Royal Maury and Blue Colours

Judy,

I just noticed the maury and blue of the forum arms.

Wonder just how accurate the arms to the time?

Gary
_________

Alas! I'm not an expert on heraldry. But some on this Forum are...

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:02 PM
Subject: Royal Maury and Blue Colours


 
Judy,

I just noticed the maury and blue of the forum arms.

Wonder just how accurate the arms to the time?

Gary
_________

I'll field any heraldry questions...


The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC. The Calendar starts 7 years later because this was the date of birth for his brother James, who was assumed to be the true heir to the throne as Jesus was considered illegitimate.
There was no such thing as a year zero, which is why everyone (except the Chinese) were celebrating the "Millennium" a full year too early.


Anne Beauchamp was legally entitled to the whole Beauchamp inheritance ahead of her 3 elder sisters due to the law of inheritance favouring the whole over the half blood. Of course her 3 sisters disputed it, but this was down to their having powerful husbands rather than a valid legal case.

More dodgy on legal grounds were her husband Warwick's appropriation of her mother's Despencer inheritance in South Wales, which should have been shared with Lord Bergavenney, but which Warwick kept for himself. 
Also English earldoms were heritable in the male line only. Warwick's elevation can be treated as a new creation, but strictly speaking the title should have gone to John Beauchamp of Powick, who had to be content with being plain old Lord Beauchamp. There's no doubt that royal ancestry could be used to bend the rules of inheritance; look how Edward I bilked so many heirs of their lands and titles in favour of his own sons.






________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 19:35
Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours


 
Alas! I'm not an expert on heraldry. But some on this Forum are...

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie

________________________________
From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:02 PM
Subject: Royal Maury and Blue Colours


 
Judy,

I just noticed the maury and blue of the forum arms.

Wonder just how accurate the arms to the time?

Gary
_________

TheBlackPrussian: The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC.

Good insight but seems to have a rough edge in parenthesis. Would you say that of Allah? (Just pause for consideration and thoughtfulness as I'd never threaten you. No hard feelings.)

Gary
_____________



--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I'll field any heraldry questions...
>
>
> The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC. The Calendar starts 7 years later because this was the date of birth for his brother James, who was assumed to be the true heir to the throne as Jesus was considered illegitimate.
> There was no such thing as a year zero, which is why everyone (except the Chinese) were celebrating the "Millennium" a full year too early.
>
>
> Anne Beauchamp was legally entitled to the whole Beauchamp inheritance ahead of her 3 elder sisters due to the law of inheritance favouring the whole over the half blood. Of course her 3 sisters disputed it, but this was down to their having powerful husbands rather than a valid legal case.
>
> More dodgy on legal grounds were her husband Warwick's appropriation of her mother's Despencer inheritance in South Wales, which should have been shared with Lord Bergavenney, but which Warwick kept for himself. 
> Also English earldoms were heritable in the male line only. Warwick's elevation can be treated as a new creation, but strictly speaking the title should have gone to John Beauchamp of Powick, who had to be content with being plain old Lord Beauchamp. There's no doubt that royal ancestry could be used to bend the rules of inheritance; look how Edward I bilked so many heirs of their lands and titles in favour of his own sons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 19:35
> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>
>
>  
> Alas! I'm not an expert on heraldry. But some on this Forum are...
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:02 PM
> Subject: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>
>
>  
> Judy,
>
> I just noticed the maury and blue of the forum arms.
>
> Wonder just how accurate the arms to the time?
>
> Gary
> _________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A historical Jesus is far from established fact. The story is made up from many different elements, the essence of which existed hundreds of years before Jesus is supposed to have lived.

Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah: different names for the same jealous God. 




________________________________
From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 22:06
Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours


 
TheBlackPrussian: The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC.

Good insight but seems to have a rough edge in parenthesis. Would you say that of Allah? (Just pause for consideration and thoughtfulness as I'd never threaten you. No hard feelings.)

Gary
_____________

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I'll field any heraldry questions...
>
>
> The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC. The Calendar starts 7 years later because this was the date of birth for his brother James, who was assumed to be the true heir to the throne as Jesus was considered illegitimate.
> There was no such thing as a year zero, which is why everyone (except the Chinese) were celebrating the "Millennium" a full year too early.
>
>
> Anne Beauchamp was legally entitled to the whole Beauchamp inheritance ahead of her 3 elder sisters due to the law of inheritance favouring the whole over the half blood. Of course her 3 sisters disputed it, but this was down to their having powerful husbands rather than a valid legal case.
>
> More dodgy on legal grounds were her husband Warwick's appropriation of her mother's Despencer inheritance in South Wales, which should have been shared with Lord Bergavenney, but which Warwick kept for himself. 
> Also English earldoms were heritable in the male line only. Warwick's elevation can be treated as a new creation, but strictly speaking the title should have gone to John Beauchamp of Powick, who had to be content with being plain old Lord Beauchamp. There's no doubt that royal ancestry could be used to bend the rules of inheritance; look how Edward I bilked so many heirs of their lands and titles in favour of his own sons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 19:35
> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>
>
>  
> Alas! I'm not an expert on heraldry. But some on this Forum are...
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:02 PM
> Subject: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>
>
>  
> Judy,
>
> I just noticed the maury and blue of the forum arms.
>
> Wonder just how accurate the arms to the time?
>
> Gary
> _________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

there appears to be two jesus christs. one is taught by the church and the other is/was a living being. josepheus, i believe wrote about him.
 
and then there are the gnostic gospels that were "eliminated" with the niacene creed. these gospels were written by christ's desciples. the creed also proclaimed christ was part of the holy trinity. this caused a split in the church creating the catholic and eastern orthodox churches.
 
interestingly enough the muslims protected the jews from the crusaders. now islam and judaism are in conflict with the zionist christians protecting zionist jews.
 
the hebrews/jews were descendents of israel and the muslims are the descendents of ismael. both have 12 tribes.
 
the jews believe christ was an illegitmate child of
a..a roman soldier
b. an egyptian con man.
 
the muslims believe christ was a great prophet, just like mohammad. although mohammad is the final prophet.
 
all three religions use the first five books of what we call the bible as the basis of their religion. christianity is a break away sect of the jews, just as the muslims are.
 
and it all boils down to ..my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend.

--- On Wed, 9/26/12, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:


From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
To: "" <>
Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 3:29 PM



 



A historical Jesus is far from established fact. The story is made up from many different elements, the essence of which existed hundreds of years before Jesus is supposed to have lived.

Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah: different names for the same jealous God. 

________________________________
From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 22:06
Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours


 
TheBlackPrussian: The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC.

Good insight but seems to have a rough edge in parenthesis. Would you say that of Allah? (Just pause for consideration and thoughtfulness as I'd never threaten you. No hard feelings.)

Gary
_____________

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I'll field any heraldry questions...
>
>
> The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC. The Calendar starts 7 years later because this was the date of birth for his brother James, who was assumed to be the true heir to the throne as Jesus was considered illegitimate.
> There was no such thing as a year zero, which is why everyone (except the Chinese) were celebrating the "Millennium" a full year too early.
>
>
> Anne Beauchamp was legally entitled to the whole Beauchamp inheritance ahead of her 3 elder sisters due to the law of inheritance favouring the whole over the half blood. Of course her 3 sisters disputed it, but this was down to their having powerful husbands rather than a valid legal case.
>
> More dodgy on legal grounds were her husband Warwick's appropriation of her mother's Despencer inheritance in South Wales, which should have been shared with Lord Bergavenney, but which Warwick kept for himself. 
> Also English earldoms were heritable in the male line only. Warwick's elevation can be treated as a new creation, but strictly speaking the title should have gone to John Beauchamp of Powick, who had to be content with being plain old Lord Beauchamp. There's no doubt that royal ancestry could be used to bend the rules of inheritance; look how Edward I bilked so many heirs of their lands and titles in favour of his own sons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 19:35
> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>
>
>  
> Alas! I'm not an expert on heraldry. But some on this Forum are...
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:02 PM
> Subject: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>
>
>  
> Judy,
>
> I just noticed the maury and blue of the forum arms.
>
> Wonder just how accurate the arms to the time?
>
> Gary
> _________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just leaping in with a few obs, here... Josephus is regarded as the Sir Thomas More of first-century Judean history: almost completely unreliable, but better than nothing. (Part of the problem is that the earliest extant copies of his work are from an entire millennium after he wrote them.) He threw in a tossoff about "Oh, you know, that guy James whose brother was Jesus, the one they called Christ. Well, anyway, this James guy..." The only other mention was a fervent little paragraph about miracles and a community and whatnot; this is usually described as "probably a later interpolation."

Interestingly (to a documentation nerd, I guess), Josephus has quite a few more comments about John the Baptist, and historians, remarkably, consider them genuine. Go fig.

There was a guy named Origen (which always gives me the giggles) who wrote a piece in refutation of another guy named Celsus (which would, at least, make the two of them easy to remember in a closed-book essay test). Origen was the one who claimed that Celsus claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier named Pantera ("Panther"), which is, I gather, the equiv of saying "Smith", or, more colorfully, "Mad Dog". Celsus seems to have been something of a doubter; at several points, Origen says, he accuses the ministry of being pretty much based on "sorcery", which I gather means something along the lines of "street magic and con artistry".

Interesting how this history-written-by-the-winners thing keeps coming up, isn't it?

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> there appears to be two jesus christs. one is taught by the church and the other is/was a living being. josepheus, i believe wrote about him.
>  
> and then there are the gnostic gospels that were "eliminated" with the niacene creed. these gospels were written by christ's desciples. the creed also proclaimed christ was part of the holy trinity. this caused a split in the church creating the catholic and eastern orthodox churches.
>  
> interestingly enough the muslims protected the jews from the crusaders. now islam and judaism are in conflict with the zionist christians protecting zionist jews.
>  
> the hebrews/jews were descendents of israel and the muslims are the descendents of ismael. both have 12 tribes.
>  
> the jews believe christ was an illegitmate child of
> a..a roman soldier
> b. an egyptian con man.
>  
> the muslims believe christ was a great prophet, just like mohammad. although mohammad is the final prophet.
>  
> all three religions use the first five books of what we call the bible as the basis of their religion. christianity is a break away sect of the jews, just as the muslims are.
>  
> and it all boils down to ..my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend.

There were numerous different Christs in the first several centuries CE: human but not divine, divine but not human, a mix of both, a trinity, a spirit trapped in a human body...and on it goes. There was quite the cat fight in those times. No wonder Celsus took a shot at the Christians. He also argued it was a religion of women, children and slaves.



________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:41:13 PM
Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours


 
there appears to be two jesus christs. one is taught by the church and the other is/was a living being. josepheus, i believe wrote about him.
 
and then there are the gnostic gospels that were "eliminated" with the niacene creed. these gospels were written by christ's desciples. the creed also proclaimed christ was part of the holy trinity. this caused a split in the church creating the catholic and eastern orthodox churches.
 
interestingly enough the muslims protected the jews from the crusaders. now islam and judaism are in conflict with the zionist christians protecting zionist jews.
 
the hebrews/jews were descendents of israel and the muslims are the descendents of ismael. both have 12 tribes.
 
the jews believe christ was an illegitmate child of
a..a roman soldier
b. an egyptian con man.
 
the muslims believe christ was a great prophet, just like mohammad. although mohammad is the final prophet.
 
all three religions use the first five books of what we call the bible as the basis of their religion. christianity is a break away sect of the jews, just as the muslims are.
 
and it all boils down to ..my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend.

--- On Wed, 9/26/12, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:

From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
To: "" <>
Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 3:29 PM

 

A historical Jesus is far from established fact. The story is made up from many different elements, the essence of which existed hundreds of years before Jesus is supposed to have lived.

Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah: different names for the same jealous God. 

________________________________
From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 22:06
Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours

 
TheBlackPrussian: The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC.

Good insight but seems to have a rough edge in parenthesis. Would you say that of Allah? (Just pause for consideration and thoughtfulness as I'd never threaten you. No hard feelings.)

Gary
_____________

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> I'll field any heraldry questions...
>
>
> The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC. The Calendar starts 7 years later because this was the date of birth for his brother James, who was assumed to be the true heir to the throne as Jesus was considered illegitimate.
> There was no such thing as a year zero, which is why everyone (except the Chinese) were celebrating the "Millennium" a full year too early.
>
>
> Anne Beauchamp was legally entitled to the whole Beauchamp inheritance ahead of her 3 elder sisters due to the law of inheritance favouring the whole over the half blood. Of course her 3 sisters disputed it, but this was down to their having powerful husbands rather than a valid legal case.
>
> More dodgy on legal grounds were her husband Warwick's appropriation of her mother's Despencer inheritance in South Wales, which should have been shared with Lord Bergavenney, but which Warwick kept for himself. 
> Also English earldoms were heritable in the male line only. Warwick's elevation can be treated as a new creation, but strictly speaking the title should have gone to John Beauchamp of Powick, who had to be content with being plain old Lord Beauchamp. There's no doubt that royal ancestry could be used to bend the rules of inheritance; look how Edward I bilked so many heirs of their lands and titles in favour of his own sons.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 19:35
> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>
>
>  
> Alas! I'm not an expert on heraldry. But some on this Forum are...
>
> Judy
>  
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:02 PM
> Subject: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>
>
>  
> Judy,
>
> I just noticed the maury and blue of the forum arms.
>
> Wonder just how accurate the arms to the time?
>
> Gary
> _________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Which, as far as I am concerned, would make it a religious option worth serious consideration. Who needed a belief in all-access glory more than women, children, and slaves?

--- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>
> There were numerous different Christs in the first several centuries CE: human but not divine, divine but not human, a mix of both, a trinity, a spirit trapped in a human body...and on it goes. There was quite the cat fight in those times. No wonder Celsus took a shot at the Christians. He also argued it was a religion of women, children and slaves.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:41:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>
>
>  
> there appears to be two jesus christs. one is taught by the church and the other is/was a living being. josepheus, i believe wrote about him.
>  
> and then there are the gnostic gospels that were "eliminated" with the niacene creed. these gospels were written by christ's desciples. the creed also proclaimed christ was part of the holy trinity. this caused a split in the church creating the catholic and eastern orthodox churches.
>  
> interestingly enough the muslims protected the jews from the crusaders. now islam and judaism are in conflict with the zionist christians protecting zionist jews.
>  
> the hebrews/jews were descendents of israel and the muslims are the descendents of ismael. both have 12 tribes.
>  
> the jews believe christ was an illegitmate child of
> a..a roman soldier
> b. an egyptian con man.
>  
> the muslims believe christ was a great prophet, just like mohammad. although mohammad is the final prophet.
>  
> all three religions use the first five books of what we call the bible as the basis of their religion. christianity is a break away sect of the jews, just as the muslims are.
>  
> and it all boils down to ..my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend.
>
> --- On Wed, 9/26/12, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
> To: "" <>
> Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 3:29 PM
>
>  
>
> A historical Jesus is far from established fact. The story is made up from many different elements, the essence of which existed hundreds of years before Jesus is supposed to have lived.
>
> Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah: different names for the same jealous God. 
>
> ________________________________
> From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 22:06
> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>
>  
> TheBlackPrussian: The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC.
>
> Good insight but seems to have a rough edge in parenthesis. Would you say that of Allah? (Just pause for consideration and thoughtfulness as I'd never threaten you. No hard feelings.)
>
> Gary
> _____________
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > I'll field any heraldry questions...
> >
> >
> > The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC. The Calendar starts 7 years later because this was the date of birth for his brother James, who was assumed to be the true heir to the throne as Jesus was considered illegitimate.
> > There was no such thing as a year zero, which is why everyone (except the Chinese) were celebrating the "Millennium" a full year too early.
> >
> >
> > Anne Beauchamp was legally entitled to the whole Beauchamp inheritance ahead of her 3 elder sisters due to the law of inheritance favouring the whole over the half blood. Of course her 3 sisters disputed it, but this was down to their having powerful husbands rather than a valid legal case.
> >
> > More dodgy on legal grounds were her husband Warwick's appropriation of her mother's Despencer inheritance in South Wales, which should have been shared with Lord Bergavenney, but which Warwick kept for himself. 
> > Also English earldoms were heritable in the male line only. Warwick's elevation can be treated as a new creation, but strictly speaking the title should have gone to John Beauchamp of Powick, who had to be content with being plain old Lord Beauchamp. There's no doubt that royal ancestry could be used to bend the rules of inheritance; look how Edward I bilked so many heirs of their lands and titles in favour of his own sons.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 19:35
> > Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
> >
> >
> >  
> > Alas! I'm not an expert on heraldry. But some on this Forum are...
> >
> > Judy
> >  
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:02 PM
> > Subject: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
> >
> >
> >  
> > Judy,
> >
> > I just noticed the maury and blue of the forum arms.
> >
> > Wonder just how accurate the arms to the time?
> >
> > Gary
> > _________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And Constantine, who gave it to the Roman Empire, and thus western civilisation, couldn't find a priest to forgive him for killing his own son, so he turned to Christianity. The rest is history.
Paul


On 27 Sep 2012, at 01:20, mcjohn_wt_net wrote:

> Which, as far as I am concerned, would make it a religious option worth serious consideration. Who needed a belief in all-access glory more than women, children, and slaves?
>
> --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>>
>> There were numerous different Christs in the first several centuries CE: human but not divine, divine but not human, a mix of both, a trinity, a spirit trapped in a human body...and on it goes. There was quite the cat fight in those times. No wonder Celsus took a shot at the Christians. He also argued it was a religion of women, children and slaves.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:41:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>>
>>
>> Â
>> there appears to be two jesus christs. one is taught by the church and the other is/was a living being. josepheus, i believe wrote about him.
>> Â
>> and then there are the gnostic gospels that were "eliminated" with the niacene creed. these gospels were written by christ's desciples. the creed also proclaimed christ was part of the holy trinity. this caused a split in the church creating the catholic and eastern orthodox churches.
>> Â
>> interestingly enough the muslims protected the jews from the crusaders. now islam and judaism are in conflict with the zionist christians protecting zionist jews.
>> Â
>> the hebrews/jews were descendents of israel and the muslims are the descendents of ismael. both have 12 tribes.
>> Â
>> the jews believe christ was an illegitmate child of
>> a..a roman soldier
>> b. an egyptian con man.
>> Â
>> the muslims believe christ was a great prophet, just like mohammad. although mohammad is the final prophet.
>> Â
>> all three religions use the first five books of what we call the bible as the basis of their religion. christianity is a break away sect of the jews, just as the muslims are.
>> Â
>> and it all boils down to ..my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend.
>>
>> --- On Wed, 9/26/12, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
>> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>> To: "" <>
>> Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 3:29 PM
>>
>> Â
>>
>> A historical Jesus is far from established fact. The story is made up from many different elements, the essence of which existed hundreds of years before Jesus is supposed to have lived.
>>
>> Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah: different names for the same jealous God.Â
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 22:06
>> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>>
>> Â
>> TheBlackPrussian: The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC.
>>
>> Good insight but seems to have a rough edge in parenthesis. Would you say that of Allah? (Just pause for consideration and thoughtfulness as I'd never threaten you. No hard feelings.)
>>
>> Gary
>> _____________
>>
>> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll field any heraldry questions...
>>>
>>>
>>> The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC. The Calendar starts 7 years later because this was the date of birth for his brother James, who was assumed to be the true heir to the throne as Jesus was considered illegitimate.
>>> There was no such thing as a year zero, which is why everyone (except the Chinese) were celebrating the "Millennium" a full year too early.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anne Beauchamp was legally entitled to the whole Beauchamp inheritance ahead of her 3 elder sisters due to the law of inheritance favouring the whole over the half blood. Of course her 3 sisters disputed it, but this was down to their having powerful husbands rather than a valid legal case.
>>>
>>> More dodgy on legal grounds were her husband Warwick's appropriation of her mother's Despencer inheritance in South Wales, which should have been shared with Lord Bergavenney, but which Warwick kept for himself.ÃÂ
>>> Also English earldoms were heritable in the male line only. Warwick's elevation can be treated as a new creation, but strictly speaking the title should have gone to John Beauchamp of Powick, who had to be content with being plain old Lord Beauchamp. There's no doubt that royal ancestry could be used to bend the rules of inheritance; look how Edward I bilked so many heirs of their lands and titles in favour of his own sons.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 19:35
>>> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Alas! I'm not an expert on heraldry. But some on this Forum are...
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:02 PM
>>> Subject: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Judy,
>>>
>>> I just noticed the maury and blue of the forum arms.
>>>
>>> Wonder just how accurate the arms to the time?
>>>
>>> Gary
>>> _________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

The full Monty on the origins of the Jesus story:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/%c2%a0


I'm still prepared to believe there was a historical Jesus, but the Supernatural attachments to the story do not bear any scrutiny.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 18:43
Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours

And Constantine, who gave it to the Roman Empire, and thus western civilisation, couldn't find a priest to forgive him for killing his own son, so he turned to Christianity. The rest is history.
Paul


On 27 Sep 2012, at 01:20, mcjohn_wt_net wrote:

> Which, as far as I am concerned, would make it a religious option worth serious consideration.  Who needed a belief in all-access glory more than women, children, and slaves?
>
> --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@...> wrote:
>>
>> There were numerous different Christs in the first several centuries CE: human but not divine, divine but not human, a mix of both, a trinity, a spirit trapped in a human body...and on it goes. There was quite the cat fight in those times. No wonder Celsus took a shot at the Christians. He also argued it was a religion of women, children and slaves.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:41:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>>
>>
>>  
>> there appears to be two jesus christs. one is taught by the church and the other is/was a living being. josepheus, i believe wrote about him.
>> Â
>> and then there are the gnostic gospels that were "eliminated" with the niacene creed. these gospels were written by christ's desciples. the creed also proclaimed christ was part of the holy trinity. this caused a split in the church creating the catholic and eastern orthodox churches.
>> Â
>> interestingly enough the muslims protected the jews from the crusaders. now islam and judaism are in conflict with the zionist christians protecting zionist jews.
>> Â
>> the hebrews/jews were descendents of israel and the muslims are the descendents of ismael. both have 12 tribes.
>> Â
>> the jews believe christ was an illegitmate child of
>> a..a roman soldier
>> b. an egyptian con man.
>> Â
>> the muslims believe christ was a great prophet, just like mohammad. although mohammad is the final prophet.
>> Â
>> all three religions use the first five books of what we call the bible as the basis of their religion. christianity is a break away sect of the jews, just as the muslims are.
>> Â
>> and it all boils down to ..my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend.
>>
>> --- On Wed, 9/26/12, david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
>> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>> To: "" <>
>> Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 3:29 PM
>>
>>  
>>
>> A historical Jesus is far from established fact. The story is made up from many different elements, the essence of which existed hundreds of years before Jesus is supposed to have lived.
>>
>> Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah: different names for the same jealous God.Â
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 22:06
>> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>>
>>  
>> TheBlackPrussian: The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC.
>>
>> Good insight but seems to have a rough edge in parenthesis. Would you say that of Allah? (Just pause for consideration and thoughtfulness as I'd never threaten you. No hard feelings.)
>>
>> Gary
>> _____________
>>
>> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll field any heraldry questions...
>>>
>>>
>>> The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC. The Calendar starts 7 years later because this was the date of birth for his brother James, who was assumed to be the true heir to the throne as Jesus was considered illegitimate.
>>> There was no such thing as a year zero, which is why everyone (except the Chinese) were celebrating the "Millennium" a full year too early.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anne Beauchamp was legally entitled to the whole Beauchamp inheritance ahead of her 3 elder sisters due to the law of inheritance favouring the whole over the half blood. Of course her 3 sisters disputed it, but this was down to their having powerful husbands rather than a valid legal case.
>>>
>>> More dodgy on legal grounds were her husband Warwick's appropriation of her mother's Despencer inheritance in South Wales, which should have been shared with Lord Bergavenney, but which Warwick kept for himself.ÃÂ
>>> Also English earldoms were heritable in the male line only. Warwick's elevation can be treated as a new creation, but strictly speaking the title should have gone to John Beauchamp of Powick, who had to be content with being plain old Lord Beauchamp. There's no doubt that royal ancestry could be used to bend the rules of inheritance; look how Edward I bilked so many heirs of their lands and titles in favour of his own sons.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 19:35
>>> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>>>
>>>
>>> à
>>> Alas! I'm not an expert on heraldry. But some on this Forum are...
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:02 PM
>>> Subject: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>>>
>>>
>>> à
>>> Judy,
>>>
>>> I just noticed the maury and blue of the forum arms.
>>>
>>> Wonder just how accurate the arms to the time?
>>>
>>> Gary
>>> _________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Criminentlies, was THAT why? I did wonder what would make a red-blooded he-bull-god-king-emperor go for a philosophy that tells you to hand impoverished passersby random bits of clothing if they look chilly. Huh. That explains a lot. Thank you, Paul!

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> And Constantine, who gave it to the Roman Empire, and thus western civilisation, couldn't find a priest to forgive him for killing his own son, so he turned to Christianity. The rest is history.
> Paul
>
>
> On 27 Sep 2012, at 01:20, mcjohn_wt_net wrote:
>
> > Which, as far as I am concerned, would make it a religious option worth serious consideration. Who needed a belief in all-access glory more than women, children, and slaves?
> >
> > --- In , William Barber <karenandbillb@> wrote:
> >>
> >> There were numerous different Christs in the first several centuries CE: human but not divine, divine but not human, a mix of both, a trinity, a spirit trapped in a human body...and on it goes. There was quite the cat fight in those times. No wonder Celsus took a shot at the Christians. He also argued it was a religion of women, children and slaves.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:41:13 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >> there appears to be two jesus christs. one is taught by the church and the other is/was a living being. josepheus, i believe wrote about him.
> >> Â
> >> and then there are the gnostic gospels that were "eliminated" with the niacene creed. these gospels were written by christ's desciples. the creed also proclaimed christ was part of the holy trinity. this caused a split in the church creating the catholic and eastern orthodox churches.
> >> Â
> >> interestingly enough the muslims protected the jews from the crusaders. now islam and judaism are in conflict with the zionist christians protecting zionist jews.
> >> Â
> >> the hebrews/jews were descendents of israel and the muslims are the descendents of ismael. both have 12 tribes.
> >> Â
> >> the jews believe christ was an illegitmate child of
> >> a..a roman soldier
> >> b. an egyptian con man.
> >> Â
> >> the muslims believe christ was a great prophet, just like mohammad. although mohammad is the final prophet.
> >> Â
> >> all three religions use the first five books of what we call the bible as the basis of their religion. christianity is a break away sect of the jews, just as the muslims are.
> >> Â
> >> and it all boils down to ..my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend.
> >>
> >> --- On Wed, 9/26/12, david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: david rayner <theblackprussian@>
> >> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
> >> To: "" <>
> >> Received: Wednesday, September 26, 2012, 3:29 PM
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >> A historical Jesus is far from established fact. The story is made up from many different elements, the essence of which existed hundreds of years before Jesus is supposed to have lived.
> >>
> >> Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah: different names for the same jealous God.Â
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 22:06
> >> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
> >>
> >> Â
> >> TheBlackPrussian: The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC.
> >>
> >> Good insight but seems to have a rough edge in parenthesis. Would you say that of Allah? (Just pause for consideration and thoughtfulness as I'd never threaten you. No hard feelings.)
> >>
> >> Gary
> >> _____________
> >>
> >> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'll field any heraldry questions...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The common consensus is that Jesus (if he ever existed) was born in 7 BC. The Calendar starts 7 years later because this was the date of birth for his brother James, who was assumed to be the true heir to the throne as Jesus was considered illegitimate.
> >>> There was no such thing as a year zero, which is why everyone (except the Chinese) were celebrating the "Millennium" a full year too early.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Anne Beauchamp was legally entitled to the whole Beauchamp inheritance ahead of her 3 elder sisters due to the law of inheritance favouring the whole over the half blood. Of course her 3 sisters disputed it, but this was down to their having powerful husbands rather than a valid legal case.
> >>>
> >>> More dodgy on legal grounds were her husband Warwick's appropriation of her mother's Despencer inheritance in South Wales, which should have been shared with Lord Bergavenney, but which Warwick kept for himself.ÂÂ
> >>> Also English earldoms were heritable in the male line only. Warwick's elevation can be treated as a new creation, but strictly speaking the title should have gone to John Beauchamp of Powick, who had to be content with being plain old Lord Beauchamp. There's no doubt that royal ancestry could be used to bend the rules of inheritance; look how Edward I bilked so many heirs of their lands and titles in favour of his own sons.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> >>> To: "" <>
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 19:35
> >>> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ÂÂ
> >>> Alas! I'm not an expert on heraldry. But some on this Forum are...
> >>>
> >>> Judy
> >>> ÂÂ
> >>> Loyaulte me lie
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: sirtsclan <sirtsclan@>
> >>> To:
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 1:02 PM
> >>> Subject: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ÂÂ
> >>> Judy,
> >>>
> >>> I just noticed the maury and blue of the forum arms.
> >>>
> >>> Wonder just how accurate the arms to the time?
> >>>
> >>> Gary
> >>> _________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Ya know, there's one tiny little thing that makes me think that there's a glimmer of possibility that it might have happened, and that's that the same people who (according to legend) scattered at the execution of their rabbi suddenly coalesced again a few months later and faced *anything*, up to and including gruesome, lengthy, painful, Roman-assisted death, to get the story out. No wavering, no backtracking, no reticence from that point onward.

I'm judging by Acts, of course, which might very well be completely fictional, but one of the things that so deeply impressed the non-Christians in Rome when they were tossin' 'em out as cat snacks and gladiator bait was just how cheerfully and joyously the followers reacted to the prospect of death by dismemberment. I can just see the spectators going, "That... that ain't right. What gives with these freaks? And how do I get me some of that?"

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> The full Monty on the origins of the Jesus story:
>
> http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/%c3%82%c2%a0
>
>
> I'm still prepared to believe there was a historical Jesus, but the Supernatural attachments to the story do not bear any scrutiny.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2012, 18:43
> Subject: Re: Royal Maury and Blue Colours
>
> And Constantine, who gave it to the Roman Empire, and thus western civilisation, couldn't find a priest to forgive him for killing his own son, so he turned to Christianity. The rest is history.
> Paul