JESUS WAS NOT A FREEMASON

Discussion in 'Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality' started by Joe Ellis, Dec 24, 2019.

  1. David612

    David612 Registered User

    910
    712
    93
    Yep-
    That looks about right.
     
    coachn likes this.
  2. Joe Ellis

    Joe Ellis https://UniqueFreemason.com Premium Member

    63
    32
    38
    Both...!
     
  3. Number4

    Number4 Registered User

    30
    16
    8
    Jesus cannot have been a 'Freemason' when free masonry had not yet been founded! But there's no arguing that he did found that temple not made with hands...

    From a historical perspective he may well have been an architect though, as only a person of such status would have the education to debate with the priests in the temple at a young age, as well as the free time and independent resources to devote to preaching. The son of a humble carpenter (just like any other tradesman) would have been employed full time in the father's workshop, helping to put food on the table and learning the trade as you went along and that started almost as soon as you could walk - that was your schooling. But if you interpret the noun tekton to mean engineer or architect, it makes much more sense.

    Of course it doesn't fit the narrative of Jesus being a poor man of humble origins, so that part was likely suppressed by the early church....
     
  4. David612

    David612 Registered User

    910
    712
    93
    It’s interesting for me, a mason who is not a member of a judeo christian faith to sit on the side lines for lines of thought like this.
     
  5. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,736
    538
    113
    Traditionally history is written by the victor, whether it is a nation, a political group, a church or a Grand Lodge.

    Anatoly Fomenko has spent 7 volumes rewriting all of Western history, based on his reading of the evidence. Five volumes have been translated into English. You can find them on the web if you search.

    http://chronologia.org/en/

    Having read the five volumes and much else, I wonder if the question of this thread has too many underlying assumptions to be useful.
     
  6. Scoops

    Scoops Registered User

    197
    166
    43
    As you stated, history is written by the victor with their own bias and interpretations. What is different about Fomenko? Why is his interpretation different or do his conclusions just happen to agree with your own internal biases?

    Also, translations can introduce different bias, just look at the hundreds of different interpretations of The Bible as an example.

    Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk
     
  7. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,736
    538
    113
    >What is different about Fomenko?

    Fomenko is an important mathematician who, with other academics, has gone back to the earliest evidence.

    For example astronomical analysis of the stars and planets on the ceilings of about 30 ancient Egyptian tombs provides astonishing dates.

    Henry Ford was well ahead of his time when he said: History is bunk.
     
  8. Scoops

    Scoops Registered User

    197
    166
    43
    None of that answers why his interpretation is more valid than anyone else's.

    As an engineer by training and a data analyst by trade, I know full well how mathematics and statistics can be used to get any answer you want. (and no, before Coach jumps on me for logical fallacy, I'm not trying to use credentialism to dismiss the assertions ).

    How has Fomenko kept his own internal bias out of his conclusions?

    Or, again, do his conclusions simply agree with your own bias so you, therefore, assert that his approach is superior?

    Also, whilst I understand Henry Ford's point, I wouldn't go far as him, but would merely state that all historys need to be read with a certain level of skepticism as to the author's motives.

    Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk
     
    Winter, coachn and TheThumbPuppy like this.
  9. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,736
    538
    113
    I have read Fomenko's evidence, much of which is new to historians, and I have read in the long tradition of alternative chronologies including Isaac Newton, Carl Jung and Immanuel Velikovsky.

    Still, it is tradtional that humans believe whatever makes them happy at the time
     
  10. TheThumbPuppy

    TheThumbPuppy Registered User

    80
    38
    18
    I must confess that believing that the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066 – or any other year – leaves me rather indifferent.

    Since Fomenko's work seems to be rather lengthy, could you propose one of his findings, what methodology he used for that specific finding and the context in which it would change our common perception?

    Some statements on the website you mentioned left me rather unimpressed, such as:
    I fail to understand how statistical analysis matters in historical research. From another point of view, what did the "vast computer calculations" calculate and what theories were those calculations based on? To make an example, "vast computer calculations" have been used to prove that in 12 years (should be 11 now) the world will end because of global warming based on some theory. The calculations themselves and their results do not prove that that theory on which they are based is true. It is not sufficient that a theory seems reasonable and rational for that theory to be true. Empirical tests are necessary to prove its veracity. If the world does end in 12 or 11 years, then the theory is true. If it doesn't, then it isn't.

    Disregarding my personal impression of that website, it would be nice to hear about one specific point of Fomenko's theories and how it contributes to our better understanding of some specific historical events.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2019
    Scoops likes this.
  11. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,736
    538
    113
    >I fail to understand how statistical analysis matters in historical research.

    These days is it common in universities to use computers to detect plagiarism. Can we assume that plagiarism and fake news are inventions of the 20th century?

    Statistically it is extremely probable that large tracts of ancient history are copies of events of Middle Ages with slight changes of names. Monasteries in the Middle Ages became wealthy from having unique books that could only be read at that monastery. There was a wonderful industry in writing unique books, said to be copied from newly discovered Greek texts that were immediately lost.

    >Empirical tests are necessary to prove its veracity.

    Quite so. but who could read 7 large volumes of evidence and tests?

    I found Thomas Kuhn most valuable in his The Structure of Scientific Revolution. He established that debate does not establish the primacy of new theory, but rather the adherents of the old theory die and the new generation takes up the new theory.

    It seems that theories of history proceed in a similar fashion.

    >one specific point of Fomenko's theories and how it contributes to our better understanding of some specific historical events.

    He has done quite a lot of work on the Dark Ages. By standard chronology, European humans spent a lot of effort writing and recording events. Then came a period (according to standard chronology) when for centuries humans stopped writing. Then they started again.

    So did the whole of Europe lose its civilization and then magically recover it? Or perhaps the chronology is wrong and a non-existent period has been inserted.
     
  12. TheThumbPuppy

    TheThumbPuppy Registered User

    80
    38
    18
    That's why I was asking you to restrict our analysis to just one specific point.

    Meanwhile, I've happened to stumble upon an interesting quote on Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)#cite_ref-68
    Dennis Rawlins, in "Recovering Hipparchos’ Last Lost Lustrous Star", DIO 4.3 (1994): 119, http://www.dioi.org/vols/w43.pdf provides evidence that the Almagest star catalog was based on observations made in the 2nd century BCE by Hipparchus.

    I find his note from 1995 at the bottom of page 119 most compelling:
    It seems that Fomenko used a constant value for obliquity, that is the Earth's axial tilt, which is not.
    Quoting Wikipedia again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt :
    All of Fomenko's calculations based on historical astronomical observations are affected by his false assumption that the Earth's axial tilt is a constant in time.

    That seems to invalidate a large section of his theory.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2020
    Chaz and coachn like this.
  13. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,736
    538
    113
    >That seems to invalidate a large section of his theory.

    Oddly enough the 7 volumes deal with a great deal more. Still, if you are satisfied by a criticism of a criticism then you need do nothing more.

    Meanwhile the New Chronology movement is building on the work of Velikovsky and of Rohl and there is now a journal for chronology studies

    http://www.newchronology.org/cgi-bin/open.cgi?page=index2
     
  14. TheThumbPuppy

    TheThumbPuppy Registered User

    80
    38
    18
    I'm rather indifferent either way. However it seems to be a rather bad mathematical mistake to not take into consideration that the Earth's obliquity is not a constant but a variable in time.

    The precession of the equinoxes is not even a latest-hour scientific finding after all – I think to remember that it was first discovered by Hipparchus in the II century BC.

    Or is that one of those periods in history that never existed according to Fomenko, consequently the precession of the equinoxes was never discovered and the Earth's obliquity is therefore still a constant?

    Well if you ever have one specific point from Fomenko's theory together with the methodology he used for that specific finding... Whenever you come across one. This thread is not a race.

    For the moment at least I'll continue to feast on the philosophic, artistic, architectural and musical riches of the Middle Ages and if I'm fooling myself because they never existed, well it wouldn't be the first time.

    After all some physicists believe that the whole universe is a hologram isomorphic to the information inscribed on its boundary and if they're ever able to empirically prove it – although unlikely – then we've all been fooling ourselves that anything actually existed in the way we intend it today.
     
    Scoops likes this.
  15. JamestheJust

    JamestheJust Registered User

    1,736
    538
    113
    >it seems to be a rather bad mathematical mistake

    Fomenko is a mathematics professor with some 250 professional publications.

    If you don't like Fomenko, try Velikovsky with "Ages in Chaos" or Rohl with "A Test of Time". Peter James' "Centuries of Darkness" might also be worthwhile
     
  16. TheThumbPuppy

    TheThumbPuppy Registered User

    80
    38
    18
    I know, it's a bit like that episode of the Big Bang Theory where Sheldon made an arithmetic error in front of Stephen Hawking.
     
    coachn likes this.
  17. Brother JC

    Brother JC Vigilant Staff Member

    3,238
    2,058
    183
    Sure there is. Only a third of the planet believes some form of that, leaving two-thirds to argue quite vehemently.
     

Share My Freemasonry