Let's see how smart the archaeology scientists are. Some say certain
things
cannot be taught but you have to have a "knack" for them. I think
scientists, looking straight ahead or through a microscope can't see too
many forrests for the trees. They are great at the details. That's good.
But a good investigator needs imagination. People can have knowledge and
wisdom, but do they have UNDERSTANDING! Case in point the OJ Simpson
murders. It appears that based on the evidence and knowledge that he did
it. But if you know cultic symbolisms, you could tell from the marks on
the
two bodies that a secret cult performed the murders professionally and
framed OJ Simpson for the killings. Even so, you wouldn't understand WHY
this occurred unless you knew about the cult and Los Angeles racist
politics. Key: Anybody can get your blood from your doctor and put it
wherever they want--it doesn't mean you were actually there. People are
too
dumb to realize this. Another topic totally, but just an example.
In this case, ARCHAEOLOGY is trying to maintain a straight face by
insisting
upon using an outdated, fake timeline. By use of that timeline they make
comparisons and decisions that have now begun to look incompetnent,
especially with the advent of more precise RC14 dating! But it still
boils down to correcting the timeline. That has already been done based
upon astronomical text event realignments. But you still have to get rid
of 82 years of fake Persian history and 28 years of fake Greek history,
upon
which foundation the entire "fixed" timeline through the Assyrian Period
rests. Therefore, the new task of the day is destroying the current Greek
timeline by listing enough discrepancies all pointing in the same
direction
so that it would be incompetent to think the Greek timeline is remotely
reliable. Once the extra fake years are convincingly removed, then the
entire timeline will fall and SELF-CORRECT since the astronomical events
limit the spontaneous or creative redating of events. There are only a
few
choices.
However, this presentation is pure FUN! Unless you have an extensive
background in Greek history you would not be able to figure this out, thus
I
present it to you, AS IS, and will explain the potential meaning.
Here's the quote from Wikipedia about "Charmides" the beautiful Greek boy:
"Socrates narrates the dialog, and says that he has just escaped from a
battle at Potidaea, a comment that recalls Alcibiades comment in the
Symposium, that Socrates escaped the battle at Delium with the general
Laches (Symp. 221a). Socrates says that, shortly after the fighting began,
he slipped back to his old haunts at the palaestra of Taureas where the
boys
gather. With the help of Chaerephon, he found his way to the side of
Critias, and asked him about the present state of philosophy, and who
among
the boys was gaining in wisdom or beauty, or both. Critias says that
Charmides is the boy of the moment, almost a young man.
Critias tells Socrates that Charmides is his cousin, son of his uncle
Glaucon, and just then Charmides enters the scene and causes huge
consternation in the crowd. Chaerephon rushes over and asks Socrates if
the
boy is not beautiful, and Socrates agrees. Chaerephon says suggestively
that
if Socrates could see his ****d form, he would forget all about his
handsome
face. Socrates says all this will be good and well if the boy also has a
noble soul. Socrates tells Critias that before they look at his body, they
will ask the boy to strip and show them his soul.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charmides_(dialogue)
Wonderful!! Problem is, Glaucon is the brother of Plato. Also Charmides
is
supposed to be the brother of Plato's mother. In that case, Charmides is
also the "uncle" of Plato. But as the context shows, Critias is old
enough to be the charge of this youth who is the son of Glaucon. Plus as
you can tell by the context, Critias is also a philosopher, one that
Socrates knows personally.
EXPLANATION: This beautiful young boy is not the "cousin" of Critias but
his young nephew, and "Critias" is just a substite identity for Plato, to
fill in the early life of Plato and Socrates, the same as "Phaedo" was
invented to substitute for the boy-lover of Socrates, who was really
Aristotle.
But this makes sense! That's because when the history of Socrates was
moved
back in time along with the Peloponnesian War, suddenly he was no longer 7
years older than Plato (Socrates was born in 435 BCE, Plato in 428 BCE)
but
now 41 years older. But Socrates and Plato had a relation****p from his
youth. This scene, which occurs 7 years into the war, is thus when
Socrates is 39 and Plato is 32. Plato's brother, Glaucon would have been
around 39 as well and thus could have had a young son maybe around 15
years
of age which was born when he was about 24, etc.
So here the historian revisionists are playing games! They don't mind
hinting that this beautiful boy, Charmides, is related to Plato, only they
change his brother to his uncle, and change the identity of Plato to
Critias
so that he is old enough to know Socrates and be in charge of Charmides.
This fits the corrected history. Because Socrates would have been 39 at
the
time and Plato 32. Charmides was not Plato's uncle.
GLAUCON PROBLEM:
But here's something else that is a huge problem. Plato's brother,
Glaucon:
From Wikipedia:
Glaucon (Greek: ???????)(bef. 389 BC, d. 409 BC) son of Ariston, was
Plato's
older brother. His mother was Perictione and he was born in Collytus, just
outside of Athens. Glaucon was eulogized after the Battle of Megara in
409.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaucon
If Glaucon was close to the age of Socrates, born in 479 BCE then he would
have been 41 years older than Plato born in 428 BCE. If Plato's mother
was
at least 15 years of age when she bore Glaucon, then she would have been
already 56 years old, 61 if she was 20 when she had Glaucon. But after
Plato, she married again and had other children. So she was still having
babies in her 70's?
No WAY!! Instead, when Socrates is corrected to being born in 435 BCE,
just
7 years older than Plato, then the range of children makes sense, within
the
normal age of childbearing for the average woman.
STILL THINK THERE WAS NO REVISIONISM? If you do then you're clearly not
that bright. That's all there is to it!
Lars Wilson
|
