There's no need for non-biblical evidence, because the most compelling biblical evidence, which most people aren't even aware of regardless of how many times they've read the Bible, and which the authors of the Bible weren't even aware of, is incredible.
Jesus spoke a language while on the cross that no one in the area understood, and the words he spoke were written down phonetically in the Bible. This is a page from a book which talks about it:
https://i.imgur.com/3gIY50x.png
As it turns out, those words which neither Matthew, Mark, nor the crowd of people understood (Matthew's phonetic version being "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" and Mark's version being "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani") is apparently ancient Mayan:
Heli, heli, lamat sabac ta ni
Which, according to the author (Chan Thomas), translates to:
I am fainting, I am fainting, darkness is overcoming me.
A different take on the translation can be found here:
https://pakalahau.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/the-original-maya-language-of-the-historical-jesus/
But whatever the correct translation may be, words written down phonetically by two different people a couple thousand years ago, turning out to match up with words from a language unknown to people in the area at the time, is extremely compelling evidence that they weren't just making up stories, but rather, they really witnessed a man they called Jesus of Nazareth being crucified, and incredibly, he could speak a language from the Americas.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
It is very well possible such a man existed, it is very well possible such a man was crucified.
In fact, I'd put it at 50/50.
Paul could have based his story on an actual man (scholars believe, if this man existed, his name was probably Yeshua).
It's just as likely Paul made up the entire story in order to jump start his new religion.
If Paul's story is true, if this Yeshua/Jesus of Nazareth man actually did exist, and actually was crucified.....
Well - fine. In this case, when he was crucified, his story ends.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
I don't think you understand the significance of what I posted. To believe that it's just a made-up story, you have to believe that Matthew and Mark, a couple of guys from the Middle East who lived in the first century AD, somehow knew the ancient Mayan language from the Americas, but pretended that they didn't, and ascribed to Jesus ancient Mayan words, written down phonetically and given a drastically incorrect guess at their meaning, and for what? So that thousands of years later someone might notice the insanely out-of-place ancient Mayan words written down by a couple of ancient Hebrews?
Who in the Middle East in the first century AD even knew that the Americas existed, let alone could speak ancient Mayan? One guy, apparently; the guy they called Jesus of Nazareth. And someone in the Middle East speaking Mayan in the first century AD is no ordinary guy. How did he learn Mayan? Did he swim or row across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean, hang out with the Mayans for a spell, and then swim or row back?
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
On the contrary, one understands exactly.
I spent a long time studying all of this stuff. I could go into great detail, but I won't.
If you believe, I respect your beliefs.
BTW - are you sure about Matthew and Mark? Did these two people exist? And if so, were Matthew and Mark their real names?
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"BTW - are you sure about Matthew and Mark? Did these two people exist? And if so, were Matthew and Mark their real names?"
What difference does that make? Two people from the Middle East in the first century AD, regardless of who they were, wrote down ancient Mayan words phonetically, and ascribed them to someone they called [transliterated] Jesus of Nazareth who was being crucified on a cross. Can you explain that?
Keep in mind that according to mainstream history, no one from the Middle East had ever been to the Americas at that time, nor vice versa. This was some 1,400 years before Columbus, and some 900 years before the Vikings are said to have discovered America. How did ancient Mayan words end up in the Bible? Fictional story-telling certainly doesn't account for it.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
All right, sounds good.
Nice chatting with you.
Best wishes.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
I asked, "Can you explain that?"
I'll take your lack of response to mean, "No, I can't explain it."
Of course, no one can explain it in a secular way because a Middle Eastern man in the first century AD speaking Mayan is absolutely at odds with all mainstream secular narratives.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
No, just don't feel like getting into it right now.
Namely because no matter what I say, you're going to believe what you are going to believe regardless.
I no longer bother with religious arguments. I've done it with many others before, and do you know what I discovered? No matter how many sensible counterarguments I make, the individual on the other side will still believe whatever it is they believe.
Thus, as I said - "I respect your beliefs".
I have nothing else to add.
Best of luck to you.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"No, just don't feel like getting into it right now."
And also, you can't explain it in secular terms; no one can.
"Namely because no matter what I say, you're going to believe what you are going to believe regardless. I no longer bother with religious arguments. I've done it with many others before, and do you know what I discovered? No matter how many sensible counterarguments I make, the individual on the other side will still believe whatever it is they believe."
That's ironic, coming from someone who's displaying that exact behavior. You've just learned that someone from the Middle East in the first century AD could speak Mayan, which is literally miraculous, and it hasn't affected your beliefs at all.
By the way, in case you or anyone else is imagining that those Mayan words are perhaps a much later, post-discovery-of-America addition to the Bible, they are included in the Latin Vulgate as well, which dates to 382 AD, which is still centuries before the "discovery" of the Americas:
Matthew 27:46 et circa horam nonam clamavit Iesus voce magna dicens Heli Heli lema sabacthani hoc est Deus meus Deus meus ut quid dereliquisti me
And:
Mark 15:34 et hora nona exclamavit Iesus voce magna dicens Heloi Heloi lama sabacthani quod est interpretatum Deus meus Deus meus ut quid dereliquisti me
Those words have always been recorded phonetically; never translated to Latin or English like all the other words, because they were in an unknown language (not Hebrew, not Greek, not Aramaic, not anything from that part of the world); unknown until relatively recently, that is.
reply
share
OnanTheBarbarian (13171)
6 months ago
No, it's Aramaic and Greek. Greek was the language of the educated classes in Jesus's day.
Considering the verse actually tells you what the translation is, including a phonetic rendering of the Aramaic in Greek for Greek readers, I think you’re going to be hard pressed to dispute it.
“Ἠλὶ ἠλὶ λεμὰ σαβαχθάνι;” τοῦτ’ ἔστιν “Θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἵνα‿ τί με ἐγκατέλιπες;”
““Eli Eli lema sabacthani”, tout estin Thee mou thee mou hina ti me enkatelipes.”
“”Eli, Eli, lema sabacthani”, that is, my God, my God (God of me, God of me), why have you forsaken me (so that why me have you forsaken)?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_God,_my_God,_why_hast_Thou_forsaken_me%3F#:~:text=Around%20the%20ninth%20hour%2C%20Jesus,why%20have%20you%20forsaken%20me%3F%22
https://www.quora.com/Why-were-the-words-Eli-Eli-Lama-Sabachthani-of-Matthew-27-46-falsely-translated-as-My-God-my-God-why-hast-thou-forsaken-me
Though you had me going for a minute because the Mormons teach that Christ appeared to the New World Indians after his Resurrection.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Next. Some background on Jesus Christ.....
Every supposed teaching of Jesus, and every supposed miracle he was claimed to have performed, was written decades after his claimed crucifixion. In the case of all the claimed events in the Gospels, these weren’t written until between 40 and 70 years later by completely unknown authors (Matthew and Mark are included here).
The very first mention of Jesus, even in the Bible itself (in 1st Thessalonians) wasn’t written until either 50 or 51 CE, some 2 decades after his supposed crucifixion (Paul's writings).
There is no contemporary evidence, none whatsoever, that the biblical character of Jesus, was anything but a later-invented fictional character (thus, a 50/50 on him being real). The character was probably based by Paul on a real person, most likely one of many messianic Jewish preachers of the time who were crucified for sedition (some scholars believe his name was Yeshua).
However, there is absolutely no evidence to support this, nor to show who this person might have been (again, thus a 50/50 on whether this man ever even walked the Earth).
Every single thing written about Jesus, his birth, life, and death, is a later-written invention to promote the new religion of Christianity, with its more compassionate and tolerant ethos, to the predominantly Jewish people of the time. This was done in accordance with the then naïve, superstitious, and scientifically ignorant beliefs.
Ok, now you have my beliefs, plus some background on Jesus.
reply
share
chilidoggg (14601)
6 months ago
"Every single thing written about Jesus, his birth, life, and death, is a later-written invention to promote the new religion of Christianity, with its more compassionate and tolerant ethos, to the predominantly Jewish people of the time."
This is my stance, essentially. Even if there's no "evidence" it's a better "story" than what the Jews have. And no one's burning cows and doves at the Temple anymore.
Is it a better story than Islam, or any of the polytheistic religions? That I don't know.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
When the mood strikes I'll get into this with you.
We should start with what I believe.
First of all, I am Agnostic.
Secondly I believe there is a 50% chance a man named Jesus Christ existed.
If he did, I believe there is a 100% chance he was just another human being - he lived and died just like everyone else.
When I feel like it, I'll get into your claims.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Some additional background on Jesus and Mark....
There is no evidence, from anywhere, to show that the biblical character of Jesus was anything but a fictional character. He might have been posthumously based on one of the many messianic preachers crucified for sedition around that time, but that’s pure conjecture.
The Gospel of Mark has no known author, wasn’t written until the early 70s CE, and wasn’t even given its name, by Bishop Irenaeus, until towards the end of the 2nd century CE. It does not represent eyewitness accounts to anything.
The gospel stories about supposed events in the life of Jesus are all mythical, and are based on interpretations of old Jewish myths, updated and attributed to the character of Jesus using a literary technique called midrash. This was almost certainly to attract disaffected 1st century CE Jews to the new, and more compassionate, religion of Christianity.
And Matthew....
The Gospel of Matthew wasn’t written until the 80s CE, at least 50 years after the claimed crucifixion of the character who was the biblical Jesus - by a completely unknown author. The name attributed to the writer of Matthew's gospel, and the other gospels as I mentioned previously, weren’t given to them until towards the end of the second century CE, almost certainly by Bishop Irenaeus.
Once again.....
It’s also important to note that there is no contemporary evidence, none whatsoever, to show that either Jesus or any of his supposed disciples or apostles, or anything they supposedly said or did, were anything more than mythical.
Ok, this is enough background - I'll get into your claims next time the mood strikes....
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
None of that is even remotely relevant to anything I've said, which I've already pointed out (scroll up to find a paragraph from me that starts with "What difference does that make?").
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Yeah, I know. Im setting up for where I am going with this.
It will all make sense when I'm finished.
You can't do a conversation that revolves around religion in 5 minutes.
ANd I could tell, you are the type of person that will go to the end of the Earth with this, whereas I was content with "I respect your beliefs" - leaving it at that and moving on.
You couldn't cut out of the conversation so I am now getting into it. To get into it properly requires some background. Or, we can just cut it right here because I didn't want to get into this in the first place.
reply
share
capuchin (3366)
6 months ago
My advice if you want any from a disinterested bystander: don't get provoked into this.
You're right. It'll be fruitless. He'll continue to believe what he believes. That is his right, of course.
And OnanTheBarbarian has already provided the links above -- for any third parties who may be interested -- to the consensus view among biblical scholars and linguists -- which is that the phrase is Aramaic and quotes Psalms 22: 1, meaning 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken [or abandoned] me?'
If MaximRecoil thinks it's Mayan, he should probably take the matter up with the academics who have studied this stuff and know the languages. If I were you, I wouldn't get bogged down.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Yeah, but to be frank. I don't like maximrecoil.
This individual has tried to egg me on - tried to rattle me, tried to disturb me in other conversations.
So, as time permits, Ill get out my thoughts and be done with it.
I understand exactly what maximrecoil is doing. This person (male or female) gets off on it.
Notice Im not the least bit rattled.
Thank you capuchin
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
LOL at your attempted crystal ball reading, Miss Cleo.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Wow, aren't you clever?
Damn, if only I was as clever as you are.
reply
share
db20db (17754)
6 months ago
He used the exact same line on me in another thread. So far, I haven't noticed him using the "non sequitur" "tacit concession" responses he also habitually falls back on.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
He's an idiot db20db
My conjecture.....
A very lonely, sad, insecure fool.
Don't pay him any mind cuz this exactly what he wants.
I'm only bothering because I intensely dislike maximrecoil.
Best wishes db20db
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
So says the simpleton who thinks he's clairvoyant and just replied six times in a row.
How about providing some upcoming winning Powerball numbers, Sylvia Browne?
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Right, I only bothered because I don't like you.
Not necessary to be clairvoyant on this one.
In fact, one has noticed, others dislike you as well.
My dislike of you is the only reason I bothered to respond, to get rid of you. Which I am now doing.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"Right, I only bothered because I don't like you. In fact, one has noticed, others dislike you as well."
Gee, that's too bad. I hope I don't lose any sleep.
"My dislike of you is the only reason I bothered to respond, to get rid of you. Which I am now doing."
What are you talking about? Responding won't accomplish that. Use your ignore button, obviously.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
No, that would be too easy.
I'd rather let you know how irrelevant you are and how irrelevant your thoughts are.
You're an idiot MaximRecoil
I wanted to make sure this was known publicly.
Ok, now get your diapers on.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
One more thought.
There is another guy here, he likes to be argumentative. He likes to wind people up - just like you.
His name is ShogunofYonkers
However there is a big difference. SHogun is funny. I've read some of his conversations and started laughing hysterically.
Your writings have no value whatsoever.
reply
share
ShogunofYonkers (78598)
6 months ago
I’m also really cute you know, you could have mentioned that.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Hahahahahah
There he goes, he made me laugh again....
That's what I'm talking about.
Thanks for giving me a laugh today Shogun
reply
share
ShogunofYonkers (78598)
6 months ago
It’s what I’m here for. You know, the dorky best friend of the hero in every movie
..?
I’m the dorky pal🤓
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Yeah - in all seriousness - you're a good guy.
I meant what I said previously - I've read thru some of your conversations - your stuff is funny man.
I'd read along and laugh hysterically.
Which I enjoy doing so thank you.
Best wishes to you brother.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
"Jesus spoke a language while on the cross that no one in the area understood, and the words he spoke were written down phonetically in the Bible. This is a page from a book which talks about it:"
He did huh? Interesting, were you there?
"As it turns out, those words which neither Matthew, Mark, nor the crowd of people understood (Matthew's phonetic version being "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" and Mark's version being "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani") is apparently ancient Mayan:"
Is that right? Did you go over this with Matthew and Mark? I'm sure the three of you discussed this matter, correct?
"But whatever the correct translation may be, words written down phonetically by two different people a couple thousand years ago, turning out to match up with words from a language unknown to people in the area at the time, is extremely compelling evidence that they weren't just making up stories, but rather, they really witnessed a man they called Jesus of Nazareth being crucified, and incredibly, he could speak a language from the Americas."
Is that right? Of course you witnessed these events yourself, correct? You actually spoke to the people involved, correct?
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
"I don't think you understand the significance of what I posted. To believe that it's just a made-up story, you have to believe that Matthew and Mark, a couple of guys from the Middle East who lived in the first century AD, somehow knew the ancient Mayan language from the Americas, but pretended that they didn't, and ascribed to Jesus ancient Mayan words, written down phonetically and given a drastically incorrect guess at their meaning, and for what? So that thousands of years later someone might notice the insanely out-of-place ancient Mayan words written down by a couple of ancient Hebrews?"
Yes, there isn't any significance. You cant prove anything you say. Which goes back to the background information I presented earlier - you're all conjecture maximrecoil - what you say means nothing, it has no significance whatsoever.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
"Who in the Middle East in the first century AD even knew that the Americas existed, let alone could speak ancient Mayan? One guy, apparently; the guy they called Jesus of Nazareth. And someone in the Middle East speaking Mayan in the first century AD is no ordinary guy. How did he learn Mayan? Did he swim or row across the Atlantic or Pacific ocean, hang out with the Mayans for a spell, and then swim or row back?"
Mmm hmmm - and of course you were in the Middle east in first century AD and you knew these people, correct?
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
"What difference does that make? Two people from the Middle East in the first century AD, regardless of who they were, wrote down ancient Mayan words phonetically, and ascribed them to someone they called [transliterated] Jesus of Nazareth who was being crucified on a cross. Can you explain that?"
No, and neither can you. What we can say is.....
It's more conjecture.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
"Keep in mind that according to mainstream history, no one from the Middle East had ever been to the Americas at that time, nor vice versa. This was some 1,400 years before Columbus, and some 900 years before the Vikings are said to have discovered America. How did ancient Mayan words end up in the Bible? Fictional story-telling certainly doesn't account for it."
Right, which takes us back to what I said originally.
If this is what you believe, fine, I respect your beliefs
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"He did huh?"
Yes, obviously.
"Interesting, were you there?"
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"Is that right?"
Yes, obviously.
"Did you go over this with Matthew and Mark? I'm sure the three of you discussed this matter, correct?"
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"Is that right?"
Yes, obviously.
"Did you go over this with Matthew and Mark? I'm sure the three of you discussed this matter, correct?"
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"Is that right?"
Yes, obviously.
"Of course you witnessed these events yourself, correct? You actually spoke to the people involved, correct?"
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"Yes, there isn't any significance."
Your mere gainsaying is dismissed.
"You cant prove anything you say."
There's nothing to prove. The words are in fact in the Bible and they do in fact closely match Mayan words. Facts are already proven, else they wouldn't be facts, obviously.
"Which goes back to the background information I presented earlier - you're all conjecture maximrecoil - what you say means nothing, it has no significance whatsoever."
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"Mmm hmmm - and of course you were in the Middle east in first century AD and you knew these people, correct?"
Your non sequitur is dismissed.
"No, and neither can you."
Your concession that you can't explain it is noted. Of course, you're too simple-minded to understand the implication of that.
"It's more conjecture."
Your laughable attempt to redefine the word "conjecture" is dismissed.
By the way, this entire string of posts of yours is a huge Amateur Hour Alert. Almost everything you said was a non sequitur.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Ok, Ill be a bit more clear.
GFY
Is that clear enough?
GFY you little twerp
Just in case it isnt, here are the second letters
OUO
Once again, the second letters
OUO
All right now go eat your baby food. Don't forget your pacifier too. Hey then maybe when you grow up, get yourself a life. Have you ever had a girlfriend? Huh? Do you work? Have you got any money? Do you have a car? Have you ever gotten l*&^%$d?
I doubt it on all counts. Maybe you should spend some time on these issues instead of talking with a man that has no interest in you, or anything you are discussing.
Ok, now go get in your crib and take a nappie - you'll be fine.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"No, that would be too easy. I'd rather let you know how irrelevant you are and how irrelevant your thoughts are. You're an idiot MaximRecoil. I wanted to make sure this was known publicly. Ok, now get your diapers on."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and also, Comical Irony Alert, you know, coming from the buffoon who thinks he's clairvoyant, replies multiple times to one post, and posted about a dozen non sequiturs in a row (idiots are the sole source of non sequiturs of that type).
"One more thought. There is another guy here, he likes to be argumentative. He likes to wind people up - just like you. His name is ShogunofYonkers. However there is a big difference. SHogun is funny. I've read some of his conversations and started laughing hysterically. Your writings have no value whatsoever."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and also, what does it mean when a registered idiot laughs?
"Ok, Ill be a bit more clear. GFY Is that clear enough? GFY you little twerp Just in case it isnt, here are the second letters OUO Once again, the second letters OUO All right now go eat your baby food. Don't forget your pacifier too. Hey then maybe when you grow up, get yourself a life. Have you ever had a girlfriend? Huh? Do you work? Have you got any money? Do you have a car? Have you ever gotten l*&^%$d? I doubt it on all counts. Maybe you should spend some time on these issues instead of talking with a man that has no interest in you, or anything you are discussing. Ok, now go get in your crib and take a nappie - you'll be fine."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and since you're fresh out of arguments, your tacit concession is noted.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Nope, I can keep going till the end of time.
However, you don't interest me.
And this conversation doesn't interest me.
I have better things to do with my time.
Ok, now go get back into your playpen.
Hey also, you still trying to rattle me? I told you previously when you pulled this sh(*&^%t before you'd never rattle me, no matter what you did or what you said.
Do you remember our previous conversation?
Well, the same applies to this one, you wont rattle me, no matter how hard you try.
Ok, if you can leave me your address I'm going to send you a rubber duckie for bath time.
Ill send you a yo-yo, too - to keep yourself occupied since you don't have a girlfriend.
reply
share
AndyKing1967 (39853)
6 months ago
“I'm going to send you a rubber duckie for bath time.”
Hey! Where’s mine? I feel left out.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Hahah, you don't need one Andy. You're an adult who lives in reality.
MaximRecoil is a little baby living in his own fantasy land.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
"replies multiple times to one post,"
Hey thanks for proving what a fool you are.
My replies were to SEVERAL of your posts. Not one, SEVERAL.
Can you read?
You're an idiot that cant even recall his own posts.
ANd now to close, for those of limited brainpower. You can argue until the end of the time on religious matters - but the fact is - YOU DON'T KNOW for sure, and I DON'T KNOW for sure.
This is the theme I was trying to present to you with the background information.
So, it is an exercise in futility to even bother. You'll end up in the same place. Which takes us back to square one.
"I respect your beliefs"
"Best of luck"
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"Nope, I can keep going till the end of time. However, you don't interest me. And this conversation doesn't interest me. I have better things to do with my time. Ok, now go get back into your playpen. Hey also, you still trying to rattle me? I told you previously when you pulled this sh(*&^%t before you'd never rattle me, no matter what you did or what you said. Do you remember our previous conversation? Well, the same applies to this one, you wont rattle me, no matter how hard you try. Ok, if you can leave me your address I'm going to send you a rubber duckie for bath time. Ill send you a yo-yo, too - to keep yourself occupied since you don't have a girlfriend."
This entire nutjob post of yours is yet another in a long line of non sequiturs, and as such consider it dismissed out of hand.
"Hey thanks for proving what a fool you are."
Comical Irony Alert: Part VI (see below)
"My replies were to SEVERAL of your posts. Not one, SEVERAL."
You replied twice to one post right here, nincompoop, and it's not the only time in this thread that you've replied multiple times to one post. Another instance is your two posts that start with "No, that would be too easy" and "One more thought". Those are both replies to the same post and like these two latest replies of yours to one post they are both short enough that they could've been one post.
"Can you read?"
Comical Irony Alert: Part VII (see above)
"You're an idiot that cant even recall his own posts."
Comical Irony Alert: Part VIII (see above)
"ANd now to close, for those of limited brainpower. You can argue until the end of the time on religious matters - but the fact is - YOU DON'T KNOW for sure, and I DON'T KNOW for sure. This is the theme I was trying to present to you with the background information. So, it is an exercise in futility to even bother. You'll end up in the same place. Which takes us back to square one. "I respect your beliefs" "Best of luck""
Your non sequitur is dismissed, Special Ed, and since you're still fresh out of arguments, your tacit concession remains noted.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Does GFY remain noted?
In case it isn't, GFY.
Oh and BTW, what argument? You're arguing with yourself as(*&^ole.
Actually this is probably common practice for you.
I'm sure there are many other areas of your life you also do alone.
Hey and also, as%$*&^le. Get a life. Ok?
You don't impress me one bit. All you do is continue to show what a lonely, sorry individual you really are.
Lastly, I'm not fresh out of arguments, there is no argument. I made my point, you don't know and I don't know with absolute certainty when we discuss events of 2000 years ago.
The Bible is a collection of myths and allegories, a few of which were based on real events (although none of these are so-called supernatural), which related to the naïve, superstitious, and scientifically ignorant beliefs of people living in the near Middle East between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago.
It is not a history book.
If you want to believe in it, great, good for you. Nothing you say is verifiable or provable - so there is no argument. There is nothing to argue over.
Believe whatever it is you believe, frankly I could care less either way.
In fact, I've come across telephone poles I've found more interesting than you. Brick walls with better personalities.
You're a legend in your own mind (as Clint would say) - no one likes you but you.
All right, now, go on and believe whatever it is you believe, and have a nice life.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
Your non sequitur is dismissed, and since you still have no arguments, your tacit concession remains noted.
reply
share
db20db (17754)
6 months ago
"Your non sequitur is dismissed...your tacit concession is noted."
His obsessive, ad nauseam responses! 😄 Next, he'll put you on Ignore.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"And OnanTheBarbarian has already provided the links above -- for any third parties who may be interested -- to the consensus view among biblical scholars and linguists -- which is that the phrase is Aramaic and quotes Psalms 22: 1, meaning 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken [or abandoned] me?'"
That's absurd. The entire book of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, so why isn't everything in a Latin or English translation first written in Aramaic followed by, "interpreted as," followed by the English translation? Why wasn't the Psalms 22:1 verse in a Latin or English translation first written in Hebrew followed by an English translation? Because that would be asinine, obviously.
The KJV for example, is in English except, allegedly, that sentence, which is allegedly in the same Aramaic as the rest of the book was written in, but, inexplicably, they decided to leave the Aramaic in there, even though with that allegedly same sentence in Psalms, they didn't leave the original language in there.
And why was the crowd confused about what was being said, thinking he was calling for Elijah? Aramaic was commonly spoken in the area at the time.
And why do romanizations of phonetic representations of what Jesus allegedly said on the cross match up almost perfectly with romanized ancient Mayan words? They match as closely with Mayan words as they do with each other ("each other" meaning the Matthew and Mark versions in the KJV and the Latin Vulgate). Is "compare and contrast" something you can't do for yourself?
reply
share
capuchin (3366)
6 months ago
Nothing I wrote invited debate.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
That's only true if you don't subscribe to the alleged "consensus view among biblical scholars and linguists" that you mentioned.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Hey watch out capuchin...
You've got that genius MaximRecoil after you!
I'm sure you're shaking in your boots.
Whhoooo whee, that MaximRecoil, wow, I'm shaking in my boots too!
It must be hard to have to go thru life as MaximRecoil does. Continuing on in discussions others have clearly stated they have no interest in.
I guess you'd have to be very lonely, very self dissatisfied, or a loser in life to bother.
Only MaximRecoil would know.
reply
share
capuchin (3366)
6 months ago
Oh, I've got nothing against MaximRecoil. He's entitled to his beliefs.
But it doesn't take much more than a quick Google search to discover that there isn't really any academic controversy over the phrase, what it means (at least approximately) and which language it was spoken in -- at least among biblical scholars and people who can read Hebrew and Aramaic.
I tend to defer to people who are experts in their field rather than random people on the internet pushing fringe theories that you would be unlikely to hear inside a seminary or university faculty where people actually study such things. But perhaps that's just me.
If he is confident in the Mayan theory, he should present it to those academics, because it could be life-changing for them. Or perhaps they'd be willing to debate him. I'm not. All I'm willing to do is point out that his theory is not a widely accepted one. And then other people can judge the matter for themselves. Believe the bible scholars with their years of learning and research, or believe MaximRecoil off MovieChat? It's a tough choice we all have to face at some point in our lives.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Agreed, which is what I said to MaximRecoil at the beginning of the conversation....
"I respect your beliefs"
I was satisfied to leave it at that.
Of course if the person on the other side of the conversation is lonely, sad, thinks they are smarter than everyone else, has no life - if you are dealing with this type of person (such as MaximRecoil) - a friendly attempt to move on isn't good enough.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"Believe the bible scholars with their years of learning and research, or believe MaximRecoil off MovieChat? It's a tough choice we all have to face at some point in our lives."
No, believe facts and reason. The assertion that it's Aramaic is demonstrably absurd. Just look at the verse:
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
The book of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. The "that is to say" part was written by the author, not added by translators (anything added by translators in the KJV is enclosed in brackets).
So according to the "it's Aramaic" assertion, the author wrote down what Jesus said in Aramaic and then interpreted it by writing down the same thing in Aramaic again. Completely translated to English it would look like this:
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
reply
share
capuchin (3366)
6 months ago
No, believe facts and reason.
Wise words indeed. I shall do just that.
reply
share
AndyKing1967 (39853)
6 months ago
But, you believe my mate that reckons that he’s got some shelves that Jesus put up a while back, right?
reply
share
capuchin (3366)
6 months ago
Well, I think Jesus is widely recognised the world over, even by people who don't believe he ever existed, to be a really nice bloke. Always willing to help out with some DIY. [Insert own Jesus and nails joke here.] Sounds like something he'd do.
Why would I have trouble believing that?
reply
share
CarterBlunt (1412)
6 months ago
Nothing in the bible was written by eyewitnesses. With regards to the new testament, the earliest books were written over 200 years after the alleged events.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
Where did you get that idea? The book of Mark is generally dated to around 70 AD, with some putting it at 50-something AD, which is ~20 to ~40 years after the events.
Regardless of when it was actually written, and even if we go with your definitely and drastically wrong assertion that "the earliest books were written over 200 years after the alleged events," it was definitely written many centuries before any ordinary human in that part of the world could have known the Mayan language, so how did a sentence written in Mayan get in there?
reply
share
CarterBlunt (1412)
6 months ago
I actually have no idea, I just heard it somewhere and repeated it. For all I know, they could have been full of shit, or talking about when it was translated or something.
Onan already showed how it was Aramaic. Not sure why you're still clinging to it being Mayan.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"Onan already showed how it was Aramaic. Not sure why you're still clinging to it being Mayan."
He's on ignore so I haven't seen it, but it's not Aramaic. If it were Aramaic it would have been translated to Latin in the Vulgate, and translated to English in the English language Bibles, obviously. Furthermore, people who heard it wouldn't have been wondering what he was saying, speculating that he was calling for Elias/Elijah, and the author wouldn't have had to guess at the "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" interpretation.
It has always just been phonetic spellings of unknown words they heard, and those spellings align closely with the following actual Mayan words:
"Heli, heli, lamat sabac ta ni"
reply
share
db20db (17754)
6 months ago
"He's on ignore so I haven't seen it,...
Hah! 😁 Another poster "non sequitur", "tacit concession" guy has on Ignore because he can't handle the opposing argument. So full of himself, with his one-sided, superior arguments. At this rate, he's quickly approaching R_Kane and MovieManCin2 with posters on Ignore.
reply
share
ShogunofYonkers (78598)
6 months ago
You must know that you just come off as an angry ass! Never adding anything of use to a discussion. Nice people are talking here dork. Piss off dummy.
reply
share
CarterBlunt (1412)
6 months ago
It's literally translated in the exact verses you're quoting from.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"It's literally translated in the exact verses you're quoting from."
No, it's "interpreted," i.e., a guess, from the author. If it was Aramaic it would have simply been translated to, e.g., English, not left in Aramaic. Much of the New Testament was originally in Aramaic, and since it was a common language in the area at the time, there wouldn't have been any confusion among the crowd about what he said, like I already mentioned.
Again, this is literally Mayan - "Heli, heli, lamat sabac ta ni"
And this is from the Latin Vulgate:
Matthew 27:46 et circa horam nonam clamavit Iesus voce magna dicens Heli Heli lema sabacthani hoc est Deus meus Deus meus ut quid dereliquisti me
It's obviously the same thing, so if you believe it's Aramaic then you must believe that it's both Aramaic and Mayan at the same time, i.e., a Semitic language that originated in the region of ancient Syria and an ancient language that originated in the Americas, at the same time, which is absurd.
reply
share
CarterBlunt (1412)
6 months ago
If the Bible is discredited as a source, and Jesus spoke Mayan, maybe the Mayans had the right religion. Or, maybe Aramaic and Mayan have a common origin. Or, it's a coincidence and the words just happen to have vague similarities, while having completely different meanings, and possibly an entirely different grammar that isn't being taken into account in these multiple translations of the "Mayan" that don't even match each other, even slightly. Sounds like at least one of them don't really speak Mayan, and are just making shit up.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"Or, maybe Aramaic and Mayan have a common origin."
No, they very obviously didn't. One originated in the ancient Americas and the other originated in the ancient Middle East. The "old world" didn't have any contact with the "new world" until around the late 15th century AD, or about 500 years earlier if you count the Vikings. The Mayan sentence in the Bible was written in the 1st century AD.
"Or, it's a coincidence and the words just happen to have vague similarities"
The similarities aren't even remotely vague. Phonetic spellings of unknown words the biblical authors heard ~2,000 years ago matching up so closely with modern transliterations of ancient Mayan words, so closely that they would be pronounced the ~same way, is obviously not a coincidence.
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.
The kwik brown focks jumps over the layzee dog.
It would be like saying that those are two different languages with coincidental, vague similarities.
"and possibly an entirely different grammar that isn't being taken into account in these multiple translations of the "Mayan" that don't even match each other, even slightly. Sounds like at least one of them don't really speak Mayan, and are just making shit up."
Translating ancient languages in modern times is difficult, but there's no doubt that those are Mayan words.
reply
share
CarterBlunt (1412)
6 months ago
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
za kui kubu ron fu okusu jyan pa suo ba zarei jidou gu
座杭九分論不臆すじゃんぱ素袍ば座礼児童愚
Damn bro, I didn't know you spoke Japanese! So you're saying I'm a childish fool who doesn't apply himself, and pretends to be humble, while 90% of what I write is prideful nonsense that I should be embarrassed of. Jeez, I didn't know you felt that way.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
Since "za kui kubu ron fu okusu jyan pa suo ba zarei jidou gu" isn't even phonetically close to "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog", your post is a non sequitur, and as such, consider it dismissed out of hand.
Again:
Heli, heli, lamat sabac ta ni (known Mayan words)
Heli, heli, lema sabacthani (from the Bible)
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani (also from the Bible)
Sound them out for yourself. They would all be pronounced in practically the same way.
Also, if it were Aramaic as you suppose, then why were there different spellings of it in different books of the Bible (that's in addition to the question of why it was left as Aramaic in Latin and English translations to begin with)? There were different spellings because whenever you have more than one person try to phonetically spell out unfamiliar words they've heard, they are unlikely to come up with the same exact spellings. For example, if I were to give a phonetic spelling for "Piscataquis," I might spell it "Pisskatakwiss," and someone else might spell it "Piskattakwis," and so on.
reply
share
CarterBlunt (1412)
6 months ago
It's actually very phonetically close, almost exactly the same as a Japanese person literally saying the English part. Something like, "za kuikku buraun hokkusu jyanpusu obba za reijii doggu".
Do you know how those words are pronounced in Aramaic? Do you know how they are pronounced in Ancient Mayan? I would wager there are sounds in there that don't translate directly to the English language, same as there are sounds in English that don't translate into Japanese.
Heli ≠ Eli
Iamat ≠ Iema
Sabac ≠ Sabach
ta ni ≠ thani
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"It's actually very phonetically close"
No, it isn't.
"almost exactly the same as a Japanese person literally saying the English part. Something like, "za kuikku buraun hokkusu jyanpusu obba za reijii doggu"."
"Japanglish" does not sound like English, obviously. "Za" doesn't sound like "the," "kuikku" does not sound like "quick" (it has three syllables instead of one), "buraun" doesn't sound like "brown," "hokkusu" sounds nothing like "fox," and so on.
"Do you know how those words are pronounced in Aramaic?"
They are not Aramaic words therefore they have no Aramaic pronunciation. Their sounds would have to be transliterated to Aramaic script before there could be any basis for an Aramaic pronunciation.
"Do you know how they are pronounced in Ancient Mayan?"
Obviously, because the Mayan words have already been transliterated to our alphabet, and therefore we use our alphabet's conventions to "sound it out." It won't be exact like a native speaker would pronounce them with the right tonality and emphasis; you'd need more complicated phonetic spellings for that.
"I would wager there are sounds in there that don't translate directly to the English language, same as there are sounds in English that don't translate into Japanese."
Those unknown words ascribed to Jesus were originally written down phonetically in Aramaic script (in the case of Matthew) and the Greek alphabet (in the case of Mark). Since they weren't Aramaic or Greek words, when the books were translated to e.g., Latin and then English, they couldn't translate those words so they simply transliterated them to the Latin alphabet. And incredibly, they are a very close match to ancient Mayan words that have also been transliterated to the Latin alphabet.
"Heli ≠ Eli"
It's very close phonetically, obviously. Also, Heli = Heli, which is how it's spelled in the Latin Vulgate (as I've already pointed out).
"Iamat ≠ Iema"
Closer to "lama," (only missing the "t" at the end) which is how it's spelled in Matthew (KJV). Most people don't enunciate the "t" sound at the end of words that end in "t", therefore it would be easy to miss when writing down unfamiliar words you've heard, phonetically. Try it yourself. If your tongue doesn't touch the roof of your mouth when you say the "t" sound at the end of a word then you haven't enunciated the "t" sound.
"Sabac ≠ Sabach"
Sabac = Sabac, as in "Heli, heli, lema sabacthani" (Latin Vulgate).
"ta ni ≠ thani"
Missing an "h," gee whiz. There are as many or more trivial differences such as these between the same quote in different books of the Bible and different translations. Do you think that means that they are saying something different from each other? Obviously not; it's just the nature of transliteration and writing down unfamiliar words you've heard, phonetically; they aren't exact sciences.
It's also ironic that you're pointing out these trivial differences while at the same time claiming that the drastically different "Japanglish" that you posted is "actually very phonetically close."
reply
share
CarterBlunt (1412)
6 months ago
I'm ready to rest my case, as I think I've already pointed out where you went wrong. If you insist on believing that, go ahead... but I'm not sure what's the point.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"as I think I've already pointed out where you went wrong"
You've legitimately done no such thing, not even once, but ironically, I've legitimately pointed out where you went wrong quite a few times. See my most recent post for example. And since you didn't address, let alone refute, anything in it, your tacit concession is noted.
reply
share
CarterBlunt (1412)
6 months ago
Hele; heley: now, today, at this moment (in Spanish, ahora, hoy, en este momento)
Lamah: submerge, immerse (in Spanish, sumir, hundir)
Sa(?)-Bac: verb root: to pour, to spill from a vessel (in Spanish, vertir, derramar)
Tanhen: in front (in Spanish, lo que está delante)
Lord Pakal Ahau organized the words with the following revised translation: ‘And now, I immerse myself and spill (my blood or my fear?) from the vessel that is in front ( of my Father?).’
Looks like a lot of interpretation, or "guessing", if you ask me. Pretty damned incoherent as well.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Look at yourself MaximRecoil!
I'm reading thru your discussion with CarterBlunt
Seriously man - get a life!
Go get yourself a girlfriend. Go out and play basketball. Get some friends. I can't believe anyone would spend the kind of time you do on these issues.
Seriously man, I feel sorry for you because I think you're young.
Only reason I'm here is because I'm in my 50s - retired with all the time in the world. If I was young, I can think of a million things I'd rather do than sit around on the internet. You on the other hand - in reality, I think you're a lonely, sorry young man. With nothing better to do than spend a staggering amount of time on these issues, which no one (aside from CarterBlunt) seems to care about.
Again, I feel sorry for you. Get yourself a life brother.
No need to respond as I'm done with this. Good luck to you.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
Your non sequitur is dismissed, nutjob, and since you still have no arguments, your tacit concession remains noted.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Yeah, I'm not doing this with you anymore MaximRecoil.
I sincerely feel sorry for you.
Best of luck
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"Yeah, I'm not doing this with you anymore MaximRecoil."
You already said as much, numbnuts. Remember when you said - "No need to respond as I'm done with this"? Yet here you are, replying again. LOL at that, and LOL at you too, you know, while I'm at it.
"I sincerely feel sorry for you."
Random internet buffoon who's been off-topic ranting for no apparent reason like a crazy guy "feels sorry for [me]." LOL at that too.
You and a fool are alike.
Your tacit concession remains noted, of course.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Only because you continue. When you stop I'll stop.
I'm done with hurling insults. I don't have the heart to insult you anymore because I feel sorry for you.
Best of luck
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"So, as time permits, Ill get out my thoughts and be done with it."
And:
"No need to respond as I'm done with this."
And:
"Yeah, I'm not doing this with you anymore MaximRecoil."
And then:
"Only because you continue. When you stop I'll stop."
Still LOL at you.
"I'm done with hurling insults."
"Insults" hurled by an established idiot aren't really insults. You forgot to include an appropriate adjective before the word "insults," such as "ineffectual."
"I don't have the heart to insult you anymore because I feel sorry for you."
LOL, again.
Your tacit concession remains noted, of course.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Well, there is one thing I can do for you. I do feel sorry for you as I've said. You're probably pushing what, hhhmmmm - 300 pounds? All right, this is ok. No problem.
I'm going to send you some Twinkies, Ring Dings, Devil Dogs, and Yodels for your own personal consumption.
I want to help you maintain your weight, because I do feel sorry for you and wish to help.
Best of luck
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo, and your tacit concession remains noted.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Yeah, it is predicting, but truth be told, I'm probably right. You probably are pushing 300 pounds. I would imagine you sit around alone, for hours, on the internet. Trying to pick fights, trying to stir people up, engaging in discussions only of interest to yourself. And then, to make yourself look like a big shot, spending hours studying the things you mentioned. Thus being prepared and looking very knowledgeable to anyone that decides to engage - then acting like you're smarter than the engagee who hadn't spent a single moment studying the topic. People that spend such an inordinate amount of time on the internet tend to swell in weight. As I said, my crystal ball is probably correct. And I did want to help you by sending you the foods I mentioned. A sudden loss of weight would be a shock to your system. It could even result in stroke. I'd hate to see this happen to an individual I feel nothing but the greatest sympathy for. If you please, give me your address and the sweets will be on the way. I'll FED EX them overnight so there are no risks to your health.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo, and your tacit concession remains noted.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Well, maybe I overshot a bit.
I should have said 290.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo, and your tacit concession remains noted.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Your Devil Dogs and Ring Dings are on the way.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
So, you're in early 40s then. Cool. This demonstrates, in greater detail, how pathetic you really are.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
Also, you've been cluttering up my notifications page with nothing but your nutjob flavor of stupidity for long enough, so you're now on ignore.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Is that all you've got Fatman?
Come on, show some creativity. Are you still in elementary school?
Wuss.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Jesus - 48 years old and wasting away on the internet.
Now I feel even more sorry for you.
No need to LOL at it - because it's the truth, it's not meant to be funny.
I was still out shooting baskets and going to the gym every day at that age. I see the only solace you can find is having absurd discussions with yourself on the internet (no one else cares).
Wow, I feel sorry for you man.
Best of luck
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
"Jesus - 48 years old and wasting away on the internet."
So says the moron who is typing this on the internet, oblivious to the irony, and who obsessively replies multiple times to one post. Also, I'm not 48, Kreskin.
"Now I feel even more sorry for you. No need to LOL at it - because it's the truth, it's not meant to be funny. I was still out shooting baskets and going to the gym every day at that age. I see the only solace you can find is having absurd discussions with yourself on the internet (no one else cares). Wow, I feel sorry for you man."
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Jesus, so you're younger?
Wow - now I feel even worse for you.
Anyway, Ill get those sweets out to you as soon as I can. Keep an eye out for an overnight FED EX package.
Lets keep that weight up. Wouldn't want you to drop to 275.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
Your laughable attempt at a crystal ball reading is dismissed, Miss Cleo, and your tacit concession remains noted.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Your Yodels and Twinkies are on the way.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Hahaha, I notice you haven't denied anything. You've dismissed my crystal ball, but you haven't denied anything - you do weigh 300 pounds, don't you?
Man, what a crappy way to go thru life, no wonder you enjoy creating problems on the internet.
ANd incidentally, you only create problems for yourself. No one likes you. And no one cares what you have to say.
reply
share
MaximRecoil (4850)
6 months ago
Your non sequitur is dismissed and your tacit concession remains noted.
reply
share
jacotodd47 (2402)
6 months ago
Yeah, let me tell you something MaximMoron - I offered to peacefully bow out of this several times. Respecting your thoughts, respecting your beliefs. I noticed others have tried to do the same. But this isn't good enough for you, is it? It's why I detest you. Just about everyone on MC is reasonable, nice, fair. And if not, even if someone is unpleasant, it's usually humorous. In your case- all you are is a little punk weasel that likes to stir up trouble. We can do this for the next ten years if you like you little pr*&^%$#k. You keep responding, I'll keep responding. So come on, bring it on. Or don't respond, in which case you'll never hear from me again.
reply
share