|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2001 : 20:09:42 [Permalink]
|
And "Krishna" means "black" or "dark" in Sanskrit, not "anointed", to my knowledge. But that's beside the point
Right.
Vishnu plucked two hairs from his radiant slumbering form, of the hue of a blue lotus, reposing on the milk-white serpent coils of the multi-headed Ananta, and released them into the air. So the noblewoman Devaki concevied two children. The milk-white hair became the savior Balarama and the blue-black hair became Krishna.
Everybody knows that.
Krishna means black (blue-black to be exact)
But the lord Krishna is the anointed one.
To say Krishna is to say the anointed one as you can't actually say a god's REAL name.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
 |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 21:27:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You don't believe that death bed thing do you?
About as much as that stuff about King Josiah's Chief Priest 'finding' a heretofore unknown ancient book of scripture while tidying up the Temple.
I understand your point about the political situation during the reign of Cobnstantine. I also understand that previous emperors tried similar tactics to unite the empire under one man, deification of the emperor for example. These tactics always had mixed results. Cut-throat politics and too many diverse cultures under one imperalistic roof is my guess. I also agree with you (and the Catholic Church freely admits) that the council of Nicaea was convened to standardize belief. Constantine was no theologan, he was a soldier and politician (and damn good at both) and would have had no time for the arguments about what should be added to doctrine. The Romans were very pragmatic people. I assert that the Jewish ideas were incorporated into the Apollonian religion over time and that Constantine picked an 'off the shelf' religious belief. He then convened the council to clean up the doctrine, add some heroic history and suppress Gnosticism.
By the way, is your statement that Constantine's mother was a Paul Christian a typo. This does not seem consistent with your earlier posts.
Regards,
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 00:29:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Romans were very pragmatic people. I assert that the Jewish ideas were incorporated into the Apollonian religion over time and that Constantine picked an 'off the shelf' religious belief. He then convened the council to clean up the doctrine, add some heroic history and suppress Gnosticism.
By the way, is your statement that Constantine's mother was a Paul Christian a typo. This does not seem consistent with your earlier posts.
Take a very close look at the life of Jesus. In it you find next to no Jewishness. It is (I'd say about 80% of it) a retelling of the life of Mithra. The rest is a combination of the sayings of Hercules, the miracles of Dionysus and Apollonius. Add just a sprinkle of Jewish legend to give it that exotic flavor that Roman readers loved, and you get Jesus H.
What was outlandish was how the Romans reordered/edited the Jewish Bible so that it would look like it lead up to Jesus when, in fact it does nothing of the sort. God doesn't even put in a showing in the whole second half of the original edition. A wonderful read that covers this topic (it won the Pulitzer Prize) is Jack Miles' GOD a biography
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
doctor prawn
New Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 11:00:09 [Permalink]
|
>Is it pronounced "EYE-ER-land" or "EAR-land"?
In English, "EYE-ER-land" is the usual pronunciation. In Irish Gaelic, the name is "Eire", though frequently the dative form "Erinn" is used. Believe it or not, the word "Eire" is pronounced a lot like "Asia", and the word "Erinn" a lot like "Asian." So go ahead and use these pronunciations if you want, but doing this is the equivalent of calling France "FRAHNTS" and Mexico "MAY-hee-koh", and Italy "Italia" and Finland "Suomi", etc., while speaking English.
>That would be Eiré. Called that after the people of the goddess Eirinn, decendents of the >Milesians, the grand Ire. Which in Gaelic just means "people". Peopleland is what it should be called >in English.
The etymology of "Eire" (< Old Irish "Eriu" < proto-Celtic *Iwer-iu) isn't actually known. The word can be derived from the Latin form "Hibernia", but the linkage of that word to the Latin "hibernus" meaning "winter" may have itself been a folk etymology of the time. Calvert Watkins, editor of the American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots suggests it comes from the proto-Indo-European root *pei& (that last symbol should be a "schwa"), meaning "to be fat, to swell" (Indo-European /*p/ dropped out on its way to Celtic), but this theory isn't widely accepted.
>Interesting but in English the Irish word IRE means anger; wrath. Wonder why that is?
The English word "ire" comes from Latin "ira", meaning "anger." The word has lots of Indo-European cognates. It has no relation to Ireland. Just one of those unfortunate coincidences. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 12:48:08 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
Believe it or not, the word "Eire" is pronounced a lot like "Asia", and the word "Erinn" a lot like "Asian."
Then we, of the County Cork, must have it all wrong. Silly of us.
The etymology of "Eire" (< Old Irish "Eriu" < proto-Celtic *Iwer-iu) isn't actually known.
On their way to conquer Tara, Amergin and the Milesians met the three Queens of the Tuatha De Danaan-- Banda, Fodla and Eiriu (sometimes Eirinn). They promised the goddesses that their names would never be forgotten. And that is how the island got it's name.
The English word "ire" comes from Latin "ira", meaning "anger."
The English have stolen so many other things from us that it's grand to know that they didn't pinch this one too.
-----------
Helena was definitely a follower of Jesus. Bar girl / slut to concubine to unwed mother to Empress/mother (the Augusta) of the world to Saint. That's quite a resumé.
But she doesn't seem to have even heard of Christianity until well into her middle years. Constantine had already established Jesus based Christianity as the mainstay of his administration when she jumped on the band-wagon. She was only then baptized -- by Pope (Saint) Sylvester.
When she was 85 (!) she went on a tour of the "Holy" Land with her Imperial entourage. Of course the place had been whipped out hundreds of years before, and there was very little to see. But faith and begora (no, I don't actually talk like that) what should happen but an Angel should come to her and tell her where all the really cool stuff was. She sent out her people to dig up the spots the Angel had indicated and they found The True Cross, the Holy Nails, Our Savior's own seamless cloak and the Robe of CinemaScope fame. The Tour Guide Angel also pointed out all the locations of important events in Jesus' life. Helena is now the Patron Saint of Archaeologists. Of course it also explains why the hill, about 1/2 mile from the old city gates, that in the afternoon shadows looks just like a skull, and is covered with artifacts from executions is NOT Golgotha. And a normal looking hill with nothing on it, but closer to town, is ("The angel screwed me"--Woody Allen Love & Death)
Anyway that still doesn't get to an answer to my question of when the Pagan religion called Christianity become replaced by the one we have. Because it didn't just evolve, it was replaced.
Unfortunately we lost most of the writings of Apollonius when the Christian mob destroyed the Great Library of Alexandria (worse than that, we lost all the work of Apollonius of Perga, a great mathematician who demonstrated that the planets orbited the sun in ellipses). Most of what we know is from his contemporaries writing about him and critiquing his writings.
Speaking of "lives of the saints" there is the subject of Christian persecution by the Romans. We know this must have actually happened because Claudius, Hadrian, Galerius and a handful of others said not to do it. But we still don't know that it was the Jesus people who were the victims.
Most of what we have that say they were are old "Lives of the Saints." (And Sister Wendy's TV shows). These would have you believe that unrelenting persecution started before Jesus was cold in his grave. Sorry, he wasn't in his grave; he rose up into the sky. Make that…before Jesus was cold in the stratosphere. These books only become popular after the collapse of the Empire at the beginning of the Dark Ages (not a "PC" term amongst scholars anymore but I like the evocativeness of the sound of it).
Now, unlike St Augustine, I don't think that Christianity was the cause of the fall of Rome. I think that it was just a symptom of the terminal illness Rome had. A tumor, to mix in another metaphor, that lived on after the patient had died. But it lived on amongst the conquering "barbarians". Here was an arm of the Imperial Roman government trying to gain control of people who, for a thousand years, had been under the heel of Rome. These Goths & Friends hated Rome, they had suffered at the hands the empire for generations.
What does the church put out now but all of these "Lives of the Saints!" Boy-o-boy, look at how the Romans hated us Church folk. Look how bravely we died in their arenas. That's a nice battle-axe you have there, Uthor. Have we told you just how much we dislike those Romans?
Of course if you look in the bible the Patricians and Jesus have mutual respect for one another. It's those nasty Jews (who were enemies of Rome but relatives of Jesus) who are the bad guys in the NT.
This would have been a big surprise for the real Jews whose society was only beginning to recover from the destruction of Israel.
They probably had the right to expect that these Barbarians who hated Rome would welcome people, who had fought so hard against the Empire, with open arms. Brother freedom fighters and all that. Instead they find that they had killed a man/god who not only never existed but he had absolutely nothing to do with their religion (he's a Persian myth not even a Semitic one) and they were in deep trouble.
And I mean deep.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 16:26:14 [Permalink]
|
Believe it or not, the word "Eire" is pronounced a lot like "Asia", and the word "Erinn" a lot like "Asian."
Is as Éirinn mé.
Is Meiriceánaigh mé agus chónai sa chathair San Francisco.
Jesus H Christos how many life times has it been since I tried to write in my native tongue? Sure the Good Sisters would have the backs of their hands to me. I talk like Johnny Weissmuller.
Anyway, in Gaeilge (Irish) we pronounce Éirinn sort of like AIR-IN'. The IN being like you were going to say ing and stopped too soon.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
doctor prawn
New Member
5 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 13:25:56 [Permalink]
|
>>Believe it or not, the word "Eire" is pronounced a lot like "Asia", and the word
>>"Erinn" a lot like "Asian."
>Then we, of the County Cork, must have it all wrong. Silly of us.
>Anyway, in Gaeilge (Irish) we pronounce Éirinn sort of like AIR-IN'. The IN being like you were >going to say ing and stopped too soon.
There are dialectal differences. In more Northern dialects, the "slender r" ("r" next to "e" and/or "i") is a strange sound which sounds closest to a "z" or "zh" sound. For descriptions of this sound check out http://members.nbci.com/cuculhain/celtlang.htm
The site http://www.fiosfeasa.com/bearla/language/caol.htm
has Real Audio samples, including the word "Eire", where you can hear this pronunciation.
>>The etymology of "Eire" (< Old Irish "Eriu" < proto-Celtic *Iwer-iu) isn't actually known.
>On their way to conquer Tara, Amergin and the Milesians met the three Queens of the Tuatha De >Danaan-- Banda, Fodla and Eiriu (sometimes Eirinn). They promised the goddesses that their >names would never be forgotten. And that is how the island got it's name.
Do you really think this is a good etymology? It sounds like mythology. I don't want to insult anybody's cultural heritage, but this is a Skeptic site. Just like in any other field, there are scientific claims about language, and there are non-scientific claims. This sounds more like the latter.
>>The English word "ire" comes from Latin "ira", meaning "anger."
>The English have stolen so many other things from us that it's grand to know that they didn't >pinch this one too.
The traditional view has been that there are very few Celtic loan-words in English. Loreto Todd, in the July 2000 edition of "English Today" challenges this notion and suggests that this view was due to an anti-Celtic bias on the part of some etymologists of the 19th century. That aside, she only comes up with a few more possible etymologies herself, and some of her arguments are lacking.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 16:34:08 [Permalink]
|
There are dialectal differences. In more Northern dialects, the "slender r" ("r" next to "e" and/or "i") is a strange sound which sounds closest to a "z" or "zh" sound.
Ach, don't listen to those people in Ulster. That lot just cause trouble.
On their way to conquer Tara, ... met the three Queens of the Tuatha De >Danaan-- Banda, Fodla and Eiriu (sometimes Eirinn). They promised the goddesses that their >names would never be forgotten. And that is how the island got it's name.
Do you really think this is a good etymology? It sounds like mythology.
Since etymology is the study of word origins doesn't it only make sense to look for the source of a religious word within the religion of the group that speaks the language?
I don't want to insult anybody's cultural heritage, but this is a Skeptic site.
A Skeptic site and a thread about cults and religion. A strange place to be taken aback over mythology.
Prehaps a new thread about language is in order?
Just like in any other field, there are scientific claims about language, and there are non-scientific claims. This sounds more like the latter.
The last time I looked Mythology and for that matter Anthropology were still sciences.
The traditional view has been that there are very few Celtic loan-words in English. Loreto Todd, in the July 2000 edition of "English Today" challenges this notion and suggests that this view was due to an anti-Celtic bias on the part of some etymologists of the 19th century. That aside, she only comes up with a few more possible etymologies herself, and some of her arguments are lacking.
Oh I can think of four or five off hand. In everyday American English if not proper English.
Take- Slán a gat. Which means "See you later"
or Slán leat, which is the reply and means "See you too." We Irish usually just say Slán (Suh / lang ) for both. In American English (the best sort if you ask me) they became the term "so long."
"So long," doesn't really make any sense to say to a person who is leaving -- but we all do it anyway. Probably people were just happy to see the Irish leave 
[/quote]
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2001 : 21:55:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater: Constantine pulled a Serapis on us. Jesus is nothing but a patch work quilt made of scraps from other gods.
I have been doing some research since I am tryng to start a new thread on the evolution of Christian thought. One of the references I have been reading over (at least thumbing through) is my copy of Edward Gibbon's 'The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'. A small and almost insignificant section of the first volume reminded me of the discussion that Slater and I have had in this thread regarding the origins of Christianity. The section discusses the revitalisation of the Persian Empire circa 226 CE under Artaxerxes. It states that at the time of his rise, there were seventy separate sects of Zoroastrianism in the east. Artaxerxes convened a council to standardize doctrine. Gibbon's account of what happened is interesting but irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What is relevant is that Constantine did exactly the same thing 100 years later. These somewhat parallel Slater's theory that Constantine synthesized Christianity from predominantly Mithric (Zoroastrian) religion.
A little speculation here on my part.
Persia, Rome's major antagonist at the time, creates a state religion with a priciple god and standardized worship throughout it's sphere of infuence. Rome sees this as a threat and decides to create their own religion to compete. This is done for the same reason that Araxerxes did it. Standardize the worship of one principle god and connect that worship to the state. The Romans had actually been trying this for about 200 years with the idea of the divine emperor. No one was buying into that though. Mithric religion was already popular in the empire so that's a good start, and it had proved useful for the purpose that Rome wanted it for. They couldn't actually use that religion since the Persians had already standardized it. They needed another religion to superimpose the Mithric myths upon. One of great antiquity (and therefore great authority - a Roman mindset). And the Romans actually controlled Judea. Whether or not they created Jesus may not be relevant to what they did in the long run.
I still have a hard time with the idea that the superimposing of religions was a short term project. It may be that it had been in the works (by the hierarchy of the Roman army?) for as much as 100 years and that Constantine simply presided over it's final enactment.
It's not that I believe that this actually happened. This is just speculation of something that could have happened. We really don't know. It's a good start for intellectual debate though.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 14:18:34 [Permalink]
|
Hmmm, that's good.. that's very good.
Same facts (I own the same Gibbons after all) slightly different spin.
Persia is one of Rome's main enemies, but it is also the supplier of a large portion of Rome's legions.
Just as the US did with the Hawaiians of Japanese decent during WWII the Persian members of the Roman Legions are sent to different fronts. They are never used on the Persian border. You find them mostly stationed in Britain and Gaul.
Constantius becomes Caesar of Rome mainly because he has married Theodora the stepdaughter of Maximian. So his concubine Helena and their son, Constantine become a political liability. Helena is exiled and Constantine is sent to the Asian court of the Emperor Diocletian. C is then betrothed to his stepmothers infant stepsister, Fausta. But he has a child (Crispus) with one of the women at court (Minervina) and pretty much had to skip town. He heads to Gaul and takes charge of the legions there. In the mean time there is a rebellion in Britain and Constantius is killed putting it down. This leaves Constantine not only with a legitimate claim to one of the thrones but also with the legions of Gaul and his dad's of Britain to back his claim up. Power enough to take all six of the Imperial thrones.
The Persians who make up a majority of these legions are Mithrains and have popularized Mithraism with those from other backgrounds in the legion. Constantine can use the common religion to bind his troops together. It helps that his legions work on a different belief system than the other Roman legions that they are being asked to fight.
However he does not intend to take just Rome but rather the entire empire. That means that he has to conquer the court of Diocletian at Byzantium.
A capital that is right at the edge of Persian territory , held with troops who are united by Mithraism is a terrible mistake. The troops might be loyal to the Zoroastrian priests of the Persian Empire.
What he needed was a religion that had all the appeal of Mithra without the Persian affiliations.
If only you had Mithra and he were, say, a Jew. The Jewish state wasn't a threat, why it hadn't existed for a couple of hundred years.
What he found was Jesus. If Jesus and Mithra weren't identical before he got his hands on him, he was after. And, being sole Emperor, he had the power to have "history" changed to suit him. So Jesus would appear to have always been exactly what the Emperor ordered he would be. How could any one check, after all?
Worked like a charm.
History followed by speculation, I admit. But it does follow a certain military logic. Since the "history" that C left us starts with a big magic trick of signs in the sky he pretty much gives us carte blanc to put the pieces together for ourselves.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
