What do you know? Heb. Eli becomes Julius in Latin

Just to fill in some blanks to the people who claim Julius isn't the same name as Eli.

Julius
masc. proper name, from Latin Iulius (Spanish Julio, Italian Giulio), name of a Roman gens, perhaps a contraction of *Iovilios "pertaining to or descended from Jove," from PIE *iou-li-, from root *dyeu- "to shine," in derivatives "sky, heaven, god."

Source: www.etymonline.com...

The etymology of Julius breaks it down to the Proto-Indo-European root *dyeu- meaning "to shine," in derivatives "sky, heaven, god."

Compare this with the definition of Heb. Eli, Strong's G-2241:

ēlí – the transliteration of the Hebrew noun ̓Ēl ("God") with the suffix (ī) which means "my"; Eli ("my God").

Source: biblehub.com...

Eli and Julius are in all essence the same name even showing similar morphological patterns, phonetic sounding and etymology in at least two distinct lingual families, Indo-European and Semitic.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim


Except Hebrew is an Afro-Asiatic language and not related to Proto-Indo-European.

Nice try on the non-reply necro bump.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I actually said that in the post you replied to. Are ye blind? And if you had followed classes in proto lingual studies, you'd notice than sometimes, usually in relation to important concepts, like basic religious concepts as in verbs like cutting, adding, weapons like spear and knife and typically in certain onomatopoeiae-- the families often agree to some extent. Like the words for god and gods. Semitic /yah/ becomes Indo-European /jeu/ becomes Sem. /el/ becomes I.E. Lat. Julius and A.S. Aram. /Eli/ -- and /el/ is the afro-semitic root of Electricity as well as I.E....

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
I actually said that in the post you replied to. Are ye blind?

No, but I think you may be as you are trying to link to unrelated languages and link two names together that are not related.

We've all been down this exact road numerous times.

You can connect your belief to anything Utna. if you want. And that's exacttly what you've done and what I've done.

My belief is that Jesus more correctly aleph-taw AT, Alpha-Omega, is witnessed throughout the old covenant and new covenant and for me that is enough.

I will not digress further but I will ask. Why did Jesus, your Caesar, not accept his kingly status? Even before Pontius?

Augustus has a thing for proving you wrong. In this instance he right. You can't give meaning to names in different languages outside of their timeframe.

For one, Jón and John and Jon can be affiliated.
For another. Peacethief, Fridtjof, Friðþjófur and Obadiah cannot be affiliated, though their meaning can be asserted.

Get over it man. Your Caesar is non existing,

a reply to: Sump3

You keep talking about faith and belief- There are churches for that. What I am doing is historical research and hermeneutics. Jesus wasn't religious

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

It isn't for me or you you to say. But if you research, he appesars to be.

a reply to: Sump3

How about Jesus disciple Towm (Thomas)? He was also known by his Greek name Didymus (John 21:2). Heb. Towm and Gr. Didymus are totally different names belonging to two different language families (Semitic and IE), but they have the same meaning. It means «The Twin». Or how about Heb. Kephas and Gr. Peter (John 1:42)? Different names belonging to two language families, Semitic and I.E., carrying the same meaning, «Rock». And both Eli and Julius means God in the same language families as above, I.E. Julius, Semitic Eli. Or Miriam Hebrew. Mary in English?

a reply to: Sump3

Torah was law, not religion. Religion was the department of the priesthood and Jesus used most of his later years protesting against them wnat what he considered hypocrisy. He even said he would destroy the temple. I argue against you religious halfwits, that doesn't mean I am religious. I am an atheist.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

[Insert Twilight Zone music here...]

a reply to: Murgatroid

Most scientists are atheists. We research anything and everything. Especially subjects that are a threat to humankind and the planet. Like religion.

a reply to: Sump3

When the Torah ceased to be law, the Temple was destroyed and the Jews found themselves in diaspora, and Torah turned into religion.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Torah was law, not religion. Religion was the department of the priesthood and Jesus used most of his later years protesting against them wnat what he considered hypocrisy. He even said he would destroy the temple. I argue against you religious halfwits, that doesn't mean I am religious. I am an atheist.

Was not Moses chosen by his Creator before Aaron? Did not the Creator teach Moses in Egypt before the laws of Moses were given? Then was not this religion manifested before the laws of God and before the laws of Moses? Laws of Moses are in Torah and Torah is in the laws of Moses but the laws of God were in the Gan Eden. Jesus never kicked against the laws of either Moses or His Most High Father.

You are well mistaken and a waste of time in your lengthy study of trying to establish Jesus as a Roman. I do wish you well regardless of your self grandeur.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Only problem with that is science has been turned into a religion, by doing so it has lost ALL credibility.

I do agree with what you said earlier about Jesus not being religious...

You are also correct about religion being a threat to humankind.

The main reason this is true is because it is a counterfeit of the genuine.

I find it very interesting how an atheist and a believer can agree on things such as this and yet disagree on so much.

About the threads topic, I am very surprised that you agree with Atwill’s theory.

I think the man has completely lost all credibility...

Even atheist Richard Carrier (of infidels.org) writes: "Joseph Atwill is one of those crank mythers... Atwill is a total crank, and his work should be ignored, indeed everywhere warned against as among the worst of mythicism, not representative of any serious argument that Jesus didn’t exist."

A Critique of Joseph Atwill’s “Caesar’s Messiah”

Robert Price (who doesn’t think Jesus existed) debunks the book (This review alone, coming as it does from someone sympathetic to at least the idea that Jesus never existed, should tell you how poor Atwill’s work is)

Joseph Atwill’s Josephus Code | Dr. Michael Heiser

The claim made by the book discussed below is one of the most absolute, demonstrably false, completely ignorant pieces of dribble I’ve ever come across. So to sum up, Atwill completely ignores or flat out misrepresents the historical evidence and then wants us to believe that the Roman empire got bored and created the most incredibly elaborate hoax in human history because they thought the Jewish people were itching for someone to flip upside down and essentially put an end to the religious establishment they held dear.

If you can find one recognized/credible New Testament/early church theologian/historian (meaning someone I've actually heard of working at a respected academic institution) who will agree that Atiwll's thesis (and I'm using that term generously) is correct, then I'll read the book

Caesar's Messiah: Rome Invented Jesus?

“Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e. Jesus-mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely....The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question....Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.” (Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 6, 14, 16)

“There is simply nothing intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a historical Jesus. On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q'.” (Jeffery Jay Lowder of Internet Infidels)

"Here is a fact: There is far more evidence for the existence of Jesus than for virtually anyone in ancient history. Anyone who peddles that “Christ-myth” theory, does NOT do so on the ground of historical evidence. The fact of Jesus Christ in history is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as is the fact of Julius Caesar. Get this straight. It is not historians who promote the “Christ-myth” notion...his alleged words and actions were documented by numerous people."
LINK

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Torah was law, not religion. Religion was the department of the priesthood and Jesus used most of his later years protesting against them wnat what he considered hypocrisy. He even said he would destroy the temple. I argue against you religious halfwits, that doesn't mean I am religious. I am an atheist.

Was not Moses chosen by his Creator before Aaron? Did not the Creator teach Moses in Egypt before the laws of Moses were given? Then was not this religion manifested before the laws of God and before the laws of Moses? Laws of Moses are in Torah and Torah is in the laws of Moses but the laws of God were in the Gan Eden. Jesus never kicked against the laws of either Moses or His Most High Father.

Don't forget that Hillel who inspired the Talmud was the rule among rabbinical Judaism at the time of Jesus. Jesus protests against typical Talmudian complications of the Torah of Moses. For instance, according to Talmud («the oral Torah» redacted and standardised for nationalist returning Judah at the time of Ezra). Talmud came as a product of the Babylonian exile, complete with new calendar, new squared Aramaic script with niqqudsand new laxicon and standardised division of the originally scriptura continua written Torah, producing a new standardised Torah and Tannakh. In the Talmudian sense any walk longer than the distance between the temple and Mount Olives was considered work, thus illegal, why did Jesus walk out to the Mount Olives every bleeding saturday? Jesus also healed on the sabbath and defended his disciples who were accused by the Augustus friendly bleeders among official Judea-- of work-- since they rinsed or grinded barley inside their hands for a quick snack on the sabbath, these typical are Talmud rules, Jesus protests. Repeatedly.

You are well mistaken and a waste of time in your lengthy study of trying to establish Jesus as a Roman. I do wish you well regardless of your self grandeur.

I possibly used half an hour putting the OP together while looking at a calendar and checking it up against the gospel and contemporary secular evidence, then adding two and two. Joseph was Gabriel and Caesarion, son of Julius whose name means God or Son of God, in the genealogy he is given the name Ha-Eli. lit. «My God», that is consistent. His (Julius') heir would inherit a great chunk of the known world and the God of this world, a divine emperor shifting the continents below him, making the nations a footstool for Jesus, whose lord's lord was Julius, King of Kings, Dictator of the Roman Empire, the son of the gods that owned the Earth.

Jesus Ptolomaius Davidus Caesarius or Isaiel Michel Bar-Davod. You forget my important point that nobility all over the world intermarried. A Jewish nobleman would have relatives in all royal courts known to man. The feudal system worked that way. A Chinese emperor could draw his genealogy back to king David, the king of Belgium still can today. Same goes with the sadistic pervo-defending king of Thailand. Still today. Same with a Roman nobleman with his pedigree involving a certain proto-emperor named Jew-Eli-Us Caesar elected Dictator of the Roman Empire in 44 B.C., and King of Egypt on his C.V.-- in the straightest lines possible.

PS: I am NOT drawing on any other ones' work with this thread, this here postulate (the whole thread and the ideas involved) is solely mine. My only concern lies in why nobody has figured this out this obvious shaite already.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Only problem with that is science has been turned into a religion, by doing so it has lost ALL credibility.

Except it hasn't ever been a religion... it has credibility

Whereas religion has little, if any at all

Keep in mind science uses testable or at the very least, mathematical theories

What does religion have?

Books written by goat herders and fisherman... 2k years ago... not even that in reality, due to the fact that there are no original documents... at least in Christianity