Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: birch bark b*ll*x

Expand Messages
  • Ian Hutchesson
    ... Now that you ve admitted your major source, you should take the time to look at theworks cited by Fida Hassnain (who is a Sufi teacher and retired
    Message 1 of 20 , May 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      At 18.28 02/05/99 -0700, joseph baxter wrote:
      >At 12:44 AM 5/3/99 +0200, you wrote:
      >>>So tell me, dear friend, what library do you have access to? Clearly you
      >>>must be inside the Vatican library, as Tom said, to get this stuff.
      >>>Notwithstanding that, you are clearly reading a much later version. may
      >>>you be blessed with cow offerings until you answer my question.
      >>
      >>Hey, Joe, where ya going with that gun in your hand?
      >
      >Who's got the Beretta, my friend?
      >>
      >>I think by now we've seen that you've got nothing up your sleave. You're
      >>the one who is supposed to have the textual support for your ravings.
      >>Haven't you *even* got a copy of the Bhavishya Purana? <grin>
      >>
      >>Come clean, Joey. Who's your source? Deardorf? Ahmadiyya literature? Menon?
      >
      >Sorry, my friend, but I didn't think you wanted cites. But I forgot that
      >you are sitting at your terminal in the Vatican library. The edition I am
      >referring to is entitled "Bhavishya Maha Purana" and was published in 1910
      >by the Oriental Research Library, University of Kashmir, Srinegar. It
      >contains a copy of the original Sanskrit manuscript in the Shardic
      >alphabet. See ch. 3, ,sec2, shloka 9-31. There is also a 1917 version
      >published by the Venkateshvaria Press in Bombay. There is also a 1910
      >edition published by the Oriental Research Institute in Poona, India.
      >
      >For a recent translation by a team of Kashmiri University professors, and
      >recent photographs of the birch bark papyrus, see Professor Fida Hassnain's
      >"A Search For The Historical Jesus", published by Gateway Books in Bath, in
      >1994.

      Now that you've admitted your major source, you should take the time to
      look at theworks cited by Fida Hassnain (who is a Sufi teacher and retired
      professor). Such wonderfully trustworthy works as: "Jesus Lived in India"
      by Holger Kersten, "The Gospel of Bartholomew" (big favourite for you
      Ahmadiyyan fans), "The Crucifixion by an Eyewitness" (a Freemason
      circulated work which has conveniently disappeared -- oops we can scratch
      that one), and pseudo-Essene fantasies of Szekely (the sort of thing you
      find in quaint theosophy bookstores -- need I say more?).

      >I hope this information is of some use.

      Yes, very revealing.

      >In the future, if you want citable
      >reference works, please be more specific, and I will be happy to oblige.

      Joey, the citable stuff is with regard to dating and sourcing of original
      materials. You haven't done so. You have only hinted at a tertiary source's
      comments on secondary sources' comments. I want to know how you can
      actually date your one slim excerpt from the Bhavishya Purana which uses an
      Arabic form of the name of Jesus, suggesting some time after the Islamic
      conquest of northern India. What techniques were used in the dating of the
      birch bark text? Who has validated the dating techniques? I am asking for a
      scholarly approach to the dating of the bbb. Without it you are in the dark
      (one of your favourite hangouts). Do I need to get more specific than that?
      The text itself shows clear reworking over several centuries. I wonder if
      Bill Clinton'll make it in as well...

      I see nothing substantive for you to hold onto your seemingly ridiculous
      position regarding Jesus' "survival after the crucifixion".


      Ian
    • Ian Hutchesson
      ... In fact, Sarah, some writers have also proposed this idea. However, both flights make one ask, as we are taking flights, why on earth would he want to go
      Message 2 of 20 , May 2, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        At 23.44 02/05/99 EDT, Legendmyth@... wrote:
        >If Jesus--And this is a real big if--went East, why does it follow that it
        >was after the cross?

        In fact, Sarah, some writers have also proposed this idea. However, both
        flights make one ask, as we are taking flights, why on earth would he want
        to go to India?

        >The old theory is that the East (India) was where is spent the "lost
        years."
        >The writings are first century. So are the Gospels. I would assume there
        >was more than one bloke running around with the name of Jesus or Yeshu--just
        >look at Mexico! The romantic in me (theological romantic, that is) would
        >love to believe that J. spent his lost years in India walking on water and
        >further amazing the local spiritual adepts. The realist in me says no way!

        The romantic D.H.Lawrence wrote a novella called "The Man Who Died" or "The
        Escaped Cock", about a resuscitated Jesus getting off with a priestess of
        Isis and finding out about life. The situation is quite pregnant for the
        romantic mind.


        Ian
      • Christ Thomas
        ... Yes, Sarah, that is far fetched, isn t it.
        Message 3 of 20 , May 3, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Legendmyth@... wrote:
          >
          > If Jesus--And this is a real big if--went East, why does it follow that it
          > was after the cross?
          >
          > The old theory is that the East (India) was where is spent the "lost years."
          > The writings are first century. So are the Gospels. I would assume there
          > was more than one bloke running around with the name of Jesus or Yeshu--just
          > look at Mexico! The romantic in me (theological romantic, that is) would
          > love to believe that J. spent his lost years in India walking on water and
          > further amazing the local spiritual adepts. The realist in me says no way!
          >
          > Sarah

          Yes, Sarah, that is far fetched, isn't it.
        • Tom Simms
          ... And, pray tell, Ian, do you only consult non-sectarian sources? If so, you can t know much. Even most pagan material is polemical. Two Tomb Simms (I
          Message 4 of 20 , May 3, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, 03 May 1999 00:44:34 +0200, mc2499@... writes:
            >
            >>So tell me, dear friend, what library do you have access to? Clearly you
            >>must be inside the Vatican library, as Tom said, to get this stuff.
            >>Notwithstanding that, you are clearly reading a much later version. may
            >>you be blessed with cow offerings until you answer my question.
            >
            >Hey, Joe, where ya going with that gun in your hand?
            >
            >I think by now we've seen that you've got nothing up your sleave. You're
            >the one who is supposed to have the textual support for your ravings.
            >Haven't you *even* got a copy of the Bhavishya Purana? <grin>
            >
            >Come clean, Joey. Who's your source? Deardorf? Ahmadiyya literature? Menon?
            > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

            And, pray tell, Ian, do you only consult non-sectarian sources? If
            so, you can't know much. Even most pagan material is polemical.

            Two Tomb Simms (I don't have to go dig, I tell 'em where to.)

            >
            >Ian
            >
            >
          • Christ Thomas
            ... Ezek. 10:10 And as for their appearances, they four had one likeness, as if a wheel had been in the midst of a wheel. Ezek. 10:14 And every one had
            Message 5 of 20 , May 3, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Christ Thomas wrote:
              >
              > Legendmyth@... wrote:
              > >
              > > If Jesus--And this is a real big if--went East, why does it follow that it
              > > was after the cross?
              > >
              > > The old theory is that the East (India) was where is spent the "lost years."
              > > The writings are first century. So are the Gospels. The realist in me says no way!
              > >
              > > Sarah
              >
              > Yes, Sarah, that is far fetched, isn't it.

              Ezek. 10:10 And as for their appearances, they four had one likeness,
              as if a wheel had been in the midst of a wheel.

              Ezek. 10:14 And every one had four faces: the first face was the face
              of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third
              the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.

              By far, one of the most interesting aspects of a sighting of Jesus in
              India, after the resurrection, in that the rumor has persisted for over
              two thousand years. That within it’s self is something for one to
              ponder. There is an excellent reason, found within the scriptures, to
              discount a sighting and another reason why such a rumor would still
              persist. The children of God have one likeness. They all look alike.
              Ezekiel told you that. Quite simply, they saw the Twin Brother of Jesus.

              Ezek. 1:5 Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four
              living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness
              of a man.
              Ezek. 1:16 The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto
              the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their
              appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a
              wheel.
              Ezek. 1:28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the
              day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This
              was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I
              saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

              Ezek. 2:1 And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I
              will speak unto thee.

              Ezek. 2:2 And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and
              set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me.

              The Twin Brother of Jesus, that went to India after the death of Jesus,
              you all know, except for the doubters, was Judas Didymus Thomas.

              Matt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called
              Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and JUDAS?
              John 11:16 Then said THOMAS, which is called DIDYMUS, unto his
              fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.
              Acts 20:4 And there accompanied him into Asia and Timotheus; and of
              Asia,

              The name THOMAS is the acts and other new testaments is spelled
              TIMOTHEUS. The misspelling was one of those adulterated acts that
              allowed the RC church to deceive the earth. That was one of the ways she
              could exalt Peter and make him the head of her church. She just hid the
              name Thomas with an ancient spelling.

              Why would the sighting of Jesus in India be less plausible? Because
              after the resurrection he did not have the same likeness. He rose in
              another form.

              Mark 16:11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had
              been seen of her, believed not.

              Mark 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as
              they walked, and went into the country.

              The children of God all have one likeness. If Jesus was observed in
              India he would have been in the latter form which no one would have
              recognized.

              Thomas lived in India until his own murder and built Seven Churches
              there. They are still there. Quite simply the Twin Brother of Jesus was
              mistaken for Jesus.

              Thomas
            • joseph baxter
              Tone down the polemics, Ian, I think you have forgotten the context of our discussion, which had to do with hypotheses, such as the hypothesis re the name of
              Message 6 of 20 , May 3, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Tone down the polemics, Ian, I think you have forgotten the context of our
                discussion, which had to do with hypotheses, such as the hypothesis re the
                name of the man, and hypotheses to explain certain reported Asian facts
                such as the Seat of Solomon temple inscriptions, and other *reported*
                facts, including the one you are currently frothing at the mouth about. (If
                you have a hypothesis which explains the large body of reported Asian
                facts, or any of these reported facts, that is fair game for discussion.)
                I will respond to your message as time permits.

                With kind regards,

                Joe


                At 06:38 AM 5/3/99 +0200, you wrote:
                >At 18.28 02/05/99 -0700, joseph baxter wrote:
                >>At 12:44 AM 5/3/99 +0200, you wrote:
                >>>>So tell me, dear friend, what library do you have access to? Clearly you
                >>>>must be inside the Vatican library, as Tom said, to get this stuff.
                >>>>Notwithstanding that, you are clearly reading a much later version. may
                >>>>you be blessed with cow offerings until you answer my question.
                >>>
                >>>Hey, Joe, where ya going with that gun in your hand?
                >>
                >>Who's got the Beretta, my friend?
                >>>
                >>>I think by now we've seen that you've got nothing up your sleave. You're
                >>>the one who is supposed to have the textual support for your ravings.
                >>>Haven't you *even* got a copy of the Bhavishya Purana? <grin>
                >>>
                >>>Come clean, Joey. Who's your source? Deardorf? Ahmadiyya literature? Menon?
                >>
                >>Sorry, my friend, but I didn't think you wanted cites. But I forgot that
                >>you are sitting at your terminal in the Vatican library. The edition I am
                >>referring to is entitled "Bhavishya Maha Purana" and was published in 1910
                >>by the Oriental Research Library, University of Kashmir, Srinegar. It
                >>contains a copy of the original Sanskrit manuscript in the Shardic
                >>alphabet. See ch. 3, ,sec2, shloka 9-31. There is also a 1917 version
                >>published by the Venkateshvaria Press in Bombay. There is also a 1910
                >>edition published by the Oriental Research Institute in Poona, India.
                >>
                >>For a recent translation by a team of Kashmiri University professors, and
                >>recent photographs of the birch bark papyrus, see Professor Fida Hassnain's
                >>"A Search For The Historical Jesus", published by Gateway Books in Bath, in
                >>1994.
                >
                >Now that you've admitted your major source, you should take the time to
                >look at theworks cited by Fida Hassnain (who is a Sufi teacher and retired
                >professor). Such wonderfully trustworthy works as: "Jesus Lived in India"
                >by Holger Kersten, "The Gospel of Bartholomew" (big favourite for you
                >Ahmadiyyan fans), "The Crucifixion by an Eyewitness" (a Freemason
                >circulated work which has conveniently disappeared -- oops we can scratch
                >that one), and pseudo-Essene fantasies of Szekely (the sort of thing you
                >find in quaint theosophy bookstores -- need I say more?).
                >
                >>I hope this information is of some use.
                >
                >Yes, very revealing.
                >
                >>In the future, if you want citable
                >>reference works, please be more specific, and I will be happy to oblige.
                >
                >Joey, the citable stuff is with regard to dating and sourcing of original
                >materials. You haven't done so. You have only hinted at a tertiary source's
                >comments on secondary sources' comments. I want to know how you can
                >actually date your one slim excerpt from the Bhavishya Purana which uses an
                >Arabic form of the name of Jesus, suggesting some time after the Islamic
                >conquest of northern India. What techniques were used in the dating of the
                >birch bark text? Who has validated the dating techniques? I am asking for a
                >scholarly approach to the dating of the bbb. Without it you are in the dark
                >(one of your favourite hangouts). Do I need to get more specific than that?
                >The text itself shows clear reworking over several centuries. I wonder if
                >Bill Clinton'll make it in as well...
                >
                >I see nothing substantive for you to hold onto your seemingly ridiculous
                >position regarding Jesus' "survival after the crucifixion".
                >
                >
                >Ian

                joe
              • Christ Thomas
                ... Ezek. 10:10 And as for their appearances, they four had one likeness, as if a wheel had been in the midst of a wheel. Ezek. 10:14 And every one had
                Message 7 of 20 , May 3, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Christ Thomas wrote:
                  >
                  > Legendmyth@... wrote:
                  > >
                  > > If Jesus--And this is a real big if--went East, why does it follow that it
                  > > was after the cross?
                  > >
                  > > The old theory is that the East (India) was where is spent the "lost years."
                  > > The writings are first century. So are the Gospels. The realist in me says no way!
                  > >
                  > > Sarah
                  >
                  > Yes, Sarah, that is far fetched, isn't it.

                  Ezek. 10:10 And as for their appearances, they four had one likeness,
                  as if a wheel had been in the midst of a wheel.

                  Ezek. 10:14 And every one had four faces: the first face was the face
                  of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third
                  the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.

                  By far, one of the most interesting aspects of a sighting of Jesus in
                  India, after the resurrection, in that the rumor has persisted for over
                  two thousand years. That within it’s self is something for one to
                  ponder. There is an excellent reason, found within the scriptures, to
                  discount a sighting and another reason why such a rumor would still
                  persist. The children of God have one likeness. They all look alike.
                  Ezekiel told you that. Quite simply, they saw the Twin Brother of Jesus.

                  Ezek. 1:5 Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four
                  living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness
                  of a man.
                  Ezek. 1:16 The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto
                  the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their
                  appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a
                  wheel.
                  Ezek. 1:28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the
                  day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This
                  was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I
                  saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

                  Ezek. 2:1 And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I
                  will speak unto thee.

                  Ezek. 2:2 And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and
                  set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me.

                  The Twin Brother of Jesus, that went to India after the death of Jesus,
                  you all know, except for the doubters, was Judas Didymus Thomas.

                  Matt. 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called
                  Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and JUDAS?
                  John 11:16 Then said THOMAS, which is called DIDYMUS, unto his
                  fellowdisciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him.
                  Acts 20:4 And there accompanied him into Asia and Timotheus; and of
                  Asia,

                  The name THOMAS is the acts and other new testaments is spelled
                  TIMOTHEUS. The misspelling was one of those adulterated acts that
                  allowed the RC church to deceive the earth. That was one of the ways she
                  could exalt Peter and make him the head of her church. She just hid the
                  name Thomas with an ancient spelling.

                  Why would the sighting of Jesus in India be less plausible? Because
                  after the resurrection he did not have the same likeness. He rose in
                  another form.

                  Mark 16:11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had
                  been seen of her, believed not.

                  Mark 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as
                  they walked, and went into the country.

                  The children of God all have one likeness. If Jesus was observed in
                  India he would have been in the latter form which no one would have
                  recognized.

                  Thomas lived in India until his own murder and built Seven Churches
                  there. They are still there. Quite simply the Twin Brother of Jesus was
                  mistaken for Jesus.

                  Thomas
                • Shahina Amin
                  Dear Ian, If Joe is an Ahmadi in disguise I would certainly like to know that. Why does it make you suspicious that just because he believes in an aspect about
                  Message 8 of 20 , May 3, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Ian,

                    If Joe is an Ahmadi in disguise I would certainly like to know that. Why
                    does it make you suspicious that just because he believes in an aspect
                    about Jesus' life/death that the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam holds that he
                    must be a secret Ahmadi?

                    Haven't we already discussed this issue of Jesus' survival from the cross
                    and ending up in Kashmir, India enough times already? I certainly don't
                    mind this discussion to go on forever but when one is not convinced the
                    first time maybe he won't be later either.

                    Peace
                    Shahina
                  • Ian Hutchesson
                    ... Polemics, Joe? Naaa, I don t have an agenda -- other than coherent balanced analysis along scientific lines , if you want to call that an agenda. ...
                    Message 9 of 20 , May 4, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 09.22 03/05/99 -0700, joseph baxter wrote:
                      >Tone down the polemics, Ian,

                      Polemics, Joe? Naaa, I don't have an agenda -- other than "coherent
                      balanced analysis along scientific lines", if you want to call that an agenda.

                      >I think you have forgotten the context of our
                      >discussion,

                      Definitely not. My first comment was to Jack for asking "Birch Bark
                      Scripture? Wuzzat?" It was you who introduced this "Birch Bark Scripture"
                      stuff and I merely commented on the evidence -- or better the lack of it.

                      >which had to do with hypotheses, such as the hypothesis re the
                      >name of the man,

                      As to such a hypothesis, I have already stated my position: the texts are
                      in Greek and probably none was written anywhere near Judea; no-one has
                      established a historical person at the core of the Jesus literature, so one
                      can't make presuppositions as to a non-historical person's place of
                      residence; all we therefore have is a Greek name of a literary personality.

                      >and hypotheses to explain certain reported Asian facts
                      >such as the Seat of Solomon temple inscriptions, and other *reported*
                      >facts, including the one you are currently frothing at the mouth about.

                      It's hard for you to overcome the necessity to believe. It overshadows your
                      ability to test your surrogate hypotheses. All fall down with the
                      incredible notion of a Jesus surviving his crucifixion, the first hurdle
                      you have failed to deal with. (The second is lack of credible dating for
                      your "Asian facts".)

                      >(If
                      >you have a hypothesis which explains the large body of reported Asian
                      >facts, or any of these reported facts, that is fair game for discussion.)

                      Naturally, as indications of a Jesus in India started cropping up with
                      Mirza and the "discovery" of the tomb of Jesus, I can see no reason for
                      looking further afield.

                      >I will respond to your message as time permits.

                      It might be better, if you can't add anything substantive (as you haven't
                      so far), that you get the substance first.


                      Cheers,


                      Ian
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.