The two beasts of the Apocalypse [short version]

a reply to: mazzroth

Peter was never pope. The Catholic Church's claim is fraudulent. They claim to be the true Church (though the word kyriakos that translates church didn't exist in the time of Peter and Jesus). The Romans killed Peter, then they built a basilica on top of his grave and bing bada bang, the Romans claimed to be the true Church and centuries after his death they called him the first pope, since Jesus said he would build his kingdom on Peters Petra which means cliff. Peter wasn't the first pope, he was a practicing Jew. 666 Saulus was the first pope, but they deny that of course.

Jesus actually fought organised religion. What he discusses with representatives of all the living political parties, like the Herodians, Saducees and Pharisees -- POLITICAL parties. He also faught against the priesthood i.e. organised religion, and what he called the leaven of the Pharisees (Hillel/Babylon). Jesus was an out spoken protestant against the school of Hillel (as in Hillel Ben Shachar, mistakenly translated Lucifer Son of the Morning in KJV) and his Babylonian Talmud that was in the making and had been for about a century or actually it was created during the Babylonian exile. Jesus said the Torah was tough enough. He protested against the stupidity of Talmud all his days.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: chr0naut
Are you saying that Heli and Julius is not the same name? If you remove the latin male suffix -us in Julius, you get Juli, and in many Latin dialects and languages J and H are used interchangeably

I believe that Spanish is the only language that interchanges 'J' with an 'H'.

No, read up on stuff like Grimm's (Germanic languages mostly) and Verner's (also mostly Germanic, but he went all the way back to PIE) laws and other such research into shifts in consonants and vowels when languages migrate or change, also read about the formation of dialects and how there were probably hundreds of distinct dialects in Palestine alone, and even more in the Roman empire. The remaining Vulgar Latin was actually a sort of red herring, and so called Ecclesiastical Latin is a constructed language that was never in real use. Understand further that it is actually a common consonant shift. Hebrew also does it as well as other non PIE Shemitic languages, jod /j/ often replaced by the uvular guttural ‹χ› and it was common in many Latin dialects. Spanish started out as a Latin dialect, just like French, Portuguese and Italian. It is still prevalent in Norwegian too. 'Hjelm' as in 'Helmet' sounds like /jelm/ (and yes, your English J doesn't sound right, for you the /j/ sound sounds like Eng. Y but in linguistics, there is a great difference between /j/ and /y/), it was also common in Old Norse, which is reflected in the modern ‹HJ› in Bokmål which in Nynorsk often change into /h/. As in No. 'Hjem' that is /jem/ (means home) that turns into 'Heim' /hejm/ in Nno. You say /help/ in English we say /jelp/ in Norwegian. You write Yell /jell/, we say Hjalle /jalle/. And don't come dragging the fallible idiocy that there were no J in Latin. Not as a letter in the time of Jesus, but the sound /j/ has been with us since the dawn of time. Latiners wrote Julius as IVLIVS, that is a case of morphology and orthography, and the idea that J was invented in the Dark Ages is utter bovine faeces and junk linguistics.

You are picking a fight with a linguist here, an amateur one OK, but I have my own language among other things and have studied linguistics partly on university level and partly on my own One day I'll complete my MA. The rest of your reply is just sad, so I just say, whatever.

The main thesis here is that Jesus was the sole heir of Julius Caesar, but imposters stole his biscuit and drank his wine. There were seven emperors calling themselves Caesar (there were eight actually, but the eighth, Vitellius, who only ruled for mere months, didn't carry the name Caesar, compare with the description of the Beast in Re 17:9ff) from Augustus stole his Uncle's throne until Vespasian destroyed Jerusalem and sacked the temple in 70AD sending all the remaining Jews into diaspora. Saulus who was the first (666 False Prophet) pope working on behalf of the illegitimate imposters of Rome and Jerusalem and paved the way for what many of you guys here refer to as the Jesus movement, well you must be blind and deaf if you cant see the forest for trees when it comes to the gigantic difference between Jesus' political movement and Saulus' efforts to «reform the Jesus movement» that is manipulating Jesus from a renegade political dissident into a religious imposter that seemingly sinned against everything Jewish. What Saulus did, was to transform early Christendom which was based on a very much orthodox and «spartan» Judaism, focusing on the Torah law mostly, into becoming an insane religion that made the Christians criminals and laughing stocks in all of the known world at that time. Saulus managed to manipulate everything Jesus said into sounding like he supported Jesus and that Jesus somehow changed everything legal (Torah was the Hebrew constitution remember, it's law, not religion, but today it has turned into religion as som many times other places). He didn't. If Saulus had met Jesus they would have fought like cats and dogs. Jesus would surely have killed the master butcher Saulus, who killed nearly all Jesu' lambs.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Talk about blind and deaf. Jesus came to fulfill the scriptures, which is exactly why he quoted from Psalms 22 at his death. You might try reading the Old Testament about the coming of Jesus and where he would come from and why. Paul didn't have anything to do with that.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: chr0naut
Are you saying that Heli and Julius is not the same name? If you remove the latin male suffix -us in Julius, you get Juli, and in many Latin dialects and languages J and H are used interchangeably

I believe that Spanish is the only language that interchanges 'J' with an 'H'.

No, read up on stuff like Grimm's (Germanic languages mostly) and Verner's (also mostly Germanic, but he went all the way back to PIE) laws and other such research into shifts in consonants and vowels when languages migrate or change, also read about the formation of dialects and how there were probably hundreds of distinct dialects in Palestine alone, and even more in the Roman empire. The remaining Vulgar Latin was actually a sort of red herring, and so called Ecclesiastical Latin is a constructed language that was never in real use. Understand further that it is actually a common consonant shift. Hebrew also does it as well as other non PIE Shemitic languages, jod /j/ often replaced by the uvular guttural ‹χ› and it was common in many Latin dialects. Spanish started out as a Latin dialect, just like French, Portuguese and Italian. It is still prevalent in Norwegian too. 'Hjelm' as in 'Helmet' sounds like /jelm/ (and yes, your English J doesn't sound right, for you the /j/ sound sounds like Eng. Y but in linguistics, there is a great difference between /j/ and /y/), it was also common in Old Norse, which is reflected in the modern ‹HJ› in Bokmål which in Nynorsk often change into /h/. As in No. 'Hjem' that is /jem/ (means home) that turns into 'Heim' /hejm/ in Nno. You say /help/ in English we say /jelp/ in Norwegian. You write Yell /jell/, we say Hjalle /jalle/. And don't come dragging the fallible idiocy that there were no J in Latin. Not as a letter in the time of Jesus, but the sound /j/ has been with us since the dawn of time. Latiners wrote Julius as IVLIVS, that is a case of morphology and orthography, and the idea that J was invented in the Dark Ages is utter bovine faeces and junk linguistics.

Sorry I confused you. I believed you were talking about the Romantic languages that descended from Latin but apparently you were trying to justify your position with unrelated languages.

So, in restatement, the intent of my response was: Of the Romantic languages, Spanish is the only one that interchanges 'J' with 'H'.

Perhaps this is as an accommodation to Basque, however Basque does have a 'J', but it isn't always voiced as such but uses the voiceless velar fricative (similar to a 'cs' exhalant phoneme or 'x' exhalant phoneme). From there to a soft 'H' is a relatively short step.

Referring to Germanic languages in this context is a little bit of a side issue to 1st Century Latin, though, perhaps not entirely without merit in the Romantic languages considering the barbarian overthrow of the Roman empire.

But all that is moot as we were talking about pre-Christian era interchangability of 'H' and 'J' between Hebrew and Latin, which didn't happen. The major documented interchange between letters in the languages at the time, was between 'J' (Hebrew Yod) and 'I' (Latin and Koine Greek).

You are picking a fight with a linguist here, an amateur one OK, but I have my own language among other things and have studied linguistics partly on university level and partly on my own

One day I'll complete my MA. The rest of your reply is just sad, so I just say, whatever.

Ah, a cunning linguist!



(Sorry, just had to insert some nonsense).

The main thesis here is that Jesus was the sole heir of Julius Caesar, but imposters stole his biscuit and drank his wine. There were seven emperors calling themselves Caesar (there were eight actually, but the eighth, Vitellius, who only ruled for mere months, didn't carry the name Caesar, compare with the description of the Beast in Re 17:9ff) from Augustus stole his Uncle's throne until Vespasian destroyed Jerusalem and sacked the temple in 70AD sending all the remaining Jews into diaspora. Saulus who was the first (666 False Prophet) pope working on behalf of the illegitimate imposters of Rome and Jerusalem and paved the way for what many of you guys here refer to as the Jesus movement, well you must be blind and deaf if you cant see the forest for trees when it comes to the gigantic difference between Jesus' political movement and Saulus' efforts to «reform the Jesus movement» that is manipulating Jesus from a renegade political dissident into a religious imposter that seemingly sinned against everything Jewish. What Saulus did, was to transform early Christendom which was based on a very much orthodox and «spartan» Judaism, focusing on the Torah law mostly, into becoming an insane religion that made the Christians criminals and laughing stocks in all of the known world at that time. Saulus managed to manipulate everything Jesus said into sounding like he supported Jesus and that Jesus somehow changed everything legal (Torah was the Hebrew constitution remember, it's law, not religion, but today it has turned into religion as som many times other places). He didn't. If Saulus had met Jesus they would have fought like cats and dogs. Jesus would surely have killed the master butcher Saulus, who killed nearly all Jesu' lambs.

One of the tenets of history is that you cannot assume motivations that arise from later events, as driving earlier events.

Humans view history and the passage of time as directional. It makes no sense to describe what Jesus and early Christianity did prior to Paul's missions, in light of what occurred after.

Put simply, Jesus mission was not directed or affected by what Paul or anyone else did later. Your thesis implies backwards causality.

Jesus stated mission was:

... he will save his people from their sins." Matthew 1:21.

"... to proclaim good news to the poor... to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Luke 4:18-19.

"... the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." Luke 19:10.

but He said to them, "I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities, also, because for this purpose I have been sent". Luke 4:43-44.

And he said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life." Luke 9:22.

None of these previous stated mission goals fit your thesis and as Jesus explains (in Luke 17:21), the "Kingdom of God" isn't even an Earthly rule. Jesus was not even vaguely describing taking the throne of Emperor.

If Jesus Christ were merely someone seeking the throne of Emperor, and failing, He would have no power to save people from their sins.

If Jesus was just a politician, it doesn't explain how He could restore sight to the blind.

If Jesus was just a politician, it does not explain or even slightly fit in with the resurrection.

a reply to: chr0naut

Latin is an Indo European language and the work of Grimm and Verner et al starts at Proto Indo European and ends up with Germanic languages Via Latin and other PIE languages. They are two of the only linguists who have understood and contributed to the fields of the evolution of the phonology and morphology of the world's languages. You obviously don't know turd about this, so why even bother bitching me. My «field» is linguistics, mostly concentrating on Germanic and esp. Nordic languages. I refer to my own education and knowledge, unlike you. If you like, I can contact a friend who holds a doctorate (PhD) within Latin languages and is a Latin Philologist, but he is a busy man and probably has plenty better things to do than repeating what I am saying to a person who can hardly speak and explain his mother tongue, in a trivial forum about conspiracy theory. He'd probably just shake his head and tell me to «kill» you or just give up and move on.

And since you have read up on phonology on wikipedia, the ‹x› phoneme is a guttural /h/ and IS written as an H in English, as (typically) in translating Heb. ח -- H[r]et (which sounds exactly like 'correct' in Nordic languages.)

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Talk about blind and deaf. Jesus came to fulfill the scriptures, which is exactly why he quoted from Psalms 22 at his death. You might try reading the Old Testament about the coming of Jesus and where he would come from and why. Paul didn't have anything to do with that.

Yes, and that is to understand law as law, not religion. And the prophecy says that one day there would be born a Jew in Bethlehem who would be King of kings, a lord of David. That means emperor

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I don't see the connection between Jesus and anything roman...

When Jesus receives a coin and tells the Herodians to give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar-- Jesus kept the coin and walked away.

This created a very funny mental image in my mind of a Pharisee standing there all flabbergasted shouting at Jesus to give his coin back seeing that the coin that was shown to him was worth a day's wages (12 hours). So approx. 270 bucks in the US now, taking the average hourly wage of December 2017. Somehow, I very much doubt that he kept the de·narʹi·us (the coin). It certainly doesn't say that he did in any of the 3 records of the event (Matthew, Mark and Luke). It doesn't even say that he 'received' the coin using your words (or that they handed it over to him, gave it to him), allthough that may be more likely (temporarily just to make his point and show them the picture of Caesar on it). The reports use words such as...

...Bring me a de·narʹi·us to look at.” They brought one, and he said to them: ... (Mark 12:15,16)

...Show me the tax coin.” They brought him a de·narʹi·us. He said to them: ... (Matthew 22:19,20)

“Show me a de·narʹi·us. .... (Luke 20:24)

Would be rather Trump-like to run off with a day's worth in wages after merely asking them to "show me", very cunning, almost a 'good'* scam. I think there might have been some kind of objection from the owner recorded in one of the accounts if that is what really happened though. *: I meant "efficient" but "good" works better as an expression from the perspective of the scammer, ignoring the verbs "show" and "bring" it's a bit like a magician asking for a coin (or someone's wallet giving we're talking approx. 270 bucks here) in the audience to do some trick with and then not giving it back and leaving the stage never to return.

a reply to: whereislogic

A star for constructive critics

Remember that Jesus is standing in front of a crowd. Everyone had to see the coin, most likely they handed him the coin, as in the idiom «Show me the money!» as in «Pay me!». You are right about the first verse in this story, but skip to 22:22 ==> biblehub.com... ==> and notice the word Gr: aphiémi ==> biblehub.com... ==> The Greek text actually says they left him with the coin, and Jesus walked away Do the grammar, and see that I am right His opponents probably remained where they were standing, moaning thinking WTF?!? LOL

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Talk about blind and deaf. Jesus came to fulfill the scriptures, which is exactly why he quoted from Psalms 22 at his death. You might try reading the Old Testament about the coming of Jesus and where he would come from and why. Paul didn't have anything to do with that.

Yes, and that is to understand law as law, not religion. And the prophecy says that one day there would be born a Jew in Bethlehem who would be King of kings, a lord of David. That means emperor

Thanks for proving that you've never read or understood the Old Testament, much less the chapter and verse (Psalm 22) that I laid out right in front of you. What do you think "King of kings" stands for? It certainly doesn't mean that he would be king of just the Jews.

Zechariah 14:9 - 9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

a reply to: Deetermined

Hehe, you are proving my point but you don't understand what you are saying. I never said Jesus would be a messiah, that is a mere king of Palestine, Jesus also refused that he was a messiah, he hints time and time again, that his ambition is to be emperor and a righteous one, contrary to the current ones, aye? As in King of the whole world, not just a Roman province, having to do whatever the emperor would order him to. REX IVDAEORVM was one of Caesar's titles. Why did Pilate demand that they wrote this above Jesus on the tree? And why did Pilate defend Jesus? Yes, he was in fact a fan....

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Read Isaiah 53. It will explain it all and why Jesus said he came to fulfill the scriptures. It was to cover their sins.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: chr0naut

First syllable of Jehuda is Jahveh for heavens' sakes.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Wouldn't the first syllable be just 'Yah'?

No, that would be "Je" regarding "Jehuda". The 2nd syllable is "hu" and the 3rd is "da". I learned how to recognize syllables very long ago. I didn't think it would be that hard for some adults. Well, until I came to know the true meaning of 1 Corinthians 1:20 and saw it demonstrated in people that are looked up to for their supposed wisdom (intellect at the very least, you can leave out the "supposed" then) such as when Stephen Hawking when he started to use the word "nothing" as if it represents "something".

1 Corinthians 1:20

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe?* [That is, an expert in the Law.] Where is the debater of this system of things?* [Or “this age.”] Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?

Besides, if the first syllable of "Jehuda" was "Yah", there'd be little point to do what's described in the blue letters in the video below at 6:56 ("they" is referring to what he earlier describes as "Yahweh supporters" and "Yahuwah supporters" at 1:22). I already noticed quite some inaccuracies in the video so take it with a grain of salt, just pointing to what he mentions at 6:56 regarding the commentary about the first syllable of "Jehuda" in this thread (but his screencaptures of Strong's Lexicon after the argument at 4:13 that was used in another thread by you in response to my commentary a couple of days ago, are interesting regarding the vowel marks in the word "adonai"):

Most inaccuracies start around 5:42 - 6:55 and after 9:40 because it builds on the information discussed after 5:42. Most notably regarding this subject:

(Je·hoʹvah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wahʹ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become”].
...
Early Use of the Name and Its Meaning. Exodus 3:13-16 and 6:3 are often misapplied to mean that Jehovah’s name was first revealed to Moses sometime prior to the Exodus from Egypt. True, Moses raised the question: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” But this does not mean that he or the Israelites did not know Jehovah’s name. ... For Moses simply to say he came in the name of “God” (ʼElo·himʹ) or the “Sovereign Lord” (ʼAdho·naiʹ) therefore might not have meant much to the suffering Israelites.
...
Then, too, we must keep in mind that names then had real meaning and were not just “labels” to identify an individual as today. Moses knew that Abram’s name (meaning “Father Is High (Exalted)”) was changed to Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”), the change being made because of God’s purpose concerning Abraham. So, too, the name of Sarai was changed to Sarah and that of Jacob to Israel; in each case the change revealed something fundamental and prophetic about God’s purpose concerning them. Moses may well have wondered if Jehovah would now reveal himself under some new name to throw light on his purpose toward Israel. Moses’ going to the Israelites in the “name” of the One who sent him meant being the representative of that One, and the greatness of the authority with which Moses would speak would be determined by or be commensurate with that name and what it represented. (Compare Ex 23:20, 21; 1Sa 17:45.) So, Moses’ question was a meaningful one.

God’s reply in Hebrew was: ʼEh·yehʹ ʼAsherʹ ʼEh·yehʹ. Some translations render this as “I AM THAT I AM.” However, it is to be noted that the Hebrew verb ha·yahʹ, from which the word ʼEh·yehʹ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.” Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. Therefore, the New World Translation properly renders the above Hebrew expression as “I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE.” Jehovah thereafter added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.’”—Ex 3:14, ftn.

That this meant no change in God’s name, but only an additional insight into God’s personality, is seen from his further words: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.” (Ex 3:15; compare Ps 135:13; Ho 12:5.) The name Jehovah comes from a Hebrew verb that means “to become,” and a number of scholars suggest that the name means “He Causes to Become.” This definition well fits Jehovah’s role as the Creator of all things and the Fulfiller of his purpose. Only the true God could rightly and authentically bear such a name.

This aids one in understanding the sense of Jehovah’s later statement to Moses: “I am Jehovah. And I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not make myself known to them.” (Ex 6:2, 3) Since the name Jehovah was used many times by those patriarchal ancestors of Moses, it is evident that God meant that he manifested himself to them in the capacity of Jehovah only in a limited way. To illustrate this, those who had known the man Abram could hardly be said to have really known him as Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”) while he had but one son, Ishmael. When Isaac and other sons were born and began producing offspring, the name Abraham took on greater meaning or import. So, too, the name Jehovah would now take on expanded meaning for the Israelites.

To “know,” therefore, does not necessarily mean merely to be acquainted with or cognizant of something or someone. The foolish Nabal knew David’s name but still asked, “Who is David?” in the sense of asking, “What does he amount to?” (1Sa 25:9-11; compare 2Sa 8:13.) So, too, Pharaoh had said to Moses: “Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all and, what is more, I am not going to send Israel away.” (Ex 5:1, 2) By that, Pharaoh evidently meant that he did not know Jehovah as the true God or as having any authority over Egypt’s king and his affairs, nor as having any might to enforce His will as announced by Moses and Aaron. But now Pharaoh and all Egypt, along with the Israelites, would come to know the real meaning of that name, the person it represented. As Jehovah showed Moses, this would result from God’s carrying out His purpose toward Israel, liberating them, giving them the Promised Land, and thereby fulfilling His covenant with their forefathers. In this way, as God said, “You will certainly know that I am Jehovah your God.”—Ex 6:4-8; see ALMIGHTY.

Source: Jehovah: Insight, Volume 2

a reply to: Utnapisjtim
Well your 1st link says "having left - him - went away". It does not say "they left him with the coin". Your 2nd link does mention the correct understanding for the meaning of the word rendered as "having left" on the first link in this context though especially considering the reason why the Pharisees sent their disciples to him, together with party followers of Herod:

Definition: (a) I send away, (b) I let go, release, permit to depart,...

As the Kingdom Interlinear on this website also shows:

having let go off him they went off.

Source: Matthew 22 Kingdom Interlinear (int)
Verse 22 in the New World Translation:

When they heard that, they were amazed, and they left him and went away.

They couldn't "trap him in his speech" (verse 15) so they let go off him, they left him and went away. No mention of leaving him with the coin. They couldn't find an excuse not to let go off him, actually, if he had taken the coin for himself or refused to give it back if they handed it over to him which the accounts don't actually say, they would have had an excuse not to let go off him. Remember that verse 46 of the previous chapter mentions:

Although they wanted to seize* [Or “arrest.”] him, they feared the crowds, because these regarded him as a prophet.

Theft would be a good excuse to do that. Especially after failing to trap him in his speech.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

So Caesarion who was the alledged Grand Father was given the title "King of Kings" ? This gets very interesting.

a reply to: whereislogic
edit: in that video there are more inaccuracies after 3:20 but I don't feel like addressing them all in detail

Note the usage of "Jehovah" and "Jah" as the English rendering for the Hebrew* Yehowah and Yah respectively (*: that is, Hebrew after transliteration to the Roman Alphabet) in the screencaptures at 2:38 and 3:11.

At the very end of the video he also gives a different meaning for the theophoric name "Yehoshuah" (which is Hebrew after transliteration, Jehoshua in English; listed as "Yehoshua" in his list) than the correct one he gives at 8:44 (this is all referring to Jesus in case that isn't clear enough yet).
Which is discussed in more detail below (also the concept of theophoric names, prefixes and suffixes). The video below has the correct information rather than the confusing stuff from the video I shared earlier (like using half Hebrew half English renderings of names, giving 2 different meanings to fit in with some personal "theory" using his terminology which starts at 9:40 in that video as mentioned before where the inaccuracies get a bit out of control*):

*: also because he hasn't realized or noticed that the Hebrew verb ha·yahʹ, from which the word ʼEh·yehʹ is drawn, does not mean simply “be.” Rather, it means “become,” or “prove to be.” The reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others. As well as that Jehovah is the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wahʹ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become”. So I guess he ended up doing his jigsaw puzzle routine there himself at the end (the illustration he started the video with).

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: chr0naut

Latin is an Indo European language and the work of Grimm and Verner et al starts at Proto Indo European and ends up with Germanic languages Via Latin and other PIE languages.

While German and Latin are descendents from an Indo European antecedent, They are distinct and separate branches according to the majority of linguists.

They are two of the only linguists who have understood and contributed to the fields of the evolution of the phonology and morphology

Being pedantic, 'morphology' is the study of word relationships within a single language. I believe that the description you intended is 'diachronic linguistics' (in my defense, the discussion was about the specifics of language, after all).

of the world's languages. You obviously don't know turd about this, so why even bother bitching me. My «field» is linguistics, mostly concentrating on Germanic and esp. Nordic languages. I refer to my own education and knowledge, unlike you.

You are quite right. I choose an academic outlook, reliant on the accumulated knowledge of more than one individual.

In this way, I can actually continually expand my knowledge on any subject, instead of staying fixed in my opinion based upon what I learned in a a distant and receding past.

Granted, my field is not Linguistics but I can reference the works of many linguists, including the venerated Grimm and Verner, at whim.

If you like, I can contact a friend who holds a doctorate (PhD) within Latin languages and is a Latin Philologist, but he is a busy man and probably has plenty better things to do than repeating what I am saying to a person who can hardly speak and explain his mother tongue, in a trivial forum about conspiracy theory. He'd probably just shake his head and tell me to «kill» you or just give up and move on.

You are suggesting that your Ph.D friend is a psychopath?

And since you have read up on phonology on wikipedia, the ‹x› phoneme is a guttural /h/ and IS written as an H in English, as (typically) in translating Heb. ח -- H[r]et (which sounds exactly like 'correct' in Nordic languages.)

... which is sort of what I said in relation to the interchangability in Spanish of 'J' and 'H" being probably due to voiceless velar fricative from Basque.

Of course, English is not usually considered as one of the romance languages but is a descendant of the Germanic. So it has nothing to do with influence upon Spanish from Basque, and less to do with the use of language between Hebrew and Latin in the 1st Century which, if you recall, was a vital component of your thesis, and is still not satisfactorily resolved because you have gone off on unrelated tangents.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: chr0naut

First syllable of Jehuda is Jahveh for heavens' sakes.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Wouldn't the first syllable be just 'Yah'?

No, that would be "Je" regarding "Jehuda". The 2nd syllable is "hu" and the 3rd is "da".

But surely 'Jehuda' is a Germanic version of 'Yehuda', which is entirely beside the point when comparing between Hebrew and Latin in the 1st Century.

You are imagining the syllables based upon your knowledge of the English language, which is a descendant from the Germanic and is abstracted a long way from what we were initially talking about.

The first syllable in Hebrew is equivalent to a truncated 'yoo' in English and would be like a truncated 'ioo' in Latin.

Here's a link to an Israeli saying the name of Yehuda Amichai, a famous Israeli poet.

And yes, I did make a mistake suggesting wrongly that the initial syllable would be 'yah', it would actually be a truncated 'yoo'.

a reply to: chr0naut
The first syllable of the English "Jehuda" is "Je". The first syllable of the Hebrew* "Yehuda" is "Ye". *: that is, Hebrew after transliteration to the Roman Alphabet (it's a Hebrew rendering of the name in the Roman Alphabet).

It's neither "Yah" nor "yoo". Come on, this shouldn't be so hard.

Syllable: 1. a unit of pronunciation having one vowel sound, with or without surrounding consonants, forming the whole or a part of a word; for example, there are two syllables in water and three in inferno.

Source: google dictionary

And there are 3 in "Yehuda", 3 in "Jehuda", 3 in "Jehovah" or "Yehowah" and 2 in "Yahweh", and there's your reason why some people suddenly can't count or recognize syllables anymore. Or your first clue. The first syllable in (the Hebrew) "Yahweh" is "Yah". We are not talking about pronounciation here, you have to use the letters that are available, "yoo" and "yah" is not available for "Yehuda" nor "Jehuda", the letters in that order simply aren't there. (The English) "Jah" and (the Hebrew) "Yah" are contractions of "Jehovah" and "Yehowah" respectively, they are not the first syllables.

contraction: a word or group of words resulting from shortening an original form.

synonyms: abbreviation, short form, shortened form

For motives related to renderings such as "Yahweh", "Yahuwah", "Yahuda", etc. (starting with Yah...) some people like to confuse people about that subject and pretend "Yah" is the first syllable of God's name and use the occurances of "Yah" as a standalone name (and contraction/shortened form of the name) and the occurances of "ah" as suffixes as part of the argument for those renderings as explained in the first video I linked somewhere before 4:13 if I remember correctly (allthough it's probably not spelled out very well in that video).

Additional information concerning my differentiation between Hebrew and English renderings of names:

Help:IPA/Hebrew - Wikipedia

The charts below show the way in which the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) represents Modern Hebrew language pronunciations in Wikipedia articles. Since Modern Hebrew has both non-Oriental and Oriental pronunciations in Israel, certain letters may be transcribed differently depending on the background of the speaker. See Hebrew phonology for a more thorough look at the sounds of Hebrew.

---------------------Consonants----------------------
IPA Classical - IPA Modern - Letter(s) - Romanization - English approximation
...
j - - ‬ י (Yoď) - y - yes
w - v - ו (Vav) - v - vote
- w - וו (double Vav) - w - we

Note that in Dutch and German (and probably quite a few other languages) the "j" is pronounced as the "y" in the Engish "yes". Even when English speaking people pronounce "Hallelujah" they still retain that pronounciation for the "j".

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: chr0naut
The first syllable of the English "Jehuda" is "Je". The first syllable of the Hebrew* "Yehuda" is "Ye". *: that is, Hebrew after transliteration to the Roman Alphabet (it's a Hebrew rendering of the name in the Roman Alphabet).

It's neither "Yah" nor "yoo". Come on, this shouldn't be so hard.

Syllable: 1. a unit of pronunciation having one vowel sound, with or without surrounding consonants, forming the whole or a part of a word; for example, there are two syllables in water and three in inferno.

Source: google dictionary

And there are 3 in "Yehuda", 3 in "Jehuda", 3 in "Jehovah" or "Yehowah" and 2 in "Yahweh", and there's your reason why some people suddenly can't count or recognize syllables anymore. Or your first clue. The first syllable in (the Hebrew) "Yahweh" is "Yah". We are not talking about pronounciation here, you have to use the letters that are available, "yoo" and "yah" is not available for "Yehuda" nor "Jehuda", the letters in that order simply aren't there.

Did you not listen to the linked audio?

The facts disagree with your opinion.

originally posted by: chr0naut
You are imagining the syllables based upon your knowledge of the English language, which is a descendant from the Germanic and is abstracted a long way from what we were initially talking about.

The first syllable in Hebrew is equivalent to a truncated 'yoo' in English and would be like a truncated 'ioo' in Latin.

What was initially talked about was:

Utnapisjtim:
First syllable of Jehuda is Jahveh for heavens' sakes.

chr0naut:
Wouldn't the first syllable be just 'Yah'?

No mention of "Yehuda", no mention of "Germanic", or "comparing between Hebrew and Latin in the 1st Century". The subject was the "first syllable of Jehuda". No overcomplication of matters required to obscure simple subjects. So bringing that up would be "beside the point" (using your words in the same sentence you bring up those things) and you'll note that it wasn't me who brought up "Yehuda", "Germanic", or "comparing between Hebrew and Latin in the 1st Century" regarding the subject of the "first syllable of Jehuda" when you said:

But surely 'Jehuda' is a Germanic version of 'Yehuda', which is entirely beside the point when comparing between Hebrew and Latin in the 1st Century.

I had (or have) already moved on to another related subject regarding God's name and some commentary on the video I shared, which does discuss "Yehuda" as well (I assume he means "Yehudah", just like it's not "Yehoshua" but "Yehoshuah" if you're going with a Hebrew rendering and just transliterate the Hebrew consonants and vowel marks found in manuscripts for what is most often rendered "Judah" in English bible translations and "Juda" in Dutch bible translations, don't know about German) but I already discussed the confusing nature of that video. I don't really need any additional help with recognizing what the syllables are in "Jehuda". It's quite easy, almost as easy as counting. Whatever letters you're using have to make up "the whole or a part of" "Jehuda" (according to the definition for syllable). And you can't change the order of those letters when you are seperating a word into syllables and not distracting from the process with discussions about exact pronounciation, translation, transliteration, rendering in different languages, 'equivalence', 'descendance', 'abstraction' or "knowledge of the English language".