- deadlock
- We don't know that he was a disciple of Buddhist monk - it's a speculation. There's no rigorous historical evidence that supports this claim - the honest thing to do is to say "we don't know". Over the course of history there were many cases where multiple people independently discovered the same thing. For instance, the ideas of Epicurus and his concept of ataraxia are also quite similar to Buddhism. Also, mystic schools within each religion just use different language to describe the same experience. An example of this is the Gospel of Thomas from Nag Hammadi library. There are still disputes about its age but the teachings described there portray Jesus more like mystic - his teachings there are not elaborate doctrines but koans and Jesus is the guru/initiator.
- Naimul Haq
- +deadlock
It is not a matter of whether he was the disciple or a friend of a disciple, but when he uses Buddhist Dogmas means he endorsed them.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- +Naimul Haq
He endorsed those He used. Not the other ones.
Now, there are two ways in which he can have known about the Buddhist dogmata He used:
- He was a disciple of a Buddhist monk;
- He was God.
Actually, if He had been a disciple of a Buddhist monk, why did He condemn others by saying their opposite as dogma?
Oh, third possibility, these "Buddhist dogmas" were actually Hebrew dogmas. Perhaps Siddharta knew of them because he had read some Hebrew Scrriptures as a prince? Perhaps he neglected other Hebrew dogmas because he had forgotten them or because he had had the bad idea of rejecting them?
Either way, there is no such thing as anything being "wrong on every turn" - I heard a computer program for calculating Indo-European language relations described so, but it was at least partially right in saying that Romani was in some sense further off the common root of Indian languages than any else, rather than close to Hindi - this is wrong as to how older Neuter nouns redistribute as Masculines and Feminines, and therefore of the HISTORY, but it is right about vocabulary, since Romani has picked up quite a few words that are not found anywhere in India, since Gipsies left. So, though the computer model was described as "wrong on every turn" it was not.
Nor is Buddhism. It is only wrong, like any non-Christian religion for which one rejects Christianity, but not wrong on every turn.
The Buddhist dogmas which Our Lord used were those where Siddharta was right.
+deadlock
Gospel of Thomas is a forgery.
- He was a disciple of a Buddhist monk;
- deadlock
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
In the same way as Gospel of John - these documents were not written by John/Thomas but by people belonging to different schools of thought trying to make sense of who Jesus was. Oxyrhynchus Papyri date back to circa 250 a.d. and represent some our earliest known New Testament fragments. Surprise surprise, they also contain fragments of Thomas and other documents. We can dispute about the origin/theology etc. but the document itself is well-attested historically. And since the teachings overlap with the NT and in many ways are simpler, the core of the document (not all of it) might date even before Mark.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- The Gospel of St John is not a forgery. It was received as genuine and by him - my patron Saint, along with the Baptist (John = Johannes = Hans) - that is by the Disciple of Jesus, one of the first four called, one of the Twelve, son of Zebedaeus, by the Church and by the tradition of the Church - to which Saint Thomas also belonged.
Whatever community called the "Gospel of Thomas" written "by Thomas" was not of that Church and St Thomas can therefore not have been him.
I am not disputing it was early. I am saying it is NOT a document of the Catholic Church, which Jesus founded, and therefore not one document a very prominent member of that Church, like St Thomas can have written for common edification.
It can have been written while he was still alive - if it was when he was safely away in India. But it was written by people who made sure he could not be there and contradict their claim and it was written to impress people who thought well of him and tried to abuse it.
It can not have been written to divulge any secret doctrine to specially chosen members within the Church either, since the time for secret doctrines was over and - excepting things kept as secrets from persecutors - everything was "shouted from the rooftops".
So, it cannot be by St Thomas. But it can be as old as when he was alive, that is not what I dispute.
"the document itself is well-attested historically."
One of the attestations being that the Church condemned it over and over again as spurious, very early on.
"And since the teachings overlap with the NT"
Any teaching overlaps somehow with the full teaching of truth, normally. No teaching that has no truth can be attractive, so anyone deceived by the devil or wanting himself to deceive needs to have some overlap of doctrine with NT.
"and in many ways are simpler"
Lies are in many ways simpler than the truth.
"the core of the document (not all of it) might date even before Mark."
That remark presupposes one of the very spurious idiocies of modern Academia - made by Christians who did not relaly want to be Christians and started to feel hampered by what was actually in the Gospels.
Their story goes that one doctrine developed into another clearly non-identcial one over time and that this development can be traced over the course of the Gospels, no doctrine being there before it is written and writings not accepted in order traditionally thought to be written - St Matthew first - but in an arbitrary sequence according to as how the series best reflects a gradual invention of Christian teaching (so that these guys can say of such and such a Gospel passage "we don't need to observe it, it is later, not by Christ"), generally starting with Mark first among Gospels since shortest and Pauline letters all - except Hebrews and Titus and Timothy - previous to Mark. No, no ... one should observe, if one puts any credence at all in Christ, the order of writings that is given by Tradition. Those that believe Christ must believe He founded His Church and that it is the pillar of truth. Those that believe Him not will not be obliged by even one of the so-called "early writings".
- deadlock
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
I was afraid to step into these waters - I'm not here to question anyone's religious or theological beliefs (and naturally, biases when it comes to interpretation of such texts - including mine). I think it's fair to say Thomas was in early circulation and contains some genuine sayings of Jesus, although I wouldn't go as far as to say all of them are genuine because of the nature of development of these documents (this can be said even of canonical ones). But, for instance, it would be unusual for a 2nd century forger to make a reference to James the Just as the leader of the church etc. The books, commentaries etc. are out there for a discerning reader. But back to my earlier point - mystic traditions developed even within the "regular" Christianity (not just within Thomasine school) and even Islam (Sufism). In my opinion they represent perennial philosophy (just expressed in different terminology) that shares many similarities with Eastern philosophical traditions.
- Naimul Haq
- +deadlock
I have followed a few exchanges you had with Lundahl. They are very interesting, although I will not comment, as I am not qualified to do so. Nevertheless there is one interesting chapter in all these topics you are discussing, that I would like to know, if possible.
Around early 90's a smuggler of antiquities was caught by the Turkish customs, and the haul was kept in a safe in the treasury (perhaps), in which one item was a Bible written in Aramaic, and just about the oldest and was seen by a British authority only, and his findings made known to the Pope. It was the media's opinion(Newsweek) that all or many Christian practices comes into question with answers suspected to be humiliating.
I would like to know more about what happened next, and what did it contain.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "I think it's fair to say Thomas was in early circulation"
Sure, no prob.
"and contains some genuine sayings of Jesus"
Any forger would include some.
Clarification on "any forger would include some" = from the real Gospels.
I actually do not know if this one did.
"But, for instance, it would be unusual for a 2nd century forger to make a reference to James the Just as the leader of the church"
If the forger was near Jerusalem whose first bishop was St James the Just, he would have no problem even if only half competent.
"The books, commentaries etc. are out there for a discerning reader."
They are banned.
"mystic traditions developed even within the "regular" Christianity (not just within Thomasine school)"
If you want mystic, leave off pseudo-Thomas and get to Saint John of the Cross!
He's a guy for no weaklings (tougher than I can take).
"In my opinion they represent perennial philosophy (just expressed in different terminology) that shares many similarities with Eastern philosophical traditions."
The real perennial philosophy is not the Eastern one.
"Around early 90's a smuggler of antiquities was caught by the Turkish customs, and the haul was kept in a safe in the treasury (perhaps), in which one item was a Bible written in Aramaic, and just about the oldest and was seen by a British authority only, and his findings made known to the Pope."
I wonder if that was "Gospel of Barnabas"?
I consider old texts are best transmitted by a broad tradition, like Mahabharata or Homer, and not by a single find of a very old manuscript which differs from other ones, either in collection or in text version.
It is not the tradition of the Church, as far as I know, especially not if containing "Gospel of Barnabas".
- I gave
- links to the three parts (so far extant) here.
- deadlock
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
The temple was destroyed in 70 a.d. therefore a late forger would be unlikely to make such "obsolete" reference. Even more so because the early church tradition relied on Paul and there are hints that Paul and James weren't exactly on good terms (Acts). So, if a forger wanted to increase the authority of the document, why choose a person who's authoritative role had been actively downplayed? I'm not saying it couldn't be a forgery but to me it doesn't seem that likely. And of course another question is, would you be willing to subject canonical documents to the same rigor? But some bias I can understand because you're an evangelical Christian and it's your active choice, which I respect. So, let me leave this discussion with peace :) I think though that being too hung up on theology basically teaches divisiveness.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "The temple was destroyed in 70 a.d. therefore a late forger would be unlikely to make such "obsolete" reference."
The succession of bishops of Jerusalem in the Christian Church was very much NOT a secret known only in the Temple.
"Even more so because the early church tradition relied on Paul and there are hints that Paul and James weren't exactly on good terms (Acts)."
What exact part of Acts are you referring to?
Here is link to first chapter:
Acts, chapter 1
(links to following and previous chapter on top of each page, under links to following and previous book)
http://drbo.org/chapter/51001.htm
"So, if a forger wanted to increase the authority of the document, why choose a person who's authoritative role had been actively downplayed?"
It hadn't.
And the forger may well have deliberately upplayed the role of St James as authoritative not just in Jerusalem but everywhere, because admitting Peter remained chief after quitting Jerusalem and leaving it to James (who was its first single-man bishop, but succeeded after the collective episcopacy of St Peter and the Twelve) would have been too much of a referral to Rome where Sts Peter and Paul had died.
"And of course another question is, would you be willing to subject canonical documents to the same rigor?"
I am doing it by the fact that I distinguish canonic from forgery on the line of where tradition is.
Suppose that Gospel of St Thomas had really been by the disciple Thomas. That would have meant the Catholic Church was either lying about its Theology or lying about St Thomas being part of them. That would mean the other Gospels are forgeries.
BUT if that had been the case, where would the wisdom, power and goodwill of God be, if He allowed forgeries to take over right after Jesus lived and let the genuine message get buried? Impossible, if you believe at all that Jesus was God.
An Atheist stepfather said about the Blessed Virgin Mary "if there is something special about Jesus, there is something special about Mary". Same thing can be said about Jesus and the Church that preserved the Four Canonic Gospels. If Jesus is God or even anywhere near from God, God saw to it the Church He founded would keep the real Gospels not false ones and condemn false Gospels not a real one. If on the other hand Four false Gospels were accepted and a real Gospel lost, then one would have to conclude Jesus was not God or even a propeht in the first place. Either way the Gospel of Thomas is worthless. If Jesus is God, He knew how to preserve His Church and preserved it, and the Four Gospels are true and it is a forgery. If it is genuine, the fact it was condemned and on most parts forgotten for so long proves Jesus is not God so a Gospel of Jesus has no value anyway. Logic.
"But some bias I can understand because you're an evangelical Christian"
I am a Roman Catholic.
"I think though that being too hung up on theology basically teaches divisiveness."
According to the genuine Gospels, Christ said He had come to be occasion for much division.
Matthew 10:34-35
http://drbo.org/chapter/47010.htm
Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Challoner comment:
[35] I came to set a man at variance: Not that this was the end or design of the coming of our Saviour; but that his coming and his doctrine would have this effect, by reason of the obstinate resistance that many would make, and of their persecuting all such as should adhere to him.
- deadlock (had also written)
- +Naimul Haq
It was an apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas written in Syriac that, just like the recently discovered Gospel of Judas, portrays Judas in a different light. The nature of these texts is that they might contain certain elements of actual history but many things are simply made up and represent late theological developments. There are certain methods how these texts can be evaluated - do we have old fragments, is the text referenced in ancient records, do we have multiple attestations, does textual criticism reveal inconsistencies or heavy redaction etc. Not all ancient texts stand up to these tests equally well.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- +Naimul Haq, deadlock wrote you:
"There are certain methods how these texts can be evaluated - do we have old fragments, is the text referenced in ancient records, do we have multiple attestations, does textual criticism reveal inconsistencies or heavy redaction etc. Not all ancient texts stand up to these tests equally well."
There are certain methods to evaluate oldness.
One is palaeography, and there I am as useless in Syriac as I could do rather well in Latin or even Greek. Shapes of letters have changed by fashions, and unlike Arabic script the most ancient letter types have not been preserved as a calligraphic alternative, but rather by being reserved in certain documents of the imperial office of Constantinople for headings. But in Syriac, I can basically not tell. But there is also the codex form of the book.
I thought it was II C., but actually it was already invented in the first one.
"Developed by the Romans from wooden writing tablets, its gradual replacement of the scroll, the dominant form of book in the ancient world, has been termed the most important advance in the history of the book before the invention of printing. The codex altogether transformed the shape of the book itself and offered a form that lasted for centuries. The spread of the codex is often associated with the rise of Christianity, which adopted the format for the Bible early on. First described by the 1st-century AD Roman poet Martial, who praised its convenient use, the codex achieved numerical parity with the scroll around AD 300, and had completely replaced it throughout the now Christianised Greco-Roman world by the 6th century."
Wikipedia : Codex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex
"There are certain methods how these texts can be evaluated - do we have old fragments, is the text referenced in ancient records, do we have multiple attestations, does textual criticism reveal inconsistencies or heavy redaction etc. Not all ancient texts stand up to these tests equally well.”
In this art, some criteria are more subjective than others. Inconsistencies to one may not be inconsistent to the other. "Heavy redaction" may be presumed on good grounds in some cases, like when giving anachronisms of a well known type (does Dictys from Crete really capture the Mycenean form of shields at all, even as much as Homer?), and I presume Mahabharata is a post-Flood poem from India showing very heavy redaction of memories from pre-Flood world, calling "the black" Krishna instead of Kush being one of these.
But someone who believed Kali Yuga had taken place when Krishna died and no world wide flood happened THEN (Hinduism places the world wide flood much earlier) would presume I was wrong on Mahabharata material being heavily redacted in "Indian post-Flood" manners, because he would assume I was wrong to reconstruct the Mahabharata War as a Nodian war taking place between Cainite factions after Lamech.
When we are dealing with Higher Criticism dealing with such and such a Canonic Gospel "showing heavy redaction after a late theological development", we are also dealing with reconstructions - by men who refused to believe Christian theology was once and for all given by Christ to the Apostles.
And of course, Gospel of Thomas being referenced very many times as apocryphon, i e as forgery, by the Church, is a criterium of the "many early references" type, but not a guarantee it is really by Thomas, rather the contrary.
As to Gospel of Barnabas, let us not confuse it with the proobably apocryphal Epistyle of Barnabas, which is another work. The "Gospel" we are talking about was referenced very late, namely 7th C., first reference I know of. I e it appeared after or around the time of the Hegirah. - Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thank you for the interesting detail of what I call "acceptability" problem. Legends, epics, commentaries, scriptures, etc. often refer to historical events that are datable, and the context is better and believably understood. The epic of Gilgamesh can be understood, among others, as a realization that all of god's creation must die, and man is mortal, and cannot claim equal footing with the divine power.
The Sumerians were great story tellers, a quality that also proved a powerful weapon. The Greek epics of Homer reflected the same theme as did Mahabharata and Ramayana in India, when ancient legends about Krishna, who was the builder of Dwaraka( that was recently dated as a continuous occupation from 32,000-9500 bp), were craftily employed to create the reality of a Semitic god Rama replace Sanatan Dharma of Krishna, by helping the evil Kuru to destroy the Jadu people and establish Hinduism(Persian coinage), cloaked in Semitic traits (like ULU).
- "The Greek epics of Homer reflected the same theme as did Mahabharata and Ramayana in India,"
Same themes. But different stories.
"The Sumerians were great story tellers, a quality that also proved a powerful weapon."
They were even willing - it has been proven by comparing versions - to use variation on a story as a tool for example for flattery. That is why I rely less on them than on Hebrew story of Flood and of what was before Flood.
I even think pre-Flood conditions are better preserved in Mahabharata than in Gilgamesh, Atrahasis etc. The geneaology of Cain in Genesis 4 ends with Lamech having two wives, and three sons and a daughter. Mahabharata is a war between cousin factions. Cousins are sons or daughters of different persons who were between them siblings. Plus Krishna predicting a local Flood may be a way to minimise the memory of the global one previous to when epic was written or its stories originated rather.
"Dwaraka( that was recently dated as a continuous occupation from 32,000-9500 bp)"
Catholic as I am, I think Creationist Evangelicals have a point about carbon datings. Anything carbon dated 50,000 - 20,000 bp can be from the Flood.
As to Krishna, his traditional death date is close before Flood:
"According to the Surya Siddhanta, Kali Yuga began at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BCE in the proleptic Julian calendar, or 14 January 3102 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. This date is also considered by many Hindus to be the day that Krishna left Earth to return to his abode."
Wiki : Kali Yuga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga
"a diluvio autem, anno bis millesimo nongentesimo quinquagesimo septimo"
From Roman Martyrology of Christmas Day.
3102
2957
_________
0155
Krishna died 155 years before the Flood, if he existed, and Kali Yuga was set as a new era by very early Hindoos or pre-Hindoos, because they refused to accept Global Flood as division, wanted to forget about it. But somehow could not ignore it either.
Bible about pre-Flood conditions:
Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown. And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times,
Mahabharata on result of the war mentions it ended with both sides doing so much evil that even the good guys could not tell themselves apart from the bad guys.
Apart from that, I consider Mahabharata contains also a lot of Pagan error, specifically when Krishna is said to have his soul enter Heaven and be received like a god, but this is not seen by any man, this is the vision of a poet in a dream.
Ramayana was probably post-Flood. There is a Raman son of Kush in the genealogy of Ham [in the Bible].
And the Hindoo "god" Rama has two sons, one of them named Kusha - who could have been named after his grandpa Kush.
And in Hebrew, Kush has the same meaning as Krishna in Sanscrit - black. I don't think the Biblical Kush is Krishna, but I think Krishna might have been ancestor or even father of Ham's wife, of whom the Biblical Kush was born.
War of Troy happened later, a bit before the time of King David.
Probably while both Greeks and Trojans were part of Hittite Empire, pretty certainly Trojans were.
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
So the battle of Kurukhetra (1200bc) and the Trojan war happened around the same time.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- I know very little of Kurukhetra.
But Trojan war was approximately as old as that, yes.
If it is included in Mahabharata, I would have to conclude the poem mixes matters from different past times.
[It is THE main action of Mahabharata - the battle in which Krishna is Arjuna's charioteer!]
Probably the same is true of Homer, but an opposite thing is true as well : he deliberately forgets (or is inheritor to people who deliberately forgot) all about the Hittite Empire as such.
That is why I think episodes from Battle of Kadesh, between Hittites and Egyptians, may have made it into legends about Troy, even if that was another war.
I can also have been totally wrong about when Mahabharata is from.
But if Kurukhetra was around 1200 B.C. it is impossible that Krishna who was charioteer to Arjuna died 3102 B.C., 155 years before the Flood.
One of the dates is off and by millennia.
That is also true of Greek chronology up to the War of Troy, generally. It was millennia after the Flood and they put it just five or ten generations after it.
I looked up Kurukshetra (redirected from Kurukhetra, both versions apparently exist of the word), and Kuru seems to have founded it around Sarasvati nadi which one thinks dried up in 1900 B.C. ... if I am right Mahabharata action took place pre-Flood, it is possible Sarasvati was a pre-Flood river which showed banks even after Flood but it is also possible all was relocated. If I am wrong, Kuru living before 1900 B.C. hardly allows you to be right that his grandsons Kauravas and Pandavas fought about his land in 1200 B.C. - They are just his grandsons, right?
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Historically the Kuru were based around the Swaraswati and were a consortium of central Asian tribes who entered India after the fall of the Harappan civilization around 1900 bc.
The Jadu were a leading Vedic tribe based in Dwaraka, who were the leading resistance to this encroachment that got legal status not with the destruction of the Jadu by the Kuru in the battle of Kurukhetra, but with the subsequent spread of Hinduism, through the theatrics of the epics Mahabharata and Ramayana, making semitic gods Brahma, Rama, replace Krishna (recently dated to about 12,000 bp) and the Jadu rule with Ram's Kingdom.
This became possible by introducing Rama as Krishna's brother as two hair, one white and one black, of Vishnu, and dramatising the Kuru as cousins of the Jadu, and many other manipulations, over 1600 years when at the end of the Maurya, Hinduism routed the Buddhists from power along with the Sanatan religion of Krishna. The Bengali people, a distant branch of the Jadu people still preserves the Sanatan, as in many other places, and the Brngali Mahabharat is considered the genuine version by H.H.Wilson.
Manipulating sacred script was rampant and easy in those days in all religions , like in your gospels, or in Hadis many of which are openly declared to be redundant.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- +Naimul Haq "Manipulating sacred script was rampant and easy in those days in all religions , like in your gospels, or in Hadis many of which are openly declared to be redundant."
There is no easy way in which Gospel text can have been largely manipulated after writing and publication, since the Church watched very jealously over copying. While at same time each Sunday Gospel was read, short portion after short portion, all over the Christian world. Original Church very clearly was rivalled by factions with other Christology, but they had same text for all four Gospels.
OK, one Syriac manuscript says Emmaus was 160 stades (32 km) rather than 60 stades (12km) from Jerusalem. Actual distance of Amwaz.
Even for hadiths, I trust Islamic tradition got the content right. They are just not from God.
The West had practise from keeping Homer intact.
Gospels were also written to soon after events by people too close first or second hand, to be manipulated before writing.
Also, the Church had training in avoiding post writing manipulation from its Hebrew past.
Samarian, Hebrew and Septuagint versions of Books of Moses are extremely close. Nothing like difference between Bengal Mahabharata and other versions.
And there too, the closeness in time between events and writing prevent manipulation before writing. Usually, probably for diverse parts of Genesis too.
Moses' Exodus is reasonably as accurate as Xenophon's Anabasis.
The Four Gospellers reasonably give as accurate accounts of Jesus - even humanly speaking, even if He were not, as He is, God - as Xenephon and Plato of Socrates.
Some even think Plato inserted dialogues that Socrates never made according to his own philosophy. That would be the kind of forgery behind "Gospel of Thomas" - except that the different Master of the Disciples would not have allowed the real St Thomas to be behind such a lie.
As to the rest of what you say - I know very little about it, how much is history recorded in the times and how much is reconstruction afterwards?
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
You will notice how both Jews and Christians claim to have championed a monotheistic god, while both missing the truth and resorting to "make belief" stories. The main gate of David's capital Jerusalem was adorned with pagan figures of a snake, bull, fire etc. while the Christians had to settle for the Trinity.
India with Dwaraka, a 100 square mile settlement was an important port city trading with Sumerians and also Egypt, and exchanging belief soon realized the power of their monotheistic god Vishnu, that impressed Abraham (1750 bc) and Akhenaton, both smashed their establishment to promote the concept of one god. Moses, David, Soleman all toiled hard without success, ultimately Mohammad, much later, did succeeded,but again opposed vehemently by both Jews and Christians.
The same thing happened in Egypt, where all marks of one god were erased after the death of Akhenaton. Later though Hatshupset sent a delegation to Punt (India), not to collect gold but plants to be used in religious functions, the details being lost.
Again if you notice how Abraham went to Egypt (knowingly gave his wife to the Pharoe,to gain favor) and claim the promised land, failed like one of his sons later, the Jewish establishment under Moses, David etc.manipulated god's promise, and changed the venue from Egypt to Palestine on the plea that the Palestinians are themselves occupiers, therefore deserve to be ousted, and convinced the Jews that all tribes around Jerusalem are children of Abraham. And as soon as the Assyrians struck around 800 bc, 10 of the 12 tribes changed allegiance.
Sometimes made up stories hide hard truth. Like the story of Sindbad the sailor (that perhaps inspired the Greek legend of Jason and the golden fleece)speaks the truth of a brave sailor who frequently sailed up the Shindhu river flowing by the state of Sind, many times bringing valuable goods to Sumeria, that made him a hero and became legendary.
Deceit and manipulation, happens right under your nose, remember how Bush wanted you to believe Saddam had nukes?How truth is faked or manipulated, and how to identify them is a necessary skill without which black becomes white, or blue turns red.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "You will notice how both Jews and Christians claim to have championed a monotheistic god"
I notice how you shift subject from how much less well Mahabharata was transmitted than Homer, Books of Moses and the Four Gospels to quite another issue.
Btw, we do not claim we champion God. We claim God champions us.
"while both missing the truth and resorting to 'make belief' stories."
A bit thick that coming from one who resorted to a make believe story Christ had been disciple to a Buddhist monk a bit further up on the discussion.
"The main gate of David's capital Jerusalem was adorned with pagan figures of a snake, bull, fire etc."
How do you know? What if?
Adornments on gates are not usually set out as objects of worship.
But I am not taking your word it was, unless you direct me to a Bible quote on it.
"while the Christians had to settle for the Trinity."
Yes, we have to settle for the real God.
False gods, including false forms of monotheism won't champion us against devil and wordly tyrants like the real God.
"India with Dwaraka, a 100 square mile settlement was an important port city trading with Sumerians and also Egypt, and exchanging belief soon realized the power of their monotheistic god Vishnu, that impressed Abraham (1750 bc) and Akhenaton, both smashed their establishment to promote the concept of one god."
You presume there are no traditions among Christians why Abraham took his distance from idolatry?
Or you presume I am so emptyheaded so as to believe your just so story about it instead?
I may have been wrong to consider Krishna was a pre-Flood character misnamed in your tradition. Maybe he was an Aryan and a false prophet and misdated instead of misnamed and misinterpreted.
If your theory is right that he lived and took part in Arjuna's battle around the time of the Trojan War, he must have been very much put back in history if he arrived from then to dying 155 years before the Flood.
And when I put it to you that your traditions are not reliable you try a "tu quoque" which is baseless in fact. Our traditions necessarily omitted things that happened, no tradition can recall each and every event of the past, and the Greek traditions were also falsified by idolatrous and superstitious interpretations and by deliberate omissions, like never saying "Hittite". But neither Jew nor even Greek added century on century between the generations we remembered accurately.
"Moses, David, Soleman all toiled hard without success, ultimately Mohammad, much later, did succeeded,but again opposed vehemently by both Jews and Christians."
Mohammad claimed to correct Jews and Christians who supposedly had forgotten what Moses and Our Lord really said. THEN he also claimed to supply the corrections from "hearing of divine voices" ... Not a credible source from which to correct tradition, especially since not backed up by miracles.
"Again if you notice how Abraham went to Egypt (knowingly gave his wife to the Pharoe,to gain favor) and claim the promised land, failed like one of his sons later, the Jewish establishment under Moses, David etc.manipulated god's promise, and changed the venue from Egypt to Palestine on the plea that the Palestinians are themselves occupiers, therefore deserve to be ousted"
What kind of lie is that?
Palestinians a a Christian and partly Islamised people did not exist yet. They descend from Israelites, from Jews and Samarians.
[Jewish and remains of Samarian sect do so too, but either never adopted or rejected with Chosroes Christianity.]
Philistines came from Crete. They were later absorbed into the Jewish tribe, and thus into Jews as much as Christian/Moslem Palestinians.
The guys that Joshua ousted according to God's promise were neither Philistines (who came later) nor Palestinians, but idol worshipping Canaaneans, so bad as to make Kali worshipping Thuggees and Suttee look nearly decent by comparison.
"Deceit and manipulation, happens right under your nose, remember how Bush wanted you to believe Saddam had nukes?"
The one who is manipulated right now seems to be you.
The fake accusation against Saddam was about Chemical weapons, undestroyed reserves of poison gas.
I am a Christian now, was a Christian then and was no supporter of Bush's why or how to conduct a war.
As the why was back then. ISIS is another matter.
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Actually I did not shift subject, if you remember we were on the subject of deceit, manipulation prevalent in all scriptures.
Yes I deliberately touched the Israeli string to see if you agree. But you kept silent. Though the pagan symbols seems to have your attention. The source I quote is believable to me, then again we come back to acceptability.
However I have no intention to hurt your belief and I was trying to understand what "manipulation" does, giving some personal observations, you are at liberty to disagree.
I agree Palestinians came later, but targeting the Canaaneans was gods promise cannot be true because of a Jewish propaganda video in U tube clearly showed Abraham trying to claim gods promised land in Egypt not Canaan, which also showed him giving his wife to the Pharoe,knowing.Does it mean I am manipulated.
I agree satee, and the rest are the perverted side shared by every religion, like Krishna was manipulated to resort to double standard for the sake of implanted Hinduism to succeed.
Surely god wants us to know the truth. I expect you to give me the truth you have.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "Actually I did not shift subject, if you remember we were on the subject of deceit, manipulation prevalent in all scriptures."
You were before my answer.
I corrected you on the "prevalent in ALL scriptures" part, you ignored that.
"The source I quote is believable to me, "
You probably know it won't be to me, since you did not bother to cite it.
"I agree Palestinians came later,"
You didn't "a moment ago", when misnaming Canaaneans "Palestinians".
"but targeting the Canaaneans was gods promise cannot be true because of a Jewish propaganda video in U tube clearly showed Abraham trying to claim gods promised land in Egypt not Canaan, which also showed him giving his wife to the Pharoe,knowing."
I am not gullible enough to believe everything a youtube video clearly shows. Unlike you apparently. Nor hysteric enough to disbelieve everything coming over internet. I test it against tradition as I know it.
And I have given reasons why the Hindoo tradition and similar ones, with Mahabharata and Bhagavadgita, are less creedible than Hebrew or even Pagan Greek one.
"I agree satee, and the rest are the perverted side shared by every religion,"
No, not EVERY one.
God has given His truth to His people. He had a people called the Hebrews, he still has a people called Catholics.
"like Krishna was manipulated to resort to double standard for the sake of implanted Hinduism to succeed."
If memory of Krishna was manipulated, how can we consider it probable he was a man of God?
A true prophet of God has his memory correctly preserved at least by some.
All who recall Krishna as Krishna recall him as having - as we Christians know falsely - said in Bhagavadgita "everything is the same". So, under that name he cannot have been a man of God.
I recall from Bible a man named Kush, which means, like Krishna in Sanscrit, "black". He was born after flood and could be grandson or greatgrandson of one who died 155 years before the Flood (people lived lots longer before the Flood). So, Krishna could have been a hero before the Flood. However, if he participated in any war like the Kurukshetra battle, he may have been Nodian, Cainite, and he may have been remembered by his own - the family of Ham, especially Kush's son Raman whom I consider as your Rama and as your ancestor and who named his own sons - if Raman was also hero of Ramayana - Kusha and Lova, as more pious than other Cainites, but since the line of Rama missed out on Abraham, since they became idolaters, they manipulated the memory wrongly, long before Hinduism and overdid, exaggerated, the holiness of that man. That is the truth that you can get out of me. Your tradition was manipulated, ours was, by God's grace, preserved and perfected.
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
My point was not to attack any belief, but attack the fact that all religion, besides teaching moral values, invariably resorts also to deceit, manipulation etc and are instrument of domination.
Only Boddhiswatta can provide with a suitable mind set, and helped evolve the world as we know now, not Christianity, Judaisn, Islam etc.
Even Buddhism has aspects the are not consistent and rational (like detachment), or refraining from eating meat or believing in rebirth.
I had no idea you were a devout Jew, I gave examples of manipulation as part of all religion, and I did not intend to hurt you.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "My point was not to attack any belief, but attack the fact that all religion, besides teaching moral values, invariably resorts also to deceit, manipulation etc and are instrument of domination."
My point was that you are wrong there.
"Only Boddhiswatta can provide with a suitable mind set, and helped evolve the world as we know now, not Christianity, Judaisn, Islam etc."
My point was that you are wrong there too.
If you are yourself willing to make an exception, as you do for "Boddhiswatta" (I have seen it written Boddhisattva), you have no reason to critique anyone else for also making an exception.
But I have a further point here.
YOUR exception is inaccessible. Your "Boddhiswatta mentality" is not accessible as identical to Buddhism, but inaccessible.
MY exception is accessible. It is Catholic Christianity.
"I had no idea you were a devout Jew, I gave examples of manipulation as part of all religion, and I did not intend to hurt you."
Hurting me is less important than that you were hurting truth and even good sense, even good logic.
And I am not a "devout Jew", I am a devout Roman Catholic Christian.
Unless devout is saying too much for me, of course.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
... with the Bengali and "deadlock", on Jesus and on Apocryphon called Gospel of Thomas
1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... Debate against a Blasphemous Hegelian Bengali. Part one, Education of Jesus Christ. And education in general, 2) Debate against a Blasphemous Bengali Hegelian : Part two, His evil ideology of Progress, 3) ... with the Bengali and "deadlock", on Jesus and on Apocryphon called Gospel of Thomas, 4) HGL's F.B. writings : Debates on "Gospel of Barnabas" and Fifth Sourate, at the end with a Muslim, 5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Remember the Buddhist Aussie?
... on Linguistics - History and Prehistory, Modelling and Mismodelling
1) ... on Old and Middle English after PIE and among Germanic langs - featuring videos of Martin Hilpert, 2) ... on Linguistics - History and Prehistory, Modelling and Mismodelling
Mismodeling Indo-European Origins: The Assault On Historical Linguistics | GeoCurrents
GeoCurrents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ
Mismodeling Indo-European Origins: The Assault On Historical Linguistics | GeoCurrents
GeoCurrents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ
- I
- Own reflection, not on comments:
- i) Indo-European origins theories:
- 1) "Nazi theory" (or theory disused by its association with Nazism, but possibly going back to Grimm brothers) they came from the Baltic and were originally Nordic race;
- 2) Marija Gimbutas and her Kurgan theory, placing PIE in Ukraine
- 3) Colin Renfrew's Anatolian theory, saying it originated with agriculture there
- 1) "Nazi theory" (or theory disused by its association with Nazism, but possibly going back to Grimm brothers) they came from the Baltic and were originally Nordic race;
- ij) Indo-European spread theories:
- 1) violent spread by conquest and migration
- 2) peaceful spread by imitation (along with imitation of agriculture, for instance)
- 3) mingled spread ...
- 1) violent spread by conquest and migration
- iij) Indo-European unity nature theories:
- 1) all of above deal with PIE as one real language, which is indeed THE dominant theory, but look how disunited it is as to when adn where and how of this original language!
- 2) unity could be by mutual adstrate (Balkan model)
- 3) unity could be by prestigious superstrate (Latin as model for West European languages)
- 4) both of above could be combined with IE originating as a Lingua Franca (has been proposed by others for Celtic)
- 1) all of above deal with PIE as one real language, which is indeed THE dominant theory, but look how disunited it is as to when adn where and how of this original language!
- i) Indo-European origins theories:
- II
- You know that what you are dumping is a computerised model, right?
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Extreme Badness of Google Translate (Copy Pasted both texts)
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/11/extreme-badness-of-google-translate.html
- III
- 48:28 Ah, was I saying somewhere that Creationism is getting an illdeserved bad reputation for either being dumped in itself, or its opposite evolutionism being touted in context after context where it is totally irrelevant?
Yes, I did!
Latter phenomenon?
Creation vs. Evolution : Just Ask Anyone ....
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/11/just-ask-anyone.html
Former phenomenon (also by a linguist, see The Missing Spanish Creoles, chapter "Creationist at a Cocktail Party") was noted on top of this essay (continued in comment section, largely):
HGL's F.B. writings : Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for "outdated because disproven inexact science"
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/04/cagasuamfobdis.html
I have discussed Creationist models for IE unity in two series of blogposts. And this single one:
Creation vs. Evolution : Giving Tower of Babel a Fair Hearing
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/06/giving-tower-of-babel-fair-hearing.html
- IIII
- 49:01 "assuming that languages get diffused like viruses" ...
Oh, no mindless and massive assumptions like those behind accepted models? Not that I defend Atkinson's modelling per se.
Sardinian or Roumanian - which diverged first? Well, in a way it depends on what you mean by "diverged". If you mean "diverged phonetically" so as to retain [ k ] pronunciation of < c > before palatal vowels or [ u ] where other languages (excepting Roumanian) get [ o ], sure, Sardinian diverged first. But such a divergence would not stop communication and mutual understanding.
On the other hand, getting isolated from the rest ... Roumanian got more thoroughly isolated from any Romance excepting Dalmatian than Sardinian from Italian and Occitan.
Use some of the insights from sociolinguistics!
Like Scanian is diverged from Stockholm dialect, since the spelling < rot > hides a divergence between [ ruwt ] in Stockholm and [ R(e)ouwwt ] (approx.!) in Malmö, with < r > in one case = r (Italian r) and in one case = R (French R). But this divergence does not separate the dialects from each other, vocabulary, phraseology etc flows pretty freely from one to the other (at least if we speak of Swedish as spoken in Scania rather than Scanian proper). That may have been similar to relations between Italian and Sardinian. Roumanian diverged much more thoroughly. You are treating it as evolutionists treat cladograms for supposed common ancestry - in fact Darwin partially plagiarised Grimm brothers.
Some mindless assumptions are also involved in Evolutionism. You said it was a mindless assumption not to allow for possibility of advection and rapid language spread making a difference. I heartily agree, perhaps more than you do. But it is also a massive and mindless assumption to, despite all flood myths (including but not limited to Biblical flood account) deny possibility of Flood having anything to do with Geology and with Geological facts.
I also reacted earlier on about the Wheel line. Two reasons.
1) Flood was approx 5000 years ago, but according to uniformitarian calibration gets carbon dates 20,000 to 50,000 years before present. So the wheel appearing in archaeology is probably much more recent than 3500 BC.
2) That said, wheels have been found at least as/on toys in the American pre-Columbian cultures. Wheels can have been invented well before Noah and the earliest speakers of IE langs (note I am not saying of PIE lang!) may well have had a word for wheels before getting to build any once again. Because they had cultural memory past the stone age after the Flood.
- V
- Just before 58:19
Still on Pereltsvaig - Anatolian theory might come in a slightly different shape in a YEC, post-Babel setting.
Anatolian and close by linkable to grandsons of Noah:
Iavan - from Japheth (ancestor of Greeks)
Lud - from Shem (ancestor of Lydians probably Lycians and Phrygians too)
Het - from Ham via Canaan (probably ancestral to Hatti people)
Madan - from Japheth (ancestor of Medes and Persians, the latter having admixture from Elam, of Shem, as I recall)
Magog - uncertain whether Anatolian or Scythian, uncertain whether today's relatives are more Turkish or Russian.
A problem 5 originally unrelated languages, which gives a communication problem.
A solution - probably used more than once - create a Lingua Franca, an Esperanto.
Results - probably PIE/Hittite (Nesili) possibly also PFU/Hattic (Hattili).
Variation models - sounds laws may work very rapidly if not working on inherited words but over cuneiform or syllabic writing. Which both Nesili and Hattili had, as I recall.
I forgot about Kaphthorim, from whom Philistines are/were a branch. Minoan Cretan Linear A has been possibly deciphered as an Indo-Iranian dialect. Mount Ida=Mount Indra. So, another people wo very early got its language Indo-Europeanised, involved in the Indo-European "stew" on my model.
1:09:08
Definition of cognates has to exclude borrowing.
With two languages borrowing from each other over a long time (not just Russian Polish with the oro/ro and the olo/lo lists) and bilingualism being very rampant, borrowings would tend to adapt to cognate like patterns. The last example with an oro in Polish might have become ro in areas where Russian was neither absent nor high status.
In Swedish we have pojke and pjexa from Finnish.
If Finnish had had a higher status, and been more present in Sweden, one might have seen even bojke/bjexa. Confer loan other way, bock > pukkuu (pukku?).
Failing this, early IE langs could only have mimicked cognate like behaviour of common words by mutual borrowing via writing, as most borrowing between diverse Swedish dialects of 18th C. or earlier 17th C. (Geatish and Sweonic being originally two diverse dialects of Nordic, while Yamtish and Gutnish - the possible two extra Swedish languages in the model - were clearly more marginal as to standard Swedish and its "constituent dialects" - and from time of Charles X Gustavus, the process includes Scania and Halland / Bohuslän as well).
1:09:28 They might not have known the borrowings were borrowings.
Pay in Swedish is betala and ask is fråga - like betalen, fragen in Dutch and Platt - because 50% of our vocabulary is from Hanseatic Low German. Indigenous words spörga for ask and gälda (=yield) for pay are not well known outside literary or historically linguistic circles.
Danish and Bokmål have an even higher percentage of Low German loans, making "South Scandinavian" (or East Nordic) langs a hybrid by relexicalisation between Nordic as originally spoken and Low German.
- VI
- 59:41
1) Assuming the peer review was bungled in this case, as per Asya Pereltsvaig - then this is a good debunking of the peer review superstition, precisely as the results of the model are of reconstruction, especially by computerised models.
Peer review can clearly be peer misreviewing, just as a model may be mismodelling.
2) But the response to the linguist may have been they wanted a linguist to respond to it in public - as you did. Even computer freaks with no historical linguistics would know some of the results predicted by the model are factually incorrect.
1:07:01 malfaisance?
An editor has possibly a moral obligation to be critical - but does it amount to a juridical obligation to agree in criticism with mainstream science pov?
If that were the case, no criticism of mainstream science pov, no science scoop could ever be possible!
- VII
- 1:05:26 The old guy might have done better as a commenter here than as a questioner back there (as long as internet exists)?
He does not get that Frisian is extant language of politically Netherlandish West Frisia and FORMER language of East Frisia in Germany.
However, Frisian may phonetically be closer cognate to English (cheese, tsise vs. kaas, presence of breaking), it has still had a longer history of bilingualism with Dutch and German. And that German on top of it a Platt, closer to Dutch than to Hochdeutsch.
Arguably Frisian where still extant has been relexicalised through Dutch as much as English through Anglo-Norman French after submitting to some Viking influence. Things a computer program could never deal with.
Monday, November 24, 2014
... on an Amerindian story about a prayer, an Eagle and a Sun, and responding as a Christian
At start of a video, most of which I have not seen yet (may link later):
The Eagle took a prayer to the Sun ... reminds me of St Thomas Aquinas' words about people who approaching the palace of the King see a guard in fine livery and think he is the king. The Sun is not God, just a servant.
The Eagle took a prayer to the Sun ... reminds me of St Thomas Aquinas' words about people who approaching the palace of the King see a guard in fine livery and think he is the king. The Sun is not God, just a servant.
- Lee Allen
- the sun was a god here for a long time be for your god ever got over here show some respect that kind of thanking ( your god is the only god ) was and still is part of the problem
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- All men are brothers mean all men have the same ancestor.
This man worshipped one God, not many different ones.
You may have forgotten how you came to worship many gods, it happened before you came to America, and you have forgotten that too. We who stayed back had a memory.
Hebrews - of which Christians are a non-ethnic descendant people - recall how men afraid of another Flood built a Tower under an evil chief, Nimrod. He was to worshippers of the true God sometimes like English / Yankee nations have been to your nations.
And in his time worship of other gods than the true god started.
The Sun is not God. But the Sun is not just a ball of fire either as far as I can see. Or as far as I can reason as a Christian Theologian (not an accredited one, my Bishop has given me no authority, but every believer is in some way a Theologian). Rather, the Sun is a servant of the true God.
Joshua spoke to God and the told the Sun to stand still - and it did - while Joshua routed very evil enemies.
Agamemnon prayed to many gods, including the Sun. One day he wanted to rout a Trojan army before it could take shelter in Troy. He prayed to the Sun. And the Sun went on.
The Greeks observed the long day when Joshua told the Sun what to do as much as the Hebrews did, or Agamemnon would not have had the idea of praying to the Sun.
When he failed, they could not take that the Sun had listened to a Hebrew (an enemy of their Philistine cousins) but not to a Greek. Even later the Sun returned two lines on a sundial, also for a Hebrew. So the Greeks mixed the two miracles, made up the story that the Sun had gone backward and that it was when Agamemnon's father Atreus had done a bad thing to his brother Thyestes.
They said, "when Atreus slaughetred the son of Thyestes and cooked the flesh for the father to eat and then taunted his brother, the Sun was so horrified he rose in the West and set in the East". But the real story is that once, in the time of Joshua, the Sun stood still, when Joshua ordered him, and Agamemnon, the son of Atreus could not get a similar favour, so he wanted this to be forgotten, and that later the sun went back two hours when a King of Judah told the prophet Isaiah that was the sign he wanted in order to believe him.
The Sun is an obedient servant, much like the eagle in your story. And not God.
A poor man goes to a palace to see the King. He sees a palace guard in very fine and stately uniform and says "this must be the king", but it is not, it is only the servant.
The servant of the King has a duty to tell about the real King. And the Sun also tells us about the real God.
Joshua is the same name as Jesus, in Hebrew and Greek. So the Sun obeyed Joshua because he had the name of Jesus.
Hezekias was a King of Judah, an ancestor of St Joseph, who was the fosterfather of Jesus.
The Sun obeyed Hezekias because he was legal ancestor of the True God made man.
So, take advice from the Sun, don't take him for god, take Jesus for God.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
... on Old and Middle English after PIE and among Germanic langs - featuring videos of Martin Hilpert
1) ... on Old and Middle English after PIE and among Germanic langs - featuring videos of Martin Hilpert, 2) ... on Linguistics - History and Prehistory, Modelling and Mismodelling
The prehistory of English
Martin Hilpert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVGeW4vXMrE
I
a
Decay or not decay overall, the "sound laws" are the decaying factor, the replacement strategies are the repairing factor.
For instance, using diminutives as such is neither decay, nor repair, but invention.
How do you like - if you read Latin - this dialogue with the salsarii but also the "avicellus habet finum beccum" of Lugdunum?
En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Dialogus Temporibus Romanis
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/08/dialogus-temporibus-romanis.html
Sound laws, as they are misnamed, i e sound changes that start out as voluntary vanity but end up as ignorance of older speech (and worse: of older spelling, in some cases, speech being less important from before tape recorders), as estrangement from those preserving it, sometimes also erode useful distinctions.
Solem and solum remain reasonably distinct to this day in Italian and Spanish, but in Gaul there was a time when both were pronounced about as very slow pronunciation of sôle (hope you enjoy that fish!).
Soliculum which had been as funny as "Brother Sun" became the standard word instead of "solem" - hence soleil.
A repair strategy had decayed a fun word to an ordinary word and that had been necessary when a decay of final vowel distinctions had decayed a phonetic distinction to a context based distinction between oral homophones, if not homographs.
So, whether language change is overall repair or decay, it is certainly a change that involves both - in various proportions. Repair is btw obviously conscious, depending on consciousness of meaning and consciousness of an arisen ambiguity.
b
shoures soote = pluie douce?
Doux can be used first (douce France), but general tendency might have beenn especially in Aquitaine rather than Normandy, N-A rather than A-N.
In other words, foreign language influence is not limited to lexical items. Whatever the Jung Grammarians used to say.
c
And the word gay retained a certain decent meaning to the days when CSL let Puddleglum till Jill and Eustace to be "gay and frolic" ... (Silver Chair).
Its new meaning is definitely a reason for cultural pessimism!
II 4:34
Common source. Very philosophically stated.
Mother language, like Archaic and Popular Latin to Romance?
[Meant Vulgar Latin]
Mutual adstrate/Sprachbund, like Balkanic similarities?
Common superstrate language like banalised Classic Latin = Medieval Latin to West European (Romance, Germanic or Celtic) languages?
Common adstrate language of lingua franca nature? Like Romani on diverse slang (both Swedish and Spanish have the gipsy words chey and choor- (-ing/-o) on a certain social level) or Occitan (on a higher social level) on Middle Age court languages?
ALL of above qualify as "common source", precisely as in another field both "common ancestor" and "common Creator" are a "common source" for undeniable similarities.
III 7:11
determining similarities between languages is not necessarily proving a genetic relationship, as the known one between Latin and French/Occitan/Spanish/Italian.
On Balkan you have vocabulary and grammatical similarities crossing over independently of genetic supposed distant and obvious non-relationship between Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, Albanian, formerly Turkish.
Genitive/Dative merger "I gave his a book=I gave him a book" of Greek/Romanian originating probably from Latin feminines. Post-posed articles in Romanian and Bulgarian, possibly Albanian which I know very little about. Lexical items all over Balkan. Etc.
IV
a 17:06
k > ? >> ? > k (!?)
[Is k > glottal stop examples much greater than glottal stop to k in occurrence !?]
How many times has either [process] been observed in real time, neither [variant of word] being a *[reconstructed form]?
Of the h in nihil there are two outcomes. Nîl (disappears and identic vowels around simplify hiatus to prolongation) and Medieval nikil. An Englishman like Alcuin would have said nihil with a Germanic h, excepting Cockney, and a Romance speaker in Gaul would have struggled to imitate it and have come up with k.
b 17:59
I can think of one situation in which 0 > h. Epenthetic for hiatus avoidance.
Precisely as one can also have 0 > w, 0 > j if one vowel in hiatus is either back rounded or front high.
But for this to be as plausible as h > 0, I would like to check if Tongan does avoid hiatus. If it doesn't, agreed.
V 22:24
The four Polynesian languages are not subject to doubt. They are perhaps as close as Nordic with Tongan in Icelandic position or Westic, with Tongan in German position (excepting the Second sound shift). At least if the thirteen words are representative of vocabulary.
But there are certainly Balkanic (or a little further East partially inthis example) similarities too. Think of Romanian î, Turkish i with no dot, Polish y (and a similar sound in Russian) ... can these arise through conditioned sound change? Probably yes. Same condition? Perhaps as probable (not true of î before nasal and y wordfinally) Sometimes even in same words shared between them? Why not, though I know of no example.
So how do we know that Indo-European sound correspondences are Polynesian rather than Balkanic?
If Swedish has pojke and pjexa from Finnish, and if Finnish has Joulu and Pukku from Swedish, can we totally exclude situations in which the sound correspondences are not similar whichever way the loan goes?
In this case it is not so, or we would have **bojke and **bjexa but ...
Especially if a superstrate was a written language, like Nesili, which can have had different pronunciations.
Abstract ending syllable -tion(em) has systematic sound law like correspondences in diverse West European languages. And Nesili writing systems was probably syllabic. Right?
VI
a By 24 approx, Grimm's law ...
When did it happen? One could also ask: why and to what sequence of speakers did it happen?
Were Fenno-Ugrians (or other language of soundtype close to Finnish) adopting a language close to Q-Celtic and Latin (and to P-Celtic as for "peduar"/"fidwor") but turning stops from b, p to p, pp, etc? Even Verner might have some such reason, confer "fitta"/"vittu" (sorry for example, if you know what it means, but it shows Finnish lacks f and replaces it with v in loans, and in this case even word initially).
Had Grimm happened lots earlier in Anatolia and are Germanic langs de-satemised Phrygian (or was it Lydian)?
Both Finnish and Hittite (I recall) share with Germanic the trait of a simple past which has no aspectual morphology attached. Slavonic also has such pasts, roughly analysable as "active aorist participles" and with aspect tied to lexical choice between verb pairs. While Greek has the Imperfect Aorist contrast, Latin the Imperfect Perfect contrast and probably Sanskrit something similar, as well as Celtic.
We have seen no pre-Germanic stage of Germanic, we do not know.
[Unless indeed "Brygoi" were very early Germanic speakers]
b 24:18
Combining Grimm/Werner into one scenario:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Coniectura linguistica, pro casu unitatis vetustissimae indo-europaeae linguae.
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/01/coniectura-linguistica-pro-casu.html
H3 recunstructed as North German intervocalic G witn labialisation - why in that last extra scenario it did not turn same way as PIE (my reconstruction) γw.
VII 34:55 "All living languages change"
You mean, all living spoken languages change. The written language can stay the same, leading at best to just a new correspondence set between one to one grapheme/phoneme pairs, at worst to a real diglossia.
But if the written language does change it can either be towards or against speech change.
Or it can be suddenly exchanged; most famously perhaps when hyll was respelled hull, geard yard etc. after French spelling system, or earlier when feid replaces fidem after the correspondence in the Alcuinic pronunciation of fidem.
Swedish spelling reform 1906 was useless - and so was Hitler abolishing of Deutsche Schrift and of Schwabach print.
Old English and Middle English
Martin Hilpert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdn-gwLgj80
VIII 5:53
The Basileus when fighting about Sicily in 1033 might also have taken a second thought about hiring Normans, if he had attended to Wyrtgeorn's/Vortigern's bad strategy ...
IX
a
Voice of Father Ure - Alexander Arguelles?
b
gedaeghwamlican - sele - costnunge - ac might have been impossible without context or translation.
I have background in Sweden and Austria so some words (hlaf=Laib, swa swa=såsom, (a)lys=lös=erlöse, gehalgod=helgadt=geheiligt) are more obvious to me than to monoglot English speakers.
X
a
9:57 "and very reasonably got rid of it" ... ha, I dispute that!
[Never got around to stating why it was not very reasonable, but they did get rid of it.]
b
Loss of N/A distinction : Swedish, Danish yes. German/Icelandic no.
XI a 20:01
- Swedish has preserved final vowels ("inversing roles" of -a/-e as compared to OE, but really a different development from same Germanic vowels, as they suppose - Icelandic still even has -u), Danish has -e, like Middle English - probably from around time when this also happened in Middle High German and Middle English.
Dialects of Norrland as to Swedish and of Bavaria/Austria as to High German have gone to the vowel dropping stage, like Modern English.
b
Loss of -n.
Min > mi paralleled in one [at least] Swedish dialect (Småland).
Infinitive -n - lost in Danish and Swedish (rida), preserved in High German (reiten, Swiss and Middle High: rîten).
XII
Two conclusions about comparing history and prehistory as to language studies:
a) in history we see parallel changes - all Westic languages lost vowel distinctions in final syllables, so by comparing them we would be reconstructing infinitives in -en rather than in -an.
If all PIE languages really descend from a common one, its reconstruction is given is a minimal distance from present stages - not necessarily the real one.
The one reconstructed right now is pretty ugly. "pH2teH1r" or "pχtehr" for pater/father is a bit Klingon.
b) but when we come to prehistory, we find disputable theories, when we come to history, we come to pretty firm facts.
The prehistory of English
Martin Hilpert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVGeW4vXMrE
I
a
Decay or not decay overall, the "sound laws" are the decaying factor, the replacement strategies are the repairing factor.
For instance, using diminutives as such is neither decay, nor repair, but invention.
How do you like - if you read Latin - this dialogue with the salsarii but also the "avicellus habet finum beccum" of Lugdunum?
En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Dialogus Temporibus Romanis
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/08/dialogus-temporibus-romanis.html
Sound laws, as they are misnamed, i e sound changes that start out as voluntary vanity but end up as ignorance of older speech (and worse: of older spelling, in some cases, speech being less important from before tape recorders), as estrangement from those preserving it, sometimes also erode useful distinctions.
Solem and solum remain reasonably distinct to this day in Italian and Spanish, but in Gaul there was a time when both were pronounced about as very slow pronunciation of sôle (hope you enjoy that fish!).
Soliculum which had been as funny as "Brother Sun" became the standard word instead of "solem" - hence soleil.
A repair strategy had decayed a fun word to an ordinary word and that had been necessary when a decay of final vowel distinctions had decayed a phonetic distinction to a context based distinction between oral homophones, if not homographs.
So, whether language change is overall repair or decay, it is certainly a change that involves both - in various proportions. Repair is btw obviously conscious, depending on consciousness of meaning and consciousness of an arisen ambiguity.
b
shoures soote = pluie douce?
Doux can be used first (douce France), but general tendency might have beenn especially in Aquitaine rather than Normandy, N-A rather than A-N.
In other words, foreign language influence is not limited to lexical items. Whatever the Jung Grammarians used to say.
c
And the word gay retained a certain decent meaning to the days when CSL let Puddleglum till Jill and Eustace to be "gay and frolic" ... (Silver Chair).
Its new meaning is definitely a reason for cultural pessimism!
II 4:34
Common source. Very philosophically stated.
Mother language, like Archaic and Popular Latin to Romance?
[Meant Vulgar Latin]
Mutual adstrate/Sprachbund, like Balkanic similarities?
Common superstrate language like banalised Classic Latin = Medieval Latin to West European (Romance, Germanic or Celtic) languages?
Common adstrate language of lingua franca nature? Like Romani on diverse slang (both Swedish and Spanish have the gipsy words chey and choor- (-ing/-o) on a certain social level) or Occitan (on a higher social level) on Middle Age court languages?
ALL of above qualify as "common source", precisely as in another field both "common ancestor" and "common Creator" are a "common source" for undeniable similarities.
III 7:11
determining similarities between languages is not necessarily proving a genetic relationship, as the known one between Latin and French/Occitan/Spanish/Italian.
On Balkan you have vocabulary and grammatical similarities crossing over independently of genetic supposed distant and obvious non-relationship between Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, Albanian, formerly Turkish.
Genitive/Dative merger "I gave his a book=I gave him a book" of Greek/Romanian originating probably from Latin feminines. Post-posed articles in Romanian and Bulgarian, possibly Albanian which I know very little about. Lexical items all over Balkan. Etc.
IV
a 17:06
k > ? >> ? > k (!?)
[Is k > glottal stop examples much greater than glottal stop to k in occurrence !?]
How many times has either [process] been observed in real time, neither [variant of word] being a *[reconstructed form]?
Of the h in nihil there are two outcomes. Nîl (disappears and identic vowels around simplify hiatus to prolongation) and Medieval nikil. An Englishman like Alcuin would have said nihil with a Germanic h, excepting Cockney, and a Romance speaker in Gaul would have struggled to imitate it and have come up with k.
b 17:59
I can think of one situation in which 0 > h. Epenthetic for hiatus avoidance.
Precisely as one can also have 0 > w, 0 > j if one vowel in hiatus is either back rounded or front high.
But for this to be as plausible as h > 0, I would like to check if Tongan does avoid hiatus. If it doesn't, agreed.
V 22:24
The four Polynesian languages are not subject to doubt. They are perhaps as close as Nordic with Tongan in Icelandic position or Westic, with Tongan in German position (excepting the Second sound shift). At least if the thirteen words are representative of vocabulary.
But there are certainly Balkanic (or a little further East partially inthis example) similarities too. Think of Romanian î, Turkish i with no dot, Polish y (and a similar sound in Russian) ... can these arise through conditioned sound change? Probably yes. Same condition? Perhaps as probable (not true of î before nasal and y wordfinally) Sometimes even in same words shared between them? Why not, though I know of no example.
So how do we know that Indo-European sound correspondences are Polynesian rather than Balkanic?
If Swedish has pojke and pjexa from Finnish, and if Finnish has Joulu and Pukku from Swedish, can we totally exclude situations in which the sound correspondences are not similar whichever way the loan goes?
In this case it is not so, or we would have **bojke and **bjexa but ...
Especially if a superstrate was a written language, like Nesili, which can have had different pronunciations.
Abstract ending syllable -tion(em) has systematic sound law like correspondences in diverse West European languages. And Nesili writing systems was probably syllabic. Right?
VI
a By 24 approx, Grimm's law ...
When did it happen? One could also ask: why and to what sequence of speakers did it happen?
Were Fenno-Ugrians (or other language of soundtype close to Finnish) adopting a language close to Q-Celtic and Latin (and to P-Celtic as for "peduar"/"fidwor") but turning stops from b, p to p, pp, etc? Even Verner might have some such reason, confer "fitta"/"vittu" (sorry for example, if you know what it means, but it shows Finnish lacks f and replaces it with v in loans, and in this case even word initially).
Had Grimm happened lots earlier in Anatolia and are Germanic langs de-satemised Phrygian (or was it Lydian)?
Both Finnish and Hittite (I recall) share with Germanic the trait of a simple past which has no aspectual morphology attached. Slavonic also has such pasts, roughly analysable as "active aorist participles" and with aspect tied to lexical choice between verb pairs. While Greek has the Imperfect Aorist contrast, Latin the Imperfect Perfect contrast and probably Sanskrit something similar, as well as Celtic.
We have seen no pre-Germanic stage of Germanic, we do not know.
[Unless indeed "Brygoi" were very early Germanic speakers]
b 24:18
Combining Grimm/Werner into one scenario:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Coniectura linguistica, pro casu unitatis vetustissimae indo-europaeae linguae.
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/01/coniectura-linguistica-pro-casu.html
Sed ponitur tunc quaestio de γ quod est laryngalis tertius theoriae laryngalium.
H3 recunstructed as North German intervocalic G witn labialisation - why in that last extra scenario it did not turn same way as PIE (my reconstruction) γw.
VII 34:55 "All living languages change"
You mean, all living spoken languages change. The written language can stay the same, leading at best to just a new correspondence set between one to one grapheme/phoneme pairs, at worst to a real diglossia.
But if the written language does change it can either be towards or against speech change.
Or it can be suddenly exchanged; most famously perhaps when hyll was respelled hull, geard yard etc. after French spelling system, or earlier when feid replaces fidem after the correspondence in the Alcuinic pronunciation of fidem.
Swedish spelling reform 1906 was useless - and so was Hitler abolishing of Deutsche Schrift and of Schwabach print.
Old English and Middle English
Martin Hilpert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdn-gwLgj80
VIII 5:53
The Basileus when fighting about Sicily in 1033 might also have taken a second thought about hiring Normans, if he had attended to Wyrtgeorn's/Vortigern's bad strategy ...
IX
a
Voice of Father Ure - Alexander Arguelles?
b
gedaeghwamlican - sele - costnunge - ac might have been impossible without context or translation.
I have background in Sweden and Austria so some words (hlaf=Laib, swa swa=såsom, (a)lys=lös=erlöse, gehalgod=helgadt=geheiligt) are more obvious to me than to monoglot English speakers.
X
a
9:57 "and very reasonably got rid of it" ... ha, I dispute that!
[Never got around to stating why it was not very reasonable, but they did get rid of it.]
b
Loss of N/A distinction : Swedish, Danish yes. German/Icelandic no.
XI a 20:01
- Swedish has preserved final vowels ("inversing roles" of -a/-e as compared to OE, but really a different development from same Germanic vowels, as they suppose - Icelandic still even has -u), Danish has -e, like Middle English - probably from around time when this also happened in Middle High German and Middle English.
Dialects of Norrland as to Swedish and of Bavaria/Austria as to High German have gone to the vowel dropping stage, like Modern English.
b
Loss of -n.
Min > mi paralleled in one [at least] Swedish dialect (Småland).
Infinitive -n - lost in Danish and Swedish (rida), preserved in High German (reiten, Swiss and Middle High: rîten).
XII
Two conclusions about comparing history and prehistory as to language studies:
a) in history we see parallel changes - all Westic languages lost vowel distinctions in final syllables, so by comparing them we would be reconstructing infinitives in -en rather than in -an.
If all PIE languages really descend from a common one, its reconstruction is given is a minimal distance from present stages - not necessarily the real one.
The one reconstructed right now is pretty ugly. "pH2teH1r" or "pχtehr" for pater/father is a bit Klingon.
b) but when we come to prehistory, we find disputable theories, when we come to history, we come to pretty firm facts.
Friday, November 21, 2014
... Debate against a Blasphemous Hegelian Bengali. Part one, Education of Jesus Christ. And education in general.
1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... Debate against a Blasphemous Hegelian Bengali. Part one, Education of Jesus Christ. And education in general, 2) Debate against a Blasphemous Bengali Hegelian : Part two, His evil ideology of Progress, 3) ... with the Bengali and "deadlock", on Jesus and on Apocryphon called Gospel of Thomas, 4) HGL's F.B. writings : Debates on "Gospel of Barnabas" and Fifth Sourate, at the end with a Muslim, 5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Remember the Buddhist Aussie?
The Hegelian Bengali is called Naimul Haq. He is a retired electrician. I first reacted on his comment before verifying earlier parts of what he had said. Dear fellow Christians, be prepared for some stupid comments in the New Agey way before I get into the debate! But I think it is instructive for my readers to know how Orientals and likeminded (second speaker is in fact an Occidental Buddhist, unless you call Oz "Extremest Orient") reason when among each other. They are not debating, they are flattering each other. Or these on this sample are.
Next part we get into a wider discussion. He will introduce his meaning of evolutionary continuum. I would have guessed it better if I had read earlier parts of the thread where he expressed admiration for Hegel.
The Hegelian Bengali is called Naimul Haq. He is a retired electrician. I first reacted on his comment before verifying earlier parts of what he had said. Dear fellow Christians, be prepared for some stupid comments in the New Agey way before I get into the debate! But I think it is instructive for my readers to know how Orientals and likeminded (second speaker is in fact an Occidental Buddhist, unless you call Oz "Extremest Orient") reason when among each other. They are not debating, they are flattering each other. Or these on this sample are.
- Naimul Haq
- Jesus was a disciple of a Buddhist monk, and learned the Buddhist mind set called Bodhiswatta, and taught "love thy enemy" or "do unto others as you expect others to do unto others" and other Buddhist dogmas, granting people liberty, human rights, ahimsa etc that impressed the people of the whole world, who voluntarily accepted Bodhiswatta.
- I'mtheway Soareyou
- I think maybe your right, there is a lot that points to very similar teachings. one that I love that Christians just don't want to see, is if your eye be single your body will fill with light. there is no way a Christian can understand this unless you look at Hindu and Buddhist teaching. and a very big misunderstanding is the concept of hell. Buddha said it was a state of being from desire, and Christians think its a place we go to for punishment! wow now that is a very big stuff up! I was a Christian for a very long time. but didn't understand a thing until I started looking at Hinduism and Buddhism. in my mind this is the roots of Jesus teaching :0)
- Naimul Haq
- +I'mtheway Soareyou
You are absolutely right. Buddha institutionalized non-violence,rule of law,human rights, animal rights, liberty, freedom etc. that captivated the minds of the people all over the world, and impressed Christ, encouraged Mohammad as the first head of state to sign the Madina Code (declaration of human rights for all minorities (mainly Jews and Christians,some of whom were killed previously while revolting).
The Magna Carta that ushered in a new quantum leap for mankind, was drawn up in the same spirit of the Buddhist mind set called Bodhiswatta.
The power of Buddhism was quickly realized by the Persi-Babylon alliance that conspired to suppress both Krishna's Sanatan Dharma and Buddhism in one stroke. They supported the Kuru, who introduced Hinduism, by making the Jadu people kill Krishna, and smash the might of the Yadav (H.H.Wilson, The Vishnu Purana).
[He is extremely probably overdoing humanity of Medina code, and very definitely getting Magna Carta wrong, both as to its roots and as to its consequences. It is not from Buddhism Boddhisattwa ethics, it did not establish the rule of law - Constantine did that much earlier, followed by Justinian - and it was not a quantum leap for mankind or even for England.]
- I'mtheway Soareyou
- +Naimul Haq try telling a Christian that lol thanks :0)
- Naimul Haq
- +I'mtheway Soareyou
Even Muslims and Hindus too. What does it take to appreciate what is good for evolution of mankind.
[The Aussie is tired of Christian countrymen, Naimul has to tell him he's idealising Orientals.]
- I'mtheway Soareyou
- +Naimul Haq that is the ten thousand dollar question! I have been thinking about it, and to tell the truth I don't know lol. now that the world has become a lot smaller thanks to things like the Net. information about history and every religion you can think of, there are a lot more people waking up to a new perspective of truth an life. and as the governments of the world increase there hold on the rest of us, I think it will take something big that will trigger a desperate need for a major change in how we see ourselves and the universe. I think that as man is more oppressed the more the spirit within us must brake free? but to tell the truth, that is a very tuff question! lol
- Naimul Haq
- +I'mtheway Soareyou
You are so right,"it will take something big ... for a major change in how we see ourselves".
By 2035 vegetable production will half and population will double,unless we can do something about it, it will blow into our face, and if we can learn anything from history,evolution plays a remorseless role in helping the strong to eliminate the weak, to achieve equilibrium.
Evolution is driven by a program, not very well understood, but enough to observe how this program decides everything we do,and how we behave. Even the Buddhist mind set that once achieved equilibrium,is what evolution had in store for us.Similarly the present cultural war between the various religions, will produce a mind set that will achieve equilibrium.
- I'mtheway Soareyou
- +Naimul Haq yes that's very true. maybe that is why we are seeing this outbreak of Ebola? there are many powerful people that think thinning out the populations is a good thing!
now that the world is much more connected, someone like a Krishna , Buddha or a Christ would have a much bigger impacted on the world? and most religions think that there is one more round of god like people to go? I don't know what I think about that, maybe its me? LOL! so are you Buddhist? where are you from??
[God preserve me from being "god like people"!]
- Naimul Haq
- +I'mtheway Soareyou
I am a retired electrical engineer from Bangladesh, and not quite a Buddhist, but I believe in a similar mind set suitable for the modern age we live in.
For example the system of education fall far short of what we need to prepare ourselves to live in a world of competition, conflict,conspiracies etc.,and the pitfalls we face like drugs, sex, religious and political indoctrinations etc.
In particular I think all students be given proper training in "meditation", that helps open a third eye that enables you to get a deeper insight of reality, besides the all important quality of "self-control" we desperately need.
Newton once gave a graphic description of meditation (which he used to do a lot) that gave him a flow of ideas that is incessant,enabling him to work njava-script for 18 hours a day-!!!
My favorite is a self taught mathematician named Ramanujan, who died of tuberculosis at the age of 33, and gave us 4000 theorems that has proved valuable in many modern problems he never could imagine. He was trained in Vaishnav Yoga-!!!
[I would like to know how many of his theorems were really unknown to Western Mathematicians, might ask Numberphile about that. Btw, further up in this comment he tells us he's a Bengali who is a retired elecrical engineer. The blasphemy was obvioulsy not here but in his first comment.]
- I'mtheway Soareyou
- +Naimul Haq ok cool im in Australia, the first country to legalise mass surveillance : (
I was once a Christian, but now I would say I am a student of all religions an spiritual perspectives. I'm trying to find some kind of practical truth that is not just ideology or dogma. and you have hit the nail on the head! MEDITATION is the key i think. it seems to be the fundamental in all of it. even science is showing what has been said for thousands of years. it seems to be an amazing practical proses of overcoming self and opening the gates to the kingdom of God within! I am very exited about this practical path, I think maybe it is the true path. but to tell the truth, I am very new to this, and I have a lot to learn. I would like to have a look at Vaishnav Yoga! sound good.
[Here we found out he was an Aussie.]
- Naimul Haq
- +I'mtheway Soareyou
I partly know of one "practical truth", that even lead to a kind of spirituality,explaining a kind of relationship between us and the program (often called Creator, Designer, God etc.) about which we know through observation and some level of verification. Hegel's dialectical idealism along with his laws of dialectics (unity of opposites) had not been properly investigated. He even conjectured that evolution is a dialectical process.
I find the big bang created dark matter and dark energy with opposite properties, created all the particles along with their anti-particles etc.From such opposites particle physicists are able to explain the evolution of black holes, stars and galaxies, where evolves elements, compounds, organic compounds,amino acids and on to life and intelligence. The complicated genome (program) that produced us is the same creator program,or if you have the courage you can call it the universal program, and we are directly linked to the program.
+I'mtheway Soareyou
Your realization that the universe is conscious and everything is intimately related, is not surprising. There is an orchid flower that will only tap its pollen on the back of a particular insect and not to any other. Insects and orchids are different evolutionary process, yet there must be a conscious designer/coordinator that seems omnipresent.
Keep meditating and you will find yourself vibrating with the universal program.
- I'mtheway Soareyou
- +Naimul Haq yes thank you:0) the big question for me right now, is what are we, and what is the true relationship? is there something special about us and the source???
- Naimul Haq
- +I'mtheway Soareyou
Sure, we are like a kind of a projection of the program. We compliment each other.
- I'mtheway Soareyou
-
+Naimul Haq its true we do compliment each other. but in the western world we are very separated from each other. the only thing that brings us together is a disaster like floods and cyclones, then we go back to our tiny worlds. even Christians that claim to be the body of Christ are so divided, even with each other and hate and fear anyone that's not Christian or even from there same denomination. I suppose this is a big part of why we need a big change or evolution in mankind. Terence McKenna once said that we need a "archaic revival" and I tend to agree, maybe the old way of living was better ??
- Naimul Haq
- +I'mtheway Soareyou
I know the western society can be very introvert even among themselves. Germany, France, Britain can have relations that are really weird, like you said, only a disaster brings them together.
I am no expert, but I believe you shall have to work out a solution by yourself. This trend maybe part of the deal that propels your evolution,and in due time will be properly addressed.
Meditation is such an indispensable part of our being and save us from narrow mindedness, that few political leaders realize it.
- Marc Moise
- Jesus was and is not a disciple my friend. Jesus is God. The one and only God.
[But as man He made Himself a disciple in carpentry - and in the Torah, though there he showed Himself as master at age 12! But right, He was not a disciple of any Buddha or Boddhisattwa. At last a Christian man talking sense!]
- Naimul Haq
- +Marc Moise
What's The Trinity?
- I'mtheway Soareyou
- +Naimul Haq hi sorry, I've had a lot on. it is a hard one! maybe I will leave that for the next Buddha or whoever lol and yes your right Meditation is the way. first seek the kingdom within!
+Marc Moise God is everything including Jesus and you!
[Was so disgusted - if I saw it at all - I felt no want to even debate. I have refuted it elsewhere. By resuming the refutation of the ex-Hegelian CSLewis, on part of this blog post:
New blog on the kid : Sye Ten Bruggencate, C. S. Lewis, Aquinas, Existence of God
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/10/sye-ten-bruggencate-c-s-lewis-aquinas.html ]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- +Naimul Haq , as to your pretence that:
" Jesus was a disciple of a Buddhist monk, and learned the Buddhist mind set called Bodhiswatta, and taught "love thy enemy" or "do unto others as you expect others to do unto others" and other Buddhist dogmas, granting people liberty, human rights, ahimsa etc that impressed the people of the whole world, who voluntarily accepted Bodhiswatta."
What was the name of that Buddhist monk? When and where did they meet?
Where in the Gospels can I read of it?
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
I never read any Gospel, sorry. Sister Joseph Mary told me so(which I later found to be Buddhist dogmas) when I was a student,for 6 kindergarden years, in Holy Cross School, in Dhaka.
When I told this story to my friend Patrick. a devout Christian, he told me that one of Christ's disciples learned Boddhiswatta from a Buddhist monk, while I thought Jesus personally visited India. Whatever may be the case. Thank you.
[So much good it did him opening Holy Cross school in Dhaka to non-Catholic pupils ...]
- Dan Marino
- Jesus was a Bodhisattva. He was even predicted in the Rig Veda (even though this comment may be rejected by many Hindus.. you can't change the truth). There are two books that i suggest regarding Jesus 1) 'The Unknown life of Jesus Christ' - Nicholas Notovich 2) 'The Yoga of Jesus' - Swami Prmanahansa Yogananda.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- That Jesus was predicted by Rig Veda is very possible. Just as it is very probable that he was predicted by a Pagan sibyl.
Nicholas Notovich and Swami Prmanahansa Yogananda can safely be presumed to be wrong.
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Love thy enemy, or, do unto others as tou expect others to do unto you, are Buddhist dogmas, accepted by Jesus as part of his preachings. This also indicates Jesus accepted the Buddhist mind set called Boddhiswatta, that was already accepted ny the whole of the civilized world.-!!!
[In Christianity it is rather "want" than "expect", btw]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- There is such a thing as the natural law and it has a certain set of perfections.
Jesus accepted all of them, He is, as God the Son, as Wisdom of the Father, the law in all of its perfection.
Boddhisattvas accepted part of it.
Not [alas for them] the part on hoping to get to Heaven and not the part about thanking God for creation.
- Dan Marino
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Their testimonies are based on ancient Buddhist manuscripts, not conjecture. Even the Vatican knows about this; however, it's to their interest to keeps things quiet and deny any mention of this fact.
- Naimul Haq
- +Dan Marino
The Buddhist mind set, of nonviolence, human rights, animal rights,rule of law, liberty, freedom etc., called Boddhiswatta, even adapted by Mohammad, who was the first head of state to sign the Medina Code,granting rights of the minorities Jews and Christians, some of whom were killed in a revolt.
In 1215, in the same spirit the British adapted Magna Carta and established the "rule of law", that changed the whole world.
Thanks to the Buddhist mind set-!!!
[He said so before ... it was moreover the English who had Magna Carta, not their British neighbours in the West!]
- Dan Marino
- +Naimul Haq
"God has no religion." ~ M Gandhi
[answering himself to continue:]
+Dan Marino "There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness." ~ Dalai Lama
- Naimul Haq
- +Dan Marino
So very true, and amazingly so simple, yet many Indians fail to see what made them great, and what made the golden age of India, and of the whole world.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- +Dan Marino
"Their testimonies are based on ancient Buddhist manuscripts, not conjecture."
These ancient Buddhist manuscripts are if so lies. Lies by whoever wrote them earlier on - or by whoever invented them more recently.
"God has no religion" - According to your Mahatma who helped to end British rule over Pakistan. As well as in India.
Before British rule, Hindoos had Suttee and the strangler sect Thuggees. After British rule, Moslems are preparing to execute Asia Bibi.
Mohandas was also a friend of Nehru, who invaded Portugese India.
He was an admirer of the Tolstoy whom even Russian Schismatics had the good sense to excommunicate as the Heretic he was.
God made Himself man and followed the Mosaic religion in perfection. Not the Buddhist one, as "ancient Buddhist manuscripts" tell.
Dalai Lama is mistaken for a God.
His temple is his brain and his heart? His temple to the true God? Or to Buddha? Or to himself?
His philosophy is kindness?
God help the poor guys who take that as a complete philosophy!
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Assuming ancient manuscripts and testimonies are lies,you prove yourself illiterate.
- Dan Marino
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
The more you speak.. the more you make yourself look like a fool. Take your disdain elsewhere.
[These guys do not quite feel we Christians "complement them", do they?]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- No.
An Ancient manuscript or testimony from Oral tradition, as such, may be true or false.
I assume truth as long as I have no definite reason to assume falsehood.
Contradicting Holy Bible or Catholic Tradition or both is one such reason.
By adhering to Catholicism I do not prove myself illiterate, I prove myself a Catholic.
Same as with Krishna. I have no reason to say Arjuna did not exist or Krishna was not his friend and charioteer. I have very good reason to believe Krishna was not God, was not Lord, and Bhagavadgita is not correct moral or religious truth.
"The more you speak.. the more you make yourself look like a fool."
The Cross of Christ is folly to those who go towards perdition. You can still turn.
"Take your disdain elsewhere."
Disdain for what or whom? For false religion, yes. For half divinising a man who is wrong, yes, or one who was wrong while he lived.
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
You sound uneducated.
- Dan Marino
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
I'm Christian, however, i don't 'follow' Christian values.. i apply them in my life and to those around me. I also revere Buddha and his teachings which were fundamental in the Christian faith (love.. compassion.. kindness) if you believe it or not. I also revere Lord Krishna's teachings of doing the right thing.. having no fear.. and Bhakti (devotion) to one God (who is inside you) Applying the lessons learned (that means accepting everyone as your equal and showing respect) are what these texts are all about.. nothing more.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- If you summarise Buddha and Bhagavadgita as you do, you might not be wrong doctrinally, only a bit historically.
[Was I "too charitable"? Possibly yes. Sounds more like an Apostate - or one heading there - than someone "doctrinally not wrong"]
Alas, there is another side to Buddhism and another side to Bhagavadgita.
And of course, the "might" here depends very much on how aware you are the titles and reverence you gave Gautama and Krishna ("revere", "Lord") are inappropriate for non-Christian deities and teachers.
For Plato and Aristotle I have respect, but not reverence. As to Krishna, I can hope for him he was a good friend of Arjuna, but he was not a pure teacher of truth only, as he is portrayed.
What I take exception to is, in the one case "life is suffering" and the rest of the "four noble truths" and on the other hand "victory and defeat are the same" ... "everything is the same". If I had never heard those things, or similar ones, I might have hoped both were decent men and given some grace which was misunderstood by the surroundings or - in the case of Krishna, since we have no contemporary writing - those coming long afterwards.
Now Naimul ... EVERY man sounds uneducated to those who have a different education, except when his education specifically includes a kind of understanding of that different education, and sometimes even then.
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Education does not come in different packages, otherwise people of different cultures could not have defined an evolutionary continuum. I hope you understand.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- No, I very much do not understand what you mean by "people of different cultures" having "defined an evolutionary continuum".
I suspect it is a very incoherent remark and if you suspect otherwise, do have the courtesy to explain in somewhat more explicit words what you mean by "people of different cultures" having "defined an evolutionary continuum".
Education very much does come "in different packages". A Christian education and a Pharisaic education are very much not the same. They do very much not teach the eexact same values. They do very much not give alms to the poor in the same way (I think I am in a position to tell). They do not define virility in the same way.
While we are at education, the real apprenticeship of God when He was made Man and before He started preaching on the Kingdom of Heaven, was not with a Buddhist monk, was not with a Boddhisattva, but was with a Carpenter who was also His adoptive human father : St Joseph.
Next part we get into a wider discussion. He will introduce his meaning of evolutionary continuum. I would have guessed it better if I had read earlier parts of the thread where he expressed admiration for Hegel.
Debate against a Blasphemous Bengali Hegelian : Part two, His evil ideology of Progress
1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... Debate against a Blasphemous Hegelian Bengali. Part one, Education of Jesus Christ. And education in general, 2) Debate against a Blasphemous Bengali Hegelian : Part two, His evil ideology of Progress, 3) ... with the Bengali and "deadlock", on Jesus and on Apocryphon called Gospel of Thomas, 4) HGL's F.B. writings : Debates on "Gospel of Barnabas" and Fifth Sourate, at the end with a Muslim, 5) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Remember the Buddhist Aussie?
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Christian education did not appear suddenly from nothing, it came from what came before, which came from what came before, and so on.
However, it is my understanding that Christian system of the state and the church can have an unusual hold on the minds of the subjects, that hearing of divine sounds, and the like, are to be found in abundance, and the system keeps a lots of secrets believed by the subjects without question. White man's renewed effort for democracy and human rights, has justifications.Almost all serial killers (who claim to hear divine sound) are whites and Christians (no offense meant).
Your effort to establish human rights or freedom of thought, although praiseworthy, is by no means over.
I am not an atheist, but believe in evolution from some unknown universal program, that propels evolution everywhere, and that the process is dynamical and not static.
If I may call this universal program, the designer/creator or God, then I think he wanted us to possess the gift of free thought. He also gave the knowledge of mathematics to Meno's slave-!!!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- God gave the knowledge of Mathematics to Meno's slave.
God did not give an exact familiarity with Himself to all men after Adam's sin.
Nor did He intend the solution of how to get to know Him to coincide with the normal human ways of education.
Humanly speaking, a daughter is under her father in education. But God gave knowledge of Himself to more than one virgin, whose father remained Pagan.
Read the story of St Barbara. Her persecutor was her Pagan father.
"However, it is my understanding that Christian system of the state and the church can have an unusual hold on the minds of the subjects, that hearing of divine sounds, and the like, are to be found in abundance, and the system keeps a lots of secrets believed by the subjects without question."
You confuse a lot of different things.
By "hearing of divine sounds", I suppose you mean what Atheistic shrinks call "hearing voices". Actually, you are wrong to suppose most serial killers have that "symptom" and you are wrong to suppose most of them are Christians in the sense of accepting the Christian dogma.
Klebold may have been baptised - I am not sure - but he accepted evolutionist doctrine.
[I was confusing "spree killing" with serial killing - among those there is already one doctor and at least three of Catholic background who were unlikely to be practising Catholics, as I go by wikipedia. Secularism is rampant there too.]
For the Christian dogma having "a strong hold" and even unusually so on believers, has nothing whatsoever to do with "hearing voices". Christianity is a rational conviction.
The State can help the Church or mar the Church - but the dogmata belong to the Church, not to the State. The Anglican community (Church of England) is an aberration.
Miracles rather than hearing voices audibly is the rational basis for Christian belief.
[Sometimes hearing voices audibly on part of one person is involved in a miracle, but if so there is another person verifying the miraculosity of knowledge given by such voices.]
As we are talking about Krishna on this video, he never did anything to clearly show he was God, but Christ did. Krishnas body was burnt to ashes and thrown into the Ganghes (I think), both items may be anachronisms, because I do not believe that custom existed or even that Ganghes existed in the world before the Flood. And just before the Flood is when Kali yuga is supposed to begin, or in other words Krishna is supposed to have died.
But it is certain he did not appear risen from the dead, it is certain he was not bodily raised up into the clouds before eleven witnesses before disappearing.
The basis for Christianity is visible miracles, witnessed by many, not hallucinations experienced by one at a time.
[Whether the hallucinations be pathological or demonic, which are two different things.]
Now, as to the meaning you gave of evolutionary continuum, it contradicts your earlier observation on "education does not come in different packages". Even on your own principles you could have concluded that Christian education was different from Hindoo education, because, as you would say, "they had developed differently".
You also contradict yourself between God wanting us to have "free thought" and trying to rebuke someone expressing his free thought (free from your control at least) as someone "sounding uneducated".
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl God gave us Bodhiswatta so we can embrace values like nonviolence,human right, freedom,free thought etc., much like he gave knowledge of mathematics to Meno's slave. Do not remain the slave, but embrace Bodhiswatta. Do not disobey him, only you will fool yourself.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- What you propose is neither freedom nor even free thought.
Non-violence totally is not even a value that Christ embraced. Non-violence in peace time to preserve peace, he did more than anyone or at least than most. Certainly more than Gandhi.
[If He had a right to stone businessmen desecrating the Temple for sacrilege and blasphemy, and only took a rope t whip them, that is definitely non-violence in peace times to preserve peace. For instance.]
I do not know what you mean by "human rights" but if you mean the list in the United Nations Declaration or lists like those in Republic of India, you are fooling yourself.
Aborting female feti (or any feti) because one does not want girls (or boys, or children at that time of life, or children at all or for any other reason) is not a human right and it is still indirectly nearly painted out as one by those erroneous non-Christian lists.
Freedom did not come by Boddhisattwas like it did in the Christendom of the West during the Middle Ages, through Christ and His Church.
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Do you honestly feel free of the state/church controlling your thoughts. See what they have turned you into,so that you still do not know what human rights means.SAD.
Come let us together finish Buddha's mission, namely "free the oppressed white Christians".
[Earlier he admitted not being quite a Buddhist ... now he's speaking with confidence about "Buddha's mission" ...]
- Dan Marino
- +Naimul Haq
Correct! Ultimately their purpose are the same. Unfortunately some fail to see this.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- +Naimul Haq , I know what human rights mean much better than UN, and thanks to the Church. However not thanks to the state.
The states in Europe have persecuted the Catholic Church for centuries, some shorter time, just recently, some longer time, for centuries. Pretending the "state" is controlling my thoughts when I am Catholic is ridiculous.
Pretending I don't know what human rights are, when you show you don't know it yourself is sad.
Buddha was not someone who freed the oppressed, he was someone who seduced to one falsehood people who being already seduced by other falsehoods saw no opportunity to defend themselves from his falsehoods. Which were partly the same (dharma, reincarnation, abnegation or detachment as such as essence of moral perfection).
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
You do not understand the spirit with which we evolve.What is worse, is your lame attempt to discredit what had been established around the civilized world (by the way, you can call yourself civilized only if your system allows you free choice), which is not coming soon for you.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- The Catholic system very much does allow me free choice in very many matters.
As to "the spirit with which we evolve", it is called Satan.
Abortion may have been established around the world these days (not quite true, Ireland and Malta have resisted, though Ireland was recently weakened, alas), but that means the world is so much less civilised, so much closer to the Barbarism in the Civilisation that needed Christianity to become truly civilised, namely Rome.
Constantine outlawed abortion, and so much the better for him.
You belong to a people some of whom adore "sacred monkeys" and these practise infanticide, and so your twisted idea of the holy gives you a twisted idea of morality.
[Unless he wants to argue Bengalis are totally different from the guys speaking Hindi and being Hindoos ...]
Here are the sacred monkeys I mean:
English Wikipedia : Northern Plains Gray Langur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_plains_gray_langur
(I had trouble refinding what I had in French read as "entelle")
And even those refrain from infanticide on Himalaya.
Of course, they may have picked this atrocious habit up by imitating evil men ... in the country where they live. India.
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Like I said, you do not know how to prove your point, although you seem quite desperate to do so.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You did not know how to prove your point earlier on.
You said Jesus was disciple of a Boddhisattwa or of a Buddhist monk teachning Boddhisattwa mindset.
I asked you where in the Gospel you had read that.
The modern scholars who pretend so are not in the Gospel. The ancient Buddhist manuscripts are not in the Gospel.
St Joseph teaching Our Lord how to do timberwork is between the lines of the Gospel and firmly in Christian tradition.
But an electric engineer might have a preference for considering God as a current or as a program rather than as Three Persons.
Three Persons in One God.
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
If you found any of Buddha's teaching in your gospel, it would be proof for you, yet when you hear Isa preach it, it makes no sense to you. You are headstrong and uneducated.Sorry.
[my emphasis]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- If I find items where Our Lord and Siddharta agree, and others where they disagree, it proves Gautama was partially right, partially wrong in essentials. Since no man is wrong on all essentials, "partially right and partially wrong" is the only practical definition of being wrong.
- Naimul Haq
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl
Siddharta Gautama IS OUR LORD. - HGL
- He is not Lord of the Universe, nor Lord of Heaven, nor Lord of life.
If you make him your lord, you insult the true one, you rebel against the true one - whether you know it or not.
Some of you may be in the position of some innocent yokel taking part in a rebellion he considered a real government or a real just insurrection to restore just government - and when the true ruler comes to judge, he may be lenient on it.
But it is hardly the case for all and everyone, and even such who are idolaters without being guilty for that, may be damned because of the other sins that were obvious even to them and they were guilty of.
Did the sisters at Holy Cross school never tell you that?
- Sourabh Bhattacharya
- Lord Buddha himself was the 9th Avatar of Lord Vishnu just after Krishna. There are a lot of similarities between Buddhism and Vaishnavism, sect based on Lord Krishna 8th avatar of Lord Vishnu. Proof of Lord Buddha as 9th Avatar of Vishnu is inscribed in the Jagannath Temple in Puri,Odisha. Jagannath temple is among the 4 holiest temples for Vaishnavaites. There are also proofs that Jesus spent his time during the period 12-32 yrs in India. He first came to Puri to learn the Shastras. Proof of its is in 2500 years olf library of Shankarachariya based at Puri. From Puri Jesus went to Tibet and learnt Buddhism. Lastly he went to Kashmir. For us the Hindus we rever Lord Buddha just like Lord Krishna after all he is the 9th avatar of Lord Vishnu.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Now, Juggernaut (which I suppose is what in Hindi transcription is spelled Jagannath), has a very bad sound to English speakers of the West. We are not willing to take inscriptions on the Jagannath Temple as proof for Vishnu or of his supposed Avatars.
Krishna and Siddharta lived. Neither was a god, neither an "Avatar of Vishnu", nor one of the other. Both were men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)