| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | Looks like to Wiley that Protestants are the descendants of a mystery/messenger/messiah tradition, Catholics are descendants of the state religion.
You have to head off to Rome to understand the development of the state religion. |
We seem to be thinking along the same lines!
Protestants = Christians.
Christianity becomes so popular that its core elements are adopted into the state religions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
I cannot explain history. But I know that it is false. The patterns I have detected demonstrate that it is a work of fiction. Perhaps with some facts woven in, but rather irrelevant. Because the story we have received is not anything like an accounting of real events. Trying to tear the history out of it is a guessing game. Mostly all one can do is find the original story threads and speculate as to whether they have any basis in our world.
One might as well read the Gospels and the Book of Acts as read Heroditus, Plutarch, or Livy. These are equally esoteric works.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You are going off on a tear again.
| One might as well read the Gospels and the Book of Acts as read Heroditus, Plutarch, or Livy. These are equally esoteric works. |
No, one may not. We reject all these works but it is not the issue right now. I don't believe Wolsey, Cromwell, Henry VIII or Anne Boleyn appear in any of these works (not under these names anyway). They do appear in reams of written records of the sixteenth century (under these names). Until you rid the world of these facts I see no point in pursuing alternative 'facts'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Hatty wrote: | | Wile E. Coyote wrote: | | Christianity develops as a western mystery religion that later became a official state religion centred on Rome, that then spread...... eastwards |
Do you know of any contemporary written records or archaeological evidence indicating Christianity had developed in Ancient Rome? |
I think Byzantine coins are an interesting starting point as you get images and legends of both Christ (shown as Pantokrator, Ruler of All) and a named Emperor. You later get images of Christ without the named emperor.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/463390
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
You're our Man on the Money, Wiley, and Christianity in the pre-Norman era has become quite important to us. Can you be ultra-careful that the figure is Jesus and the coins are pre-1000?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Can you be ultra-careful that the figure is Jesus and the coins are pre-1000? |
I don't think Jesus existed, so the Jesus image has to be based on something/someone else. Some think it's Zeus. I am really going on the combination of both image and legend. Around the numismatic portrait of Jesus/Zeus was a Latin legend, “Christ, Rex Regnantiumâ€. "Christ King of Kings." The issue for Wiley is sequencing/stratigraphy (can we find some under something else) rather than dates. Do you want me to take a look? Or do you just want to abandon?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
This is not what I'm asking. Do pre-1000 Byzantine coins bear the words 'Jesus' or 'Christ' or some similar unambiguous reference to the bloke worshipped by Christians? Since they are supposed to be a very Christian outfit one would think there'd be no shortage of examples.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | | “Christ, Rex Regnantiumâ€. "Christ King of Kings." |
The coin shown has this legend, (inscription on coin). To me it is an unambigous reference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
It sure is. It sounds a bit 'singular' though. Out of the 14,984,343 coins the Byzantines coined before 1000 AD (when was this one, by the way), how many had this sort of thing? Take your time, I don't mind if you miss the odd one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | It sure is. It sounds a bit 'singular' though. Out of the 14,984,343 coins the Byzantines coined before 1000 AD (when was this one, by the way), |
It's a solidus of Justinian II (685-95) according to the museum.
| Mick Harper wrote: | | how many had this sort of thing? Take your time, I don't mind if you miss the odd one. |
I will take my time, no doubt a few have fallen down the back of the settee over the years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Until you rid the world of these facts I see no point in pursuing alternative 'facts'. |
I can't explain the origin of the reems of apparent historical data. I leave that to future generations. What I do know is that the histories, seemingly supported by all this data, are not true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I'll leave your theories for future generations to sort out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
On the coins with Christ images, you are looking at a number of emperors who issued coins, according to ortho.
Justinian II, (685-95)
Michael III, (842 to 867)
Basil I, (867-886)
Leo VI (886-912) expanded the religious representations for the first time to the saints, starting with the Virgin Mary. She is also identified by name.
John I Tzimisces (969-976) (Jesus Christ King of Kings) Gold, Silver Bronze issues.
You then have another according to one source issues that last the next 200 years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | I'll leave your theories for future generations to sort out. |
1788. King George goes mad. Oddly, this is the year immediately prior to the French Revolution, in the course of which which King Louis is executed. One king loses his mind. The other king loses his head.
The madness of George sets of a chain of events in which the Prince of Wales attempts to usurp the throne with the assistance of group of parliamentarians. But the whole thing comes to nothing and the King and son make up.
Odd thing is, the same sequence of events occur 71 years before, kicking off in 1717---the four digits of which, added in pairs, match 88. Then, the Prince of Wales attempts to usurp the throne with the assistance of a group of parliamentarians. But the whole thing comes to nothing and the King and son make up.
Oddly, who was prime minister during both episodes? William Pitt. Both times! Pitt the Younger in the latter case. Pitt the Elder in the earlier case.
This is really too much.
Incidentally, Pitt the Younger carried out a political purge highlighted by trials for treason and sedition. His targets were liberal reformers. The event is remembered as "Pitt's Terror." Apparently, his contemporaries noticed the same thing I do: That Pitt's political purge is a mirror image of that of Robespierre, whose targets were monarchists.
One might attribute this parallelism to reactionary politics and political smears (as do historians) but for the fact that so much of British history is characterised by exactly these types of reversals: Where the same story is told twice but the actors reverse roles.
It is my conclusion that these facts suggest, as the most-likely scenario, that an entire century of "British" history is some kind of nonsense.
It was this that led me to dismiss Samuel Pepys' Diary as a fake.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| 1788. King George goes mad. Oddly, this is the year immediately prior to the French Revolution, in the course of which which King Louis is executed. One king loses his mind. The other king loses his head. |
I don't immediately see the connection but do go on...
| The madness of George sets of a chain of events in which the Prince of Wales attempts to usurp the throne with the assistance of group of parliamentarians. But the whole thing comes to nothing and the King and son make up. |
Yes... OK...
| Odd thing is, the same sequence of events occur 71 years before, kicking off in 1717---the four digits of which, added in pairs, match 88. Then, the Prince of Wales attempts to usurp the throne with the assistance of a group of parliamentarians. But the whole thing comes to nothing and the King and son make up. |
This is completely new to me and I thought I was pretty clued up on British history. But I'll take your word for it. All the Hanoverians rowed father-to-son so, yes, you have a pattern there.
| Oddly, who was prime minister during both episodes? William Pitt. Both times! Pitt the Younger in the latter case. Pitt the Elder in the earlier case. This is really too much. |
Too much for me too. Pitt the Elder became prime minister de facto in 1756 and de jure in 1766.
| Incidentally, Pitt the Younger carried out a political purge highlighted by trials for treason and sedition. His targets were liberal reformers. The event is remembered as "Pitt's Terror." Apparently, his contemporaries noticed the same thing I do: That Pitt's political purge is a mirror image of that of Robespierre, whose targets were monarchists. |
Again this is new to me. The British government certainly cracked down on pro-French radicals. We were, after all, at war with French radicals so they would be derelict in their duty if they didn't. The really nasty stuff is associated with the Tory administrations after Pitt the Younger had died.
| One might attribute this parallelism to reactionary politics and political smears (as do historians) but for the fact that so much of British history is characterised by exactly these types of reversals: Where the same story is told twice but the actors reverse roles. |
We haven't had one yet!
| It is my conclusion that these facts suggest, as the most-likely scenario, that an entire century of "British" history is some kind of nonsense. |
As you know I regard British history is mostly nonsense up to the era when the historical record can be reasonably relied on. But even then...
| It was this that led me to dismiss Samuel Pepys' Diary as a fake. |
Was that before I did or after?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
