Foundation Stone

  • 28 Replies
  • 29937 Views
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Foundation Stone
« on: February 03, 2011, 04:28:19 PM »
I address this primarily to November17 and levee, but am open to commentary from others as well. Do either of you hold Jerusalem to be the axis mundi?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2011, 12:47:01 AM »
I address this primarily to November17 and levee, but am open to commentary from others as well. Do either of you hold Jerusalem to be the axis mundi?

NO, here is the proof that the center of the world, the Garden of Eden/Mount Meru, is located in western Anatolia, next to the sea of Marmara:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg960675#msg960675

I was the first to decipher correctly the geographical terms used in the book of Jubilees; the early maps (late XVIII century) have a very different geographical configuration of Europe, the center can be seen to be located in that part of Anatolia I mentioned earlier.


Christ was crucified in Constantinopole (the ancient Troy), see the books by Fomenko for more details; and the original quote from the epistle to the Galatians, not to mention the drawings showing Christ entering Troy, and Pilate wearing a turban...



(Greece = Thrace)

Please read my message, Who Wrote the Bible, to see why Troy was replaced by Jerusalem (Ur Shulim), and how the Old/New Testaments were invented in the XVIII century (1715 - 1725 AD)
« Last Edit: February 04, 2011, 01:01:46 AM by levee »

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2011, 03:08:03 PM »
I address this primarily to November17 and levee, but am open to commentary from others as well. Do either of you hold Jerusalem to be the axis mundi?

OMPHALOS MARKING THE GEOGRAPHICAL CENTRE OF THE WORLD IN THE NAVE OF THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SEPULCHRE IN JERUSALEM
http://www.jerusalemshots.com/Jerusalem_en63-6250.html

I do believe that a great mountain around which the sun, moon and stars revolve is located in the arctic north.  I do have a book by Rene Guenon which gives the name of this mountain in various ancient traditions including early Christian which consistently place it in the far north. 

That being said, I do believe that Jerusalem is the geographical centre of the world and the earth.  Jerusalem is located north of the tropic of cancer which means that both Jerusalem and the northern mountain(s) lie within the orbit of the sun, moon, and stars.  I do not say whether either of them constitutes an axis for the revolution of these stars because I do not know.  If I am made aware of a biblical or other worthy source that indicated the precise "axis" of stellar orbits, then I would certainly consider it.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The precise geographical centre of the world according to Christian tradition is a location indicated in the sanctuary of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem known as the Omphalos.

'In the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem there is also an omphalos. The existence of this stone is based upon the medieval cosmology which saw Jerusalem as the spiritual and geographical center of the world (see T and O maps). This tradition is likely based on an ancient Jewish tradition that saw Jerusalem as the navel of the world. In the Jewish tradition, the Ark in the Temple in Jerusalem, through which God revealed himself to His people, rested on the Foundation stone marking the "navel of world".'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre_(Jerusalem)




In a prophecy about Jerusalem, Ezekiel (38:12) refers to the City as the "ὀμφαλὸν τῆς γῆς" - the omphalon, or centre of the earth.

Beginning with the world maps of Cosmas Indicopleustes, virtualy all ancient Christian maps place Jerusalem at the centre of the world.  The oldest extant map of Jerusalem is on the mosaic world map on the floor of the sixth century Church of Saint George in Madaba, Jordan.  In the opinion of the Italian archeologist Alliata who studied the archives of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem and authored an authoritative account of the Madaba mosaic map (of which the link below constitutes one chapter), the Madaba map was actually commissioned by Cosmas Indicopleustes.  This map places Jerusalem at the centre of the world, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is clearly discernible in the map.  Although the remaining parts of this map mainly depict the middle east, it is evidently a world map because 1) it clearly depicts the four rivers of the garden of Eden in the far east and 2) most of the outlying areas of the map corresponding to outlying regions of the world have eroded over the centuries.  I have seen the Madaba mosaic personally and recommend Alliata's book which is easily the best about the Madaba map because:

1) of its relevant and interesting choice of chapter subjects,
2) it is far and away the most informative source on the subject
3) of the conclusions of the author

Madaba Map
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mad/index.html

The sixth century Christian Madaba mosaic, the most ancient known extant map of Jerusalem


A sixth century A.D. flat earth world map by Cosmas Indicopleustes.
The Roan Gulf on the left is the Mediterranean Sea. 
Palestine which lies at the conjunction of the three continents and the City of Jerusalem in particular is clearly the centre of the world.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #3 on: February 06, 2011, 01:00:03 AM »
No fantasies here...just proofs...please listen...

Book of Jubilees, chapter 8:

"And for Ham came out as the second portion, beyond the Gejon (Nile), toward the south, to the right of the garden, and it proceeds to all the fire mountains, and goes toward the west to the sea of Atil and goes west until it reaches the sea of Mauk  the one of which everything descends that is destroyed. And it proceeds to the north to the shore of Gadil and goes to the west of the water of the sea until it approaches the river Gejon, and the river Gejon goes until it approaches to the right of the Garden of Eden, and this land is the land which came forth for Ham as the portion he shall retain for himself and the children of his generations forever."

"And there came out of the lot for Shem the middle of the earth, which he and his children should have as an inheritance for the generations unto eternity, from the middle of the Mountain Rafu from the exit of the water of the river Tina, and his portion goes toward the west through the midst of this river, and they go until they approach to the abyss of the waters out of which comes this river, and this river empties and pours its waters into the sea Miot, and this river goes into the great sea: all that is toward the north of this is Japhet's, and all that is to the direction of the south is Shem's."

"And his (Ham/Khem's) portion reaches unto the great sea, and reaches straight until it approaches the west of the tongue which looks toward the south; for the sea is called the tongue of the Egyptian Sea (Red Sea). And it turns from there toward the south, toward the mouth of the great sea in the shore of the waters and proceeds toward Arabia and Ophra, and it proceeds until it reaches to the water of the River Gejon (Nile), along the shore of this same river. And it proceeds toward the north until it approaches the Garden of Eden, and toward the south thereof to the south, and from the east of the whole land of Eden, and toward the whole east , and it turns to the east, and proceeds until it approaches toward the east of the hills whose name is Rafa, and it descends toward the border of the outlet of the water of the river Tina."

Notice that the Garden of Eden is described as being located to the WEST of the Nile river and NORTH of Egypt, and the land of Ham as being located to the right of the Garden, thus contradicting clearly the version served by the conspirators in the Genesis chapters.

If we can find out the exact location of the Riphath/Rafu mountains, the river Tina, the sea of Miot, and especially the sea of Atil, we immediately have at our disposal the exact place of the Garden of Eden (which IS NOT located anywhere near the Middle East).

Mountain Riphath/Rafu is easily seen to be the mountain range in the northern portion of Anatolia (ancient Paphlagonia/Mysia/Bithynia), namely the Temnus and the Olympus ranges/mountains (Riphath was given the portion of Anatolia, NORTH of river Tina and EAST of the land given to the first son of Noah).

Location of the sea of Atil:

His head [Ro-AT-SH] was at Roxolania/Rus, south of Belarus. Its name changed to the Ukraine (Gk kranion = cranium, not Slavic ukraina to/at the border). His throat [GaRGeret] is Georgia. His left shoulder [KaSaF] is the Caspian sea. His right shoulder [-AT-aTZiL] was Euxinus, now the Black Sea. His right arm/hand is being washed [NaTiLat] at Anatolia.

Therefore, the sea of Atil IS actually the Black Sea, or Pontus Euxinus. And the sea of Miot is the Sea of Marmara, which goes into the Great Sea (Mediterranean Sea).

River Tina is related to lake Arthynia (which discharges its waters into the Macestus River, which separates Asia from Bithynia), located next to the Sea of Marmara.

http://www.bostontoistanbul.com/maps/MarmaraRegionMap.jpg

THE GARDEN OF EDEN IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO THE SEA OF MARMARA (sea of Propontis) (SEA OF MIOT), IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF ANATOLIA; there must a region with about 40 km in diameter which cannot be accessed by land or sea (we have the same situation at the North/South Poles, which have never been actually discovered or located precisely, see The Hollow Earth by R. Bernard, Raymond Benard - The Hollow Earth ).


Now, let us make the connection between the BOOK OF ENOCH, BOOK OF JUBILEES and the BOOK OF NOAH:

Book of Enoch:
And they took  me to the living waters, and to the fire (Volcano) of the west, which receives every setting of the sun. And I came to a river of fire (river of lava) in which the fire flows like water and discharges itself into the great sea towards the west .

Book of Jubilees: 
...to the right of the garden, and it proceeds to all the fire mountains, and goes toward the west to the sea of Atil.

Book of Noah:
And they will shut up those Angels, who showed iniquity, in that burning valley, (Eden Valley) which my great-grandfather Enoch had shown to me previously, in the west, near the mountains of gold and silver and iron and soft metal and tin.


http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#31

From there I passed on above the summits of those mountains to some distance eastwards, and went over the Erythraean sea. And when I was advanced far beyond it, I passed along above the angel Zateel, and arrived at the garden of righteousness. In this garden I beheld, among other trees, some which were numerous and large, and which flourished there.

The original term used by Enoch was THE SEA OF ATIL, and NOT the Erythraean Sea (added later by translators who had no idea of the true location of the sea of Atil, the Black Sea).


The conspirators changed the true name of the first son of Noah, PELASG/PELASGOS, to Shem (a name derived from sun worship).

All legends of the Arcadians, Greeks, Thracians point out that the first son of Noah was called Pelasg; and Pelasg never set foot in Mesopotamia (a portion of land given to the descendants of the sons of Khem/Ham; namely, the northern part was given to Misraim and some of his sons, and the southern portion was taken over by Nimrod and his sons).

Iesous Christos, a direct descendant of Pelasg, lived right next to the Sea of Marmara (and not the sea of Galilee); the events described in the Gospels (forged later, in the period 1720-1725, see also the link given above to The Pauline Epistles by E. Johnson) took place in the western portion of Anatolia, Jerusalem was actually Troy/Constantinopole, and the Temple of Solomon (which never existed) was the Hagia Sophia (built by Nimrod).

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg940930#msg940930 (more details here)


NO OLD TESTAMENT, NO JERUSALEM:

Who wrote the Bible/Koran?

Independent but nearly simultaneous proposals by H. B. Witter, Jean Astruc, and Johann Gottfried Eichhorn separated the Pentateuch into two original documentary components, both dating from after the time of Moses. Others hypothesized the presence of two additional sources. The four documents were given working titles: J (Jahwist/Yahwist), E (Elohist), P (Priestly), and D (Deuteronomist). Each was discernible by its own characteristic language, and each, when read in isolation, presented a unified, coherent narrative.

The documentary hypothesis has more recently been refined by later scholars such as Martin Noth (who in 1943 provided evidence that Deuteronomy plus the following six books make a unified history from the hand of a single editor), Harold Bloom, Frank Moore Cross and Richard Elliot Friedman.

1 and 2 Samuel were written BEFORE the priestly version was invented (the priestly version was written according to the official chronology at least 600 - 800 years after the Exodus; this version which consists of, among other numerous passages, the whole book of Leviticus, Exodus chapters 25-32, 35-40, Numbers 3-10, 15-20, 27-30, 35-36, Deuteronomy 18, Joshua 22):

http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/latedate.html (one of the very best)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_source

http://islamworld.net/torah.html

http://www.voltairenet.org/article160971.html

In our radical new chronology, the Old/New Testaments were written in the period 1715 - 1720, after the crucifixion of Iesous Christos in 1715, at Troy/Constantinopole.


(1) that the tabernacle never existed except on paper; (2) that it was a pure creation of priestly imagination sketched after or during the exile; (3) that it was meant to be a miniature sanctuary on the model of Solomon's Temple; (4) that it was represented as having been built in the wilderness for the purpose of legitimizing the newly-published Priestly Code (P) or Levitical ritual still preserved in the middle books of the Pentateuch; and (5) that the description of the tabernacle furnished in the Priestly Code (P) (Ex 25 through 31; 36 through 40; Nu 2:2,17; 5:1-4; 14:44) conflicts with that given in the Elohist (E) (Ex 33:7-11), both as to its character and its location.

Also the book of Judges, chapters 13 and 21 contradict directly the laws/regulations written down in the book of Leviticus.

The author of the books of 1 and 2 Samuel and the book of Judges HAD NO KNOWLEDGE of the laws/regulations in the Leviticus/Numbers/Exodus, as these were created well after the (J) and (E) versions.


http://www.talkreason.org/articles/letter1.cfm



https://web.archive.org/web/20100307232900/http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho6.htm (tremendous research, one of the very best)

https://web.archive.org/web/20090420173322/http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho1.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20111108153953/http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho3.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20091116035925/http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/biblewho4.htm



https://web.archive.org/web/20100909121008/http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju03.htm (exceptionally documented)

https://web.archive.org/web/20120803000912/http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju04.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120427132146/http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju01.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20120801224058/http://www.hindurevolution.org/01/monotheismju02.htm


https://web.archive.org/web/20100822060346/http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/tales_timeloop/tales_timeloop09.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20100318002654/http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret04.htm


A third model developed, much more radical in its approach.  The archaeological evidence now was interpreted to demonstrate that the Israelites did not originate outside the land, but were in origin Canaanites who had shifted gears.  Israelite pottery was indistinguishable from Canaanite pottery; Israelite architecture was indistinguishable from Canaanite architecture; Israelite water systems were indistinguishable from Canaanite water systems; and so on. All of this meant that the Israelites were Canaanites.


https://web.archive.org/web/20071025011345/http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/jewish/30yrs/rendsburg/index.html


No historical David/Solomon

http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Doc6/dsmyth.htm

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0160Solomon.php

Also, the quote from Jeremiah 7:22 contradicts directly the laws/regulations of the Leviticus. There have been attempts to explain this quote (Jeremiah 7:22 For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices...) within the context of figurative language, an argument which can be contradicted immediately:


https://web.archive.org/web/20090713230842/http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/fprophet.html
http://www.awitness.org/essays/levjer.html

Bible Unearthed (Finkelstein/Silberman)

The Bible Unearthed begins by considering what it terms the 'preamble' of the bible?the Book of Genesis?and its relationship to archaeological evidence for the context in which its narratives are set. Archaeological discoveries about society and culture in the ancient near east lead the authors to point out a number of anachronisms, suggestive that the narratives were actually set down in the 9th-7th centuries:


    * Aramaeans are frequently mentioned, but no ancient text mentions them until around 1100BCE, and they only begin to dominate Israel's northern borders after the 9th century BCE.
    * The text describes the early origin of the neighbouring kingdom of Edom, but Assyrian records show that Edom only came into existence after the conquest of the region by Assyria; before then it was without functioning kings, wasn't a distinct state, and archaeological evidence shows that the territory was only sparsely populated.
    * The Joseph story refers to camel-based traders carrying gum, balm, and myrrh, an unlikely event for the first millennium, but quite common in the 8th-7th centuries BCE, when Assyrian hegemony enabled this Arabian trade to flourish into a major industry.
    * The land of Goshen has a name that comes from an Arabic group who only dominated the Nile Delta in the 6th and 5th centuries.
    * The Egyptian Pharaoh is portrayed as fearing invasion from the east, even though Egypt's territory stretched to the northern parts of Canaan, with its main threat consequently being from the north, until the 7th century

The book comments that this corresponds with the documentary hypothesis, in which textual scholarship argues for the majority of the first five biblical books being written between the 8th and 6th centuries.

Finkelstein and Silberman argue that instead of the Israelites conquering Canaan after the Exodus (as suggested by the book of Joshua), most of them had in fact always been there; the Israelites were simply Canaanites who developed into a distinct culture.Recent surveys of long-term settlement patterns in the Israelite heartlands show no sign of violent invasion or even peaceful infiltration, but rather a sudden demographic transformation about 1200 BCE in which villages appear in the previously unpopulated highlands;these settlements have a similar appearance to modern Bedouin camps, suggesting that the inhabitants were once pastoral nomads, driven to take up farming by the Late Bronze Age collapse of the Canaanite city-culture.


http://www.skeptically.org/oldtestament/id7.html


First, the numbers in Genesis don't appear to be random. Each number in Genesis 5 (except Methuselah's 969 years) ends in either a 0, 5, 2, or 7, which can be thought of as a factor of 5 (0 or 5) and at times adding 7 (e.g. 5 + 7 = 12). The implication is that the chance of this happening without deliberate alteration is essentially impossible.

When Moses returned from his mountaintop experience, he carried with him tablets of stone. Once again there is a question of translation. Since all this occurred prior to the advent of the written Hebrew language, authors Knight and Lomas explained,

"These tablets could only have been written in Egyptian hieroglyphics as Moses would not have understood any other script [as Hebrew did not become a written language for another 1,000 years]. The idea of messages materializing out of marks on stone amazed ordinary people and the scribes who could make stone talk were considered to be holders of great magic. This is easily appreciated when one realizes that the Egyptians called hieroglyphics the Words of the God, a term that would often be repeated throughout the Bible."

In ancient Kemet, there were "42 Negative Confessions", " 42 Admonitions of Ma'at" or "42 Declarations of Innocence" under this spiritual system, a system that Moses knew as High priest. Moses just collapsed the "42 Negative Confessions" into the Ten Commandments as the bedrock of religious Christianity. What is more it makes the whole Exodus a very improbable event, since the Hebrews would not have accepted to go back to the same laws/regulations present in the Egyptian system of worship (and which were well known to them during the stay in Egypt).

http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2009/1812.htm

http://te-in.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=55972934687&topic=6955


What were the conspirators trying to hide? The events described in the original book of Enoch:

The absence in 1 Enoch of formal parallels to the specific laws and commandment found in the Mosaic Torah and of references to issues like Shabbat observance or the rite of circumcision. The Sinaitic covenant and Torah are not of central importance in the Book of Enoch.


Heavenly Palace/Garden of Eden description:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#14
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#70


What really happened in the Garden of Eden:

http://www.piney.com/ApocMoses.html

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/lginzberg/bl-lginzberg-legends-1-2o.htm



John 13:1 contradicts directly the quotes from Mark 14:12, Luke 22:7 and Matthew 26:17.

It is very clear that the events described in John 13: 1-12 could not have taken place AT ALL given the laws and regulations in Leviticus:

Numbers 28:18

In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no manner of servile work therein

Moreover, leavened bread was used in direct violation of the laws and regulations writeen in Numbers/Exodus:

While there are several uses of the word Azumos (unleavened Bread) in the NT none of them refer to the bread used in the Lord's Supper, but rather they are either references to the feast of unleavened bread (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:1, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:1, Luke 22:7, Acts 12:3, Acts 20:6) or an analogy for a congregation purging out sin from their midst and walking in holiness (1 Corinthians 5:8 ).
In all other places that the word bread occurs in the NT, it is the Greek word Artos meaning a loaf of common leavened bread.

Nothing leavened may you eat; wherever you dwell you may eat only unleavened bread.
Exodus 12:20

http://www.nabion.org/html/gospel_of_john.html


http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm (the BEST book EVER written on conspirative issues, tremendous research)




http://www.thegodabovegod.com/index_files/Jim%20West%20Articles/Lucifer%20the%20Lightbringer.htm (occult apocalypse)


canaanite tribes of arabia/origin of koran

http://www.montfort.org.br/index.php?secao=cadernos&subsecao=religiao&artigo=maome&lang=eng

The Palestinians were known as the Phalestinoi/Phalestinos tribe which originated in Greece/Thrace; after the exile of most of the Canaanite tribe to the Caucasian mountains (after the attack by Nabu/Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Horus, and ruler of northern Mesopotamia), the inhabitants around mount Seir (also Canaanites) thought up the islam religion in order to trick the Phalestinoi tribe into believing in a false religion, especially after 1750 AD.


black buddha (from the kushite tribe of sakka/isaac/sakya, which travelled from the exile in the Caucasian mtns. to India after 1730 AD)

http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-68677.0.html


« Last Edit: September 20, 2014, 01:03:57 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2011, 01:00:50 AM »
THE BEST PROOF THAT THE OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY OF CHURCH HISTORY IS COMPLETELY WRONG:

The superb demonstration that the Council of Nicaea (dated in the official chronology in the year 325 A.D.) could not have taken place BEFORE THE YEAR 875 A.D., the most precise proofs based on classical astronomy given by the Russian mathematician G. Nosovsky:

http://www.google.com/base/a/1562225/D7146657310909970098

Let us follow very closely the arguments...


Despite the fact that no original Easter edicts of the Nicaean council remain, it is said that the Council issued its edicts in the alleged year 325 AD, when the the actual methods of calculating the Easter dates had already been well developed, and the Easter date table that had been used for centuries had been compiled. The latter is quite natural, since every 532 years, the Christian Easter cycle repeats from the very start the Paschalian tables for each year of 532 were in existence.



THE NICAEAN COUNCIL OF 325 AD CONTRADICTS THE PASCHALIA

There is a traditional consensual opinion according to which the Paschalia church calendar was canonized during the first Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. Nobody seem to be aware, however, that all of this blatantly contradicts Scaliger's dating of the Nicaean council 325 AD, and the epoch of the IV century AD in general.

The matter here is that the Paschalia consists of a number of calendarian and astronomical tables. The time of their compilation can be calculated from their contents qv below. In other words, the Paschalia can be dated by its astronomical contents. We see that the resulting dating of the Paschalia contradicts the dating of the Nicaean Council as the IV century AD.

The contradiction had been discovered a long time ago, and it was mentioned in the beginning of the XX century by Easter table specialists. However, to this day, there has been no comprehensive explanation of this phenomenon given.

Let us turn to the canonical mediaeval ecclesial tractate - Matthew Vlastar's Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers, or The Alphabet Syntagma. This rather voluminous book represents the rendition of the rules formulated by the Ecclesial and local Councils of the Orthodox Church.

Matthew Vlastar is considered to have been a Holy Hierarch from Thessalonica, and written his tractate in the XIV century. Today's copies are of a much later date, of course. A large part of Vlastar?s Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers contains the rules for celebrating Easter. Among other things, it says the following:

The Easter Rules makes the two following restrictions: it should not be celebrated together with the Judaists, and it can only be celebrated after the spring equinox. Two more had to be added later, namely: celebrate after the first full moon after the equinox, but not any day it should be celebrated on the first Sunday after the equinox. All of these restrictions, except for the last one, are still valid (in times of Matthew Vlastar  the XIV century  Auth.), although nowadays we often celebrate on the Sunday that comes later. Namely, we always count two days after the Lawful Easter (that is, the Passover, or the full moon Auth.) and end up with the subsequent Sunday. This didn't happen out of ignorance or lack of skill on the part of the Elders, but due to lunar motion.

Let us emphasize that the quoted Collection of Rules Devised by Holy Fathers is a canonical mediaeval clerical volume, which gives it all the more authority, since we know that up until the XVII century, the Orthodox Church was very meticulous about the immutability of canonical literature and kept the texts exactly the way they were; with any alteration a complicated and widely discussed issue that would not have passed unnoticed.

This means that we can hope for Matthew Vlastar's text to give us a precise enough account of the opinions held by the Constantinople scientists of the XIV century, in regard to the Easter issue. As we can see, Matthew Vlastar tells us the following:

In addition to the two Apostolic Easter rules, namely:

1) Not celebrating Easter together with the Judaists.

2) Only celebrating Easter after the spring equinox.

The Elders of the Council that introduced the Paschalia added two more rules for certainty, since the previous two do not define Easter day explicitly enough:

3) Only celebrating Easter after the first full moon in a given spring. That is, after the Passover that is often called Lawful Easter in Christian clerical literature that is, Easter celebrated in accordance with the Law of Moses or, alternatively, that of the 14th Moon.

4) Easter cannot be celebrated on any weekday; the celebration is to occur on the first Sunday following this full moon, or the Passover.


THE FOURTH RULE BROKEN

The first three rules of four were still quite valid in the XIV century, according to Vlastar, whereas the 4th rule of Easter Sunday being the first Sunday after the full moon was already broken.

Furthermore, Matthew Vlastar gives a perfectly valid astronomical explanation of why the rule was broken. The reason is that the Circle for Moon (Methon's Cycle) isn?t completely precise. There is a very slow shift of real full moon dates in relation to the ones stated by the Circle for Moon that the Elders of the Council may have been unaware of. However, in the age of Matthew Vlastar, knowledge of the shift already existed. Vlastar was aware of it and gave its correct value about 24 hours in 300 years.


This is why no less than two days should pass between the full moon and Easter (according to Vlastar, and applicable to his age). The matter is that the calculations of the Christian Easter are based on the calendar with its Circle for Moon values, as opposed to real full moon dates given by astronomy.

When, over the passage of time, a two-day discrepancy between the Paschalian Circle for Moon and the real full moon schedule had evolved, this could not fail to impact the distance between the astronomical spring equinox and Easter Sunday. If the previous distance equalled zero or more (so that Easter could not come before the full moon), it became equalling two or moreso that the Easter could not come earlier than two days after the full moon.

However, most often the amount of days separating the full moon and Easter Sunday, exceeded two, anyway, since the rules have it so that one had to wait for the Easter's advent from the vernal full moon and until the closest Sunday, that is, about three days (half a week) in average, and more than two days in most cases.

So the two-day gap that had accumulated by the age of Vlastar did not always manifest, and no rules were broken in the years when several days had to pass between the full moon and Easter.

However, in certain years, when the distance proved less than two days, the 4th Easter rule was broken, namely, Easter Sunday fell on the second Sunday after the vernal full moon. For example, if the Passover falls on a Saturday, Easter has to be celebrated the next day, on Sunday.


Thus, we know a lot, almost everything, about the Paschalia. So, why the astronomical context of the Paschalia contradicts Scaliger's dating (alleged 325 AD) of the Nicaean Council where the Paschalia was canonized?

This contradiction can easily be seen from the roughest of calculations.

1) The difference between the Paschalian full moons and the real ones grows at the rate of one day in 300 years.

2) A two-day difference had accumulated by the time of Vlastar, which is roughly dated 1330 AD.

3) Ergo, the Paschalia was compiled somewhere around 730 AD, since

1330 - (300 x 2) = 730.

It is understood that the Paschalia could only be canonized by the Council sometime later. But this fails to correspond to Scaliger's dating of its canonization as 325 AD in any way at all!


Let us emphasize, that Matthew Vlastar himself, doesn't see any contradiction here, since he is apparently unaware of the Nicaean Council's dating as the alleged year 325 AD. A natural hypothesis: this traditional dating was introduced much later than Vlastar's age. Most probably, it was first calculated in Scaliger's time.


The conclusion we came to:

FIRST STATEMENT:

The Council that introduced the Paschalia according to the modern tradition as well as the mediaeval one, was the Nicaean Council  could not have taken place before 784 AD, since this was the first year when the calendar date for the Christian Easter stopped coinciding with the Passover full moon due to slow astronomical shifts of lunar phases.

The last such coincidence occurred in 784 AD, and after that year, the dates of Easter and Passover drifted apart forever. This means the Nicaean Council could not have possibly canonized the Paschalia in IV AD, when the calendar Easter Sunday would coincide with the Passover eight (!) times ? in 316, 319, 323, 343, 347, 367, 374, and 394 AD, and would even precede it by two days five (!) times, which is directly forbidden by the fourth Easter rule, that is, in 306 and 326 (allegedly already a year after the Nicaean Council), as well as the years 346, 350, and 370.

Thus, if we're to follow the consensual chronological version, we'll have to consider the first Easter celebrations after the Nicaean Council to blatantly contradict three of the four rules that the Council decreed specifically for this feast! The rules allegedly become broken the very next year after the Council decrees them, yet start to be followed zealously and in full detail five centuries (!) after that.

Let us note that J.J. Scaliger could not have noticed this obvious nonsense during his compilation of the consensual ancient chronology, since computing true full moon dates for the distant past had not been a solved problem in his epoch.


A satisfactory coincidence of calendarian Passover full moons with the astronomical ones had only existed between 700 AD and 1000 AD (by which we mean their occurrence within the range of 24 hours from each other). Prior to that, the calendarian full moons have always taken place after the Passover ones, and after 1000 AD, the opposite started to happen. The beginning of the 13th Great Indiction (877 AD) falls on the period of ideal coincidence of Passover and astronomical full moons.

This means the Paschalia could only have been compiled in the period between the IX and XI centuries AD.

Propter hoc, the dating of the Nicaean Council (as the Council that had introduced the Paschalia) is only possible, within the timeframe of the VII-XI centuries, the most probable one being the epoch of the X-XI centuries, after the year 877 AD.

SUMMING UP THE DATINGS OF THE NICAEAN COUNCIL

The Paschalia could have been compiled in the following timeframe:

- not any earlier than 784 AD by the actual definition of Easter;
- not any earlier than 700 AD by the coincidence of Paschalian and astronomical full moons;
- not any earlier than 700 AD by the Palm of Damascenus;
- not any earlier than 743 AD according to Matthew Vlastar;

Hence, the Paschalia was first compiled earliest around the second half of the VIII century AD. The Paschalia was canonized at the Nicaean Council that took place in the XI-XIV centuries. The Paschalia might well have contained certain astronomical concepts of the VII-XI centuries that had already been a part of the ecclesial tradition by that time.


In another article, "The Dating of the First Oecumenical Council of Nicaea and the Beginning of the Christian Era" by G. Nosovsky, it is clearly demonstrated that the Gregorian calendar reform was done incorrectly (and now we know that it was done at least after 1750 A.D., given the fact that the volcano eruption which destroyed both Pompeii and Herculaneum must have occurred at least after 1740 A.D.)...see also http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1109929#msg1109929

Since the Council of Nicaea MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AT LEAST AFTER THE YEAR 875 A.D., the official chronology of the period 100 - 1100 A.D. is one which was made up at a much later date...

PRECISE PROOFS, no nonsense about literary inventions of the XVIIIth century...THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE ONLY AFTER THE YEAR 876-877 A.D., no question about that...
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 01:05:40 AM by levee »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4508
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2011, 01:07:11 AM »
Please read the following sections from History: Fiction or Science? by A. Fomenko, chapter 1:

9.1. Archaeology and the Old Testament
9.2. Archaeology and the New Testament
10. Ancient historical events: geographic localization issues
10.1. The locations of Troy and Babylon.




The Galatians/Trojans were ACTUAL WITNESSES to the crucifixion of Christ, and this event took place just a few hundred years ago.










Trojan crescent visible, as Christ enters the city of Constantinopole

Pilate wearing a turban, the conspirators changed the times and the location of the events which occurred at Troy/Constantinopole just a few hundred years ago.



JERUSALEM, ACTUALLY TROY/CONSTANTINOPOLE, WITH THE HAGIA SOPHIA IN THE BACKGROUND:






THE DATE OF THE DESTRUCTION OF POMPEII (POMPEIA):




The fragments above are from the map "Regnum Neapolitanum", which appeared in 1570, according to the official chronology, in the famous Ortelius atlas "Theatrum Orbis Terrarum". The map shows an existing, "alive" town with the name "Pompeia" near Vesuvius.

http://bloggingpompeii.blogspot.com/search/label/Domenico%20Fontana
http://www.archemail.it/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=456

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg969919#msg969919 (article from History: Fiction or Science about Pomeii)

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilya.it%2Fchrono%2Fpages%2Fpompejidt.htm&sl=de&tl=en

Translation from German to English:

In the window of the museum you can see many products made of glass, including bottles, bottles for perfumes, a lot of colored glass with different shades. Particularly noteworthy are absolutely transparent thin-walled glass vases. The same glass vases are also presented on Pompeian frescoes.

Therefore, it should be noted that the first transparent glass from the mid-15th Century in Venice and is produced on the island of glassblowers of Murano, Angelo Barovir. His secret has been kept strictly secret for a long time thereafter before the competitors.

In Herculaneum, the window glasses were allegedly even a standard size of 45x44 cm and found 80х80 сm (Fig. 15.16). About the way the production of flat glass is not known. In Europe, the first window glass of murky, were called "crown glass" for the stained glass windows around 1330 in the north-west of France, produced in the spinning process. Louis Lucas de Memorial Center, lodge manager at Saint-Gobain has developed from 1688 a new process for the manufacture of flat glass. In this so-called Tischwalzverfahren the molten glass is poured onto flat Gie?tischen, then smoothly rolled with heavy rollers, and finally polished with sand. Previously, flat glass has been obtained mostly by heating, cutting and flat rolling of cylindrical glass.

The window glass from Herculaneum fact is cloudy. The turbidity is probably caused by the effect of the high temperature of the pyroclastic tower. The thickness of the window glass is absolutely evenly! As if it had come from the table, rolls of Saint-Gobain.


At Pompeii, we know now, there existed a large Colosseum; since the destruction of Pompeii must have taken place well after 1688 (official chronology), or after 1780 (radical revised new chronology), the technology for building the Rome Colosseum does belong to the same interval of time. Then, the official chronology which tells of Vespasian, Titus, the siege of Jerusalem, never took place, as the Colosseum was built in the 17th century (official chronology), and as we see here, actually in the end of the 18th century.

HERCULANEUM WINDOW GLASS:

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejigallerydt.htm&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhiTvOymZiRyKVsDGRQBrehOYDKiyQ#15

google translate http://www.ilya.it/chrono/pages/pompejigallerydt.htm#15




THE TECHNOLOGY FOR MANUFACTURING THIS KIND OF WINDOW GLASS WAS INVENTED, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL CHRONOLOGY IN 1688 AT ST. GOBAIN:

http://www.vetrotech.com/us/eng/SAINT__1580.asp

THEREFORE THE ERUPTION OF THE VESUVIUS TOOK PLACE AT LEAST AFTER 1700 AD, WHICH MEANS THAT BOTH SCALIGER AND PETAVIUS MUST HAVE LIVED SOME 100 YEARS LATER THAN IS CURRENTLY ACCEPTED.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2015, 12:53:10 AM by sandokhan »

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2011, 02:47:10 AM »
The true location of the centre of the Earth is what is known as "the Cold Jerusalem" - i.e., the frozen island in the middle of the North Pole, amidst an icy sea from whence the three continents diverge towards to outer Ice Wall, and thence to Oceanus and Antichtone. At the Cold Jerusalem there is a tunnel inside the Earth, these were the same tunnels by which Alexander the Great manouevered his armies stealthily during his conquests.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2011, 12:20:08 PM »
I ask this only because I was considering one of the Midrashim concerning the foundation stone (Even haShetiya) and that the earth was formed around it as the nucleus.

Levee, as much as I find the idea of a false chronology interesting, I find it on whole uncompelling. You disagree, obviously, that the gan eden was removed from the surface of the earth and distanced by the flaming sword.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2011, 01:16:00 PM »
I ask this only because I was considering one of the Midrashim concerning the foundation stone (Even haShetiya) and that the earth was formed around it as the nucleus.

The Orthodox Church agrees with traditional jews that Jerusalem is the geographical centre of the world.  The difference is that jews believe the centre is located on the Temple Mount at the eastern part of the old city where the muslim Dome of the Rock is located.  That location was a sacred location of the Levitical priesthood.  In accordance with the priesthood of Melchisedek, the Christians believe that the geographical centre of the world is the tomb of Adam the first man (which is Golgotha, the place of the Skull) which is also where Christ was crucified.  Golgotha, Calvary, and the geographical centre of the world have all thus the same location about a mile or so west of the Dome of the Rock in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. 

Technically, Calvary is located directly overhead the Tomb and Chapel of Adam.  The Omphalos (the technical geographical centre) is located approximately 15 yards north of Calvary, and the Tomb of Christ is located approximately 15 yards west of the Omphalos (as per the diagram previously posted).

According to Christian prophecy, the Antichrist (who will be a jew of the tribe of Dan) will come to a rebuilt jewish temple on the ancient temple mount declaring himself to be the jewish messiah and god incarnate.

You disagree, obviously, that the gan eden was removed from the surface of the earth and distanced by the flaming sword.

I believe that the Garden of Eden still exists where it always has in the far east.  Neither the Garden of Eden itself nor it's location has ever changed at all.  Only man has changed.

-------------------------------------------

With all respect, I am quite suspicious about jewish commentaries on spiritual matters generally.  On the other hand, I would reckon that their opinions of the physical sciences are certainly worth hearing.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2011, 01:58:16 PM »
With all respect, I am quite suspicious about jewish commentaries on spiritual matters generally. 

Considering that a great deal of the commentaries are well-documented disagreements between rabbis and individual rabbinical schools of thought, I think some skepticism is warranted. I think the value is in the winnowing.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2011, 06:44:58 PM »
I think the value is in the winnowing.

Sounds like you look into that more than I do.  Happen across any particular individuals or schools of thought worth mention?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2011, 07:17:55 PM »
It really depends on your personal bent. I've yet to find a commentator with whom I agree completely, if that's what you're asking. It's hard to say any of the rabbinical writings are authoritative when so much of it disagrees with itself.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2011, 08:51:59 PM »
It really depends on your personal bent. I've yet to find a commentator with whom I agree completely, if that's what you're asking. It's hard to say any of the rabbinical writings are authoritative when so much of it disagrees with itself.

I hardly expected a jewish writer with whom I agree on everything.  I have an excellent book by a jewish biologist which refutes evolution, but of course that does not mean I agree with his religion.  

I had rather wondered if you had come across anything, perhaps in one of those more ancient books or in a modern day ultraconservative school of thought for example, that clearly endorses a cosmological or other scientific view worth mentioning.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2011, 10:05:36 AM »
Well, the early Chazel definitely seem to be flat earth believers, as should be expected. Later there is a split among them. Maimonides is worth a read, certainly.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2011, 08:26:53 PM »
Well, the early Chazel definitely seem to be flat earth believers, as should be expected. Later there is a split among them.

I am not familiar with them (unless we know the same group by a different name which is quite possible).  Any references or links to their flat earth belief or even to the group in general? 

To what time period do you refer by "early" Chazel?

What refererence do you reckon they might be listed under in the Jewish Encyclopedia?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2011, 03:31:05 PM »
Chazal is used to denote the sages in general (it is an acronym). I'd consider anyone before the second temple period (C.E.) as early. Zugot is probably the closest entry to what we would be looking for. Sadly, the discussions are rarely cosmological, so we are forced to take the incidental references.
Pancosmosophia, sadly lost to history, was a flat earth sefer.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2011, 06:09:02 PM »
Pancosmosophia, sadly lost to history, was a flat earth sefer.

Are you referring to a Rabbi Sabbato Ambron of early eighteenth century Rome who wrote a cosmology named 'Pancosmosophia' which was prevented from publication by the Inquisition?

If this is what you mean by 'Pancosmosophia, then might I inquire what leads you to think it is or was a flat earth cosmology?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2011, 07:35:44 PM »
The same. Shabbathei Ambron's work is described in "Neuer B?cher-Saal der Gelehrten Welt." (http://www.haraldfischerverlag.de/hfv/DtZS/buecher_saal.php) and the 1710 edition of "Giornale de' Letterati d'Italia" (which I've failed to find online).  Both describe the book in terms similar to Cosmas Indicopleustes's "Christian Topography."
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2011, 10:00:18 PM »
Shabbathei Ambron's work is described in "Neuer B?cher-Saal der Gelehrten Welt." (http://www.haraldfischerverlag.de/hfv/DtZS/buecher_saal.php) and the 1710 edition of "Giornale de' Letterati d'Italia" (which I've failed to find online).  Both describe the book in terms similar to Cosmas Indicopleustes's "Christian Topography."

Appreciate that.  It would be nice to have english translations of these descriptions in order to have some idea of the detail of the work. 

Raymond Beazeley wrote the best summary of Cosmas's 'Christian Topography' that I have ever read.  Unlike a couple of recent writers, Beazeley asserts that the Church Fathers were flat earth believers.  His 'Dawn of Modern Geography' is very informative, but I likewise cannot find it anywhere on line.  It is a very informative tome from the late nineteenth century seemingly never reprinted.

I have read that Michael W. Herren, a British scholar, has made an english translation of the cosmosgraphy of Aethicus of Istria which is tentatively scheduled to be published by Oxford.  If such a translation is published, it would be most informative since it is also a significant early Christian pro-flat earth cosmology.

Andrew Dickson White's 'Warfare of Science With Theology' cites an example of a papist priest in the 1600's who visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and pointed to a spot on the pavement which he said is the geographical centre of the world.  I was greatly excited when I first read that and later discovered that besides an antiquated "catholic" tradition, this geographical fact is universally believed by Orthodox Christians (with is true of greek old calendarists in my experience).

It would be interesting at some point to discuss other possible jewish flat earth literature. 

Have you seen any literature from the Essenes to indicate that their belief was either flat earth or spherical? 

As I recall, levee thinks the Essenes were globularists, but I have not yet seen evidence of this.  His discussion diverted to his conspiracy theories about Saint Paul, etc.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #19 on: February 11, 2011, 08:38:13 AM »
I took a trip to San Diego to view some of the scrolls on display several years ago. To be honest, other than a quick perusal of the texts on display (and the DSS Hebrew is sufficiently different to cause substantial difficulty to me) I haven't read any of the community scrolls. I have, of course, read many of the books included in the scrolls (The Tanakh, Jubilees, Enoch, Noah, Ogias, etc), but the unique community scrolls I am largely ignorant of. That might be a good project for me, if I find myself with more free time.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2011, 01:39:37 PM »
http://www.haraldfischerverlag.de/hfv/DtZS/buecher_saal.php

Forgive my ignorance, but I was attempting to see if this website contains an english translation of the article describing Ambron's book.  Please do link if it does.

In the event this is only in German, then could you either link to the article or post here any way?  Since it is only an article describing the book, then I do not imagine that it is long at all.

If it is only in German, then that is only a minor problem because I can run the text through an online translator and then proofread it for the obvious errors before posting it in the Information Repository.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2011, 02:13:33 PM »
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2011, 02:19:47 PM »
That article appears to be a translation of the following entry in the 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia: http://arabic.studylight.org/enc/tje/view.cgi?n=1376
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2011, 02:46:05 PM »
the following entry in the 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia: http://arabic.studylight.org/enc/tje/view.cgi?n=1376

Now, that's what I'm talking about.  Nice find. 

It sounds like in his old age Rabbi Ambron became friends with a Franciscan priest who went on to become the pope that suppressed the jesuits.

Giovanni Ganganelli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_XIV

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2011, 01:41:31 AM »
I took a trip to San Diego to view some of the scrolls on display several years ago. To be honest, other than a quick perusal of the texts on display (and the DSS Hebrew is sufficiently different to cause substantial difficulty to me) I haven't read any of the community scrolls. I have, of course, read many of the books included in the scrolls (The Tanakh, Jubilees, Enoch, Noah, Ogias, etc), but the unique community scrolls I am largely ignorant of. That might be a good project for me, if I find myself with more free time.

That sounds like it has potential - particularly if care is taken to select worthwhile texts to translate.

-----------------------

I wondered if you believe the earth/universe is infinite like Charles Johnson believed and John Davis believes or if you believe it is confined and limited?

Also, I think it does make sense that the sun orbits the arctic, but do you personally agree with many medieval maps that Jerusalem is the centre of the earth (reguardless of whether you think it is the Dome of the Rock or the Holy Sepulchre) or do you think Jerusalem the city is only symbolical and nothing more?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2011, 01:36:26 PM »
I think the world/earth is finite. I find the infinite plane model very appealing on a certain level and somewhat incredulous on others.  Because the sun and heavens appear to circumnavigate a point above the arctic, I'm willing to believe the centre is, in fact, there. Fitting Jerusalem as the axis mundi is difficult in any rationalist method. I suppose if the earth were not finite the "centre" may be there as well as anywhere. Texts are clear that Jerusalem will be the religio-political centre in the Yemot HaMashiach. I find it hard to advocate a geographic application.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #26 on: February 19, 2011, 12:50:53 AM »
Texts are clear that Jerusalem will be the religio-political centre in the Yemot HaMashiach. I find it hard to advocate a geographic application.

I understand why, but I have a solution to at least part of that.

If the earth itself is defined as the afroeurasian landmass (while Australia, the two americas, and Greenland are counted as large islands in the outer ocean), then it is easy to advocate a geographic application for Jerusalem as the centre of the earth.

Would you agree that Jerusalem, located as it is at the confluence of three continents, is feasibly the geographic centre of the earth (note I did not use the word "world") if the earth is defined as the afroeurasian landmass, strictly speaking?

---------------------------------------

I ask because I wondered whose flat earth cosmos model is the most similar, and it seems that clovis2, your model, and my beliefs are possibly rather close, perhaps especially due to a connection to Christianity.  John Davis's model is not so different except for the infinity aspect.  It would be interesting to know more about what Wilmore believes.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8447
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #27 on: February 19, 2011, 10:32:28 AM »
That might be satisfactory. I haven't looked at the rabbinical writings, but a quick look at the only real Tanakh reference to this (Ezekiel 38) shows Jerusalem as the centre/navel of the "eretz" אֶרֶץ and not "olam" עוֹלָם. "Eretz" may be interpreted as simply "land".
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 06:13:24 PM by Ski »
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1295
Re: Foundation Stone
« Reply #28 on: June 01, 2011, 10:43:29 PM »
Texts are clear that Jerusalem will be the religio-political centre in the Yemot HaMashiach. I find it hard to advocate a geographic application.

... If the earth itself is defined as the afroeurasian landmass (while Australia, the two americas, and Greenland are counted as large islands in the outer ocean), then it is easy to advocate a geographic application for Jerusalem as the centre of the earth. 

Would you agree that Jerusalem, located as it is at the confluence of three continents, is feasibly the geographic centre of the earth (note I did not use the word "world") if the earth is defined as the afroeurasian landmass, strictly speaking?

That might be satisfactory. I haven't looked at the rabbinical writings, but a quick look at the only real Tanakh reference to this (Ezekiel 38) shows Jerusalem as the centre/navel of the "eretz" אֶרֶץ and not "olam" עוֹלָם.

To the best of my knowledge and understanding, the consensus of the ancient and Orthodox Church and the patristic Christian tradition has always unchangingly held that the city of Jerusalem is located at the literal geographic centre of the earth, but does not hold that Jerusalem constitutes the axis around which the sun, moon, and stars revolve.  As far as I have been able to determine, that distinction traditionally belongs to a mountain in the arctic north.