Fake or innacurate 'history' TIU starter

[Anonymous]

I wanted to bring to attention twiceborn's efforts in April to make us all aware of the contrived history we accept.  I finally took the time to start looking into it a few weeks ago, and made a first post (from a great site he recommended: revisedhistory.org) called Social Paradoxes of Jewry.  Latin joined in, and eventually went through the whole site I think.  A great article he found was this one which I later read and posted: CIVILIZING EVENTS AND CHRONOLOGY.  Another interesting read is THE MEDIEVAL EMPIRE OF THE ISRAELITES, CH.1 excerpt.  Latin also has sent around the PDF they have available on the site called "Book of Civilization", which I started to read.  Very informative material everyone should look at.  CAUTION:  they promote collectivist supranationalism... you know what that is..., but don't disregard the info just because of that specific agenda.


So without further ado, here are the original posts by twiceborn which got this all started.  Thank you once more tb!

The Khazar Empire, the origins of the big lie....
Khazar history and Arthur Koestler's LIES
Did you know there were Japanese Jews?
Israel's faulty claim to a faulty Jerusalem


Here is part of a PM relating to lions, which are mentioned briefly in the above posts I made from revisedhistory.org, which JohnSavage found of interest... here's one for you Mr. Savage

The word Khazar is also not a proper name, its a descriptive term. Like calling Eskimos "people of the north". The word "Khazar" means "Lion" in Slavic. I believe this is a reference to the Jewish patriarchs having the "lion of Judah" as their royal symbol. Constantine's son was nicknamed "Leo" (lion) as well as "Khazar", and the lion motif was very popular for all the Eastern Roman Caesars.

[LatinAmericanview]

All credit resides with twice born. I should mention that the pristine research has been hijacked by various political interest groups. The research requires a commitment to just trying to grasp the nature of the deception.

[Anonymous]

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noahsarkstones.htm

what if noah was medieval ?

[Anonymous]

Investigation of the Correctness of the Historical Dating

...

The idea of reconstructing global history emerged during the late Renaissance. The official historical chronology, presently commonly acknowledged, was originated by the Italian theologian and scientist I. Scaliger (1540-1609). He determined the exact dates of the most important historical events like the Peloponnesian War, Trojan War, founding of Rome, etc., but did not prove none of his dates. His followers continued this work and it is commonly accepted that the official chronology was given its final shape by D. Petavius (1583-1652). It is strange that other historians, in spite of the scientific advantages, very rarely modified the dates of the basic historical events assigned by Scaliger and Petavius.

In summary, according to Scaliger, Petavius and their followers, the events of the ancient world took place from about 3,500 years B.C. till the fifth century A.D. As their results were never independently confirmed, there is an outstanding question of the credibility of this chronology. By the way, not all of the statements made by Scaliger turned out to be true, as for example, his geometrical proof of the quadrature of the circle , which he defended ferociously all his life.

Critics of the Traditional Chronology

Even among scholars, not all contemporaries of Scaliger and Petavius, supported their chronology. For example, in the sixteenth century D. Arcilla, a professor of Salamanca University in Spain, claimed that all ancient history was a fabrication made in the middle ages. The director of the French Royal Library, Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) declared that practically all the antiquities and ancient texts were created (or falsified) after 12th century. The most famous scientist of that epoch, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), was also against the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius. Newton published a large monograph entitled "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended," in which he re-dated key ancient events by shifting them several hundreds years forward. There were many more scientists, philologists, historians, and jurists who objected to the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius. We should also mention recent and contemporary critics of the conventional chronology in Germany, including W. Kammeier, H. Illig, U. Topper, H-U. Niemitz, G. Heinsohn, and C. Blss (see [13,14,15]).

...

I. Scaliger (1540-1609) mentioned is Joseph Justus Scaliger.

Possible link?, think of justice...  judge...:

...

The word Judaeus itself is considered an ethnonym, from the name Judaca. A link with the Latin Judaeus (Jew) - Judices (judges) is not acknowledged. They translate judex as jus dic, where the first word is "law" and the second is a root with the meaning "to speak."

Traditional linguists declare that there is no word in Latin which, in composition, would give dae. However, it is not considered that this could have been formed through Semitic influence, since in all Semitic languages the pentultimate stressed syllable with the consonant "khey" (which sounds like "khaye" at the end of a word) is very popular. From their habitual stress on the second syllable, the Semites clash with the unusual stressed ex in judex, which would naturally become the customary aec.

By the way, the vowel a in dae appears because of the inability to write this guttural sound in Latin.

And even in general, the notion "law" should be a derivative of religious notions. If we acknowledge that secular notions grew from the religious, then one must consider that the Hebrew letter "yud" (the first in God's name) is considered as an expression of divine wisdom even in contemporary Judaism. (It is interesting that the related "jihad," also in the Latin, has acquired the characteristic "j".) And this, in general, questions the direction of the borrowing.

[Anonymous]

THE PERCEPTION OF OPEN-ENDED TIME.

Leonard da Vinci directly writes in his diary at the start of the 16th century that Mohammed prayed. to Jupiter, that is, at first he was a heathen. Then, according to the chronicle of Giovanni Villani, published in that same 16th century, Mohammed sides with one of the Christian sects and only later with the aid of a certain apostate monk, Sergius Georgius, organized his own spiritual pursuit. The historian Mikhalon Litvin writes approximately the same thing in the 16th century.

And in the Koran there is a direct reference to the Gospel (Sura 57:27): "Then We sent other messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We sent Jesus, son of Mary, and GAVE HIM The GOSPEL; and We filled the hearts of his adherents with kindness and compassion. But MONASTICIM THEY PRACTISED." In other words, the apostles (= those who followed Him) are noted in the Koran, but their "Acts" are not. There are fragments of the Protogospels and the Apocrypha, but not of the canonical Gospels.

According to traditional history, the monastic orders arose not earlier than the turn of the 11-12th centuries. (the St. John, Cistercians, Templar, etc.)

 All the history of the Benedictines, the order of which is considered in existence since the 5th century, is imaginary, the order's structure was defined only in "1128.") Per se, until the 12th century there was not even a notion of "order" as a structure. (The word "order" itself designates "sequence," just as does the word "horde." It is not an unorganized crowd.)

Further, in that same Sura of the Koran: "We ordained it not for them - We ordained only seeking Allah's accord, though they did not foster it as they should have." What does it mean here? The quoted sura of the Koran is called the "iron." The only monastic order which was destroyed officially before the middle of the 14th century  is the order of the Knights Templar (that is, the keepers of the Temple) in "1312" (in fact - in "1307"):  for refusing to submit both to the kings and to the Pope of Rome.  Namely, all metallurgical and weapons production was under the control of the richest order of the Knights Templar (according to the official version founded in "1118"), which had a branch ("brotherhood") around all of the Ecumene. The Temple of Solomon, alongside of which was situated the headquarters of the Knights Templar - is today the Mosque of Omar. The very same during the time of which, as is thought traditionally, the hijra was introduced.

We see that immediately after the destruction of the Knights Templar in the "14th" century in the traditional historiography there follows also the appearance of the Islamic Vulgate (the prototype of the Koran) in the time of Sultan Osman, and the acceptance of Islam in the Horde in the time of Khan Uzbek ("1317".) And immediately after this follows the "Avignon Captivity of the Popes" ("1309-1377") with all the popes and antipopes, a multi-papacy muddle - all the way until the real appearance of the papal chair in Rome in "1377," not at the Vatican, as it still didn't exist, but at Lateran! (By the way, Petrarch openly called this captivity not "Avignonian," but Babylonian.)  Pope Pius (the Second) called himself Roman Pope N 9 - and he was right...

[Anonymous]

Falsification of the Classical Texts

This piece is about Josephus' writings and how accurate they are.

The story of Masada has numerous parallels in Greek history: thus the Xanthians committed suicide during the siege of their city by Marcus Brutus. A still more precise parallel (although attributed to the later period) is the siege of the unassailable mountain fortress of Montsegur in France, where the army of the Inquisition besieged Cathar heretics after destroying their strongholds in Languedoc. They, too, committed suicide--quite contrary to reason. The story of Masada might be literary fiction; in any case, the historical record was heavily edited.

Committing suicide when faced with imminent death or losing one's honor was, of course, known and respected (recall Cato or Seneca), but for philosophers and non-military people. Applying this logic to the inhabitants of Masada, we would have to conclude that Josephus or his editor didn't think of them as militant zealots but as religious sectarians, perhaps modeled after early Christians, and the behavior Christian martyrs might have been displayed in this situation.

Having taken possession of Masada about 70 CE, the Siccarii[ii] found the stores of Herod the Great full and fresh, including oil and wine that had been kept for a hundred years.[6] This is an important point in Josephus' narration, proving the defenders' ability to survive for an exceedingly long time. However, Masada is not located high enough to provide for the aseptic storage of food.

Another strange fact is that mesad in Hebrew means fortress. The word is employed commonly with some geographical or other name, for instance, Mesad Hashavyahu. Knowing Hebrew, Josephus hardly would employ a common noun as a place name. It seems that the author of the Masada episode didn't speak Hebrew and took this word mesad, fortress, for the geographical name.

In connection with Masada, let me express puzzlement about Josephus' account of how easily the Romans constructed an earthen rampart to get into the fortress. Even under the less challenging conditions of Jerusalem, without steep mountains on every side, Titus with much larger forces didn't even attempt this task.

In this regard as well as others, Josephus' account of Jerusalem's destruction poses questions. He relates how the Romans surrounded the city with a siege wall. Significantly, a detailed reference to this episode is present in the Gospels in the form of Jesus' prediction of future destruction.

Even disregarding the obviously exaggerated description of Jerusalem by Josephus as a city with a population of a few million, it was still a large place. It would have been impossible to erect a wooden wall around it in a short time. Moreover, the construction could not be guarded effectively, especially considering the Roman practice of not posting a night watch outside the camp. In rare instances, Romans employed not a wall, but an embankment--as Antony did when besieging Phraata. Significantly, Plutarch stresses the huge effort needed for its construction.

Greeks commonly employed this tactic in their campaigns against small towns in the vicinity. Quite possibly, the description of the wall was derived from accounts of Greek wars. The analogy was found in a Biblical text popular with Christians, Micah 5, which begins, "Now you are walled around with [a wall]; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the ruler of Israel upon the cheek." This military tactic was reasonable against the very small fortresses of Micah's time but not against the relatively large Jerusalem. The process of forgery seems clear: a Christian scribe found a suitable prophecy in the Bible, incorporated it in the Gospel as a prediction made by Jesus and it was supported by historical proof in Josephus.

...

[ii] Jewish terrorists, known before the war for their tactics of stabbing their opponents with knives they carried beneath their garments and then mixing with the crowd.

Note, footnote ii, that is exactly how the hashishim "Assassins" are described as operating...


On Essenes and Christians:

In the midst of bitterly criticizing Judas for political fraud, Josephus suddenly adds that he set up a fourth philosophical school of Judaism, and that he will describe it shortly. And, indeed, in a few paragraphs we encounter the description--but it is all praise by now. The tone suddenly changes and the author extols Judas and his followers to an extent encountered only in his account of the Essenes.

One must be blind not to acknowledge that these are interpolations: a short phrase in The Antiquities (18:1:1) and a whole paragraph conveniently inserted at The Antiquities (18:1:6), at the end of chapter, probably where the scroll ended, thus leaving space to write. There is also no doubt that only Christians had the desire to amend the text and the ability both to do so and to protect the forgery over the millennia.

Accounts of Judas' sect[15] are clearly foreign to the context. Josephus specifically relates there are only three schools in Judaism: the Essenes, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. But he lists Judas' along with them; he notes that it is both significant and reputable, thus making its omission from the main list curious. Significantly, Judas' sect was not ancient and, therefore, could not have been considered authoritative.

Notably, both times the fourth sect is mentioned it is in close connection with the description of the Essenes. Indeed, the author emphasizes that both groups shared the ability to endure torture, a feature which is not essential to their religious views.[16]. This relationship makes a lot of sense, however, when for other reasons we connect the Essenes with Christians, and Judas with Jesus. More specifically, as we believe that Christians were a fringe group of the Essenes, they indeed should be described along with them, but separately. Thus, the interpolation concerning Judas is significant chronologically. The initial Christian scribe was content interpolating one account of the Essenes. Later, when the division between the Essenes and the Christians grew, another scribe thought it necessary to distinguish the fourth school from the Essenes.

Curiously, attempts to situate the fourth sect among the others proved an impossible feat for Gentile scribes, unacquainted with doctrinal trends of Judaism. In The Antiquities,[17] Judas' sect description is exactly like that of the Pharisees, something that the scribe easily could derive from the synoptic Gospels. At the same time, their teaching is so remarkable that the author won't even talk about it. In The War,[18] the fourth group has nothing in common with the others. The lack of detail is compensated for by praise of the fourth sect's goodness and for its founder who was "a well known teacher of the Law," an epithet for the Galilean, which would have made Jews laugh, as Galileans were almost synonymous with theological ignorance. Everything related about this incredibly good fourth sect and its founder is either trivial or contradictory.

Special ties between early Christianity and the Essenes are evidenced by the unusually detailed narration about the latter. Out of fourteen paragraphs of the chapter, dedicated to the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes,[19] twelve deal with the Essenes and only one (sic!) with the other sects. It is wrong to suppose that Josephus' audience was acquainted sufficiently with the Pharisees and Sadducees that it was unnecessary to devote more than a paragraph to their description, as he was writing for Gentiles who didn't know anything about Judea.

The description of the sects is misplaced: it is inserted into the account of unrest in Judea, where a reader might expect the details concerning the heirs of Herod the Great. It conflicts with our understanding of Judaism of that time as full of factions, sects, and heresies, rather than limited to only three major groups. In addition to the Essenes, the author mentions only the Pharisees and the Sadducees, who also are mentioned in the New Testament. Other classifications of Jews in the New Testament (scribes and lawyers) are general definitions not connected with particular sects. Thus, there is a suspiciously close parallel between Josephus' narrative and the New Testament. Significantly, the description of the Essenes coincides literally point by point with that of the Christians.

The description of the Pharisees also raises questions. "In their opinion. souls of the good people move after their death to other bodies, and souls of the evil are doomed to eternal tortures."[20] The Pharisees compiled the Talmud where their views are amply presented. For all we know, this doctrine of reincarnation was not common, if it was current at all[vi]. The author of this account is probably mistaken, wrongly recording something he knew  from hearsay, an act we do not expect from Josephus who was writing about the things intimately familiar to him.

Josephus' description of the sects closely correlates with the Gospels' account. Writing about the Pharisees and Sadducees, he emphasizes their views on fate and resurrection. He plainly accuses the Pharisees, the largest and most respected Judean sect, of hypocrisy.[21] Overall, he demonstrates respect for Pharisaic knowledge of the Law, while personally distancing himself from them. Josephus also harshly criticizes the Sadducees,[22] to whom he probably was related by birth, in the higher stratum of society and their relationship to priests.

Josephus extols the Essenes as compared to the Pharisees and the Sadducees. A Christian author, creating a pseudepigraphic insert in Josephus about his own group (mentioned as the Essenes), would do exactly this. Josephus, on the contrary, as a Judaic apologist,  wouldn't denigrate the two main sects who were bearers of the Law, which he admires. It seems highly probable that it was a Christian author who later ascribed the story of his sect to Josephus. To make the text look  more trustworthy, the author mentions not the Christians, but the Essenes, their Judean prototype. He might think that their similarity was evident to the audience, though later it was forgotten. Still, in the fourth century, Epiphanius was of the same opinion, believing that Philo mentioned Christians as Iessaei--Essenes. Characteristically, Hyppolitus named the Essenes the first, before the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Arguments about Josephus being close to the Essenes and for that reason paying them special attention are absurd, as the Essenes admitted no strangers into the sect. The initiation requirements were demanding, and to leave the sect was practically impossible since the Essenes swore not to accept food from the impure (that is, anyone else). Thus, Josephus' claim of personal acquaintance with the Essene creed is a fabrication. Besides, however small his attachment was to the other sect, a single paragraph on the Pharisees and the Sadducees together is clearly disproportional.

His study of Essene doctrine is rebutted by another account. He claims to have begun a thorough study of the sects at the age of 16 and finished it when he was 19, for a total of 3 years. But he supposedly spent the same time  only with the Essenes.[23] Alternatively, Josephus relates[24] that by the age of 14 he had lectured the rabbis and thus supposedly was well educated in Pharisaic doctrine. Either he lied habitually or his claim of studying for three years with the Essenes was created to give weight to his testimony about them.

In Life 12, he writes that studying with the hermit Bannus (who suspiciously resembles the Gospel's description of John the Baptist) lasted for three years after his acquaintance with all the sects was completed. Josephus asserts that he was led to the anchorite by his utter dissatisfaction with traditional teachings. However, he praises the Essenes beyond measure, writing that the Essenes are so good that everyone familiar with them finds their sect attractive.[25]

On Jesus validation in Josephus:

Josephus' main attraction for Christians lies in his two references (commonly called the Testimonium[vii]) to Jesus. They are so blatant in praising Jesus that almost all modern scholars recognize them as a forgery. The final argument of their defenders is that a Christian editor would not have written about Jesus with such restraint. However, a falsifier would do just that in trying to ascribe the testimony about his god to a Jew.

A version of the Testimonium in the Arabic edition of The Antiquities is much less of a panegyric, imitating the supposedly objective style of a Jew writing about Jesus. He is called simply by name, although pursuant to Judaic tradition Josephus uses a name and a nickname, surname, or locality. Josephus refers to Jesus as "the so-called Messiah." However, this statement does not conform to the theological and political orientation of Josephus who avoided any messianic allusions, as they could provoke a conflict between Judea and Rome. Surely, Josephus, a Jewish apologist, wouldn't write that a certain Jesus performed many miracles and was resurrected on the third day after his crucifixion. "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day" clearly points to a later date. The interpolator was removed from the events by a long time, not some dozens of years, as Josephus was.

An important argument by the apologists in favor of the authenticity of the Testimonium is that Josephus blames the Romans and not the Jews for Jesus' execution, although Church tradition maintains the contrary. But even the Gospels recount how Pilate was complicit in having Jesus crucified. The tradition of accusing Jews became fixed quite a bit later, after the episode already was interpolated in the Josephus text.

It is absurd to describe an evidently messianic figure in one short paragraph. Doubtless, Josephus would have devoted a reasonable space to the story. The abbreviated nature of the account leaves no doubt that it was inserted; the forger wanted to add more information but had only a limited space to do so.

The Slavonic version of Josephus so transparently ascribes Christian views to Josephus, so thinly covers glorification of its sect's leader, that we don't need to repeat here the many studies querying its authenticity. Of course, Josephus wouldn't call Jesus "more than a man." He wouldn't write that a man, who neglected the Law and the Sabbath, had "done nothing shameful."

What is interesting in the Slavonic version is that the story of Jesus' execution is altogether different from the  one in the Gospels. The Judean leaders go to Pilate, fearing the political clout of the nameless hero of the episode. Pilate interrogates him and refuses to condemn him, finding no fault with him. Afterwards, rabbis, full of jealousy, bribe Pilate with 30 talents to let them condemn the hero. Having obtained Pilate's approval in this manner, they crucify Jesus. The absurdity of the description is obvious, as the Sanhedrin didn't have the right to sentence someone to death by crucifixion, at least not for a religious offence.[viii]

The personage repeatedly referred to taught at the Mount of Olives. No Gospel account places Jesus there for a meaningful period. The number of disciples, 140, doesn't agree with versions in the Gospels, nor is it likely to be true, being just one of the standard biblical numbers.[ix] Listing the apostles' occupations (in the other fragment), the author mentions only artisans, although the Gospels insist that almost all of them were fishermen.

• Consider also the odd silence regarding this prominent figure's name, a reserve unusual for an otherwise bold falsifier.

Is it possible to conjecture that Jesus is not meant here but a leader of some other sect, of which there were a multitude? There are substantial arguments supporting the position that the author of other inserts in Slavonic versions of Josephus was a follower of John the Baptist. In the absence of firm data concerning John's execution and the oddity of his being sentenced in Galilee, where he didn't preach at all, this description might refer not to Jesus but to John. Otherwise, we have to be content with the truly bizarre assumption that the scribe, who carefully studied the monumental work of Josephus in order to make interpolations, didn't bother reading the Gospels, which these inserts were to support. This fact [?] leaves us with the hypothesis that Jesus' followers appropriated the popular story of John the Baptist's execution for Jesus, and John was allocated a different account in the Gospels.

[Anonymous]

Formation of jurisprudence is one of the key moments of the history of the
14th — 16th centuries. The first world-wide legal term was the word Horde,
meaning «order» (compare, for example, with Iranian arta). The priests —
«pontifices» on the territory of Western Europe operated public property of
the Byzantine empire. In Northern Africa (for example, in Tunis and Algeria)
the similar functions were executed by dei (modern analogue — executive
director). After Western Europe break off from Byzantium «pontifices» started
to appropriate public property, by calling it «God's», i.e. again dei. The Main
pontifice, becoming the Roman Pope also assigned to himself the right to
dispose on behalf of the God a quite concrete property. The institution of
church arose as legal board for grounding the legality of appropriation of
public property. It was reflected in Latin iudeo «I judge», whence originate
both words «Jew» and legendary «Judaea» — i.e. Western Europe of the
end of the 14th century, on the contrary to the rest of Byzantium – «Israel»,
i.e. «belonging to the Orthodox world».

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

I just find this as interesting...

[mchawe]

I thought this would be an appropriate place for these recent David Irving vids
The vids should follow one after the other

[youtube:3g459kvt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gFkHq13y18[/youtube]3g459kvt]