BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition

Subject: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:15 PM

The "mas" in Christmas derives from the Ancient Egyptian "mes" which is found in the name Ramesses but which commonly rendered as Ramses. Mes means "birth" and Ramesses means "Born of Ra" the sun-god. Christmas simply means "Christ's birth." Christians tend to think of Christ as having been historical but are hard pressed to explain how his birthday occurs on the same day as earlier saviors as Zoroaster, Mithra, Krishna, Horus, Tammuz, Dumuzi, Helios and Quetzalcoatl. Moreover, this birthday has special astrological/astronomical significance. On December 22, the winter solstice occurred which was the shortest day of the year. During that time, the sun-god was considered to have died and lain in a tomb hewn in the earth since he spends most of this time below the horizon. But on the third day, the sun starts to rise and set in a more northerly direction and the days appropriately start to get longer so the sun-god was considered to have been reborn and spends more time above the horizon and so the tomb is now empty. The death of the old sun is the birth of the new or Jesus dies and is resurrected or, according to the Egyptians, the mummy wrappings of Osiris the dead god became the swaddling clothes of Horus the newborn.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:19 PM

Khronos and Rhea

In the above link, Rhea presents a stone disguised as baby Zeus wrapped in swaddling clothes to Khronos, ruler of the Titans, who promptly swallows it as he had swallowed all his children so that none would usurp his rule. Zeus was then taken away in secret to Crete and suckled by a divine goat. Right, Mary presents baby Jesus wrapped in swaddling clothes to Joseph. Jesus was then taken away in secret to escape the wrath of the ruler Herod who had children slaughtered fearing one of them would usurp his rule. The same story is told of Moses. When Pharaoh (unnamed of course) ordered the deaths of all of the Hebrew children in the land, Moses was set afloat in a basket on the Nile and eventually rescued. The same type of story is told of Horus, Krishna and Zoroaster.

All these savior-gods preceded Jesus by at least 600 years, some by more than a millennium. The story is repeated in Shakespeare's play, Hamlet in a different form: The villain, an uncle of the child-hero, kills his father the king and takes the hero's mother as his queen and would kill the child-hero to prevent him from usurping his reign except that the hero feigns madness (a substitute of fleeing to some far off land) while plotting to avenge his father's death.

Hamlet descended from an earlier story of Amlethus told by Saxo Grammaticus in the 12th century. Hamlet is set in Denmark. Amlethus is set in Norway. The same story is told in Irish lore concerning Amlodhe. The same story is found in Finland with the hero Kullervo and also in Iranian lore with Kai Khusrau. It is also the basic plot reenacted in the mumming plays mentioned earlier. It is the true story of Christmas and it is written in the zodiac according to the fascinating (but very scholarly) book, "Hamlet's Mill," by Giorgio de Santillana and Herta von Dechend.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 04:23 PM

"Mas" comes from the name given to the religious service, the Mass, and from the words spoken at the end of the Latin Mass, "Ite missa est". While this phrase came to mean "Go, the Mass is ended", it was originally a Roman military command,given at the end of a parade - "Dismiss".

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:03 PM

I found this on another site:

MASS
From the word for Woman and also from mes. This was the annual cake made from the clay gathered from the banks of the Nile and considered extremely sacred. It was ritually baked as small cakes and symbolized the life-giving properties of the female and the Nile which was personified as Isis.

It's puzzle within a puzzle within a puzzle. It's like trapping a fly. Just when you think you've pinned it down, you look in your hands and there's nothing there.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 05:35 PM

How much of our history do we really know is factual? We seem to know very little and yet act as though we do. first we believed Marco Polo went to China, then we thought he made it up, now we're back to believing he did. For centuries, we did not question Josephus's story of Masada but now believe it is a fiction.

After all, who wrote the anceient histories? Generally priests of some sort--the chroniclers, the time-keepers, the calendar-makers. They knew the old celestial myths and believed that the sovereigns were the sons of heaven and so intertwined the star-lore with the actual lives of the sovereigns so that they matched up.

But then Western history appears to have borrowed its histories from the bible. For example, both the early Church Father, Arius, and William the Conqueror both died of their bowels gushing out the same as Judas in Acts. The gospels had a Virgin Queen of Heaven named Mary and her cousin Elizabeth while England was ruled by a queen named Mary and was succeeded by her half-sister, Elizabeth, who was known as the Virgin Queen.

What can we really be sure of? If the link below is correct, we can be sure of very little.

http://www.new-tradition.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Nov 10 - 08:00 PM

Hamlet laid an omelet.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: bubblyrat
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:58 AM

Can we be certain that Krishna's first name was Harry ??

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 07:34 AM

Hamlet is a direct (if somewhat inverted) lift from Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedie aka Hieronimo is Mad Again. In fact many, characterisations, tragic and comic scenes in Shakespeare's plays were lifts from other Tudor playwrights, Marlowe, Kyd and Lyly.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 01:27 PM

That brings up another point: Did Shakespeare write these plays? When you look at what is known about him outside the plays and the theatre, it is inconceivable that he could have written those plays. When you come up with candidates of whom it might have been, I am greatly amused at how there are websites dedicated to proving each one is wrong because the guy wrote it is trying to prove his candidate is the right one. And they all sound so factual and objective and yet they can't all be right and end yet if all of them are wrong then we're back to saying the historical Shakespeare--the guy who held ordinary jobs, wrote very few letters and whose children someone told me were actually illiterate--wrote them and it just doesn't seem possible that he could.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: GUEST,Guest - Anne Lister sans cookie
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 01:39 PM

Dear Josepp - on Shakespeare, please try reading a little more widely (and not websites about pet theories). The man we know something about (if not as much as we'd like) was more than capable of writing the plays we now have, and didn't hold "ordinary" jobs, unless you think that the theatre is an ordinary job. Read Bill Bryson's excellent summary of the arguments against Shakespeare being the author of the plays and just why none of them hold much water. Read some of the very good accounts of Shakespeare's life and times. Remember that there are indeed people of extraordinary talent in every age and place. Why is it so hard to believe that Shakespeare was one of them?
As to the queens/Mary/Elizabeth - are you saying there were no historic queens of those names, or that the Bible was altered? Because otherwise I don't understand the point you're making. And clearly we have numerous historical sources to tell us that there were indeed half sisters, daughters of Henry VIII, who took their turns on the throne of England and whose names were Mary and Elizabeth - but it's also clear that there were many people named Mary and Elizabeth because of the Biblical associations of those names, so that's hardly surprising.
It seems to me you're looking for mysteries and coincidences where none exist, and I wonder why life isn't already rich and strange enough for you ... but that's another question, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 02:08 PM

"Hamlet" means "small pig", and obviously refers to the cult of pig worship which was formerly widely practiced in Northern Europe. This is of course also represented in the heavens, by the constellation of the Great Boar, containing the Pole Star.

It is interesting to note that, when people call the larger island in then British Isles "Great Britain", they are also referring to this ancient tradition, since the earlier term "Big Britain" was actually a corruption of the historic name, "Pig Britain".

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 02:33 PM

I always thought that the people who say Shakespeare didn't write the plays were elitists who just couldn't accept that a commoner could have been so brilliant. As to Bible stories echoing earlier mythology, Thomas Mann covers a lot of that ground in "Joseph and His Brothers".

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 02:43 PM

/////The man we know something about (if not as much as we'd like) was more than capable of writing the plays we now have, and didn't hold "ordinary" jobs, unless you think that the theatre is an ordinary job.////

Actually, no, I don't. The theatre is full of starving actors looking for a big break. Many are talented, many are not. Some do it for fun, others do it in hopes of striking the big time. Some have written their own plays and even had them performed. The theatre is like sports--any idiot can break into it but going pro is very, very tough.

////Read Bill Bryson's excellent summary of the arguments against Shakespeare being the author of the plays and just why none of them hold much water.////

I agree none of them hold water. But the point is, you can't prove Shakespeare wrote the plays and the circumstances of his life argue against it.

////Read some of the very good accounts of Shakespeare's life and times.////

I have yet to read one that says Shakespeare had more than a minimal education and that his father was an illiterate glove-maker. Here's some interesting points:

·        Shakespeare attended a few years at the Stratford Free School which supposedly had a pretty good system but he simply wasn't there that long. He had never been to university or ever traveled abroad, so where did he suddenly get the education to be able to write plays about such varied subject matter? Many his plays include detailed knowledge about royal court. So how did lowly out of town Will get to find out so many accurate details about what life in a royal court was really like?
        
·        People of his hometown, Stratford, don't seem to have known that Shakespeare was a writer at all. None of his plays seemed to have been put on in Stratford during his life despite the fact that Ben Johnson supposedly wrote that Shakespeare was idolized during his life. Where?

·        When he died, Shakespeare didn't leave any letters or diaries that referred to his writing career at all. No one has ever found any early drafts of a play or indeed any play in his writing either. Nor does he mention any of his plays in his will. All we know about him from his personal effects are that he was accused once of hoarding grain and had sued someone for non-payment of a debt.

·        The exact date of his birth is unknown. Few documents or verifiable sources of Shakespeare's life exist, much fewer than would be expected of such a prominent figure. Originals of none of his manuscripts have survived. Not one document exists giving evidence of anyone ever seeing him. Not even his own family ever referred to him as a famous playwright.

·        The case for Shakespeare writing his own material rests on testimony contained in the First Folio plays published in 1623, seven years after his death. But there is no corroborative documentary evidence from his life.

·        None of these items by themselves mean much. Some other provable playwrights of that time, for example, came from humble origins. It's when you take all the facts together, circumstantial though they are, present a puzzler. Sir Derek Jacobi, Mark Rylance, Michael York and Kenneth Branaugh—all great modern Shakespearean actors do not believe William Shakespeare authored the plays that made their careers. Rylance was also artistic director of Shakespeare's Globe. Other doubters are John Gielgud, Mark Twain, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, Sigmund Freud, Henry James and Orson Welles. And if that doesn't impress you, there's also Keanu Reeves.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 02:49 PM

I have always thought it odd that Mark Twain should have been one of the doubters, as he was the man who formulated the perfect answer to another, not dissimilar, literary authorship controversy when he wrote, "The works of Homer were not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name living at the same time."

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 02:55 PM

////"Hamlet" means "small pig",////

Really? Source please.

///and obviously refers to the cult of pig worship which was formerly widely practiced in Northern Europe.///

Obviously.

////This is of course also represented in the heavens, by the constellation of the Great Boar, containing the Pole Star.////

Really.

///It is interesting to note that, when people call the larger island in then British Isles "Great Britain", they are also referring to this ancient tradition, since the earlier term "Big Britain" was actually a corruption of the historic name, "Pig Britain".///

Which I think is a far more apt name for that country but that's just me.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:07 PM

He had never been to university or ever traveled abroad, so where did he suddenly get the education to be able to write plays about such varied subject matter? Many his plays include detailed knowledge about royal court. So how did lowly out of town Will get to find out so many accurate details about what life in a royal court was really like?

Where did he learn? Libraries were popping up all over Europe during the middle ages. He could read, he was already involved in theatre where he picked up stories, characters, details of courtly life.

Geoffrey Chaucer was the son of a wine merchant.

The middle class had and still has a tendency to both patronise the arts and to educate their young as a means of advancing the family.

So to say Shakespeare hadn't the education to accomplish what he did, is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:23 PM

"The earliest example in England of a library to be endowed for the benefit of users who were not members of an institution such as a cathedral or college was the Francis Trigge Chained Library in Grantham, Lincolnshire, established in 1598. The library still exists and can justifiably claim to be the forerunner of later public library systems."

While free public libraries didn't take off until middle 1800s, there was still a lot of literature out on the streets thanks to the printing press. And a surprising number of people were literate in the middle ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:33 PM

We kid ourselves all the time about people we want to believe were real. There are how many millions of Christians? Let's go over some facts about the historical Jesus:

--No one can prove there was ever a slaughter of innocents perpetrated by Herod.

--No one can prove there was any such census taken in that region.

--There are no references to this Jesus person by any writers in his time or the generation after.

--Nazareth didn't exist in the times that Christ supposedly lived. Origen couldn't find evidence of it.

--Josephus was governor of Galilee and never mention this Jesus ever walking there and made no mention of Nazareth. Neither did Paul.

--Philo Judaeus developed the concept of the Logos made flesh, was a confidante of Pontius Pilate and was living in Jerusalem at the very time Jesus was supposedly crucified there. He also wrote a biography of Pilate covering his governorship of Judea. He never wrote a word about Jesus or the Christians.

--Many of the cities and towns mentioned in the gospels have never existed including Capernaum. The geography and layout of town mentioned is often completely wrong indicating the gospel authors knew nothing about that region of the world.

--We also are told that Paul was traveling around spreading the word of Christianity but his own letters show us that he was met by enclaves of Christians to greet him everywhere he went. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century wrote about the spread of Christianity in the first century and never mentioned Paul. So what was Paul's mission--a man who seemed to know nothing about any historical Jesus?

--Isn't it odd that the man Christians call their savior happens to have a name that means "savior"? Especially when a prophecy in Matthew stated that his name would be Emmanuel?

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:37 PM

\\\\And a surprising number of people were literate in the middle ages.\\\\

That's an admission that there weren't that many people that were literate in Europe in the middle ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM

The flaw in your reasoning is that a man of voracious curiosity would have to be formally educated in order to exercise a brilliant imagination and a mastery of phrase. Your notion that he hadn't been to school for "that long" is also slanted away from the actual framework of the period. Bear in mind this was an age when men were landowners and husbands at the age of fifteen.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: GUEST,Guest - Anne Lister, still sans cookie
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 04:21 PM

I'm even more confused - you say that Shakespeare only held "ordinary" jobs, but we do know he worked in the theatre. And then you say you DON'T think the theatre is an "ordinary job".

You say none of the theories of alternative writers of the plays holds water and then say that I can't prove Shakespeare wrote the plays "and the circumstances of his life argue against it" -
If there is no credible alternative author (by your own admission) what exactly is your point? Who wrote the plays? Why would Shakespeare's name be attached to them (by anyone) if he didn't? His father may indeed have been illiterate (far from uncommon in those days) but what's that got to do with anything? We know remarkably little about the circumstances of his life but what we do know doesn't argue against his authorship of the plays.   Relatively few people in 16th and 17th century England and Wales left much in the way of documentary evidence behind them. I work some of the time in a living history museum in a house owned in 1645 by an influential and wealthy man. We know a similarly small amount about the precise circumstances of HIS life and yet his sphere of influence at the time was far greater than that of a playwright. You are approaching this whole question as if 21st century media, documentation and Wikipedia-like information was available in Shakespeare's time. It wasn't.

He didn't live or perform or write his plays in Stratford. His plays were staged in London, and that's where he would have been "idolised" and known about rather than in Stratford.   Some of his plays were performed at court. You can't assume that news of this success travelled around the country and that people in his home town would know very much about this - but he clearly did return home wealthy and a respected citizen, and his local church in Stratford has a contemporary monument to show it.

As to your list of people who don't believe Shakespeare was the author of the plays, I'd like to check on exactly who said what and when before taking that at face value. I have met Mark Rylance (I did a course on Shakespeare at the Globe theatre and met him then) and he certainly didn't make much of his disbelief at that time.

I'm not going to pick up your various arguments point by point because life is too short. You don't seem to be a serious student of 16th and 17th century life or drama and you don't seem able even in this thread to be able to distinguish facetiousness from seriousness.   

But I'll come back to your central emptiness ... if the man we know as William Shakespeare was NOT the author of the plays, why were the plays attributed to him at the time and none of the contemporary playwrights contested that attribution? Who did write the plays? If you think it was a consortium, how come there is so much textual coherence to the writing? How is it that we can tell in the later plays which lines were by the same writer as the earlier plays and which by other collaborators?

Most of all I'd love to know why you have leapt from telling us about an obscure book about the origins of Christmas (some of which may be true, some of which sounds like very dodgy scholarship to me) to the unlikelihood of Shakespeare writing plays by way of Mary and Elizabeth Tudor. Your central point early on seemed to be that we don't know as much about history as we think we do. This is, of course, totally true as there are more discoveries coming along all the time, either from previously undiscovered manuscripts or from archaeology. When I see unequivocal evidence that history has lied about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays then I'll take the other theories more seriously.

In the meantime, can you explain what point you were making about Mary and Elizabeth? Your comparison between the deaths of William the Conqueror and Judas is bizarre - there are conflicting accounts of Judas' death, but surely none that say he fell off his horse and that his body wouldn't fit a stone sarcophagus because it had swollen with the heat? Of course there are similarities between events in history - it would be extraordinary if there weren't. But making links between dissimilar facts doesn't really enlighten anyone much.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 04:54 PM

josepppp is one of mudcat's more successful trolls.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 05:29 PM

Presumably the name means "very quiet José"...

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: katlaughing
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 06:21 PM

McGrath re' your earlier posting, **BG**

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 09:41 PM

////The flaw in your reasoning is that a man of voracious curiosity would have to be formally educated in order to exercise a brilliant imagination and a mastery of phrase. Your notion that he hadn't been to school for "that long" is also slanted away from the actual framework of the period. Bear in mind this was an age when men were landowners and husbands at the age of fifteen.///

I'm not saying that humble origins guarantees one thing or another. Lots of people of humble backgrounds went to great things. I'm saying when you take everything we truly know about the life of William Shakespeare and try to match it to the greatest bard of the English language, it's a bit of a stretch--like pulling your lower lip over your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 10:17 PM

"Remember that there are indeed people of extraordinary talent in every age and place. Why is it so hard to believe that Shakespeare was one of them?"

Because, in order to demonstrate that he is much more clever and elite than us lowly mugs who spoent many years researching this topic for our own interest, Mr J needs to be courageous and believe that another person of extraordinary talent wrote them ...

You also can't PROVE that Mr S did NOT write the plays. Modern language analysis techniques reveal that most of the plays (with a few interpolations by self styled 'improvers') were written by the same mind as that which wrote his poetry ...
~~~~~

"Isn't it odd that the man Christians call their savior happens to have a name that means "savior"?"

ROFL - you are truly a brillant illiterate unlearned idiot, r you are very good at imitating one! - I take my hat off to you, Sir! Sadly Auditions for The Fooles Troupe have closed.

If you are a genuine fool, then you would not understand the semantics involved in your statement - but just let me point out for a start that you have the argument backwards, in the same way that doubtless you would also be amazed at the way the word we use to describe 'light', indeed means 'light' .... and indeed every concept we have in language behaves thus ... sigh ...

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 10:24 PM

////If you are a genuine fool, then you would not understand the semantics involved in your statement - but just let me point out for a start that you have the argument backwards, in the same way that doubtless you would also be amazed at the way the word we use to describe 'light', indeed means 'light' ///

So are you saying that "Jesus" is a title and not his name?

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 10:34 PM

"So are you saying that "Jesus" is a title and not his name"

ROFL... Get thee to a library sir .... :-)

You certainly have negligible theological learning background too sir... I'll let someone like Joe Offer answer that one, if he wants - never travel to Mexico, you'll get very upset then ....

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 10:42 PM

Well, I have to dismiss you completely, sir. i've asked you to clarify what the hell you are talking about and the answer appears to be that you don't know. Well, that makes two of us. Either you have something to actually say or you're just mad because you can't refute anything I've said, instead resort to insults, and now hoping Mr. Offer is going to ride to your rescue and tag-team with you and I wouldn't count on that if I were you. Fortunately, I'm not.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 10:46 PM

Here's an article I just found about SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens who does not believe Shakespeare authored the plays. Interestingly, this article mentions Malcolm X also concurring that Shakespeare was not the author. Stevens is an Oxfordian and Malcolm believed Shakespeare was King James I:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123998633934729551.html

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 11:15 PM

"Here's an article I just found about .. who does not believe Shakespeare authored the plays."

Wow! An 'appeal to authority'! Who cares? The mere existence of some looney other than yourself denying something proves nothing, any more than the loonies who deny that earth took a few billion years to form and insist that it was created by some magic sky fairy in exactly 24 earth hours prove anything, other than their own state of mind.

"now hoping Mr. Offer is going to ride to your rescue "

Dear stupid troll.

You are obviously ignorant in many fields, including the one that wI spent a lot of time studying such religious gibberish when I believed in it. However, Mr Offer is a really nice guy (who if he felt like it, would be even more qualified than I to discuss such matters!) who is a believer and spent even more time than I studying such matters, probably even in more depth than I, who being of the ex-fundy Xtian cult grew up and moved to agnostic status for many years before growing up and deciding 'a pox on all their religious cults' and is now atheistic, that being purely the reason I will now just ridicule you for your continued displayed ignorance.

I have seen many ignorant trolls such like you rant on mindlessly about the Twin Towers conspiracy and the Climate Change conspiracy and many more. Get a life and troll among those as ignorant as yourself, who will applaud your for your ignorance, rather than among those here who have learned a few things about life, and may feel inclined to insist on correcting your inane babblings, irrelevant to a Music Forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 11:18 PM

"Here's an article I just found about .. who does not believe Shakespeare authored the plays."

Wow! An 'appeal to authority'! Who cares? The mere existence of some looney other than yourself denying something proves nothing, any more than the loonies who deny that earth took a few billion years to form and insist that it was created by some magic sky fairy in exactly 24 earth hours prove anything, other than their own state of mind.

"now hoping Mr. Offer is going to ride to your rescue "

Dear stupid troll.

You are obviously ignorant in many fields, including the one that I spent a lot of time studying such religious gibberish when I believed in it. However, Mr Offer is a really nice guy (who if he felt like it, would be even more qualified than I to discuss such matters!) who is a believer and spent even more time than I studying such matters, probably even in more depth than I, who being of the ex-fundy Xtian cult grew up and moved to agnostic status for many years before growing up and deciding 'a pox on all their religious cults' and is now atheistic, that being purely the reason I will now just ridicule you for your continued displayed ignorance.

I have seen many ignorant trolls such like you rant on mindlessly about the Twin Towers conspiracy and the Climate Change conspiracy and many more. Get a life and troll among those as ignorant as yourself, who will applaud your for your ignorance, rather than among those here who have learned a few things about life, and may feel inclined to insist on correcting your inane babblings, irrelevant to a Music Forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Smokey.
Date: 21 Nov 10 - 11:40 PM

Someone I know wrote a book about the Shakespeare authorship controversy. One thing is certain: it had bugger all to do with folk music.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: EBarnacle
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 12:19 AM

Going back to the first postings, Rameses and Moses both derive from the concepts of deliver or bring forth. The case has been presented that the Book of Exodus in the Torah is an allegorical telling of the struggle between the followers of Ra and the followers of the nameless God. The same word is also the origin of the word "Messiah."

A free developmental translation case of the origin of "Hamlet" could be ha-melech, Hebrew for of the king.

As with Shakespeare himself, no one really knows.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 02:50 AM

bugger all to do with folk music... I love you Smokey.... made me giggle

Jesus is a Latin translation of Yeshua

Yeshua reportedly does mean saviour. Per New Testament, Matthew 1:21, Joseph was instructed by the angel to give him this name because he will save his people. What is not clear is whether the meaning was applied to the name before or at the moment of the angel's instruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 03:09 AM

"The "mas" in Christmas derives from the Ancient Egyptian "mes" which is found in the name Ramesses but which commonly rendered as Ramses. Mes means "birth" and Ramesses means "Born of Ra" the sun-god. Christmas simply means "Christ's birth." Christians tend to think of Christ as having been historical but are hard pressed to explain how his birthday occurs on the same day as earlier saviors as "

Your ignorance is profound. And laughable.

"The "mas" in Christmas derives from the Ancient Egyptian "mes""

It has already been explained where the word 'Christmas' derives from, ignoramus!

" ... hard pressed to explain how his birthday occurs on the same day" - Real educated Xtains know that the early church DID NOT KNOW THE REAL DATE OF BIRTH (shepherds would not have their flocks in the fields at that time of year, thus stuffing up many hymns...) so as a political act, they just picked the most convenient festival they wanted to usurp to stuff up other religions - and for many the most important one. They also pinched another important one to stick it up the Pagans - the Festival of Oestre. Kind of interesting that a bunch of wandering nomads dreamed up a different festival to separate themselves from other previous 'inferior' religions at that time of year ... :-)

As I said, there are places to post this crap, so if you want to post here gibbering nonsense only worthy of "what-if" Science Fiction, fine, but if you insist on what you post being taken seriously, and you given some intellectual respect, just don't expect those who are more widely educated than you to take you seriously, or be overly patient with you when they correct your blatant errors.

Many here will humour you eg "A free developmental translation case of the origin of "Hamlet" could be ha-melech, Hebrew for of the king. " which is intellectually amusing, but they are really laughing at you like the insane in the Asylum at Bedlam, which was a great source of amusement in earlier days. Just don't take their sense of humour as belief in nonsense or support for your gibberish.

This is basically a Music Site. I am prepared to bet $10 that you can't play any musical instrument, or even read the notes. You are only here to troll rubbish. If you want to collect the bet, you will have to reveal to me your real identity sadly, though .... :-) Real Musos are fairly intelligent - they improve their intellect through music, research has discovered. So there are a lot of clever and educated people here, mate - post elsewhere if you want the intellectually challenged to drool over your gibbering ignorant nonsense. A real nutter - a schizophrenic manager, wasted large amounts of resources to convince everybody how stupid I was, then was horrified that the tests he organized showed me more intelligent than him - can you match the 3 in 100,000 mark? :-P


"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid.

Heinrich Heine"

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Abdul The Bul Bul
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 03:27 AM

I looked in hoping to be revisiting the old cigar Christmas ads.

Al

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 03:47 AM

Smokey - saw an intriguing TV documentary about that theory - entertainment it was, like the movie 'Shakespeare in Love' , but as to 'truth' ...

Many do not know that Shakespeare changed his real name (thus the difficulty in trainge him in his early days!) to his popularised theatre stage name which comes from the days when his acting career was still in the 'walk on unpaid extra' category - and he would often be a nervous spear carrier, the one who died in the onstage battles.

Thus his coat of arms reveals a shaky spear - a heraldic pun.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 03:59 AM

FYI, a heraldic pun is called a rebus.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 04:22 AM

What I find interesting is that Christ (Greek for Messiah) started off as a title, and nowadays is thought of as a personal name, while Caesar was originally a personal name and became a title (Kaiser, Czar etc).

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 11:17 AM

Christ (Greek for Messiah) started off as a title, and nowadays is thought of as a personal name, while Caesar was originally a personal name and became a title (Kaiser, Czar etc)

Actually, "Caesar" started off as a nickname, meaning "hairy", for someone in the Julian family. It then stuck around to indicate a descendant male in that branch of the Julians, a hereditary nickname, as it were. Then it became the title, after the time of Octavian/Augustus, and only later was adopted in various countries to indicate a ruler, presumably of sufficient importance to compare with the one we refer to as Julius Caesar and then Augustus Caesar, and their successors who were usually not related to those two "greats", not Julians.

Actually the "personal name" of the great Caesar we think of as being assassinated on the ides of March was Gaius. "Julius" was the family name, not a personal name at all.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 12:43 PM

Foolestroupe is an example of what happens when diabetics stop taking their insulin. Get a grip, boy! People here just trying to have some fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 12:46 PM

You know, I am not sure why josepp is getting so much flack here. The concept that Shakespeare didn't exist, or that if he did he didn't author the plays, is nothing new under the sun. It certainly doesn't add up to trolling, and in my view has led to a rather entertaining discussion, which is something we can use more of on this forum. Some of the other suppositions of josepp (the Mary/Elizabeth allusion) are obviously off the chart, but I am interested in his basic concept regarding Christmas.
That Dec 25 was the historical Christ's birthday is a notion dismissed by anyone who has done even a meager amount of study. That that date was a pre-existing feast of the winter solstice in many cultures certainly has significance, and to me the evidence of an attempt by the early Christians to co-opt these disparate traditions, including the essential Roman Saturnalia celebration, into a unified birth of Jesus celebration was simply good marketing.

Of course, many of us here on Mudcat understand that the Hokey Pokey is actually what it's all about.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 12:47 PM

////What I find interesting is that Christ (Greek for Messiah) started off as a title, and nowadays is thought of as a personal name, while Caesar was originally a personal name and became a title (Kaiser, Czar etc).////

In all likelihood, Jesus and Christ were at one time separate mythological figures. I find it strange that the historians of Rome never wrote about Jesus. They called him only Christ or Chrestus to the point where it becomes difficult to believe they knew of any other name.

Then you go down in the catacombs and there are almost no New Testament scenes. The only cross depicted there is the swastika.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 02:50 PM

That Dec 25 was the historical Christ's birthday is a notion dismissed by anyone who has done even a meager amount of study.

Where would they get that notion in the first place? It's never been a part of any Christian tradition or teaching that December 25th is supposed to be the actual birthdate.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 03:22 PM

Really? What birthdate do you celebrate in Ireland? I was thinking some time in March, but that could easily result in a St Patrick's Day conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 05:31 PM

It's a wonder the Disney Corporation hasn't claimed authorship of Shakespeare's plays.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Nov 10 - 06:03 PM

...And then one of the Three Wise Men who had come to see the holy babe rose from his knees, and struck his head violently on a roof beam. "Jesus Christ" he shouted .....and Mary looked up and said "That'e a good one. We'd been thinking of calling Him Morris"....

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 02:00 AM

"You know, I am not sure why josepp is getting so much flack here. The concept that Shakespeare didn't exist, or that if he did he didn't author the plays, is nothing new under the sun. It certainly doesn't add up to trolling,"

A good example of why it IS trolling - since the Troll has sneakily conned you by switching this thread from the original delusional unresearched rantings about 'Hamlet & Xmas' over to an old staple about Shakespeare! :-)

"Foolestroupe is an example of what happens when diabetics stop taking their insulin. Get a grip, boy! People here just trying to have some fun. "

Having Some Fun ... A normal defamatory troll response! :-)

As someone who has many family members who did die from diabetes, (and some close friends also severely damaged by it, who could only really be described as having gone insane) I get tested very regularly, so I can be sure that I am not diabetic, but then you may only be projecting your own diabetic denial - talking about yourself, as I know that the micro strokes caused by excess sugar level seriously damage the brain rending even great intellects highly delusional (also denying their own diabetic status), as your inchoate gleeful mungling (for fun!) of facts displays, as does your rage at being exposed for your confusion.

"Then you go down in the catacombs and there are almost no New Testament scenes."

The 'New Testament' did not exist at that time - it was only after the Justinian Conspiracy (whne the Christians did not have to hide in the catacombs, but could meet openly safely), that the widely conflicting rabble of differing versions of various books were edited and assembled into a collection we now call the 'New Testament' - as a Political Act. Very few Jews in their homeland accepted the new party line at the time, a tiny sect hung on for a while. (Funnily enough the original Thomas, highly despised by the RC Church, went to India, where the remnants of his Version of Christianity still hangs on, despite persecution by The Roman Catholic Church...) Thanks to the Pauline Conspiracy, the Roman ruling heirachy realized that by seizing control of the new cult with a 'supreme being', they would outrank all the other Roman cults and control them.

"It's a wonder the Disney Corporation hasn't claimed authorship of Shakespeare's plays. "

Actually the creators of Biker Mice (based on Hamlet) eventually came to an agreement with Disney by pointing out that Disney had also pinched the plot of Hamlet for one of their very successful films (The Lion King) which Disney was trying to claim had been plagiarized by Biker Mice, I do believe ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 12:14 PM

////The 'New Testament' did not exist at that time///

Like hell it didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 01:53 PM

Some of you might not know that I – even humble I – am responsible for the name of a condition that most English speaking persons use most every day. See, my feet are of unequal size. I used to be embarrassed about it and tried to conceal it by buying two differently sized boots but that got too expensive for my means. So I finally let my proctologist go public with my ailment but required him to withhold my birth name. That is why many of you use the term but have no idea that it is I who had the original grosserechtfus

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 23 Nov 10 - 08:13 PM

I've got differently sized feet, neither of which is the same size as my shoes!

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 06:09 AM

"Like hell it didn't"

Ah - our wise Troll barfs again...

Since our wise Troll has said that what he posts is just all in fun, thus probably doesn't need to have any real factual content, it is amusing when he reacts so strongly when his ignorance is exposed, or his pet theory of the moment is contradicted, which may be a pointer to you that his rantings about "Flying Buildings" and "circles of lights in the sea" and all that amusing stuff from the Far Side od credibility, may also just be fabricated crap, all just for fun....

What's next, Twin Towers?

Carry on for our amusement... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:22 AM

Testament come from testamentum, the word by which the Latin ecclesiastical writers translated the Greek diatheke. With the profane authors this latter term means always, one passage of Aristophanes perhaps excepted, the legal disposition a man makes of his goods for after his death. However, at an early date, the Alexandrian translators of the Scripture, known as the Septuagint, employed the word as the equivalent of the Hebrew berith, which means a pact, an alliance, more especially the alliance of Yahweh with Israel. In St. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:25) Jesus Christ uses the words "new testament" as meaning the alliance established by Himself between God and the world, and this is called "new" as opposed to that of which Moses was the mediator. Later on, the name of testament was given to the collection of sacred texts containing the history and the doctrine of the two alliances; here again and for the same reason we meet the distinction between the Old and New Testaments. In this meaning the expression Old Testament (he palaia diatheke) is found for the first time in Melito of Sardis, towards the year 170. There are reasons for thinking that at this date the corresponding word "testamentum" was already in use amongst the Latins. In any case it was common in the time of Tertullian.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 08:22 AM

Foolestroupe - you neglected to reference that last post to The Catholic Encyclopedia from which you lifted it wholesale.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 10:43 AM

"The Catholic Encyclopeadia", hence no memtion of the word Covenant.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 12:09 PM

The catacombs were used from the 2nd to the 4th centuries. By that time, all the writings that comprised the NT were written. What many scholars took to be central themes of Christianity from its earliest periods--the baptism in the Jordan, the sermon on the mount, the crucifixion and resurrection--are not depicted in the catacombs as far as I know. Rather Jesus is depicted as Hermes the Good Shepherd and as Orpheus playing his lyre and is equated with various figures from the Jewish Bible. Whether Roman Christians knew of these themes that dominate the NT or didn't accept them or accepted them but, for some reason, would not depict them is not known. But judging from Irenaeus' statements that Jesus survived the crucifixion and went to Asia to be a teacher which should have caused the Church to declare him a heretic instead of a Church Father would indicate that back in those days Christianity was very widely diverse and variant even within a single Church, sect or community.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 04:23 PM

". . . Jesus survived the crucifixion and went to Asia to be a teacher which should have caused the Church to declare him a heretic instead of a Church Father would indicate that back in those days Christianity was very widely diverse and variant even within a single Church, sect or community."

Madame Blavatsky again. Theosophy and its various spin-offs.

Sometimes refered to as "Cloud Coo-Coo Land."

Believe me, due to a close relative who would believe anything that came down the pike, I heard a gutful of that kind of stuff when I was a kid!

E.g., did you know that, regarding the Second Coming of Christ, Jesus has already reincarnated? On the planet Venus! And the newly minted Christ Child has been brought to a retreat inside Mt. Shasta. In a flying saucer. By Venusians!

Gee, I didn't know that either, until this person told me. In strictest confidence, of course.

Don't tell anyone! It's a secret!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 05:11 PM

Then you go down in the catacombs and there are almost no New Testament scenes. The only cross depicted there is the swastika.

Maybe this one is an illusion..

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 06:41 PM

Here is what Irenaeus himself wrote and I base my conclusions nothing but this:

[[[[[They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus,] they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master?

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism.

On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement.]]]]]

So there you have it. According to Irenaeus, Jesus reached the age of 50. Some think Irenaeus was saying Jesus was crucified at 50 and not that he survived the crucifixion. For our purposes, I am willing to grant them this because it still proves that Irenaeus deviated from the standard Christian staory to the extent that the Church should have excommunicated him for holding this heretical view--if the story was set but it obviously was not.

However, there is good reason to believe Irenaeus refers to Jesus reachng the age of 50 after his crucifixion because he states, "On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man..." This seems to be a reference to the crucifixion. If not, I am not aware what other suffering Irenaeus is referring to.

But either way, Irenaeus held vastly different beliefs from what the Church taught and yet somehow remained in the Church as a Church Father. That could only be because the the Church did not have a set story of the death of Christ yet.

By the way, the reason Irenaeus is so desperate to prove that Christ's ministry lasted longer than one year was simply because the people making the claim say his story was an allegory of the annual cycle of the sun through the zodiac. Irenaeus would rather trample the cover story of his own Church--if they had one--by giving us a 50 year old Jesus whose ministry went on 20 years after his baptism than to admit that his ministry was a year long.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 06:49 PM

Must be magic mushrooms. I don't think Mexican laughing tobacco would be quite up to this.

(Lot of that going around in the Sixties. Never touch the stuff, myself.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:14 PM

"Irenaeus held vastly different beliefs from what the Church taught and yet somehow remained in the Church as a Church Father. "

The Irish Church survived for a long time till it finally knuckled under to the Official RC line.

Since Our Troll wasn't accrediting his sources of cut and paste - easily found, even though he edited them slightly (and seems to do so for all his threads!), why should I? :-)

"The catacombs were used from the 2nd to the 4th centuries. By that time, all the writings that comprised the NT were written"

As I posted, that phrase (NT) was not used at that time as the 'English Language' had not been invented. Further more, the RC had firmly resisted the attempts to 'have the Bible in a language the common uneducated man could read'. Perhaps they could forsee the nonsensical carry ons that would happen, such as the Classically unlearned who could ONLY read that translation insisting on a literal reading of THEIR language version. All Serious strains of The Xtain Cult want their clerics to at least try to study the original languages in which the sacred texts were written. Various attempts had been made to produce an 'English Translation', but the King James version was the first formally accepted one "Old and New Testaments together in the one book"

There was once a serious scholar who was approached to translate the Bible into a language for some East African clients. He did the best he could.

Some years later, as his knowledge of their language had increased, he approached them and revealed that he had made some serious translation errors, one might say, almost heretical, and offered to make appropriate corrections.

Imagine his shuck when the response was "How dare you suggest changing the sacred revealed Word of God!"...

When my brother came home for Xmas Hols from the Seminary, he was having to do extra study as he had not passed his Greek. I looked over his shoulder, asked him if I could help, then said, "Sorry, It's all Greek to me!"

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:35 PM

""The Catholic Encyclopeadia", hence no mention of the word Covenant. "

Since Our Troll was referring to historical times before The Reformation, the 'Protestants' and their 'heretical ideas' did not exist at that time.... :-P

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:40 PM

Paris catacombs? Pre 3rd century?

QUOTE
"Paris Catacombs Visitor Information - Check out this underground burial site for more than 6 million 18th century Parisians."
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 24 Nov 10 - 08:11 PM

Here is a more complete quoting. Here, Irenaeus makes clear that Jesus was at least over the age of 40. In the first passage, he says that Christ passed through every age so that all might be saved--as an infant for infants, as a child for children, as a youth for youths AND "So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all..." Read it and weep. Here is the link which contains the entire text:

Against Heresies


4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master,(5) He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged(6) by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had(7) appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself -- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God(8) -- infants,(9) and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,"(10) the Prince of life,(11) existing before all, and going before all.(12)

5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,"(13) when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,(1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.(2) And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. (3) Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?

6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"(4) Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being(5) of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;(6) and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their AEons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of] error: --

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 04:50 AM

The usual translation nowadays is "this cup is the new covenant in my blood" or something similar, avoiding the ambiguity of the word testament.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: GUEST,cs
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 05:37 AM

Don: 'Sometimes refered to as "Cloud Coo-Coo Land."'

Not quite DF, you mean 'cloud cuckoo land' - fittingly the phrase comes from Aristophenes comedy 'The Birds': http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/birds.html

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 25 Nov 10 - 10:57 PM

/////That Dec 25 was the historical Christ's birthday is a notion dismissed by anyone who has done even a meager amount of study. That that date was a pre-existing feast of the winter solstice in many cultures certainly has significance, and to me the evidence of an attempt by the early Christians to co-opt these disparate traditions, including the essential Roman Saturnalia celebration, into a unified birth of Jesus celebration was simply good marketing.////

Here's the problem: why didn't any of the gospels tell us when this greatest of all men was born instead of leaving it to later generation to co-opt the birth of a solar deity? And by doing so, doesn't that just prove he wasn't historical or why would they do flippantly obscure this supposedly real man under strata of pagan astrological gobbledegook? Wouldn't the genuine memories have been meticulously guarded and preserved??

The reason is, of course, that there was nothing to preserve. The birth stories in Matthew and Luke were provably of later origin. Mark was the earliest of the gospel and he knew nothing of it. John knew nothing of it Paul knew nothing of it. The author of James and Hebrews--all earlier than Matthew and Luke--knew nothing of it. What about Revelation? Here is the birth story according to Revelation:

1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

6And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

The author clearly states that the birth of Jesus Christ is a celestial event. The woman with the crown of 12 stars is the virgin of the zodiac--Virgo. Clothed with the sun means that the sun was occupying her sign. That she was ready to give birth means that the sun was just about to leave her sign to enter the next and that sign is scorpio--the great dragon of darkness. Where was Libra? Some early cultures didn't have a Libra. So the sun is about to pass into the winter months were darkness reigns over the light. So the sun had to be hidden away and there is your Hamlet angle again--the prince has to be exiled or feign madness to avoid being killed by the usurper of the light.

Now if Libra is absent then there must be only 11 signs. Where's the 12th. That sign is Ophiucus who occupies the space between Scorpio and Sagittarius. He is shown wrestling a huge serpent. And in Revelation 12, we read:

7And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

So the sun returns and assumes his rightful rulership. The statement of the dragon drawing down a third of the stars with his tail and casting them to the earth is a reference to cauda draconis or "tail of the dragon" which is the moon's south node, i.e. on the side of the earth away from the sun where the moon falls within the earth's shadow causing a lunar eclipse. But there is also a seasonal cauda draconis:

"Cauda Draconis, the Moon's South Node or Dragon's Tail, is associated with the negative sides of Saturn and Scorpio. It can show misfortune and the need to pay for past debts. Cauda Draconis favors the termination of something."

http://accessnewage.com/articles/astro/tlouis4.htm

In this case, the termination of the sun and the light. As the sign of Scorpio is more than halfway passed, i.e. the rear half or tail of the dragon, he sweeps down a third of the stars as the year progresses towards the winter solstice of which Saturn is the ruler. That is, a third of the stars seen during the spring and summer months move steadily southwards (as does the sun) during winter and hence they appear to be falling to earth as it were.

The child of the heavenly virgin, like Hamlet, must flee either bodily or mentally, to weather out the reign of the king of darkness but ultimately will return to conquer him and resume his rightful rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Hamlet and the Christmas Tradition
From: josepp
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 11:27 AM

Ophiuchus also appears in Genesis 3:15 when god says to the serpent:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

A lot of biblical scholars ask who is the "he" that god refers to that is crushing the serpent's head? They don't know because the idiots never bothered to study astrology which is the very foundation of the book they waste their time puzzling over. "He" is, of course, Ophiuchus. Take a look:

Ophiuchus

One can see that Ophiuchus is stepping on the head of Scorpio, the dragon of the dark. He battles the serpent Serpens. In Greek mythology, the hero Orion is killed when he is stung on the heel by a scorpion (How big a problem are scorpions in Greece?) and in Egyptian lore, Osiris is the constellation of Orion who, when he is seen rising in the east, Scorpio is seen setting in the west. He has risen to vanquish his foe and during that time of year at it's deepest, darkest hour, the sun is reborn and light vanquishes the dark.

So Revelation is merely recounting the story of the solar hero's journey through the last quarter of the zodiac--conceived in the body of a virgin (Virgo), flees to the "wilderness" to protect the child from the dark, devouring dragon (Scorpio), Michael (Ophicius) arrives to battle the serpent and overthrows him so that the solar hero may be born on Christmas Day. The reason the virgin must hide for 1,260 days is that this is the amount of days in 3.5 years (approximately) which represents the 3.5 months from the virgin's labors to the appearance of the child on Christmas--Christ's birth.

But 3.5 years is 1277 days. Why didn't they just say that? Because 1,260 is a scattering on 2,160 which is the number of years the sun spends rising in a certain constellation. Due to earth's precession of the equinoxes, the sun moves into a different constellation every 2,160 years by working backwards through the zodiac. Christ was imaged as a fish because in his time, the sun rose in Pisces every spring so it was the age of the fish. The sun has now passed from Pisces backwards through the zodiac to Aquarius so that's all the age of Aquarius stuff you've heard about. So a full cycle through all 12 signs takes 25,920 years or about 26,000 years. It is not coincidence that the chapter and verse that the reference to 1,260 days appears in is 12:6. The bible is full of numerology. Especially Revelation. Various words and phrases add up to certain values using a process called isopsephia or gematria. You can look it up if you're curious.

The bible is really a very profound document when you learn its secrets but the dopey Christians have no interest. It's analogous to finding a window propped open with a book so they read the book voraciously from cover to cover and analyze every word trying to figure out why the window was propped open. As Carl Sagan said, "They say, 'My god is a small god and I want him to stay that way.'"