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrarch
The later part of his life he spent in journeying through northern Italy as an international scholar and poet-diplomat. Petrarch's career in the Church did not allow him to marry, but he did father two children by a woman or women unknown to posterity. A son, Giovanni, was born in Avignon[citation needed] in 1337, and a daughter, Francesca, was born in Vaucluse[citation needed] in 1343.

Giovanni died of the plague in 1361. Francesca married Francescuolo da Brossano (who was later named executor of Petrarch's testament) that same year. In 1362, shortly after the birth of a daughter, Eletta, they joined Petrarch in Venice, to flee the plague then ravaging parts of Europe. A second grandchild, Francesco, was born in 1366, but died before his second birthday. Francesco and her family lived with Petrarch in Venice for five years from 1362 - 1367 at Palazzo Molina; although Petrarch continued to travel in those years

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Banta



Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 81

PostPosted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, maybe Petrarch said "If history does not exist, I will create it with my barehands"?

I've just gotten caught up on this thread and this is really fascinating stuff. As many have noted, at the very least, it presents real problems with the current chronology (an idea I've always been pretty fond of) and shows how one story arc of history can become everyone's if properly applied.

It's sort of scary, but it makes sense, because if you look around today, what do you see?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Banta wrote:
So, maybe Petrarch said "If history does not exist, I will create it with my barehands"?


He also gained financially & probably politically from his shenanigans.

Quote:
Chronology 1, Chapter 7, Excerpts from pp. 412-413

He searched for statues, collected Roman
medals, and tried to recreate the topography of Rome.
Most of Petrarch's energy was however directed at
finding and commenting on the oeuvres of the "an-
cient" authors.
.....
One also has to emphasize that
Petrarch didn't specifically occupy him-
self with the dating of the texts he found. He was
looking for the "works of the ancients" - apparently
without questioning whether they preceded him by
a hundred years, two hundred, or a thousand.

.....
With the growth of his income, Petrarch founded a
special workshop with scribes and secretaries, which he
often mentions in his letters.Everyone knew about his
infatuation with collecting old books. He mentions it
in every letter he writes to his every friend. "If you re-
ally value me, do as I tell you: find educated and trust-
worthy people, and let them rake through the bookcases
of every scientist there is, clerical as well as secular"

([644]). He pays for the findings bounteously.
And they
keep coming to him from all directions. He makes some
important discoveries himself -- thus, in the alleged year
of 1333 he finds two previously unknown speeches of
Cicero's in Liege, and in 1334, Cicero's letters to Atticus,
Quintus and Brutus in Verona ([927], [644]). Let us re-
mind the reader that according to the mediaeval leg-
ends, Cicero was a knight and a troubadou1; q.v. above.
.....
R. L Chlodowsky wrote that:
"Petrarch proved a naturally born philologist. He
had been the first to study the oeuvres of the ancient
Roman poets, comparing different copies and using
data provided by the neighbouring historical sci-
ences. .. It had been Petrarch the philologer who had
destroyed the mediaeval legend of Virgil the mage and
sorcerer, and accused the author of the Aeneid of a
number of anachronisms; he had deprived Seneca of
several works that were ascribed to him in the Middle
Ages, and proved the apocryphal character of Caesar's
and Nero's letters, which had a great political meaning
in the middle of the XIV century since it gave author-
ity to the Empire's claims for Austria
."

([927], pp. 88-89).

This is where the really important motives become
clear to us - the ones that Petrarch may have been
truly guided by in his "archaeological endeavours."
These motives were political, as we have just explained.
We have ourselves been witness to countless examples
in contemporary history when "science" was used as
basis for one political claim or another. This makes
chronology largely irrelevant. However, today when
the characters of that epoch have long left the stage,
we must return to the issue of just how "preposterous"
the letters of Caesar and Nero were, and what was
"wrong" in the mediaeval legends of Virgil.
The poet's attitude to the ancient documents was
far from critical analysis. Petrarch's declarations of
"antiquity" may have been made for meeting the con-
ditions of some political order of the Reformation
epoch in Western Europe (the XVI-XVII century).
The order had been made to create a dichotomy be-
tween "barbaric contemporaneity" and "beauteous
antiquity."
See CHRON6 for details. At any rate, one
clearly sees that either Petrarch or someone else act-
ing on his behalf was creating the mythical world of
antiquity without bothering about the exact epoch
when Cicero's speeches were written, and whether it
had preceded that of Petrach by 200 years, or 1400.
It is possible that all of this activity really took place
in the XVI - XV!I century and not the XIV, during the
Reformation in the Western Europe) and had archly
been shifted into the XIV century and ascribed to
Petrarch so that it would gain the «authority of an-
tiquity." The reality of the XVI-XVII century, which
Petrarch cites as the antithesis of "ancient civiliza-
tion:' was later baptized "feudal barbarism."

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:35 am    Post subject: Crusades & Enclosure Reply with quote

So, about the establishment of "private property" throughout history: I got a sinking feeling after I read a short description on the "secular" part of the Crusades...it sounds a lot like IMPERIALISM.

And then the part about noblemen being given inheritable rights to lands they couldn't quite conquer yet reminded me of the ENCLOSURE phenomenom...which was also a MEDIEVAL jacking. (I'm including part of the wiki on Enclosure after the Fomenko excerpt.)


Quote:
Chronology 1, Chapter 7, from p.422

5.2. Greece and the Crusades

Crusades have not just been great religious and
military endeavours - they have also had stupendous
secular importance. The "Latin crusade;' for instance,
was initiated not just by Innocent III, but also by the
Europeans who possessed great secular power as well
- including the French, the Belgians and the Ger-
mans
([ 195]). Among the initiators were such names
as Count Baldwin of Flandres, Geoffrey ofVillehar-
clanin, Marshal of Champagne, Count Hugues de
Saint Paul, Louis de Blois and many others
. All of
them have been the top ranking members of Euro-
pean aristocracy ( [ 195] , page 129). The crusades were
transformed utterly - from a holy endeavour into
one of the most secular events of the Middle Ages.
The crusades created a mosaic of feudal states in
the territory of Greece.
The role of the mediaeval La-
tin states in Greece is usually assessed as largely neg-
ative in the Scaligerian history ([ 195] ). On the one
hand, it is considered that the barbaric and ignorant
conquerors buried the great "ancient" legacy of Greece.
On the other hand, the same F. Gregorovius who had
just accused the crusaders of barbarism, makes the
sudden statement that «it is to the Latins that it [Greece
- A. F.] owes the discovery of contemporary history
- which) however, turned out almost just as farragi-
nous as that of antiquity" ([195], page 138).

Since the Republic of St. Mark, for instance, proved
unable to take possession of the entirety of the Greek
lands, it offered them to its noblemen to divide be-
tween themselves as inheritable fiefs ([ 195] , page 150).
These events may have reflected in Russian history as
the difficulties encountered by the imperial admin-
istration
during the divide of the vast lands of Nov-
gorod and the trophies brought back by the Russian
army in the XV century under Ivan III The Terrible.
See more about this in CHRON6.

"The Venetian noblemen have longed for adven-
ture, and set forth to sail the Greek seas fancying
themselves as the Argonauts of the XIII century"
([195], page 150). These mediaeval journeys may have
provided the basis for the subsequent "Classical
Greek" Argonaut myth poetized by the "ancient" blind
Homer. This is the conclusion that one comes to after
a study of the global chronological map of chrono-
logical shifts, q.v. above.


Quote:
Excerpts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

The plague and population change

From 1347-52, plague (mainly the 'Black Death') devastated European society, initially killing 25 million people—a third of the total population. Labor shortages led to depression and revolts as peasants demanded higher wages but were denied them. Smaller outbreaks of plague continued until 1600 or so—in 1556-60 a bout of plague reduced the English population by 6%—but in the late fifteenth-sixteenth centuries there was an immense overall population increase. By 1500, England had recovered from plague deaths so that the population was about 5 million again, as it was in 1300. By 1700 England's population reached 9 million. From 1500 to 1600, the City of London grew 400% to a high of about 200,000 people.


The Great Debasement

Following population change, The Great Debasement of the 1540s was probably the largest cause of enclosure. When Henry VIII arrived on the throne in 1509, the royal finances were in superb shape thanks to the miserly attitude of his father Henry VII. This soon changed, however, as Henry VIII doubled household expenditure and started costly wars against both France and Scotland. With his wealth rapidly decreasing, Henry VIII imposed a series of taxes devised by his finance minister, Thomas Wolsey. Soon the population began to tire of Wolsey's taxes and a new means of finance had to be found. In 1544, Henry came up with a new answer. He reduced the silver in minted coins by about 50%; this was repeated to a lesser extent the following year. This, combined with injection of bullion from the New World, increased the money supply within England. The increase in money supply lead to inflationary pressure on prices, therefore causing a long term inflation crisis, resulting in enclosures. Enclosures followed because the landowners' wealth was under threat, which forced the landowners into becoming more efficient.

The debasement was not seen as a cause of inflation (and therefore enclosures) until Somerset's reign as Protector of Edward VI. Up to this point enclosures were seen as the cause of inflation, not the outcome. When Thomas Smith tried to advise Edward Seymour (The 1st Duke of Somerset) on his response to enclosure (that it was result of inflation not a cause), he was only ignored. It took till John Dudley (The 1st Duke of Northumberland)'s time as Protector for his finance minister William Cecil to realize and act on debasement to stop enclosure. [citation needed]


Poverty

About 50% of the European population was too poor to pay taxes. The laboring poor comprised two-thirds of urban populations. By the sixteenth century, poverty had reached such an acute level (60-80%) that traditional charities could no longer cope and new responses were called for. Throughout the Renaissance, it fell to the churches—Protestant and Catholic—to provide for the care of the poor, of which there were very, very many. English censuses of the poor usually show rates of poverty at about 20%. From 1630-1750 there was a general depression and radical economic change: 40% of the rural English population was forced to abandon agrarian life. By the end of the Middle Ages there were new, previously unrecognized categories of the poor beyond widows, orphans and handicapped people, including urban wage-earners and day laborers. The latter are only possible in a money economy in which labor has become a quantifiable economic entity. Such a radical shift—and the reality of migratory labor unattached to land and not subordinate to any absolute master—was a shock to the system.

The shock was that of a premarket economy giving way to a market economy, a transition that was not marked by a transition from poverty to wealth for most people. The emergence of Labor as an idea and laborers as a fact was not necessarily coupled with the resources and jobs necessary for the production of wealth. Dominated by agriculture, the medieval economy had aimed at subsistence, not marketable surplus—largely because of the lack of markets. But even during the Renaissance in England, almost all wheat produced was consumed domestically, so a decrease in production would cause scarcity and/or a rise in prices barring a drop in the overall population. As stated above, however, the population was growing. There was available agricultural labor and there was available land, but the land was often uncultivated or turned to other uses.

From 1450 to 1630, economies expanded alongside increasing poverty. The social framework of the manorial estate—and that of medieval society in general, including the town guilds of the burghers—was falling away. The old order had been centered on religious, theocentric values of continuity, stability, security and cooperative effort. These goods were accompanied by the ills of intolerance of change, rigid social stratification, little development, and a high degree of poverty.

Enclosure riots

After 1529 or so, the problem of untended farmland disappeared with the rising population. There was a desire for more arable land along with much antagonism toward the tenant-graziers with their flocks and herds. Increased demand along with a scarcity of tillable land caused rents to rise dramatically in the 1520s to mid-century. The 1520s appear to have been the point at which the increases became extreme, with complaints of rackrenting appearing in popular literature. (See Crowley.) There were popular efforts to remove old enclosures, and much legislation of the 1530s and 1540s concerns this shift. Angry tenants impatient to reclaim pastures for tillage were illegally destroying enclosures. From 1549 agrarian revolts swept all over the nation, and other revolts occurred periodically throughout the century. Clearly the popular rural mentality was rather medieval, the goal being to try to restore the security, stability, and functionality of the old order. However, in looking to the past, early modern commoners believed they were asserting ancient traditional and constitutional rights granted to the free and sturdy English yeoman as opposed to the enslaved and effeminate French—a contrast often drawn by 16th century writers. (See Hutchins.) This emphasis on rights was to have a pivotal role in the modern era unfolding from the Enlightenment. D. C. Coleman writes that the English commons were disturbed by the loss of common rights under enclosure which might involve the right "to cut underwood, to run pigs" (40).

The Midland Revolt

In 1607, beginning on May Eve in Haselbech, Northamptonshire and spreading to Warwickshire and Leicestershire throughout May, riots took place as a protest against the enclosure of common land. Known as The Midland Revolt, it drew considerable support and was led by Captain Pouch, otherwise known as John Reynolds, a tinker said to be from Desborough, Northamptonshire. He told the protestors he had authority from the King and the Lord of Heaven to destroy enclosures and promised to protect protesters by the contents of his pouch, which he carried by his side, which he said would keep them from all harm. Thousands of people were recorded at Hillmorton, Warwickshire and at Cotesbach, Leicestershire. A curfew was imposed in the city of Leicester, as it was feared citizens would stream out of the city to join the riots. A gibbet was erected in Leicester as a warning, and was pulled down by the citizens.

Newton Rebellion: 8 June 1607

Things came to a head in early June. James I issued a Proclamation and ordered his Deputy Lieutenants in Northamptonshire - where over a thousand had gathered at Newton, near Kettering, to protest against the enclosures of Thomas Tresham, pulling down hedges and filling ditches - to put down the riots. It is recorded that women and children were part of the protest.

The Treshams - both the family at Newton and their more well-known Roman Catholic cousins at nearby Rushton, the family of Francis, who had been involved two years earlier in the Gunpowder Plot and had apparently died in The Tower - were unpopular for their voracious enclosing of land. Sir Thomas Tresham of Rushton was known as "the most odious man in the county". The old Roman Catholic gentry family of the Treshams had long argued with the emerging Puritan gentry family the Montagus of Boughton about territory. Now Tresham of Newton was enclosing common land - The Brand - that had been part of Rockingham Forest.

Edward Montagu, one of the Deputy Lieutenants, had stood up against enclosure in Parliament some years earlier, but was now placed by the King in the position effectively of defending the Treshams. The local armed bands and militia refused the call-up, so the landowners were forced to use their own servants to suppress the rioters on 8 June 1607. The Royal Proclamation was read twice. The rioters continued in their actions and the gentry and their forces charged. A pitched battle ensued. 40-50 were killed and the ringleaders were hanged and quartered.

No memorial to the event or to those killed exists. The Tresham family declined soon after. The Montagu family went on through marriage to become the Dukes of Buccleuch, one of the biggest landowners in Britain.[1][2]

The Newton Rebellion was one of the last times that the peasantry of England and the gentry were in open conflict.

John Reynold's pouch was found after he was captured. It was opened - all that was in it was a piece of green cheese. Captain Pouch was hanged.


Later Developments

The English Civil War spurred a major acceleration of enclosures. The parliamentary leaders supported the rights of landlords vis-a-vis the King, whose Star Chamber court, abolished in 1641, had provided the primary legal brake on the enclosure process. By dealing an ultimately crippling blow to the monarchy (which, even after the Restoration, no longer posed a significant challenge to enclosures) the Civil War paved the way for the eventual rise to power in the 18th century of what has been called a "committee of Landlords". (Moore, pp. 17, 19-29.) The economics of enclosures also changed. Whereas earlier land had been enclosed in order to make it available for sheep farming, by 1650 the steep rise in wool prices had come to an end. (Ibid., p. 7, fn. 6.) Thereafter, the focus shifted to implementation of new agricultural techniques, including fertilizer, new crops, and crop rotation, all of which greatly increased the profitability of large-scale farms. (Ibid., p. 23.) The enclosure movement probably peaked from 1760 to 1832; by the latter date it had essentially completed the destruction of the medieval peasant community. (Ibid., pp. 25-29.)


Religion and economic life

In the late medieval-early modern period, the common mentality behind medieval economic order—in which economic matters were subordinate to religious and ethical beliefs—was undergoing a shift to a modern conception of economics as an autonomous, free-standing, independent, extensively secularized public sphere.

The Roman Catholic Church, then and now, has always maintained the classical and patristic opposition to usury/interest and the pursuit of wealth as its own end. Early and later radical sect of Protestants had similar views, some even going further to practice kinds of communism. On the other hand, the Protestant mainstream, coming from Luther and especially Calvin, has been famously connected with the emergence of modern capitalism by Max Weber and R. H. Tawney.

The Protestant Reformation probably enabled as well as reflected increasing separation of economic life from the domain of the church. However, Luther and also Calvin had the same approximate theocentric, communal social vision as that professed by the Catholic church. Luther's vision of society and economics was fundamentally medieval, as was John Calvin's. The latter tolerated capitalistic practices like usury in Geneva within the parameters of significant ethical restraints. Luther was dogmatically and vehemently against usury. Early English reformers like Tyndale, Latimer, and Crowley had similar communitarian values and views; this is expressed in their hostility toward enclosure.

English popular Protestantism was not atypical in being marked by an emphasis on simplicity, plainness, honesty, and thrift. In the face of ample examples of ostentatious and wasteful clergy and nobles, Protestant "plainness" appealed to the old, conservative, medieval values of mercantilist townspeople and a populace formerly steeped in peasant agricultural life for generations. For such people in a hardscrabble world with limited social mobility and limited wealth, waste was associated with death, want, and decline.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:27 pm    Post subject: Papal Bull Reply with quote

T.S. Eliot, the Origination of "Bullshit", & the Papal Bull


T.S. Eliot may have first coined the compound word "bullshit" in 1910 & 1916 in a ballade called "The Triumph of Bullshit", with the "bull" part possibly referencing the papal "bulls" or edicts. Although the word is not actually a part of the lyrics, the phrase "for Christ's stake stick it up your ass" is used 4 times. (One of the cathedral statues I mentioned in an earlier post seemed to follow Eliot's advice.)

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit
The earliest attestation mentioned by the Concise Oxford Dictionary is in fact T. S. Eliot, who between 1910 and 1916 wrote an early poem to which he gave the title The Triumph of Bullshit, written in the form of a ballade.


and

Quote:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002404.html
The word “bull,” used to characterize discourse, is of uncertain origin. One venerable conjecture was that it began as a contemptuous reference to papal edicts known as bulls (from the bulla, or seal, appended to the document). Another linked it to the famously nonsensical Obadiah Bull, an Irish lawyer in London during the reign of Henry VII. It was only in the twentieth century that the use of “bull” to mean pretentious, deceitful, jejune language became semantically attached to the male of the bovine species—or, more particularly, to the excrement therefrom. Today, it is generally, albeit erroneously, thought to have arisen as a euphemistic shortening of “bullshit,” a term that came into currency, dictionaries tell us, around 1915.


The 1916 published version changed the word "critics" to "ladies."

Quote:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1027178
"The Triumph of Bullshit"

Ladies, on whom my attentions have waited
If you consider my merits are small
Etiolated, alembicated,
Orotund, tasteless, fantastical,
Monotonous, crotchety, constipated,
Impotent galamatias
Affected, possibly imitated,
For Christ's sake stick it up your ass

Ladies, who find my intentions ridiculous
Awkward insipid and horribly gauche
Pompous, pretentious, ineptly meticulous
Dull as the heart of an unbaked brioche
Floundering versicles feebly versiculous
Often attenuate, frequently crass
Attempts at emotions that turn isiculous,
For Christ's sake stick it up your ass.

Ladies who think me unduly vociferous
Amiable cabotin making a noise
That people may cry out "this stuff is too stiff for us" -
Ingenuous child with a box of new toys
Toy lions carnivorous, cannons fumiferous
Engines vaporous - all this will pass;
Quite innocent - "he only wants to make shiver us."
For Christ's sake stick it up your ass.

And when thyself with silver foot shalt pass
Among the Theories scattered on the grass
Take up my good intentions with the rest
And then for Christ's sake stick them up your ass.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:21 pm    Post subject: Index Librorum Prohibitorum (1559) Reply with quote

Index Librorum Prohibitorum (1559)

Jerry Fletcher on Feb 1 2007 wrote:
That bit about the 'Forbidden Books' list caught my eye. I assume the global dissemination of christian literature was concurrent with widespread suppression and destruction of competing doctrine.

Quote:
Index Librorum Prohibitorum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Index of Prohibited Books from 1559 can be found here
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/ILP-1559.htm

Some of the authors/items on the list are:
Quote:
Henry Bullinger | John Calvin | Miles Coverdale | Thomas Cranmer | Desiderius Erasmus
John Frith | John Fox | Henry VIII (King of England) | John Huss | Hugh Latimer
Martin Luther | Philip Melancthon | Sir John Oldcastle | Jerome of Prague
Nicholas Ridley | John Rogers | Jerome Savanarola | Michael Servetus
William Tyndale | Laurence Valla | Peter Waldo | John Wycliffe | Ulric Zwingle

Muslim Koran
Hebrew Talmud
All Bibles Authorized by Martin Luther


I picked three unfamiliar names: Peter Waldo, Jerome of Prague, & John Wycliffe. If any of the wikis are true, man oh man....

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Waldo
Peter Waldo or Valdo or Pierre de Vaux (died 1218) was the founder of a radical ascetic Christian movement in 12th-century France.

Specific details of his life are largely unknown. It is believed that he was a rich merchant in Lyon making his money by "wicked usury", when around 1160 he was transformed into a radical Christian and gave his real estate to his wife, and the remainder of his belongings he distributed as alms to the poor.

Waldo also began to preach and teach on the streets, based on his ideas of simplicity and poverty notably that "No man can serve two masters, God and mammon." By 1170 he had gathered a number of followers and they came to be called The poor men of Lyon, the poor of Lombardy, or the Poor. They were also referred to as the Waldensians (or Waldenses).

They were distinct from the Albigensians and Cathars.

The Catholic church branded followers of Waldo's ideas heretics and strongly persecuted them, many were massacred in various European countries during the 12th and 13th centuries.

The Waldensian movement is characterised by lay preaching, voluntary poverty and a life of good works.

Most followers were absorbed into the new Protestant churches at the time of the Reformation. They maintain their separate identity in the valley of the Pellice River in Piedmont, an Alpine region of what is now Northern Italy.

In the 1970s the Italian Waldensians, organized in the Waldensian Evangelical Church, joined the Methodists to form the Union of Waldensian and Methodist Churches.


Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_of_Prague

Jerome of Prague (Jeronęm Pražskę in Czech, 1379 – May 30, 1416) was one of the chief followers and most devoted friends of John Hus. He was born in Prague to a wealthy family; after taking his bachelor's degree at the University of Prague in 1398, he secured in 1399 permission to travel. In 1401 he returned to Prague, but in 1402 visited England, and in Oxford copied out the Dialogus and Trialogus of John Wyclif, and thus evinced his interest in Lollardry. He also became an ardent and outspoken advocate of realism (as opposed to nominalism) and from then on Wyclifism and realism were charges which were constantly getting him into trouble. In 1403 he went to Jerusalem, in 1405 to Paris. There he took his Master's degree, but Jean Gerson drove him out. In 1406 he took the same degree at the University of Cologne, and a little later at the University of Heidelberg.

He was no safer in Prague, to which he returned, and where, in 1407, he took the same degree. In that year he returned to Oxford, but was again compelled to flee. During 1408 and 1409 he was in Prague, and there his pronounced Czech preferences aroused opposition to him in some quarters. Early in January of 1410, he made a cautious speech in favour of Wyclif's philosphlical views, and this was cited against him at the Council of Constance four years later. In March of 1410, a Papal Bull against Wyclif's writings was issued, and on the charge of favouring them, Jerome was imprisoned in Vienna, but managed to escape to Moravia. For this he was excommunicated by the bishop of Kraków. Returned to Prague, he appeared publicly as the advocate of Hus. In 1413 he was at the courts of Poland and Lithuania, making a deep impression by his eloquence and learning.

In Kraków, he was publicly examined as to his acceptance of the forty-five articles which the enemies of Wyclif had made up from Wyclif's writings and which they asserted represented Wyclif's heretical teachings. Jerome declared that he rejected them in their general tenor. When, on October 11, 1414, Hus left for the Council of Constance, Jerome assured him that if needed, he would come to his assistance. This promise he faithfully kept, for on April 4, 1415, he arrived at Constance. As he had, unlike Hus, come without a safe-conduct, his friends persuaded him to return to Bohemia. But on his way back he was arrested in Hirschau on April 20 and taken to Sulzbach, where he was imprisoned, and was returned to Constance on May 23, and immediately arraigned before the council on the charge of fleeing a citation — one having been really issued against him, but as he was away at the time he was ignorant of it.

His condemnation was predetermined in consequence of his general acceptance of the views of Wyclif, and also because of his open admiration of Hus. Consequently he had not a fair hearing. His imprisonment was so rigorous that he fell seriously ill and so was induced to recant at public sessions of the council held on September 11 and September 23 1415. The words put into his mouth on these occasions made him renounce both Wyclif and Hus. The same physical weakness made him write in Bohemian letters to the king of Bohemia and to the University of Prague, which were declared to be entirely voluntary and to state his own opinions, in which he announced that he had become convinced that Hus had been rightfully burned for heresy. But this course did not secure his liberation nor decrease the likelihood of his condemnation. On May 23, 1416, and on May 26, he was put on trial by the council. On the second day he boldly recanted his recantation, and so on May 30 he was finally condemned and immediately thereafter burned.

Jerome's attachment to the Church was sincere; consequently, as he rejected Wyclif's teachings as to the Lord's Supper, the council really had slender grounds for his execution. His extensive travels, his wide erudition, his eloquence, his wit, made him a formidable critic of the degenerate church of his day, and it was for his criticisms rather than for heresy that his death was compassed.

References
This article includes content derived from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1914, which is in the public domain.


Quote:
Excerpts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wyclif

John Wycliffe (also Wyclif, Wycliff, or Wickliffe, Czech Jan Viklef) (pronounced [ˈwɪklɪf]) (mid-1320s – 31 December 1384) was an English theologian and an early dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century. He founded the Lollard movement, a precursor movement to the Protestant Reformation (thus he became known as "The Morning Star of the Reformation"). He was one of the earliest antagonists of the papal encroachments on secular power.[1] Wycliffe felt that all Christians should have access to the Bible in the vernacular. He is credited as the first person to give a complete translation of the Bible into English (called Wyclif's Bible). It is believed that he translated at least the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is possible he could have translated the entire New Testament, while his associates translated the Old Testament.[2] Wyclif's Bible first appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1384,[3] with additional updated versions being done by Wycliffe's assistant John Purvey and others in 1388 and 1395.[4]

....

Conflict with the Church

Wycliffe wanted to see his ideas actualized – his fundamental belief was that the Church should be poor, as in the days of the apostles. He had not yet broken with the mendicant friars, and from these John of Gaunt chose Wycliffe's defenders. While the Reformer later claimed that it was not his purpose to incite temporal lords to confiscation of the property of the Church, the real tendencies of the propositions remained unconcealed. The result of the same doctrines in Bohemia – that land which was richest in ecclesiastical foundations – was that in a short time the entire church estate was taken over and a revolution brought about in the relations of temporal holdings. It was in keeping with the plans of Gaunt to have a personality like Wycliffe on his side. Especially in London the Reformer's views won support; partisans of the nobility attached themselves to him, and the lower orders gladly heard his sermons. He preached in city churches, and London rang with his praises.

The first to oppose his theses were monks of those orders which held possessions, to whom his theories were dangerous. Oxford and the episcopate were later blamed by the Curia, which charged them with so neglecting their duty that the breaking of the evil fiend into the English sheepfold could be noticed in Rome before it was in England. Wycliffe was summoned before William Courtenay, Bishop of London, on 19 February 1377, in order "to explain the wonderful things which had streamed forth from his mouth". The exact charges are not known, as the matter did not get as far as a definite examination. Gaunt, the Earl Marshal Henry Percy, and a number of other friends accompanied Wycliffe, and four begging friars were his advocates. A crowd gathered at the church, and at the entrance of the party animosities began to show, especially in an angry exchange between the bishop and the Reformer's protectors. Gaunt declared that he would humble the pride of the English clergy and their partisans, hinting at the intent to secularise the possessions of the Church. The assembly broke up and the lords departed with their protege.[11]

Most of the English clergy were irritated by this encounter, and attacks upon Wycliffe began, finding their response in the second and third books of his work dealing with civil government. These books carry a sharp polemic, hardly surprising when it is recalled that his opponents charged Wycliffe with blasphemy and scandal, pride and heresy. He appeared to have openly advised the secularisation of English church property, and the dominant parties shared his conviction that the monks could better be controlled if they were relieved from the care of secular affairs.

The bitterness occasioned by this advice will be better understood when it is remembered that at that time the papacy was at war with the Florentines and was in dire straits. The demand of the Minorites that the Church should live in poverty as it did in the days of the apostles was not pleasing in such a crisis. It was under these conditions that Pope Gregory XI, who in January, 1377, had gone from Avignon to Rome, sent on 22 May five copies of his bull against Wycliffe, despatching one to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the others to the Bishop of London, King Edward III, the Chancellor, and the university; among the enclosures were 18 theses of his, which were denounced as erroneous and dangerous to Church and State.

The reformatory activities of Wycliffe effectively began here: all the great works, especially his Summa theologiae, are closely connected with the condemnation of his 18 theses, while the entire literary energies of his later years rest upon this foundation. The next aim of his opponents – to make him out a revolutionary in politics – failed. The situation in England resulted in damage to them; on June 21, 1377, Edward III died. His successor was Richard II, a boy, who was under the influence of John of Gaunt, his uncle. So it resulted that the bull against Wycliffe did not become public till 18 December. Parliament, which met in October, came into sharp conflict with the Curia. Among the propositions which Wycliffe, at the direction of the government, worked out for parliament was one which speaks out distinctly against the exhaustion of England by the Curia.

Wycliffe tried to gain public favour by laying his theses before Parliament, and then made them public in a tract, accompanied by explanations, limitations, and interpretations. After the session of Parliament was over he was called upon to answer, and in March, 1378, he appeared at the episcopal palace at Lambeth to defend himself. The preliminaries were not yet finished when a noisy mob gathered with the purpose of saving him; the king's mother, Joan of Kent, also took up his cause. The bishops, who were divided, satisfied themselves with forbidding him to speak further on the controversy. At Oxford the vice-chancellor, following papal directions, confined the Reformer for some time in Black Hall, from which Wycliffe was released on threats from his friends; the vice-chancellor was himself confined in the same place because of his treatment of Wycliffe. The latter then took up the usage according to which one who remained for 44 days under excommunication came under the penalties executed by the State, and wrote his De incarcerandis fedelibus, in which he demanded that it should be legal for the excommunicated to appeal to the king and his council against the excommunication; in this writing he laid open the entire case and in such a way that it was understood by the laity. He wrote his 33 conclusions, in Latin and English. The masses, some of the nobility, and his former protector, John of Gaunt, rallied to him. Before any further steps could be taken at Rome, Gregory XI died (1378). But Wycliffe was already engaged in one of his most important works, that dealing with what he perceived as the truth of Holy Scripture.

The sharper the strife became, the more Wycliffe had recourse to his translation of Scripture as the basis of all Christian doctrinal opinion, and expressly tried to prove this to be the only norm for Christian faith. In order to refute his opponents, he wrote the book in which he endeavored to show that Holy Scripture contains all truth and, being from God, is the only authority. He referred to the conditions under which the condemnation of his 18 theses was brought about; and the same may be said of his books dealing with the Church, the office of king, and the power of the pope – all completed within the space of two years (1378-79). To Wycliffe, the Church is the totality of those who are predestined to blessedness. It includes the Church triumphant in heaven, those in purgatory, and the Church militant or men on earth. No one who is eternally lost has part in it. There is one universal Church, and outside of it there is no salvation. Its head is Christ. No pope may say that he is the head, for he can not say that he is elect or even a member of the Church.

......

Last days

He returned to Lutterworth, and sent out tracts against the monks and Urban VI, since the latter, contrary to the hopes of Wycliffe, had not turned out to be a reforming or "true" pope, but had involved in mischievous conflicts. The crusade in Flanders aroused the Reformer's biting scorn, while his sermons became fuller-voiced and dealt with what he saw as the imperfections of the Church. The literary achievements of Wycliffe's last days, such as the Trialogus, stand at the peak of the knowledge of his day. His last work, the Opus evangelicum, the last part of which he named in characteristic fashion "Of Antichrist", remained uncompleted. While he was hearing mass in the parish church on Holy Innocents' Day, 28 December, 1384, he was again stricken with apoplexy and died on the last day of the year. Shortly after his death, the great Hussite movement arose and spread through Western Europe.

Burning Wycliffe's bones, from John Foxe's book (1563)

The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe (on 4 May 1415) a stiff-necked heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was decreed that his books be burned and his remains be exhumed. The latter did not happen till twelve years afterward, when at the command of Pope Martin V they were dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into the River Swift that flows through Lutterworth. This is the most final of all posthumous attacks on John Wycliffe, but previous attempts had been made before the Council of Constance. The Anti-Wycliffite Statute of 1401 defamed Wycliffe's name and also extended to persecute Wycliffe's remaining followers. The "Constitutions of Oxford" of 1408 took aim at reclaiming authority in all ecclesiastical matters, specifically naming John Wycliffe in a ban on certain writings and noting that translation of Scripture into English is a crime punishable by charges of heresy.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:50 pm    Post subject: Koran's different chronology of the christian bible Reply with quote

Koran provides chronology different from Scaligerian chronology

Quote:
from Chronology 1, Chapter 7, pp 458-459

6.5. Moses, Aaron and their sister
Virgin Mary on the pages of the Koran



As one sees from folding the "Scaligerian History
Textbook" into a sum offour shorter chronicles, we get
several options for dating the beginning of the Muslim
Hijra era, that is dated at 622 A.D. nowadays. All of
them supersede the Scaligerian version. N. A. Morozov
cites a great number of data showing considerable odd
ities pertinent to Muslim as well as Christian history.
Let us give an example.

The chronology of the Koran is often radically dif-
ferent from the Scaligerian chronology of the Bible.
The Koran insists on Aaron (Arius?) being the uncle
of the evangelical Jesus, no less. Mary, the mother of
Jesus, is declared to be the sister of Moses and Aaron.
Thus, according to the Koran, these Old Testament
characters belong to the generation that immediately
preceded Jesus Christ. Naturally. this is in drastic con-
tradiction of the Scaligerian chronology.
The discrep-
ancy comprising several centuries. However. it concurs
well with our abbreviated chronology. Let us turn to
the 19th Sura from the Koran ([427), page 239). The
Koran commentator L B. Krachkovsky writes that it
is "the oldest Sura that mentions such evangelical
characters as... Mary and Jesus" ([427L page 560).

The 19th Sura refers to the birth of Jesus, the son of
Mary, in the following manner: "0 Mariam. thou hast
performed a feat unheard of! 0 sister of HafUn
[Aaron - A. E)..... (1427), the 19th Sura, 28(7);
29( 28), pages 240- 241). The commentary to this frag-
ment is as follows: "the sister of Moses and Aaron is the
mother of Jesus"
([427], page 561, No. 17).

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:37 pm    Post subject: Vampire Jesus Reply with quote

VAMPIRE JESUS

In the Greek text,the "stake" reference to ceremonially "kill" (instead of a cross) that is explained in the following two excerpts may be why legends/novelists used that weapon to kill the undead.
Quote:

from Chronology 1, Chapter 7, p. 444

Let us also point out that the name of the famous
"ancient" Egyptian god Osiris most probably origi-
nates from "Esu-Rex;' or Jesus the King.


This is how N. V. Rumyantsev comments on one
of the "ancient" Egyptian pictures that clearly refer to
evangelical events: "This is Osiris rising from the dead
after having been buried for three days. He is por-
trayed at the moment of his resurrection, stepping
out of the coffin... Next to him we see his wife and
sister. .. Isis" (f 743], p. 10). Another Egyptian deity is
handing a cross to the rising Osiris. "The resurrection
of Osiris. .. occurs on the third day after his death. This
feast would end with the "mounting of the stake of
Osiris." The stake would be elevated with the aid of
special contraptions... and mounted vertically" ([743],
pp. 10-11). This "death of Osiris at a stake" is proba-
bly a reflection of the crucifixion of Christ. We shall
cover this in more detail later.



Quote:
from Chronology 1, Chapter 7, p. 454

N. A. Morozov paid spe-
cial attention to the evangelical fragments where "our
translations speak of the crucifixion of Jesus. I em-
phasize 'our translations' in particular, since the orig-
inal Greek text of the Gospels uses the word stavros
instead of "cross" and the verb stavroo instead of'cru-
cifixion.' However, stavros is used to refer to a stake or
a pale, and not cross"
([544], Volume 1, page 84). N.
A. Morozov suggests making the translation "execu-
tion at the stake" instead of crucifixion - as in being
tied to a stake.
The semantic transformation of the
Greek word for "stake" (stavros) occurred in the Latin
translation of the Bible where, according to Morozov:

"The word crux, or cross, was used instead of the
Greek stavros, and the feedback from this transfor-
mation affected the interpretation of the original
Greek word stavros. The Slavic translation is actually
somewhat more precise, since it tells us Jesus was
"pinioned to a tree" . ..
. Contemplating a possible so-
lution for my quandary, I decided to go by the Church
Slavonic text and translate the Greek word stavros as

"stake", and the verb "stavroo" as "execute at a stake",
since it tells us nothing of the details of the execution
described." ([ 544], Volume 1, page 85)
In fig. 7.85 one sees an ancient miniature taken
from The Great French Chronicle tided "Kings Hil-
debert and Lothar Laying Siege to Saragossa and the
Death by Stoning Inflicted by the Franks upon the Ro-
man Prince Belisar [Velisarius - A. F]" ([ 1485], page
156). We see the execution of Velisarius (the great
Czar?). He was tied to a stake and stoned to death
(see fig. 7.86).

Let us now turn to the allegedly pagan "ancient"
Greek myths. Heracles is one of the protagonists of
"ancient" Greek mythology. Drews points out that
"Heracles carrying pillars used to be a symbol greatly
favoured in antiquity... Furthermore, the mystical
meaning ascribed to those columns is the same as
that of Christ's cross.
We can see God stoop under...
the weight of the pillars and recognize him as the
Saviour in the New Testament" ([259], page 49). Thus,
the pictures of the "ancient" Hercules bent over under
the weight of the cruciform pillars are probably me-
diaeval pictures of Christ carrying a cross and suf-
fering from its great weight. See the mediaeval paInt-
ings by Tintoretto in fig 7.87, for instance [1472], or
those by Marko Palmezano allegedly dating from the
XVI century, seen in fig. 7.88 ([713], ill. 129).


Incidentally, novelist Anne Rice, who must have researched the history of previous centuries when writing her racy ancient monster or vampire books...announced
Quote:
"In 1998, after spending most of her adult life as a self-described atheist, Rice returned to her Roman Catholic faith, which she had not practiced since she was 18. In October 2005, as she reaffirmed her Catholic faith, Rice announced in a Newsweek article that she would "write only for the Lord." She called Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, her first novel in this genre, the beginning of a trilogy that will chronicle the life of Jesus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Rice


She must have discovered the sex cult background of Christianity (as well as a p.r. move to appeal to a larger demographic).

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates


Last edited by Cracrocrates on Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:12 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:06 am    Post subject: Hide and Go Seek with the Body of Saint Mark Reply with quote

Playing Hide & Go Seek with the BODY OF SAINT MARK

Did the Catholic Church inspire the movie Weekend at Bernie's ?
Jesus Christ, there was even a SEQUEL with that lousy plot!


Quote:
excerpts from Chronology 1, Chapter 7, pp.459-462

6.6. The XI century as the apparent
epoch of 51. Mark's lifetime.
The history of St. Mark's Cathedral in Venice

The gigantic Venetian cathedral of St. Mark is a
true architectural gem adorning the city. It is also one
of the most popular mediaeval buildings in Italy. Its
history proves to be most interesting indeed in light
of the new abbreviated chronology. Let us begin wjth
reminding the reader of the official history of St.
Mark's cathedral as it is related in the books titled
Basilica of San Marco ([1265]) and Venice ([ 1467]).
This is what we learn from {1265]:
....
The initial construction of the Church of St. Mark
occurred. .. after 828 A.D., when the body of St. Mark
was saved from desecration and delivered from Alexan-
dria on a ship by some Venetians". ([ 1265]. page 7).

The story unfolds as follows: nowadays St. Mark is
supposed to have been the first of the four cdnonical
evangelists ([765]). His Gospel- The Gospel Accord-
ing to Mark - is presumed to be the oldest, written
around 50 A.D. at the insistcnce of either St. Peter or
the Christian community. Sometime later Mark re-
turned to Alexandria in Egypt where he had died on
the 25th April of thc alleged year 68 A.D. ([ I265}. p. 26).
Scaligerian chronology contains an informational
gap of many centuries in what concerns St. Mark,
whose name allegedly resurfaces from oblivion in the
IX century A.D. - a millennium later.
in other words.
His body is supposed to have been secretly delivered
to thc Italian Venice from thc Egyptian Alexandria.

The canonical legend runs as follows ([1265)): two
Venetian traders paid a chance visit to a Christian
church in Alexandria that was consecrated to St. Mark
and housed his ossuary. Some monk, as well as the
prior, complained to them about the constant dese-
crations inflicted upon the church by the Muslims
seeking to convert all Christian churches to mosques.
The Venetian traders then uncoffined the body of St.
Mark and have smuggled it out of Alexandria in a
basket full of vegetables and pork. After a sea jour-
ney full of deadly perils, the salvaged holy relic was
delivered to Venice, where the construction of a new
temple instantly began, one that was designed as a
shrine for St. Mark. All the episodes of this abduction
are illustrated by inlays covering the walls of the
Venetian cathedral.


The first church of St. Mark was thus constructed
after the alleged year 828 A.D. as a shrine for his body
that was "miraculously salvaged" from Alexandria
However, alack and alas, there are no traces of the first
Venetian church of St Mark anywhere.
The histor-
ans say: "There is a large number of different hy-
potheses concerning the shape of this original church,
all of them based on a very small number of archae-
ological findings" ([1265], page 7)

The first Basilica of San Marco is supposed to have
burnt down in the alleged year 976. According to
[1265], page 7, "It had immediately been recon-
structed." As a result, the second San Marco Basilica
was built in Venice, allegedly towards the end of the
X century. It was destroyed as well ([ 1265]).
Then, allegedly around 1063, the doge Domenico
Contarini began the construction of a new and much
larger church of St. Mark on the site of the second
basilica. It is assumed that this third basilica was built
after the fashion of the Basilica of the Twelve Apostles
in Constantmople.

This is where oddities begin, well shrouded in mystery.
See for yourselves, we are quoting verbatim.

"The rediscovery [sic' -A. F.] of St. Mark's body is
the last episode of the Venetian legend During the
construction of the third basilica, the ossuary was
hidden so well [? - A. F.] that several years later
, after
the death of the doge, no one had a clue about their
possible location. It was only in 1094, after several days
of ardent prayers of the doge Vitali Falier, the Patri-
arch, and the entire populace, that the holy relic [the
body of St. Mark - A.F. ] had manifested itself mirac-
ulously from inside a column
[sic - A. F.]" ([1265],
page 67).


This miraculous event is also represented on one
of the inlays inside the Cathedral of St Mark Below
one can see the famous pamtIng on thIS subject by the
XVI century artist Tintoretto.

Now then, we are being assured in a poised, no
nonsense manner that the XI century Venetians
erected the gigantic cathedral of St. Mark without
having the slightest notion of the location of the holy
relic that served as the very reason for the cathedral's
construction. And all the while, the body of St. Mark
the evangelist was right there, on the building site!


Apparently, the cathedral was erected first; after
that, the loss of the holy relic was suddenly noticed,
and the search for it was long and fruitless. It took the
fervent prayers of the doge, the Patriarch, and all of
the population of Venice to make the body of the
evangelist manifest itself inside a stone column (?). It
was taken out with the utmost care (does that mean
the stone pillar had to be shattered?) and solemnly
buried by the altar.


This is where the body of St Mark lies until the pres-
ent day
, being the central object of adoration in the
cathedral.

....

Apparently, the bizarre legend of the "pilgrimage
of Mark's body" was a product of efforts by later his-
torians to delve deeper into the real events of the XI
century and make them concur with the erroneous
Scaligerian chronology.
This is what we think really
happened:

St. Mark, the first evangelist, lived in the XI cen-
tury A.D. and died in the second half of that century.
He was buried for the first and the last time in the
Cathedral of St. Mark, erected in his honour. This
opulent inhumation, which took place in 1094 with
the doge, the patriarch, and the entire city present, was
later misinterpreted as the rediscovery of his body,
since the Scaligerian chronology had already shifted
the lifetime of St. Mark into the I century A.D.
There were no mysterious disappearances and
miraculous rediscoveries. These legends come from
a much later age, when the historians attempted to
make the Scaligerian chronology concur with the doc-
uments that explicitly pointed to the XI century as the
age of St. Mark's life and activity.


The cathedral of St. Mark obviously assumed its
current shape a great deal later than the XI century.
When we look at this cathedral nowadays we see a
building whose construction was finished by the XVI
century. On its walls we see inlays illustrating the rather
airy legend of the fate of St. Mark's body. Even within
the Scaligerian chronological paradigm, the cathedral's
construction continued well into the XIII century,
when it was adorned with an equine sculptural group
that was allegedly smuggled from the hippodrome of
Constantinople in Byzantium ([1467], page 39).

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates


Last edited by Cracrocrates on Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Xiang



Joined: 17 Sep 2006
Posts: 42

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:16 am    Post subject: Re: Koran's different chronology of the christian bible Reply with quote

Cracrocrates wrote:
Koran provides chronology different from Scaligerian chronology

Quote:
from Chronology 1, Chapter 7, pp 458-459

6.5. Moses, Aaron and their sister
Virgin Mary on the pages of the Koran



As one sees from folding the "Scaligerian History
Textbook" into a sum offour shorter chronicles, we get
several options for dating the beginning of the Muslim
Hijra era, that is dated at 622 A.D. nowadays. All of
them supersede the Scaligerian version. N. A. Morozov
cites a great number of data showing considerable odd
ities pertinent to Muslim as well as Christian history.
Let us give an example.

The chronology of the Koran is often radically dif-
ferent from the Scaligerian chronology of the Bible.
The Koran insists on Aaron (Arius?) being the uncle
of the evangelical Jesus, no less. Mary, the mother of
Jesus, is declared to be the sister of Moses and Aaron.
Thus, according to the Koran, these Old Testament
characters belong to the generation that immediately
preceded Jesus Christ. Naturally. this is in drastic con-
tradiction of the Scaligerian chronology.
The discrep-
ancy comprising several centuries. However. it concurs
well with our abbreviated chronology. Let us turn to
the 19th Sura from the Koran ([427), page 239). The
Koran commentator L B. Krachkovsky writes that it
is "the oldest Sura that mentions such evangelical
characters as... Mary and Jesus" ([427L page 560).

The 19th Sura refers to the birth of Jesus, the son of
Mary, in the following manner: "0 Mariam. thou hast
performed a feat unheard of! 0 sister of HafUn
[Aaron - A. E)..... (1427), the 19th Sura, 28(7);
29( 2Cool, pages 240- 241). The commentary to this frag-
ment is as follows: "the sister of Moses and Aaron is the
mother of Jesus"
([427], page 561, No. 17).


So Fomenko totally forgot the idea of idiomatic expressions?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:25 am    Post subject: Re: Koran's different chronology of the christian bible Reply with quote

Xiang wrote:
Cracrocrates wrote:
Koran provides chronology different from Scaligerian chronology

Quote:
from Chronology 1, Chapter 7, pp 458-459

6.5. Moses, Aaron and their sister
Virgin Mary on the pages of the Koran




So Fomenko totally forgot the idea of idiomatic expressions?


I don't think so.

I've checked a few websites, and this one was the most comprehensive www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/mary-the-sister-of-aaron/

Two possible non-Fomenko explanations
1) Muhammad confuses the two Mary's in the Bible (said by most non-Muslim scholars...Jewish, Christian, atheist, even an agnostic scholar)
2) Was an idiomatic Jewish usage used at the time (Muslim scholar)

#2 seems like the only possible comeback with the phrasing given. Hell, you could say that about anything one disagrees with as far as written language from the past by saying "oh, that's just the slang they used at the time" because it's the only possible explanation compared to something more radical as far as mainstream thought goes (Good thing that Muslim scholars are such experts on "ancient Semitic customs" isn't it?)


1.Scholars who say Muhammad confuses the two Mary's

Quote:
In his voluminous work, A Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam (which was co-authored with J. H. Kramers), Hamilton A.R. Gibb writes:

It has been supposed that the name of Imran, which apparently corresponds with the Biblical Amran, the father of Moses, as well as the fact that Maryam is called a sister of Harun (Sura 19:28) is due to a confusion between the two Biblical Mariyam's.8

In a book of comparative religion by a Christian scholar, we read:

Muhammad apparently even confuses Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Sura 19:29). This confusion may also explain why the Prophet traces the ancestry of Mary back to the ancient family of Imran, a variant of Amran, father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Sura 3:36, 1 Chronicles 6:3).9

D.S Margoliouth (1858-1940), formerly professor of Arabic at Oxford University, writes:

Having heard a Mary mentioned in the story of Moses and another in the story of Jesus, it did not occur to him to distinguish between them.10

N.A. Newman, an Islamologist of America, attacked Qur'an citing the verses 19:28-29:

An apparent mistake of Muhammad, whereby Mary the mother of Jesus was also thought to be Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron.11

W. Montgomery Watt talks of the errors in the historical facts found in the Qur'an:

…the implication that Mary is confused with Miriam.12

C.C. Torrey also made the same point:

He [Muhammad] associated with Jesus; evidently believing that very soon after the revelation to the Hebrew law giver, there had followed the similar revelations which had produced the Christian and their sacred book. This appears in his identification of Mary, the mother of Jesus with Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron.13

Even the agnostic Karen Armstrong, in her otherwise objective biography of Prophet Muhammad (P), was confused by the writings of other authors when she commented:

Muhammad did not know the chronology in which the scriptural Prophets appeared: he seems, for example, to have thought that Mariam, the mother of Jesus was the same as Mariam, the sister of Moses in the Jewish scriptures.14

A proclaimed anti-Muslim, pro-Zionist, and atheist, the pseudonymous Ibn Warraq, concurred with his Christian and Jewish counterparts when he wrote:

It is pretty obvious that Muhammad has confused Miriam, the sister of Moses, with Mary, the mother of Jesus. The commentators have verily taxed their brain to explain this marvelous confusion of space and time.15



2. Reply by V.A. Mohamad Ashrof
Quote:
The Qur'an does not call Mary as the sister of Aaron, but merely cites a Jewish usage that was prevalent at that time in history. The House of Imran comprises Moses and Aaron, whose father was Amram and Aaron's descendents, the priestly caste among the Israelites, thus including Jesus and John the Baptist. The ancient Semitic custom of linking a person's or a people's name with that of an illustrious forefather, is in operation here (Qur'an, 3:33). The reference to the house of Imran (Amram of the Bible) serves as an introduction to the stories of Zechariah(P), John the Baptist(P) and Jesus(P).

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Cracrocrates



Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 269

PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:21 pm    Post subject: Not-So-Ancient Egypt Reply with quote

Not-So-Ancient Egypt

Chronology 5 will cover Egypt, but the English translation may take a few more years since Chronology 3 came out in July 2007.

Here's what I'm getting out of Chronology 1:

the datings for Egypt depend on the datings of Roman & Greek datings, which are wrong in the first place (ex. dating the History by Herodotus)

Quote:
Excerpt from Chronology 1, Chapter 1, page 23

In general, it turns out that "The chronology of
kings given by Herodotus does not concur with that
found in the fragments of Manetho's list of kings"
([ 163], page 512, comment 108). As a rule, the chron-
ology of Herodotus is much shorter than Scaliger's ver-
sion. The temporal distances between kings according
to Herodotus are often thousands of years shorter
than corresponding periods as given by Manethon.


modern datings are all over the place
Quote:
Excerpt from Chronology 1, Chapter 1, page 24

The situation hasn't improved to the present day.
Modern tables date the beginning of the reign of Menes
differently; to "approximately 3100 B.C.," "roughly
B.C.," etc. The fluctuation span for this date amounts
to 2700 years. If we consider other opinions - those of
the French Egyptologists, for instance ([544], vol. 6),
the situation becomes even more complex:
Champollion gives the dating as 5867 B.C.,
Lesueur - as 5770 B.C.,
Mariette - as 5004 B.C
Chabas - as 4000 B.C.,
Meyer - as 3180 B.C
Andrzejewski - as 2850 B.C.,
Wilkinson - as 2320 B.C.,
Palmer - as 2224 B.C., etc.

The difference between the datings of Champol-
lion and Palmer equals three thousand six hundred
fourty three years.
No commentary is needed, really.


a lot of references to Jesus Christ in ancient Egypt...the photos of artefacts in the book show a lot of Christian scenes, especially crosses and ankhs

Quote:
Excerpt from Chronology 1, Chapter 7, page 444

6.3. References to Jesus Christ contained
in "ancient" Egyptian artefacts


Ancient Egypt is considered to have been a "classi-
cal cross country" Mesopotamia, Persia and India all
have similar Christian crosses.
As we have already
pointed out, many "ancient" Egyptian gods are por-
trayed in drawings and bas-reliefs holding the medi-
aeval Christ glyph - an ankh ([259]). Such are the deities
Re-Horakhty (fig. 7.64), Tefnut, the goddess of mois-
ture and dew (fig. 7.65), and the divine lions Shu and
Tefnut (fig. 7.66). In fig. 7.67 we can see an incumbent
effigy of the "ancient" Egyptian god Osiris surrounded
by Christian ankhs. The "ancient" Egyptian pharaoh
statue (fig. 7.68) on the right) is particularly impressive.
There is a large Orthodox Christian cross on the back-
rest of his throne, see fig. 7.69. The "ancient" statue is
exhibited in the Metropolitan museum of New York.


although modern historians separate the "ancient Egypt" [EDIT in Blue Type on 8/25/2007] documents into being found in the Roman First Empire, Second Empire, & Third Empire, no dated demotic texts were found in the Third Empire, and documents discovered in the Second Empire dated demotic texts double in number when compared to those dated as First Empire
Quote:

Excerpt from Chronology 1, Chapter 7, page 463

Primo, one sees that the majority of dated demotic
Egyptian texts falls on the epoch of the Second Roman
Empire allegedly covering the period of the I-III cen-
tury A.D. It is significant that the gaps in the graph cor-
respond fully to the chronological framework of the
Second Roman Empire. Some of them are dated as be-
longing to earlier epochs) but those are separated from
the Second Roman Empire by a strange gap in the
middle of the alleged I century A.D.

Secundo, the graph in fig. 7.96 shows a complete
absence of dated demotic documents in the epoch of
the Third Roman Empire.



Here's an example of how bad "ancient" Egyptian scholarship is
Quote:

Excerpt from Chronology 1, Chapter 7, page 463

7.2. The enigmatic '''revival periods.'
in the history of "ancient" Egypt


In CHRON 1, chapter 1, we have already discussed
the fact that the chronology of Egypt counts amongst
the youngest of historical disciplines. Its formation was
based on the existing Scaligerian chronology of Rome
and Greece
, and has therefore been dependent on it
from the very start. The Egyptologists who initiated the
compilation of the Egyptian chronology did not pos-
sess the objective criteria necessary for the verification
of their hypotheses. This led to major discrepancies
between the "different chronologies" of Egypt, amount-
ing to 2-3 millennia, q.v. in CHRON 1, chapter 1.

The few dynastic lists that have survived until our
day occasionally give reign durations for certain
pharaohs, but the pharaohs are often referred to by
different names; moreover, these numbers change
drastically from list to list.

For instance, Eusebius gives 26 years as the reign
duration for Amenmesse (second version), as it is
pointed out in [544], whereas Mricanus gives 5 years.
The durations differ from each other by a factor of five.
Eusebius gives 40 years for Amenope (both ver-
sions)) Mricanus gives 20, and Ophis only 8. And so
on, and so forth.

Nevertheless, all of this data can still provide the
basis for some speculation at least, obvious and nu-
merous distortions notwithstanding, and there is lit-
tle wonder that the XIX century Egyptologists at-
tempted to use these numbers to establish chronolo-
gies. However, they would get deviations of several
millennia
, as we have seen above, not to mention the
inveracity of the very concept of the Scaligerian "elon-
gated history."

However, for most Egyptian dynasties, reign dura-
tions of the pharaohs remain a complete mystery ( [99] ,
pages 725-730). The entire sixth dynasty, for instance,
can be cited as an example (according to Brugsch).
There is no chronological data for most of its pharaohs)
which makes it all the more peculiar to observe Brugsch
ascribing reign durations of 33.3 years to every pharaoh
of this dynasty with some determined and glum ex-
hilaration, counting 3 pharaohs per century
: His dat-
ings of the sixth dynasty are as follows:

Userkaf - reigned from 3300 B.C. onwards,
Teti - from 3266 B.C.,
Pepy I (Meryre) - from 3233 B.C
Merenre - from 3200 B.C.
Neferkaf - from 3166 B.C.
Merenre Zafemzaf - from 3133 B.C. (see [99]) p. 725).

Furthermore, Brugsh used the very same princi-
ple - numbers ending in 00, 33, and 66 - for "dating"
all of the dynasties starting with the first and ending
with the twenty-fourth inclusive.
It was only the
pharaohs of the last seven dynasties (of thirty!) that
enjoyed some sort of heterogeneity in the way their
reigns were dated ([ 99], pages 725-730).

This "dating method" is so ludicrous one feels em-
barrassed even to discuss it nowadays. Nevertheless,
it is this very method, with a number of minor later
modifications) that provided for the foundation of the
consensual version of the Egyptian chronology. Brugsch's
datings haven't ever been revised in any cardinal way.

See [1447], page 254, for instance.

_________________
" 'New World Order' ?...same as the Old World Order "

Church of Crac motto:
"The End is Nigh. Give me a Dollar."


--Cracrocrates


Last edited by Cracrocrates on Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 7 of 18

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.