It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Jews or other Semites jump-start ancient Greek civilization?

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 





You exclusively write in hyperboles and stereotypes


You have got to be the most difficult person I have yet to speak to here at ATS. "Hyperbole" means an exaggeration; through out my posts again and again I qualify my arguments in a bid to better contextualize them - i.e to remove all over-generalizations. Ironically, not only do you not know notice this, but in calling my writing style hyperbolic and stereotyped, you yourself in engage in hyperbole.

Perhaps this may be due to some stubbornness you have; my first post may have irritated you so badly that you've refused to acknowledge from thereon any efforts on my part to better frame the nature of my claim.

But, do you notice that? In my last post I clearly said "I love the west" - which is true; I have a very deep appreciation for the genius of the Greeks. YET, ##snipped## you again claim - without a shred of evidence from anything I've actually written - that I "hate people". Is that fair? Based on all that I've written, you've boxed me in and refuse to let me explain my self. I said I love the west, and instead of acknowledging that statement and changing your belligerent tone of speech, you again claim "you have all that hate for".

##snipped##



If I were to meet you in person, I would be afraid you might put me into some category of people you have all that hate for.

##snipped##
edit on 27-7-2013 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)

edit on Sun Jul 28 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.




posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 





This word appears to have originated from Jewish writers who gave the name "Hellene" to Greeks for being pagan to distinguish themselves from them.


Which Jewish writer was this? From what I understand, the dead sea scrolls are the only evidence of Jewish writing that we have before the early Tannaim.

What, pray tell, is the point of this thread?

Would you like the Jews to be responsible for Greek civilization? That would be nice and all, but as I've said, the Jews and the Greeks were worlds apart; I've heard some judeophiles claim that the Greek writer "thales" may have been Jewish, based on some etymological connection to the Hebrew "Tal" - dew, but even that claim has been met with skepticism from scholars. Although I personally see it as plausible.

Demythologizing philosophy can perhaps be directly connected to the Jews. Some believe a necessary precursor to this process was to reunify the fragmented reality that pagan mythology/metaphysics had initiated. The Jews were the first culture/civilization to take up this process. However, there isn't much evidence from that era - 7th century BCE - that demonstrates a Jewish philosophy that doesn't depend on religious allegory. After all, the religious writings before and after that period contain a great deal of myth. Nevertheless, perhaps this skeptical environment helped plant the seeds in Thales mind to philosophize in a more abstract manner, without recourse to imagery.

That being said, how great was Jewish influence? It appears to have been minimal.



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 28 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by demongoat
 
it doesn't matter, the hebrews before that used a block script based on aramaic.
... doesn't matter if the greeks borrowed from the phoenicians, everyone borrows from everyone else.
... please go look up what those terms mean.

Yes, we borrow - but usually there is a reason for it. Do you want to distract from that reason?

I believe we borrow a few words from the French. But a whole new way writing, Nope. The Vietnamese "borrowed" the French alphabet, or wait, maybe it was imposed on them.

Was the Greek author Homer "Phoenician"? History books don't seem to tell us the answer. But Homer was the first user of the Phoenician alphabet. Why does he invent (or first use), not only the alphabet - but also the word "Phoenician" - for the people he "borrowed" the alphabet from?

The phoenix represents a majestic bird, was associated with the color of Egyptian Pharaohs (purple), and later adopted later as a symbol in Early Christianity. To give them that name clearly, shows great reverence for the Phoenician people and their culture.

I have no idea where your (I would be happy to entertain...) quotes are from. Next time please indicate your source. And look up something to counter my arguments rather than making non-sense accusations.


Lol you have no education in european history do you? It's ironic when you are guessing at history and using lingustic terms wrong.
English aborbed french because the normans a gernanic tribe, adoped it from the franks, then took over britian in the 11th century.

Go read about the bronze age collapse and the greek dark ages, greece collapsed around the 10th century, due to foreign attacks.
Homer didn't do anything, the greeks built up their culture again, before they used linear b, a minoan script.
What quotes are you talking about? This is hellenic and classic greek history.

The name phoenician comes from the greek word for red color, in reference to the dyes they made.

It isn't my fault you don't know much about ancient history, I'm correcting your wrong ideas.
If you don't like correction go read real history, and stop trying to make up stuff.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by demongoat
 
English aborbed french because the normans a gernanic tribe, adoped it from the franks, then took over britian in the 11th century. ....
Go read ....
Homer didn't do anything, the greeks ....
The name phoenician comes from the greek word for red color....

(typographical errors underlined)

Go read..... I did.
Homer didn't do anything .... Yes he did.
Phoenician comes from the Greek word for red color.... No, its a bird.

I am happy to see so many self-appointed "experts" try to distract ... talking about french... and germanic tribes ... only about 2000 years later... it tells me exactly what I am hoping to find out, lol. Now where are your threads on the subject?



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Go read..... I did.
Homer didn't do anything .... Yes he did.

Your question about Homer possibly being Phoenician says you haven't read much about this person we call Homer, at least.

Nobody even knows if Homer actually existed. You stated that Homer used the Phoenician alphabet, ("But Homer was the first user of the Phoenician alphabet") while anyone that has looked into Greek tradition knows that Homer didn't write anything at all, as far as we know.

That's because Homer's tales were part of an oral tradition, not a written one.

Harte



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


You know, wiki is not always correct. You cannot base on wiki to make a correctly, well informed thead.

The Bible was written by Hebrews and Greeks, Jews is a wrong word for the Hebrews cause JESUS was not Hebrew. The Old Testament was written completely by the Hebrews ( you can see it from the fact that it is mostly the history of the Hebrews). However, the New Testament was not written by the Hebrews. John was a Greek, and this is why he visited Patmos, a Greek island, to write there the Apocalypse. This is why the Mother of GOD, MADONNA, visited with John the Greek area in Small Asia ( Μικρά Ασία) and not Egypt, for example, which was closer. Matthew, Mark and Luke were also Greeks. They were named evangelists from the ancient Greek words "ευ" and "αγγέλω" which means nice announcement. If they were Hebrews they would have been named with a Hebrew word. But they weren't.

JESUS was also a Greek from HIS Mother's side. HIS name comes from the ancient Greek name Ιάσων or Iason -> which is transformed to Ιήσων or Iison in the Attic dialect ( the most common ancient Greek dialect which was also the dialect that was spoken around the Mediterranean Sea at that time) -> and from there it was transformed from the Hebrews to the name Ιησούς ( again, it was written in the ancient Greek) or JESUS. So it was Ιάσων->Ιήσων->Ιησούς. Also the name CHRIST or Χριστός comes from the ancient Greek word χρίσμα. Everything has a meaning. In the New Testament, it also says that the Hebrew judges, who judged JESUS, did not accept HIM as a Hebrew. It also writes many times that the Greeks were visiting JESUS to hear HIS lessons while it is known that the Greeks were never visiting the places were the Hebrews were teaching.

The above confirm that neither the New Testament or JESUS were Hebrew.

Anyway, it is also proven that the ancient Greek language did not derives from the Phoenician language. Too main reasons why this is a lie. Firstly, the ancient Greek language has an extremely tight relationship with mathematics. Every single ancient Greek word has its lexarithmos or λεξάριθμος ( it means "the number of the word"), a word created by Pythagoras. When two words have the same lexarithmos, they have something in common. It was proven from Pythagoras and it has been proven ever since to be 100% true. So i am asking you: How can a language, which was based on another language, create this tight relationship with the numbers? It can't. The Latin comes from the ancient Greek ( in the city Κύμη they had an alphabet different from the one they had in all over the other ancient Greece. Κύμη had a colony in the South Italy. And from that colony the Latin were expanded to the north of Italy and to the Romans) and from the Latin come the English, the French, the Deutsch. Do you see any of these languages have anything in common with the numbers? No. Secondly, Plato was saying about the war between the Greeks and the Atlantics. If he was right, i say if, then there is no possibility the Phoenician to give their alphabet to the Greeks but probably the opposite thing happened. Based on facts that found during the construction of Metro in Thessaloniki, the second largest city in Greece, i am saying that Plato was 100% right about the war. The machine dug up to 100 meters below the surface of the road. In that 100 meters the archaeologists found many ancient Greek stuff but they also found 60 archaeological levels. Its level of the ground is supposed to represent 200 years. The archaeologists found ancient stuff even in the lowest level. But watch closely that 60x200= 12,000 years of history! ( Search the web for what i am saying) So if Plato was saying that the war happened around 9600 BC, he was right.

Another fact you cannot deny is the English phrase which says that "The Greeks must have a word for it". Greek is the most complicate language but also the language with the biggest amount of words in its dictionary ( according to what is being taught to Harvard). Not only that but every single word you use in the Health sector derives from an ancient Greek and not an ancient Phoenician or Hebrew.


So the answer to your question will be no.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
1. Homer didn't do anything .... Yes he did.
2. Phoenician comes from the Greek word for red color.... No, its a bird.


3. Such similarities are claimed by the orthodoxy as being coincidence.


1. What?

2. What? Are you even aware of ancient Greek? I doubt it as if you were you would know that the other guy is right. How do you deny something you are not familiar with?

3. Are you an Orthodox? Obviously no. So how do you know what Orthodoxy believes about number 12? You don't. Maybe you should let the Orthodoxs talk about what Orthodoxy accepts and what it doesn't. You may also look one of my recent posts were i write how Orthodoxy sees the history of the world.
And to return back to what you said, Orthodoxy does NOT think it as a coincidence. In fact Orthodoxy finds many many things, the ancient Greeks said, correct!

As you may also know the ancient Greeks were the ones who made the 12 zodiacs, not the Hebrews, and from them we had the 12 Olympian gods, the 12 hours day and night and so on. They all come from Greece. The Greeks did not borrow or stole anything cause they did not need to. They made up everything and today humanity tries to understand how they did it. Everyone knows that the Greeks were the scientists, not the Hebrews. I believe that you wish to adverse that.
edit on 30-7-2013 by JesusChristwins because: Add something



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
nvm
edit on 30-7-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
........but I also don't think they were as embracing of each other as you describe them. Life must have been hard. Understanding other cultures even harder. Deserts or gradual desertification, no means to travel other than hand powered boats, and donkeys. Trade must have been limited for the most part to copper, silk and only a few other goods. I doubt that many people had resources for, or interest in, the exchange of ideas, concepts, languages.



I think you do them a disservice. The products of their fertile minds furnish our modern world.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
 
Your question about Homer possibly being Phoenician says you haven't read much about this person we call Homer
Nobody even knows if Homer actually existed.
Homer didn't write anything at all


Homer's works, which are about fifty percent speeches, provided models in persuasive speaking and writing that were emulated throughout the ancient and medieval Greek worlds. Fragments of Homer account for nearly half of all identifiable Greek literary papyrus finds. (my underscore)
en.wikipedia.org...
Your comment seems to contradict itself. If "Nobody even knows if Homer actually existed" then
How can you assert that my suggestion of him (if he existed) being Phoenician is wrong?
How can you assert that he (if he existed) didn't write anything?

You seem to disapprove of my question solely because it disagrees with your view and without providing your sources. More importantly, you miss the point of my question. We learn about history as an abstract, not as people acting the way humans do.

We learn that "Greek tradition ....", or "the Greeks ..." etc. To some extent this may be out of necessity. Ok. But the reality is, everybody is human. We do things because we need to eat and we want power - not because we are Greek or American. You mention "tradition" as the motivator, but tradition was changing. The whole culture metamorphosed into something new. Why?

Which person had the power as well the motivation to effect this metamorphosis?

We learn in school that this person was Homer (and Hesiod), or whoever used his alias. Whoever it was, he must have learned from the Phoenicians to be able to take over their alphabet. True or not?

I am looking at it from an individual level, because we are all individuals. History is not made by "the Greeks". It is made by one person (e.g. Alexander) at a time, who may happen to be Greek, a man, a father, and a farmer, all at the same time. It would not make sense to say "the fathers conquered Persia". Putting people into categories works to get a vague idea. But to try to understand the "Why?" and "How?" you need to look at the individual's motivation and the individual's power.

Why did 'Homer' start to use a foreign alphabet?
How did he learn it, who taught it to him?
Was he Babylonian, son of Telemachus (as per the Oracle at Delphi), or, Odysseus himself?
Why did Homer learn Phoenician (to know the alphabet you need to know the language)?
If 'Homer' was Phoenician this would answer these questions.

History books may tell conflicting details but I'd like to get your take on these questions.
Whose power, and whose motivation, was the 'motor' driving this metamorphosis?

edit on 31-7-2013 by ThinkingHuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by Harte
 
Your question about Homer possibly being Phoenician says you haven't read much about this person we call Homer
Nobody even knows if Homer actually existed.
Homer didn't write anything at all


Homer's works, which are about fifty percent speeches, provided models in persuasive speaking and writing that were emulated throughout the ancient and medieval Greek worlds. Fragments of Homer account for nearly half of all identifiable Greek literary papyrus finds. (my underscore)
en.wikipedia.org...
Your comment seems to contradict itself. If "Nobody even knows if Homer actually existed" then
How can you assert that my suggestion of him (if he existed) being Phoenician is wrong?
How can you assert that he (if he existed) didn't write anything?

Okay, let me put it this way.

Homer's tales were an oral tradition for hundreds of years. If there was such a person called "Homer," and if he did write the tales down prior to their being part of the oral tradition, then no such written work survives. Also, no part of the Homeric oral tradition mentions that the words were once written. Also, no ancient source concerning the tales of Homer wrote that Homer's tales were once written.

Yet here we have a poster asserting that they were not only written, they were written in the Phoenician alphabet!

You ask me how do I know Homer didn't write them down, and I explained how I "know" it.

Now, please tell us exactly how you know that Homer did write his tales down, and he did so in Phoenician.


Originally posted by ThinkingHumanYou seem to disapprove of my question solely because it disagrees with your view and without providing your sources. More importantly, you miss the point of my question. We learn about history as an abstract, not as people acting the way humans do.

I didn't disagree with your "question." I disagreed with your assertion:


But Homer was the first user of the Phoenician alphabet.


You asked if Homer could have been Phoenician. Please note that I didn't even address this part of your post.

If Homer existed, he could have been Phoenician, I suppose, but he was more likely Mycenaean or simply Greek. If he wrote anything down at all, it's very likely that he wrote in Linear B script (Mycenean) or in plain old Ancient Greek, not Phoenician.

Troy was abandoned in or around 1100 BC. Homer, if he existed, obviously post-dated the Trojan war.

Most scholars place the origins of the Homeric tradition later than 1100 BC, around 800 or 900 BC, which would indicate that, if the stories were written, they could have been written in Linear B or plain ancient Greek (after the so-called Dorian Invasion.)

I should note that after the collapse of the Mycenaean culture (around 1100 BC), Greece experienced a "dark age" during which we have found no evidence of writing at all. I may have been during that period (1200 to 750 BC) that the oral tradition started. Maybe that's why it was "oral."

The stories themselves are preserved in verse, the common method used by bards to memorize long tales.


Originally posted by ThinkingHumanWe learn in school that this was Homer (and Hesiod), or whoever used his alias. Whoever it was, he must have learned from the Phoenicians to be able to take over their alphabet. True or not?

I'd say not. Why do you believe that Homer wrote anything at all, least of all in the Phoenician alphabet?


Originally posted by ThinkingHumanI am looking at it from an individual level, because we are all individuals. History is not made by "the Greeks". It is made by one person (e.g. Alexander) at a time, who may happen to be Greek, a man, a father, and a farmer, all at the same time. It would not make sense to say "the fathers conquered Persia". We put people into categories which works for us to get a general idea of events. But when you try to understand the "Why?", you need to look at the individual's motivation and the individual's power.

Or, you could do what "thinking humans" do and look at the archaeological evidence.


Originally posted by ThinkingHumanThe point is, why did 'Homer' start to use a foreign alphabet?

Why do you believe Homer used any alphabet?


Harte



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by JesusChristwins
 
The Bible was written by Hebrews and Greeks,
This seems to address another thread. Please check and re-post.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
 
Or, you could do what "thinking humans" do and look at the archaeological evidence.

Again, you missed my point. You are fixated on the idea of matching the name to a particular man with archaeological evidence. You seem to be expert in that field so I take your word for it, there is no such evidence. As a "thinking human" I am not attached to this non-existent man, I am curious about who and what caused our human thinking, and its resulting civilization, to be what it is today.

Again, you provided no sources.

Again, you did not address my question. Let me put it this way, who was the author of Iliad and Odyssey? What language were they written down in? Whose power, and whose motivation, was the 'motor' driving the Greeks' cultural metamorphosis?



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


I replied to what you wrote in the beginning. Maybe you should recheck your own posts.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by JesusChristwins
 
I replied to what you wrote in the beginning. Maybe you should recheck your own posts.
FYI, they have a way to include the quote one is referring to. You also referred to another post of yours without providing a link. If you don't want to go to the trouble of doing this, that's okay.



posted on Jul, 31 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Ancient Greece came out of the "Greek Dark Ages". It was in no way able to compete or compare with the "New Kingdom" of Egypt (which included Canaan).

What was it that empowered the Greeks, at that point, to build a civilization that surpassed any other on earth?

2500 years later, just 226 years ago, the US adopted a Constitution that was based on the Greek philosophers, not on any of the much more recent literature.

Given the archeological records and other evidence that is available to us, what is a plausible explanation for their achievement? To credit "human ingenuity" is obviously incorrect, because that would apply everywhere else too. We need to go beyond the known facts, and decide what is for the known facts a possible explanation.

Imagine we, today, would adopt the Russian alphabet. Why would we do that? Only 2 possible reasons: 1) it was imposed on us, or 2) there was a very significant cultural influence. As with American cultural influence worldwide, cultural influence requires 2 things: 1) commerce, 2) military dominance. Culture and tradition does not change unless it is forced to change.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


Yeah, the Greeks appeared in 800 BC right? And in only 300 years they managed to become the world's greatest power in army and mind? Who can achieve this from nowhere? Nobody, except if you are the US and you have the NWO plan running in your country.

In every documentary i see about other civilizations i see many many things that belong to the Greeks either it is the way you build your building or the traditional dances and the traditional sports. One thing is sure. The Greeks have such a huge history on their backs that they do not need to steal any glory from the others.

And you believe that Greeks are using others history as their own? Think again and see what important people have said about Greece.

Friedrich Nietzsche

"Why do they hate the Greeks"

"Proven in every period of its development, the western European culture has tried to rid himself of the Greeks. This work is imbued with deep disappointment, because whatever we create, seemingly original and worthy of admiration, lose color and life in comparison with the Greek mode, came to resemble a cheap copy, a caricature.
So again and again soaked in a rage erupts hatred against the Greeks, against this small and arrogant nation, who had the nerve to call it barbaric whatever that had not been established in its territory ...
None of the recurrent enemies had the fortune to discover the hemlock, which could forever be rid of them. All poisons of envy, of hubris, hatred, have been insufficient to disturb the great beauty.
Thus, people continue to feel shame and fear of the Greeks. Of course, occasionally, someone appears to recognize intact truth, truth which teaches that the Greeks are the charioteers of any upcoming culture and almost always as the chariots and horses of the upcoming cultures is very low quality compared to the charioteer, who eventually work out driving his chariot into the abyss, which are beyond the Achilles 'Leap'"

"Before we could recognize this fact, before we convincingly established the innermost dependence of every art on the Greeks, from Homer right up to Socrates, we had to treat these Greeks as the Athenians treated Socrates. Almost every era and cultural stage has at some point sought in an profoundly ill-tempered frame of mind to free itself of the Greeks, because in comparison with the Greeks, all their own achievements, apparently fully original and admired in all sincerity, suddenly appeared to lose their colour and life and shrivelled to unsuccessful copies, in fact, to caricatures. And so a heartfelt inner anger always keeps breaking out again against that arrogant little nation which dared to designate for all time everything that was not produced in its own country as “barbaric.” Who were those Greeks, people asked themselves, who, although they had achieved only an ephemeral historical glitter, only ridiculously restricted institutions, only an ambiguous competence in morality, who could even be identified with hateful vices, yet who had nevertheless laid a claim to a dignity and a pre-eminent place among peoples, appropriate to a genius among the masses? Unfortunately people were not lucky enough to find the cup of hemlock which could easily do away with such a being, for all the poisons which envy, slander, and inner rage created were insufficient to destroy that self-satisfied magnificence. Hence, confronted by the Greeks, people have been ashamed and afraid, unless an individual values the truth above everything else and dares to propose this truth: the notion that the Greeks, as the charioteers of our culture and every other one, hold the reins, but that almost always the wagon and horses are inferior material and do not match the glory of their drivers, who then consider it amusing to whip such a team into the abyss, over which they themselves jump with the leap of Achilles."

friedrich von schiller

Verdammter Grieche
Wohin ich mein Denken drehe,
wohin ich meine Seele wende
sehe ich dich, finde ich dich
sehne ich mich nach Kunst, Poesie, Theater, Architektur
bist du davor,erster, unübertroffen.
Suche ich nach Wissenschaft, Mathematik, Philosophie, Medizin
bist du führend und unüberwindbar.
Durste ich nach Demokratie Fairness und Gleichheit,
bist du vor mir, unachahmbar konkurrenzlos.
Verfluchter Grieche...Verfluchtes Wissen.
Warum soll ich dich berühren?
Um zu spüren, wie klein ich bin, unwichtig, unbedeutend?

Giving it on Google translator you get the English translation.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


You think that the Greeks borrowed what they made? You think that the history we learnt in school which says that the Greek civilization started from the 1200 BC is correct? Think again.

What Henry Kissinger said about Greece in 1974

The Greek people are anarchic and difficult to tame. For this reason we must strike deep into their cultural roots: Perhaps then we can force them to conform. I mean, of course, to strike at their language, their religion, their cultural and historical reserves, so that we can neutralize their ability to develop, to distinguish themselves, or to prevail; thereby removing them as an obstacle to our strategically vital plans in the Balkans, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East.

And this is the link where i got it from

forum.prisonplanet.com...

see what people say in that forum. "Why Kissinger hate so much Greece", they ask.


Did anyone else, any great man, said anything similar about the Hebrews or the Phoenicians? No. Did Kissinger said anything hateful about any other nation? No.

You see the history schools and universities teach is the history NWO wants you to learn. In this history the Greeks did nothing. But by making a small research you can easily find what the true history is. You asked before why i didn't give you a link for what i had said i had written. It is because if you care to know more about what i am saying you will search on your own. If you don't, you will ask for a given solution. You wish to be considered a man who has knowledge more than the normal people have? Do some research and begin from zero cause Homer can never be Phoenician...




top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join