The Never Ending Roman Empire

The Greeks openly admitted the debt they owed to Egyptian thinkers.

The whole doctrine of the Trinity was nothing more than an attempt to try to reconcile apparent contradictions in the Christian Scriptures using Aristotelian metaphysics. It is not actually spelled out anywhere in the Christian scriptures, and it was the result of centuries of theological debates.

 

Define "loose associations" which are then used as parallels.

Yet, you see strength in a 6,000 year old Earth by way of seeing "strength" in the biblical account and a loosely cobbled together strip of writings that have more inconsistencies, direct contradictions and holes in them than 100 pounds of Swiss Cheese?

But, let's just start with the 6,000 year old Earth Theory. Please square that with the ancient civilizations on the continent you now call Africa, which are themselves are older than 4000 BCE, which would put the "Garden of Eden" slightly after pre-Dynastic Kemet. We will cross the anthropological and paleontological bridge with its evidence of Human life on earth going back tens of thousands of years, but only if your argument for a 6,000 year old Earth survives the Pre-Dynastic Test - which is cannot possibly do.

You claim no strength in the parallels of Atwill's work which insinuates you believe there to be some "strength" in the underlying story of the bible. Yet, you fail to see how the bible's incongruity with the extant physical history of the planet as we know it today is so telling of the bible's lack of "strength." You then turn right around and make a claim that someone else has provided no back-up. Who does that? You may indeed need a Pi membership in order to tackle the bizarre idea of a 6,000 year old Earth Theory.

You deny that A comes before B. You insinuate that Christians created the concept of the holy trinity, yet you ignore parallels between god the father and Ausar, god the son and Heru, god the holy spirit and Ra, and you ignore that Auset was used in transposition to Mary. Yet, all the while you say there is no parallel, when the parallel sits directly under your nose.

You read the Ten Commandments, yet you fail to see the 42 Negative Confessions which existed thousands of years prior and you also fail to see the actual words used in both writings. And, you still claim no parallel exists though that parallel as well sits directly under your nose.

Tell me something about Heru that you know through the research you've done on Ancient KMT religious concepts. Give me some sort of idea that you know what you are talking about here. You want parallel? Try this on for size:

Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" were both taken into a high mountain and tempted by pure evil.
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" were both successful resisted their respective temptation.
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" were both had 12 disciples.
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" were both walked on water, dispelled demons, healed the sick including the blind.
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" were both raised people from dead (Ausar and Lazarus respectively).
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" were both performed their dead raising rituals in the exact same place on earth (Anu and Bethanu).
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" were both Transfigured on a mountain top.
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" both delivered their key sermon on the mount.
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" were both were crucified unto death.
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" were both were accompanied at their death by two thieves (violators of law).
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" were both buried inside a tomb.
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" both descended into hell after death and rose again on the roughly the 3rd day.
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" were both had their resurrection announced by a Woman, not a Man.
Horus (Heru) and "Jesus" were both supposed to have ruled and reigned for exactly 1,000 years after their resurrection.

On all counts, this would be total, unadulterated, absolute and without equivocation of any kind whatsoever, outright plagiarism. The story of "Jesus" was told thousands of year AFTER the story of Heru (which is Horus) was etched into STONE which can STILL be observed and studied to this very day. Are you still going to sit here and pretend that a 6,000 year old Earth makes sense to you?

Blithering nonsense. I can't believe you can back here for this red herring after misrepresenting it yourself. I've stated twice now the precise error of your reply and you still come back for more correction?

The question of whether or not Christian literature was pro or anti Rome has nothing to do anything relevant. The question is whether or not Rome would have dowsed anything that challenged its authority within any of its colonies. Rome invented Christianity and the Un-Holy Roman Catholic Church was its devote point of distribution throughout the world. A church that is still functioning under the same set of lies to this very day. The same church with Jesuit connections to every single Government (nearly) in the free world.

You're ducking an dodging like someone who knows their back is against the wall having nothing left to offer but churn and burn conflagration tactics. If I've seen it done in debate once then I've witnessed it done a thousand times before. You attempt to branch off and shift focus on meaningless drivel that was merely stated as window dressing to a far more central point that you have no argument against. It is a classical move but I've been there and seen this before, so try it with someone who does not know better.

Stating that Rome must have written all Jewish literature else they could not have possible written the New Testament is about as delusional a statement that one can make. How is it possible for Rome to have written anything prior to its contact with Judea? You make no sense, whatsoever. These are plastic gestures that you throw up hoping to deflect from the central theme here and it simply won't work with someone who's seen this kind of behavior from people who know their argument is on the hot seat and getting hotter by the proverbial minute.

Just admit that you have totally lost your footing here and I'll forgive you for dumping such nonsequitur drivel into the foray to hide your exposed posterior.

Here we go again. You are back to the Septuagint when the target is the New Testament. Case in point. Get over it. Claiming that the mere existence of a thing defines the reason for its existence is some of the most twisted (and Junior) logic that anyone in a debate could use in rebuttal. That's tantamount to saying that Net Effect can define Causation. That's lame duck territory and no sane person would ever make such an error.

We live in a Cause and Effect universe. There can be no Net Effect without a First Cause, First Premise that is prior along the X-axis of Time. If you don't understand that basic foundation for the underlying manner by which our universe functions then you really don't belong in a debate such as this until you at least learn the fundamentals of how a thing comes into existence. The Septuagint did not come before language. Language existed before the Septuagint.

You've got Dead Sea Scrolls pointing to the fact that Hebrew was alive and well and in fact dominant among "Jews" of the day. You've got coinage stamped in Hebrew. You have Eusubius and people like Clement telling you that in fact the New Testament was actually written in HEBREW not Greek! That too is another thread that I might open up on you to test your real knowledge of the "scriptures" but for right now, you are having way to much difficulty with this topic. But, what I find even more startling is the fact that you have Josephus himself telling you in his two (2) books that Hebrew was the language of the day for "Jews" and it was dominant throughout 100 CE! Again, another thread entirely, but you seem to be stuck on relevant facts here.

So, this notion that the dominant language for alleged "Hellenized Jews" was Greek is just poppycock revisionism so the focus can be taken off the New Testament and its linguistic clothing being that of Greek apparel.

What examples did you provide? Are you living in a parallel universe or something where you post evidence that nobody else can see? Have you read Josephus' book "Antiquities?" Have you read his book "Wars?" He tells you flat out that what you just stated is dead wrong. Yet, you have the New Testament allegedly coming out in Greek? So called "Historians" who hope you never read Josephus are telling lies to cover up their tracks and they are not doing a very good job of it. I've read the man, I know what he said. Have you?

Really, that's "step one?" You mean the author(s) of the New Testament sat down and contemplated what their readers wanted? Or, what - they sat down and actually asked themselves what language their readers would "prefer?" Are you serious? You can't be serious.

This is the problem with the New Testament. When you start digging into the historicity of its creation, you find yourself in a fantasy land that makes no damn sense. That's my point with this thread. This thread is to get people to think beyond the text having been handed down to you through the church and ask the tough questions.

You are going to sit here and tell me that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were speaking Greek to each other in the course of everyday events prior to 70 CE? Come on. Nobody buys that nonsense. Origin, did not buy that nonsense. Ireneus, did not buy that nonsense. Epiphaneus, did not buy such nonsense. These people were 2nd and 3rd century faithfuls who knew darn well what was being spoken by common people wandering the streets of Judea at the time in question. You are not selling cotton candy to a kid here - you can't dazzle me with such dart board ideas.

Just listen to how "loose" that sounds and how it lacks "strength" of historicity. Funny, how you can take a "possible" Aramaic version of Matthew, put part of it in Greek and then not handicap the "Hellenized Jew" at the same time. You are really twisting in the wind here, aren't you.

The masses were not educated! You are taking this way beyond where it should be and you are now Curve Fitting the facts to cling to a false premise that you really have on evidence to defend your argument with.

Another stitched together nonsequitur conflagration of irrelevant detail having not one iota to do with: Who wrote the New Testament?

 

The Greeks did, but the vast majority of Europeans today don't. Its as if KMT never existed when KMT is the reason why Greece came into such power. There were over a million KMT texts that were wiped out and lost forever thanks to Alexander. He took his private stash and set-up his own private library where many Greek Minds had access. Even the concept of Atomic Structure was being contemplated in KMT - yet, how many run of the mill Europeans understands this today. Precious few.

Though the trinity is never directly mentioned by method of expository within the bible, it is clearly derived by the same. Not to mention the fact that the 325 council affirmed that concept after torching Arius and making him look stupid in front of his peers. If I were Arius, I would have walked away and said screw these guys and started my own gig somewhere. Who knows, it may have competed well at some point as an alternate to Christianity.

What I do know is that there is far too much parallelism between what had already been practiced in KMT for thousands of year and what ultimately came out of Rome circa 325 CE and what appears in the New Testament circa 70 CE something. And, Josephus plus the Flavian connection makes a lot of sense to me. The Flavians were being rejected and they needed traction in the colonies in order to be adored the way they wanted. It is a good bet that they worked together to concoct the "New Testament" and/or the "Gospels."

 

I've provided one already in the form of the fishing analogies.

*Bzzzz* wrong. Try agian.

The earth isn't 6,000 years old.

Wrong again.

I'm going to skip straight to another part now, because it happens to be something I've studied extensively and which perfectly encapsulates everything that gives Jesus Mythicists (save for Richard Carrier) a bad name.

Strike one and two. There are not pre-Christian myths of Horus being taken to a high mountain to be tempted by evil. Provide a primary source, if you think you can prove otherwise.

Strike three. There are not pre-Christian myths of Horus having 12 disciples. Provide a primary source, if you think you can prove otherwise.

Strike four. Horus had his sight healed by Thoth in at least one myth, not the other way around.

Strike five. No such pre-Christian story exists of Horus rising Ausar from the dead.

Strike six. Wrong again.

Strike seven. Wrong again.

Strike eight. Wrong again.

Strike nine. Hilariously wrong. There are no pre-Christian myths of Horus being crucified. None. The only pre-Christian myth about Horus dying and rising from the dead involve him being struck by a poisonous animal as an infant, and Isis blackmailing Ra through the knowledge of his true name in order to bring him back.

Stike ten. Wrong again.

Strike eleven . . . although, tombs are pretty common places to bury folks. That's what they are for.

Strike twelve. Wrong yet again.

I guess this could have some plausibility to it. Isis brought him back, so I guess she would have been the first person to notice him being alive again. I'll be generous and give this one a pass.

Ouch. Strike thirteen. Wrong again.

Then surely you will have no problem pointing to the primary source. Where can these things be observed?

The Earth is far older than 6,000 years old, but the "research" that young earthers abuse to make their claims is about as terrible as the "history" you've posted here. The "parellels" you offer date back to Gerald Massey, not to ancient Egypt.

 

I'm not going all through this post. Just a couple of things.

Jesus would have used Aramaic in everyday actions. Most Jews would also have some Greek to be able to deal with their daily lives. Hebrew was a dying verbal language, used only in religious worship. The cities of the Decapolis in Palestine were populated by Greeks or Greek speaking Jews. Avoided by Jesus. Knowledge of the Greek language was necessary.

Pauls letters written to various Churches were written in Greek as most of the Churches were in Asia Minor where the language was Greek. Again, what gospels/part gospel that were around were read by the same Churches. Anyone would think that ev eryone had a Bible. There were probably only copies for each church and those who could afford it. No Printing presses - every book written by hand. Paul asks that his letters are handed from Church to Church in the areas they are addressed to. There is a reference in the early church to a gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew for Hebrews.

In another post I pointed out that thousands of Hebrews had spread across the Middle East to escape the Babylon and Assyrian armies. These were Hellenised Jews. We read about them in the Maccabean period - Hellenized v Orthodox Jews. These spoke Greek - thus the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek circa 2-1 century BCE.

The only time the Romans went after religious cults was if they were a physical danger to Rome. For about the first 3 decades of Christianity it was considered by Rome as a Jewish Sect. Nero changed that. The hiding of the Dead Sea Scrolls was by the Essenes to protect them from the Romans in 70 CE. Not because of the religious nature of them, but because the Romans would simply have destroyed them in their actions in putting down rebellion. The Romans put down a rebellion in 70 CE - not a religion. The Temple was destroyed - though it is noted that Titus forbade this. The synagogues in the towns a villages continued their religious services etc. Even after Bar Kokba - 133 CE - and the exile of the Jews, a few communities remained in Palestine and continued their beliefs. There were even Christians in the Roman Army from the 2nd century onwards.

Actually all Jewish children had an education.

 

Are you sure about that? What is the Trinity? Does Matthew 28:19 list the entities that comprise the Trinity? https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew 28:19

 

Yes, I'm sure about that.The Trinity is a doctrine that the three persons of the godhood are each fully God (not just parts of God), but they are not one another, and yet there is only one God--that these persons are independent persons (not modes or masks), that they are consubstantial and coeternal, etc. Mentioning the three names in the same sentence does nothing to actually spell out the doctrine. It took centuries for the doctrine to take.

 

Ehmm... What?

You mean like this one?
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/
Or this one?
http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03

 

Someone has been watching Zeitgeist?
I remember debunking that movie with a friend. No resources... Just with what we could ourselves... We got drunk before we were halfway through.

 

Yeah, maybe Zeitgeist or Religulous. Someone actually sent a list like this to tons of Egyptologists (I'll have to find the article) to ask if they had ever heard about any of these "parallels" . . . let's just say that the response was unanimous. Same thing goes for most of the so-called Dionysus parallels. Most of this comes from some 19th century poets like Gerald Massey and Robert Graves, along with some additions from hacks like Acharya S.

 

Nice try but it's a BIG FAIL. Those copies are written in the Modern Greek alphabet, which means that they were written after the 11th Century if not much later. You will also notice that con jobs such as those always show small blurry images instead of large clear images.

 

Well, it is a Middle Eastern ethnocentric Jewish religious fairy tale after all. Logic is not one of its strong points.

 

Perhaps the people who put them there expected that the folk who were going to look at 'em...were smart enough to understand how to enlarge them so they are very large and very clear!

Not always the case, apparently.

 

Oh, I can easily enlarge the images but they are still poor quality. Did you notice that the second link is from an actual book, which didn't exist in ancient times? They are FAKES.

 

They are not of poor quality. They are of fine quality considering the medium.

And as to whether or not they are fakes...I am willing to acknowledge that I am not expert enough to determine with any degree of confidence whether they are or are not.

I suspect you cannot either...but do you have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that?

 

Show your work and pull directly from the material Atwill laid out for you.

Yet, you claim that Atwill's work is "loose" and has no "strength" which are indicta elements of a pro-biblical stance within which resides the literal implication of a 6,000 year old framework for Mother Earth.

You are either not ready for the truth or you know the truth and fear its exposure. We'll find out either way what you really contend to know about Black World History and its impact on present day societies around the world.

I had not listed all of the Heru (Horus)/Jesus parallels. Here are few more. Let's see if you can debunk all of them:

- Both Horus/Jesus are said to be the "only begotten son" of their respective father (Ausar and Jehovah).
- Both Horus/Jesus are said come from a mother having same the phonetic equivalent of name "Me-ri" (Isis-Meri and Miriam/Mary)
- Both Horus/Jesus are said to have earthly fathers having the exact same name (Seb/Jo-Seph and Joseph)
- Both Horus/Jesus are said to have both been born non-hospice or in either a barn/stable or cave.
- Both Horus/Jesus are said to have their physical birth announced or proclaimed by an angle to their respective mother (Isis-Meri and Miriam/Mary)
- Both Horus/Jesus are said to have their physical birth correlated with a pronounced celestial event (Morning Star vs Eastern Star)
- Both Horus/Jesus have conjured birth dates made to fit around the winger solstice (December 21 for Horus/December 25 for Jesus)

*Interesting Note: Neither figure in either religious story is a real human being and therefore never had a real physical birth date.*

- Both Horus/Jesus are said to have their birth immediately "witnessed" by shepherds.
- Both Horus/Jesus are said to have their birth later "witnessed" by three (3) solar gods (Horus) and three (3) wisemen (Jesus).
- Both Horus/Jesus at birth came under royal death decree (Herut and Herod)

*The symmetry here is staggering. Take a closer look at the names King Herut and King Herod. There is absolutely no mistaking this for something other than 100% THEFT.*

So, we have not even begun to scratch the surface of parallels between Heru/Horus and Jesus. You cannot get this much storyline symmetry without the parallels having much connectivity to each other. It is not like we are talking about 3 or 4 similarities. We are literally talking about someone going back in history and flat out copying that which came thousands of years before and projecting it into the future with a sign that literally reads: Under New Management. It is the same old soup warmed over from thousands of years before Christianity and Judaism, all served by new guy wearing a robe instead of a headdress. Nothing more.

Now, for the academic side of your education in this subject. You wanted references and sources? Good, that means you are willing to at least learn something. Go sink your brain into the book by Tom Harpur. The book's title is "The Pagan Christ." His internal research makes for a pretty compelling case and he uses authentic sources as well as compendiums by researchers having actually studied in Egypt in addition to their traditional so-called "Egyptian History" studies in Western educational paradigms.

To get a more overall sense of the deception and theft of religious concepts and ideals, you can then move over to another text called "Book of Going Forth By Day" (know as "Pert Em Heru" by Kemetain People). The name originally used in the title of the book was a false interpretation to mean "The Book of the Dead." The writings that make up the book had nothing to do with death exclusively. Kemet believed in preparation for an eternal life after a physical death and their writings were a clear testament to that fact. Yet, leave it up to Europeans to corrupt something they did not understand while turning it into something related to death exclusively.

You have clearly not done enough homework. Go read the book "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions" by Doane T.W. (Thomas Williams). The author covers this subject with the kind of mid 19th century vigor you would expect during the time when genuine research was the preferred method for laying the foundation of literature. In fact, I will show you precisely where this comes from so that you will not continue in your ignorance of the facts involving Black World History.

Here is a copy starting at page 484 of "Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions":




Here it is again with my highlight:




Here, let me spell it out for you:

So, your complaint is not valid nor is it verified with scholars who wrote about it and have compiled research about it. You cannot simply wish away extant history merely because it does not fit your current agenda and/or because you desire to deny the truth of history. All of your complaints about the known parallels between Horus and Jesus fit this mold of blanket denial.

You have been provided with resources and documentation. I have even excerpted for your benefit directly from a 19th century text that proves what you claim to be incorrect. It is up to you to decide whether or not you desire inaccurate history or accurate extant history. Anybody can sit back and deny. However, you have provided no evidence as I have in this thread that your denials are supported by extant history. You can READ and STUDY the references upon which I draw upon, but I can only READ your denials - I cannot STUDY them for there is nothing to research in what you have stated.

You don't see the name Gerald Massey anywhere in my follow-up, do you? Of course, the earth is older than 6,000 years, that's not the point. The point is that you deny parallels that clearly exist between the rise of Roman'esk Christianity and Titus relative to the rise of Jesus' storyline when those parallels have been shown to exist by Atwill's work.

You don't even know the name of the People who brought you these religious concepts. You are caught up in Western European Dogma up to your eyeballs and you cannot see the real world for what it is. "Egypt" is mis-alliteration of Khemet. All of these places you now call Israel, Libya, Sudan, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Armenia, Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Ukraine, Romania, Belarus, Macedonia, Iraq, and parts of Russia, were all parts of Ancient Khemet. This is MUCH bigger and MUCH broader and with far more scope than the territory now occupied as "Egypt" today. So, you are not even working from a proper historical frame of reference. Why? Because you are steeped in Western Dogma that tells you nothing good or substantial has ever or can ever come out of the Motherland, which is total White Supremacist Dogma. This is what you have "learned" about my People and our World History.

Our History is YOUR legacy my dear friend. They were the first of five great kingdoms of this world and every last one of the other four looked up to Khemet, not down at Her. They learned from Her. They later came back and stole from Her, raped Her, plundered Her, pillaged Her and then colonized Her and fractured Her Motherland. They ALL obtained their religious concepts from Her. All of them. There is not a single solitary religious precept or concept that did not first originate with Ancient Khemet and their People. This is the bottom line truth. Like it or not, know it or not, care about it or not. It won't change the extant history that makes it so.

You don't like Atwill. You don't like Massey. You don't like anything that contracts what is so easily contradicted. How many more "proofs" do you need?

 

You can easily determine that for yourself. Google ancient Greek alphabets. Compare the documents to them and to Modern Greek. Research when the Modern Greek alphabet came into use. Reach your own conclusions based upon your own detailed research. Please tell us the results.

 

I will pass on that.

Not sure of what you point is...but if you think, as you have suggested, that the Bible essentially was an invention of English speaking people...you are so wrong, it makes precious little sense to put much effort into the dialogue.

I'm still here...and will continue to be here.

Continue to do whatever it is you are doing.

 

Original Codex Siniaticus and Vaticanus were both written around 400 CE. Written in Uncial letters. A form which existed from about 2nd to 8th century CE.

 

I'll happily talk specifics if you want to start going through his parellels. Let's hope they are stronger than the Horus "parellels"

False dilemma. There are faults in both the Bible and in Atwill's work.

Egyptians had a significant impact on Western culture. Try again.

Horus was not considered by the Egyptians to be the only begotten son of Ausar/Osiris. Osiris was also often considered the father of Anubis. I think we are up to strike fourteen now.

Isis, not Meri. No ancient texts refer to Isis as "Meri".

Seb was never referred to as "Jo-Seph" and he wasn't ever depicted as Horus's father. Seb, by the way, or Geb, was also a god. Strike fifteen.

Strike sixteen. There are no myths about Horus being born in a barn or stable.

Strike seventeen. There are no ancient Egyptian myths about Horus's "physical birth" being announced by an angel.

Eh, this one is at least plausible, so I'll give it a pass.

Strike eighteen, although I almost want to count this one as two strikes. There are no myths about Horus being born in December, and no early Christian writing even says that Jesus was born near December.

Strike nineteen, no such myth regarding Horus exists.

Strike twenty (though, again, this one should count as multiple strikes. There are no myths about Horus's birth being witnessed by three solar gods, and early Christian tradition/scriptures do not specify that there were exactly three magi.

Strike twenty one. Horus was later targeted by Set, not by any character called "Herut."

It is as staggering as it is fake.

Yes, we haven't scratched the surface because those provided have been primarily fake.

So far, we are talking about, at most 3 or 4 similarities.

Please provide those "authentic sources" and "compendiums." I'd rather look at them directly. I've studied every primary Egyptian source I can get my hands on. The parallels are complete fabrications.

I've read it. I have a copy on my bookshelf. None of the parallels you've mentioned here are in it.

Before you lecture someone about doing their homework, please do your own. Name one primary source that backs up your claims. A primary source would be something that actually dates back to the time periods in question, such as the Book of Going Forth by Day" or "The Book of the Dead." I can provide you a list of others if you would like.

I can't open that link. And, as I said, I'd strongly prefer a primary source. What Egyptian source can I go to that says any of the things you've mentioned? You've mentioned two primary sources, neither of which has anything to do with the parallels listed.

Talk to me when you are able to provide a PRIMARY SOURCE.

And your refusal to provide any primary sources fits the same sort of mold.

And yet not a single primary sources.

Funny thing about the 19th century: it isn't pre-Christian.

What I've asked for from the beginning: A SINGLE PRIMARY SOURCE. If you would like a list of primary sources (again, you've mentioned two, neither of which backs up your claims), I can provide you with one.

 

Why would ancient Greek matter when the texts are written in Koine Greek? Alpha, beta, gamma, delta . . . you do realize these aren't modern Greek inventions, right?

 

I honestly think he may be talking about Linear B . . .

 

The English are great story tellers. Remember the tales about Robin Hood & King Arthur? They both have great dialogue. One thing is for sure and that it the Bible didn't exist before they wrote it.

 

I suppose Ceasar is still in charge, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Wat? Are you saying "Robin Hood" was written before the Bible?

 

Trying to cover World History in a tweet styled response is a rather daunting task. We simply don't have the proper facility here to connect all the dots as thoroughly as they should be connected. But, rest assured those dots exist and they can be summarize. However, doing so will allow plenty of wiggle room for those who cannot maintain intellectual honesty in their analysis of history.

Ok.

I have no problem with that.

No, not accurate. That's called curve fitting and it is precisely what Western academics have done to our culture and they have done that given the subterranean "Jewish" influence in Western academics and media, which hardly ever gets talked about in historical context. Aside from the fact that "Jew" created the entire modern Entertainment Industry in America, they have had dominant control of American Media for many years as well. When you control what people read, study, hear and see everyday on the television or in a film theater, whatever message you want to program becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Henry Ford, talked about this but he got booed and ran off the stage as an antisemitic.

Go load up Google Earth. Search on Israel. Looks southwest until you find Egypt. From the geometric heart of so-called "Egypt" to "Israel" is a distance of roughly 500 to 600 miles. Understand that is was the approximate radius of just the epicenter of Ancient Kemet, before Alexander arrived. Yet, for nearly two centuries before Alexander arrives before his 22nd birthday, so-called "Egypt" was under Persian rule. You need to understand that Ancient Kemet is not Ancient Egypt. This is where much of the confusion comes in because the masses have been miss-educated about the vastness of Ancient Kemet.

Ancient Kemet spanned thousands of miles north and east of its hub in Memphis. And, the perimeter of Ancient Kemet had seen invasion attempt spanning back for more than 1,200 years before Alexander arrives and none of those invaders spoke any Greek at all. This is not true and it is not historically accurate. Attempts to invade Ancient Kemet had been initiated by the Hyksos, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks and Romans and Arabs. I'm just trying to give you the broader context of what was going on before the Hellenistic period.

Decapolis, was not officially formed until the 7th century BCE. However, during the 1st century CE, Hebrew was definitely still being spoken at this point and used on a regular routine basis. Hellenization, did not bring with it a wholesale replacement of the organic languages spoken at the time. Hellenization itself lasted for no more than 290+ years and its expansion was not uniform across all of Ancient Kemet, which includes places that eventually became the city league of Decapolis in Palestine. Ancient Kemet, was indeed Palestine at one point and Hebrew was the ground floor language dominant in the region at that time.

Quoted the very documents in dispute as authentic evidence of that which is being disputed draws red flags for me. There is no direct evidence that either Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote their gospels and likewise, there is no evidence that John penned the Acts, nor is there any extra-biblical evidence researched by scholars that even suggests that Paul actually existed. In fact, there is more controversial evidence penned into the fibers of Acts itself that suggests something is awful with the entire storyline about his death and his alleged trip to Rome. This goes way beyond any discussion of the language used to bring history into existence in the New Testament and it gets to the heart of whether or not the New Testament was indeed authored by those having an ulterior motive to do so - namely the Piso Flavian Family along with the Alexanders and Josephus.

The dots start to connect themselves when you have the character "Jesus" essentially instructs "Paul" to head off to Rome to spread the gospel. Well, of "Jesus" himself is code for the Emperor of Rome, then what's the "Good News" code for? "Give unto Caesar what is due Caesar." Clearly, the "Good News" is the pacification of the people and their compliance to the government's edicts without resistance which was apparently something the Roman government was dealing with a lot from its conquered subjects.

You have to admit that the counter argument is rather compelling and that the secular evidence for the existence of many biblical characters is rather lacking in empirical and historical context. Again, this shows at least why Greek may have been allegedly used as the underlying linguistic substrate for the New Testament, but it does a lot more to show that the New Testament may have had an ulterior sub-plot.

It is funny how "Jews" allegedly and rapidly assimilate Greek into their daily lives and to the point of abandoning their native tongue for that of their captors in Hellenistic Greece. Yet, somehow, Abraham, his entire family and the entire nation of Hebrews don't suffer this same cultural encapsulation while they allegedly spend "400 years" (actually closer to 200) in formal captivity in Ancient Kemet.

In fact, Hebrews allegedly retain their language through countless generations having been born into a land that was not their own and where they had no major cultural influence outside of being slaves. So much so, that Moses later receives the "Law" in Hebrew, distributes the "Law" in Hebrew and pens the Old Testament in Hebrew - all after 400+ years of living in a land where Hebrew was not in existence until his arrival with his family. Wow! How does that happen? How do these same "Hebrew/Jews" suddenly become "Hellenized" when the influence comes to them, as opposed to when they moved into the influential sphere under Ancient Kemet during their "enslavement?"

These questions open up a can of worms on the Old Testament and thus the language of both the Septuagint and the New Testament that followed. But, we are talking about essentially two different sets of documents here - Old and New Testaments and we need to keep them in their proper place in history.

It is very important to look at the analysis between these two critically important persons in the Old Testament bible. I won't get into my full blown array analysis, but I will touch on some very key points here.

Sticking with the Old Testament for now, Abraham, was said to be the first Hebrew and ostensibly the first "Jew." Yet, Abraham, was not born in a country where the language "Hebrew" was in existence. Yet, he is classified as the first Hebrew. So, where and when did Abraham establish the Hebrew language and what language did Abraham speak in order to live out is daily existence until Hebrew could become his "official language?" These are huge questions as they begin to exfoliate and expose some of the key structural problems with the "extant" nature of the Old Testament story and the story about how "Jews" had been so Hellenized that they no longer preferred Hebrew.

This brings up many fascinating questions and this also forces one to calculate the time span between the arrival of Abraham in history and the arrival of Moses in history, because it was Moses who allegedly penned the Pentateuch/Torah/Old Testament in Hebrew, not the language being spoken in Ancient Kemet for 400+ alleged years in captivity. So, let's go explore that evidence to see what we come up with.

Abraham

First makes his entry into Moses's writings at Genesis 11:27. However, Moses, says nothing about where Abraham (Abram) is actually born though it does tell you that his brother Haran and his nephew Lot, were born in Ur, Chaldeans, scholars agree as present day Iraq. We have an alleged place, now we need an alleged timeline for Abraham (Abram). Pushing further we find that things get very complex for the existence of Abraham in extant history.

We know that "Chaldeans" can be derived to a Semitic people. We know that these people lived in a place called "Ur" but did not arrive there until sometime during 700 BCE. That would place Abraham, in a "land" that did not yet exist and had not yet been named. Skipping that little hiccup, Abraham himself would have by necessity needed to exist in a place that had not yet been named "Ur" over 1,700 years years prior. Ok, let's push the envelop of impossible arguments and conclude that all this actually happened as penned. That would place "Abraham" in "Ur" at about roughly 2,000 to 2,100 BCE.

There are a lot of other highly inconsistent punch lines relative to Abraham, but I won't unfold that analysis here. Now, we can go take a forward projection on the arrival of Moses.


Moses

When you try to research the birth date of Moses, you come up with a range between the 13th and 16th centuries BCE. Aside from the fact that this range is about as wide as the Grand Canyon is deep, let's run with the middle factor of middle 14th century BCE. That means that Moses was behind of Abraham by birth by no more than 800 years tops. Within that 800 years, Abram becomes Abraham, moves with his family into Ancient Kemet, becomes a slave, grows as a nation into millions over 400 years with Moses at the helm by the time of the alleged "Exodus" - all while never once skipping a beat on dropping Hebrew as the native tongue spoken by "Jews." Yet, in less than 290 years during the Hellenistic period, these same "Jews" abandon the native tongue even after they had a period of nation building themselves and allegedly spoke Aramaic and Hebrew in mainstream culture.

How plausible a story is that?

Look, I am an empiricist. I am a data driven creature. I look for patterns in data. I bring that same discipline to my study of history. When I look at the excuses given for how the Old Testament was penned in Hebrew and Aramaic after 400 years in captivity in Ancient Kemet where the dominant language was not Hebrew, the excuse given for why Septuagint had to be translated into Greek and why the New Testament was penned in Greek because Hellenism flushed Hebrew to the waste bin of "Jewish" thought patterns and daily life, I walk away seeing a pattern indeed. That pattern is one of obfuscation and illogical contradiction. A pattern where retaining Hebrew is ok when it is convenient. And, I see a pattern where dumping Hebrew in favor of Greek when it is convenient.

The prototype "Hebrew" travels like a nomadic tribe with his family from location to location before arriving in Ancient Kemet, never once giving homage to any Hebrew language. In fact, it would have been silly to think that Abraham and his family could travel that much not speaking the native language of the people they encountered and needing the resources necessary to keep the family alive without adopting those languages and doing so effectively enough. Language is not established by nomadic people, so Abraham and his family would have needed to have lived in a place long enough to establish a language baseline.

The family grows, they continue to travel, no baseline language can be established and they arrive in Ancient Kemet, again where they do not understand the language initially. Yet, somehow, they manage to coalesce around something called "Hebrew" and it remains with them through centuries of slavery in a land having a different language, the Exodus and to the delivery of the Pentateuch, again, in Hebrew.

That stretches the imagination to the breaking point when you analyze carefully enough and I just don't buy it. It does not pass the logic test for me. It is in fact completely illogical and irrational.