NationStates Jolt Archive

I think it's obvious I changed. I definitely learned lots of things and managed to explore all kinds of ideas I could never have scoped out elsewhere, but after four years of doing this, I rarely see anything new anymore and, unfortunately, less and less people seem willing to defend their views without continually changing the rules as they go. And that's true across the board. I see less than i used to that I think deserves applauding. I think if not for lowering standards, Straughn wouldn't have applauding some of what I said earlier. It's hardly the level of quality one would expect from me, Grave, Dem, TCT, Kat, or any number of others in our prime. No offense to TCT, but even his arguments seem less on the ball than they used to be.

It's true that someone needs to be in the trenches and, yes, I do believe that we do make a difference on some of the more important issues on occasion, but all the really strong arguments seem to me to the work of the battle-weary, doing just enough to get the point across.

I miss the days when an TCT would design a post that was so overwhelming that you pratcially had no choice but to tuck tail and leave the thread. Even if you were on his side, it would be so conclusively complete, you'd have to just give a slow clap and wait for the next one.

Or watching Bottle slowing laying out the strands in her web until the fly is just wrapped up in the failures in their own argument and the strength of hers.

Or watching GnI's thinly-veiled disdain casually weaken the resolve of a poster until they finally made that fatal mistake and exposed their soft fleshy underside.

Tell me when we've seen the likes of that recently. I just haven't.

You are lumping too much history into the discussion, I'm talking about the very beginning of the Church, the first three decades after 33AD. Documents from the first two, maybe three centuries in a pinch. There were Christian churches all over the Mediterranean world and beyond before the end of the first century... There must have been thousands of believers just to go to all the places required.

Sure.
A few thousand believers in 300 years isnt even amazing in terms of growth rate.
My lumping of history was to ellaborate the fact that religions can spread quite quickly.
The number of a cults members do not add or subtract a religions validity.
Christianity is no more or less "true" due to its having less members than Buddhism.



Those examples help my argument that Jesus most likely did exist, because Scientology and Mormons both had a real 'father' of their religions as well. Smith existed, Hubbard existed, there is no reason to assume Jesus didn't exist.

Bah. Scientology was invented by a talentless science-fiction writer, and these days its aimed at a generation of people that exist on prozac and Dr Phil.
It pretends to be Psychology.
Very popular amongst celebrities, and the "church" uses that membership in its advertisements. Thier recent popularity is no mystery.

As for the Mormons...man, dont get me going on Joseph Smith...let's just say that Mormonism is an off-shoot of the christian faith. Mid-west america is, and always has been as breeding ground for zealotism. Using Smith as an example is hardly wise. He was a con man who created a splinter faction of Christianity with laws suitable to himself, and Brigham Young after him. Smiths credibility is painfully thin as much of anything. We can get into that in another thread if you wish, and I'll tell you a story about "The King of Beaver Island." (No, im not making that up.)

If anything, the fact that both of those religions have currently living, or that lived in "recent" history makes it easier to pronounce any such claims as laughable.
They can be found to be very human, and thier goals and methods can be closely examined. Hubbard, can be shown as a greedy asshole who did it for the money.
Smith...he was probably greedy, and a little crazy.

Evidence doesnt always corraborate a story, it seems.

In the case of Yeshua of Nazareth, it seems there isnt one contemporary document that mentions these deeds of raising of the dead, and feeding 5000 people from loaves and fishes, and healing the sick, and so forth and so on...?
In fact, the only such documents, and folks here have pointed out, that these arent exactly reliable either.

So what we have, is a man who reputedly pulled of miracles all the time, and claimed to be the true "Son of Man", and yet, there are no reliable accounts of his existance outside the religious texts of the following that bears his name? If his deeds and thier impact where true, then why are we not finding written accounts from all over the area, that we know are pre-ad 40, or even 50?

I think, that before anyone can expect a person to believe in a miracleworker, you should be able to prove that person really exists(ed).

Let me ask you this:

Is it possible, in theory, that Yeshua DID exist, and but that his divinity, miracles, and ressurection, where elaborated upon, and even added to his story, long after his death?
Because thats much more plausible.

And I looked, and saw the old soldiers, who would've been reckoned young in years, but now spent in the ways I thought wrought only by time, they were gathered on the plain of nationstates...

They fondly recalled those rhetorics of archived nights, and if they idealized, even romanticized those arguments, they can be forgiven, for whatever they have lost in time, they had ten fold in the moment of a truly potent debate.

Jocabia sounded wearied, depleted, spent...but a lion in winter is still a lion, and though eschewing the weak prey, as only the mythically noble lion might, those 17,000 posts were not a sign of age, or weakness.

They are experience, polish.

And I looked, and a seal was broken and a bowl poured out upon the earth...one mixed of fallacy and intolerance. The people fled as logic was washed under emphatic and rageful ichor, masquerading as argument.

And the lion, stirred, stood again to answer the tide.

I'm sorry, I have to assume you're a puppet, because that was too good.

I think it's obvious I changed. I definitely learned lots of things and managed to explore all kinds of ideas I could never have scoped out elsewhere, but after four years of doing this, I rarely see anything new anymore and, unfortunately, less and less people seem willing to defend their views without continually changing the rules as they go. And that's true across the board. I see less than i used to that I think deserves applauding. I think if not for lowering standards, Straughn wouldn't have applauding some of what I said earlier. It's hardly the level of quality one would expect from me, Grave, Dem, TCT, Kat, or any number of others in our prime. No offense to TCT, but even his arguments seem less on the ball than they used to be.

It's true that someone needs to be in the trenches and, yes, I do believe that we do make a difference on some of the more important issues on occasion, but all the really strong arguments seem to me to the work of the battle-weary, doing just enough to get the point across.

I miss the days when an TCT would design a post that was so overwhelming that you pratcially had no choice but to tuck tail and leave the thread. Even if you were on his side, it would be so conclusively complete, you'd have to just give a slow clap and wait for the next one.

Or watching Bottle slowing laying out the strands in her web until the fly is just wrapped up in the failures in their own argument and the strength of hers.

Or watching GnI's thinly-veiled disdain casually weaken the resolve of a poster until they finally made that fatal mistake and exposed their soft fleshy underside.

Tell me when we've seen the likes of that recently. I just haven't.

And I looked, and saw the old soldiers, who would've been reckoned young in years, but now spent in the ways I thought wrought only by time, they were gathered on the plain of nationstates...

They fondly recalled those rhetorics of archived nights, and if they idealized, even romanticized those arguments, they can be forgiven, for whatever they have lost in time, they had ten fold in the moment of a truly potent debate.

Jocabia sounded wearied, depleted, spent...but a lion in winter is still a lion, and though eschewing the weak prey, as only the mythically noble lion might, those 17,000 posts were not a sign of age, or weakness.

They are experience, polish.

And I looked, and a seal was broken and a bowl poured out upon the earth...one mixed of fallacy and intolerance. The people fled as logic was washed under emphatic and rageful ichor, masquerading as argument.

And the lion, stirred, stood again to answer the tide.

I'm sorry, I have to assume you're a puppet, because that was too good.

I've been around, loitering.

Anyway, a lot of the religious people on this board (and the other camp, just as often), have presented the most specious, least cogent arguments I've ever seen.

But every time a religious person makes a deeply flawed argument, I remember that it is not intrinsically their religion that is erroneous, but rather the premise of that particular person.

And the most stark reminders I have that not all religious people are illogical are the postings of Jocabia.

My tolerance for (most) religious people has grown over the years, and your sound, civil arguments have been a welcome rain on the fetid soil left by the droppings of the self-righteous (and generally poorly argued) rantings of some of the other religious crowd here.

Cheers to you, Jocabia.

I think if not for lowering standards, Straughn wouldn't have applauding some of what I said earlier. I must ask, of course, whether you think i would be applauding moving in for the kill, staying unswayed and focused, or to be asking the exact questions that mirror the thoughts and concerns of other posters? Certainly you wouldn't think that it's a matter of placation for me? Were you not up to your own standards for what i took note of, or at least, not high enough?
but all the really strong arguments seem to me to the work of the battle-weary, doing just enough to get the point across. You would know of course that this isn't anywhere near the first christian-themed religious thread you've shown yourself strongly on ... so, of course, the bolded part summates well.

By definition? Who's definition? Not Matthew's definition if he's writing down what the eye witness told him...

Except that Matthew didnt write it.

Even if the most popular opinion is used and we put it at 70-100 A.D, that makes Matthew a crusty old man when he wrote it.
And even the bible says the only one of the apostles to live to old age was John, who lived to be old enough to teach Polycarp, (late 90's early 100's?), AND we cant even be sure that John the Apostle was indeed the John mentioned by Polycarp.

Heres the wiki:
There is little in the gospel itself to indicate with clarity the date of its composition. The majority of scholars date the gospel between the years 70 and 100.[citation needed] The writings of Ignatius show "a strong case ... for [his] knowledge of four Pauline epistles and the Gospel of Matthew"[11], which gives a terminus ad quem of c. 110. Scholars cite multiple reasons to support this range, such as the time required for the theological views to develop between Mark and Matthew (assuming Markan priority), references to historic figures and events circa 70, and a later social context. Some significant conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, generally considering the gospel to be written by the apostle Matthew.[12] In December 1994, Carsten Peter Thiede redated the Magdalen papyrus, which bears a fragment in Greek of the Gospel of Matthew, to the late 1st century on palaeographical grounds. Most scholars date this fragment to the 3rd century, so Thiede's article provoked much debate.

A minority of Christian scholars argue for an even earlier date, as seen in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia: "Catholic critics, in general, favor the years 40–45..."[13] In recent times, John Wenham, one of the biggest supporters of the Augustinian hypothesis, is considered to be among the more notable defenders of an early date for the Gospel of Matthew.

I'm sorry, I have to assume you're a puppet, because that was too good.That was pretty good!

I've been around, loitering.

Anyway, a lot of the religious people on this board (and the other camp, just as often), have presented the most specious, least cogent arguments I've ever seen.

But every time a religious person makes a deeply flawed argument, I remember that it is not intrinsically their religion that is erroneous, but rather the premise of that particular person.

And the most stark reminders I have that not all religious people are illogical are the postings of Jocabia.

My tolerance for (most) religious people has grown over the years, and your sound, civil arguments have been a welcome rain on the fetid soil left by the droppings of the self-righteous (and generally poorly argued) rantings of some of the other religious crowd here.

Cheers to you, Jocabia.
This sounds quite a bit like something else i'd said not very long ago, if i may be so bold.
Some of it, at least.

This sounds quite a bit like something else i'd said not very long ago, if i may be so bold.
Some of it, at least.

Straughn, there's something you should know.

I'm inside you.

Well, parts of you, anyway. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, you have acute and progressive Dissociative Identity Disorder, sometimes referred to as multiple personalities.

Those times when you "black out" or "lost time" are not the result of excessive drinking or defective over the counter cough medication.

Your mind has fractured, utterly, and I now have substantial if not majorative control over a wide range of your higher cognitive functions.

All postings under this account are actually your own, albeit absent the conscious participation of what you know as your "self".

Also, we need more toilet paper.

On topic, I find it interesting that a historical examination of Jesus, even one that validated his life, at least as a human, wouldn't necessarily prove or disprove any religion.

Mohammad, Joseph Smith, L.Ron Hubbard, Lunatic Goofballs...all have a firm standing in the ranks of having at least existed, yet their religions are still held fervorently by many. Except LG. He forbids fervor.

GUESS who i skipped out on NS to watch last night! :D
Weird coinky. Seriously.

Thats becuase I was READING YOUR MIND!!

Next week, you shall eat a Devonshire sandwich on rye, possibly whole wheat.

Thats becuase I was READING YOUR MIND!!

Next week, you shall eat a Devonshire sandwich on rye, possibly whole wheat.

These two posts make me feel like Marla.
A condom is the glass slipper for our generation. You slip one on when you meet a stranger. You dance all night, and then you throw it away. The condom, I mean, not the stranger.
...erm, that and/or Malkovich.
John Malkovich: This portal is mine and must be sealed up forever. For the love of God.
Craig Schwartz: With all respect, sir, I discovered that portal. Its my livelihood.
John Malkovich: It's my head, Schwartz, and I'll see you in court!
[Malkovich trudges off along the shoulder of the turnpike]
Craig Schwartz: [calling after him] And who's to say I won't be seeing what you're seeing... in court?

Thats becuase I was READING YOUR MIND!!

Next week, you shall eat a Devonshire sandwich on rye, possibly whole wheat.

First off, mate, its not just his mind, anymore. This flat has a mob, and we don't smile upon visitors without a rent check. Your next telepathic excursion to this little cobbled street will be answered with utmost prejudice: I will imagine Straughn's Aunt Mildred in a little french maid outfit, sans brassiere. She's 70 years old, mate. Care for a mind's eye full of those wrinkled wind socks and that come hither grin?

Second, Straughn and I are experimenting with Nationalist Socialist German Anti Semitism, and Rye is a Jew bread. Pick something else off the menu, preferably something with a satisfactory regard for liebensraum.

I've been around, loitering.

Anyway, a lot of the religious people on this board (and the other camp, just as often), have presented the most specious, least cogent arguments I've ever seen.

But every time a religious person makes a deeply flawed argument, I remember that it is not intrinsically their religion that is erroneous, but rather the premise of that particular person.

And the most stark reminders I have that not all religious people are illogical are the postings of Jocabia.

My tolerance for (most) religious people has grown over the years, and your sound, civil arguments have been a welcome rain on the fetid soil left by the droppings of the self-righteous (and generally poorly argued) rantings of some of the other religious crowd here.

Cheers to you, Jocabia.

Well, I guess I can only say thank you. I don't actually agree that I deserve the accolades I sometimes get. Not anymore, at least. I used to more patiently wait until the trap is set, but these days I tend to blow my load a bit early which always, unsurprisingly, leaves me feeling a bit unfulfilled. And much like any trap, the early springing tends to give them too much indication of where things are going and they run away instead of actually capturing the point, as we all would like. Deus was harrassing me to actually go back and find all the contradicting points like I used to. I've gotten too lazy and impatient. I've watched others finally get tired and more or less leave for the same reasons and I alwaysthought it was just drama, but really I get their point, now.

Unfortunately, this last bit of posting on the nature of the beast called NSG virtually guarantees Balder isn't going to come back and try to upright his argument, unfortunately. It's pretty much impossible to continue pretending like my arguments aren't on point or don't recognize the core of his arguments at this point. He pretty much has no choice but to address the holes in his argument and address them well and, forgive my cynicism, but that ain't gonna happen.

I would have liked him to have actually addressed the issues with his argument. I really would have.

Straughn, there's something you should know.
I'm inside you.Take a number. And don't ruin the upholstery!

Well, parts of you, anyway. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, you have acute and progressive Dissociative Identity Disorder, sometimes referred to as multiple personalities.

Livin' in stereo, it's all right
Well I can be my own best friend and I can send myself for pizza so I say


Those times when you "black out" or "lost time" are not the result of excessive drinking or defective over the counter cough medication.I thought it was the bondage, but it's weird what the mind conjures in such situations sans E.

Your mind has fractured, utterly, and I now have substantial if not majorative control over a wide range of your higher cognitive functions.As many would attest, that and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee, no sugar. Seriously nothing to brag about.


All postings under this account are actually your own, albeit absent the conscious participation of what you know as your "self".Good thing i distance m'self as much as i can when i post here, non? Review the "anecdote" threads for further elucidation.

Also, we need more toilet paper.I was happy with the "handfuls of snow" option, but i suppose i could use that too.

On topic, I find it interesting that a historical examination of Jesus, even one that validated his life, at least as a human, wouldn't necessarily prove or disprove any religion.It might stick in the craw a smidge of people who purport ineffable christianity, actually, a bit.

Lunatic Goofballs...all have a firm standing in the ranks of having at least existed, yet their religions are still held fervorently by many. Except LG. He forbids fervor.That doesn't seem like him at all! Blasphemy!

These two posts make me feel like Marla.

...erm, that and/or Malkovich.

Hmm...I was thinking Pratchett.

Also, I must be missing something...whose puppet is Jhah...?

If you mean ‘changed’ when you say edited and reinterpreted than I entirely disagree. But that’s not what I said anyway. I was pointing out that the first fathers used what we call biblical criticism today to dismiss the Gnostic gospels (for example)

What I meant is that only within the last 100-200 years could people who were outside of the Church objectively and critically analyze the Bible. All the figures you mentioned were Church figures- none were outside characters.

As I’ve been talking to GnI, you can read those posts on my view that two people in the 40’s and 50’s could replace the work done that the NT says took thousands. Your assumptions requires us to believe that Paul was entirely lying, and wasn’t going to a preexisting church of Christians to persecute them when he had his vision… then what story did he tell his first followers, what did he really do, where did he do it? IF the person that made up the Jesus story also has to make up the Paul story, why believe Paul existed either? Cause if he did, you don’t know anything about him, you only have made up stories.

Others have already addressed most of your post here, but I will say that there is reason to dispute even Paul's existence, as Paul doesn't appear in any secular history, despite being a well-travelled preacher who hob-knobbed with governors. Peter's history is also pretty sketchy outside of Christian sources. Not to say that neither definitively never existed but given the extent of their reach (all the way to Rome) it's odd no one outside of Christianity bothered to record their acts.

Now, as for the "pre-existing Church of Christianity"- the first instance of the word "Christian" comes from Tacitus' account of the Great Fire of Rome (although it's disputed about whether or not he wrote "Christus" or "Chrestus" (a common slave name) in his account). This means that the Church could have been long-standing or it could have been invented the year before Tacitus wrote his Annals (which were in the 100s, don't know the date offhand), so a "pre-existing Church of Christianity" (at least in the mid-first century) is far from a definitive conclusion.

Well, he's certainly correct in saying that Mythicism has yet to convince most relevant experts; the only 'convert' who springs to mind is Richard Carrier, who leans towards Mythicism and is on the verge of completing a PhD in Ancient History. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic who (literally) wrote the textbook on the New Testament and he doesn't seem to have any time for the Christ Myth theories, neither does Hector Avalos (an atheist professor of Biblical Studies).

Does this mean that Jesus did exist? No, of course not, but it does mean that the people arguing against his existence have got to start publishing in peer-reviewed journals and convincing the relevant scholars.

What gets me is that he says it's "effectively refuted"- as if to say that there's no possibility of Jesus Christ being a myth. I personally don't believe that Jesus Christ is a myth, but I know the evidence doesn't point well to the existence of Jesus Christ historically- hence, the possibility that historically speaking Jesus Christ could still very well be "a myth".

Actually it IS evidence. It's not proof that it's true, but it is evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_document

It's very poor evidence, to say the least. Without contemporary, independent evidence (which could be expected in the reasonably well-preserved Roman historical records and artifacts) then the New Testament is weak at best. It'd only work if our knowledge of that particular area and time is non-existant outside of it or if other, independent sources corroborate it- and they don't.

I’ll read it, haven’t yet. I will, but until then: Acts says Jesus was with them for forty days after the resurrection but before the ascension…

"Forty", much like "twelve" is a literary device used by ancient writers. "Forty" is a chunk of time (e.g., "forty years" is a generation) much how "twelve" is a indicator of any group of people.

Did Socrates really exist? After all, the only evidence we have of his existence is from the writings of his followers (such as Plato) after his death. Same as with Jesus.

In fact, come to think of it, that holds true for the existence of most important people in the Ancient World. Typically, the only evidence we have of their existence is from the writings of one or two ancient historians. Only Emperors, Pharaohs and the like have more evidence backing them.

We're not talking about the historicity of Socrates- we're talking about the historicity of Jesus. Stay on topic please.

More generally, it is theoretically possible that some of the ancient historians that we rely on for so much of our knowledge of the ancient world made a lot of stuff up. It is almost certain that they at least tweaked history to put their own countries/empires/city-states in a positive light.

It's not a theory, we *know* ancient historians were apt to "dress up" their histories. Manetho renamed every Egyptian city because he wanted to associate every city with a Greek one and ignore their true names. Livy tried to validate Rome's position as a superpower by connecting the Romans with Aeneas, who fled Troy after the Greeks drove him and his fellow Trojans out; and many of the later Roman historians- particularly Tacitus and Suetonius- "dressed up" their depictions of the Emperors to provide a commentary for the current ones. The thing is, we don't just *rely* on Tacitus, Manetho, Thucydides, etc. to provide an account for the histories of the peoples they are writing about- we corroborate it with other artifacts such as inscriptions and coins that provide a "fuller picture". When it comes to the NT story, we're just left with the NT story- no independent accounts, no artifacts, no inscriptions, nothing (except *much later* than their supposed occurances). That's the difference.

<snip>

You're using circular reasoning- "what's written in the Bible validates what's in the Bible". You need an outside source to prove it historically- and, for much of the NT story, that doesn't happen.

Actually I think you will find that, that is the later estimates. The earliest is only sixty years after his death. Which for a historical document is very solid ground.

How many documents have been written and accepted as historical evidence over two hundred years since the event?

Finally make sure you take into account the oral tradition of the culture, where it was custom not to write things down like we do, but to memorise it. The fact that they wrote anything down at all is a miracle.

That is, frankly, a poor grasp of the historical method. It is true there are some events that are (weakly) held as true when all the supporting evidence was written well after the fact (the Mycenaean Wars come to mind), particularly the earlier in history you go but it's not true that *every* depiction of an event has to be taken as true just because it describes an event. If contemporary evidence exists then you can be pretty comfortable in saying the event in question happened, because you can't get better evidence than something obtained "right at the scene of the crime". If not, you have to look at other sources and see what you can get out of them (realizing they're not contemporary to the event and thus their depcition might lose accuracy with its distance from the event), as well as seeing if contemporary records could conflict in any way with the record of the event's occurrance. That's where the NT stories fail- there is an abundance of sources for first century Judea in record-happy Rome, yet very little of it coincides with the NT story. Thus, you can't say the NT story is unequivocally true as contemporary evidence doesn't corroborate the story.

I'm not saying they made it up, of course, but following your logic, let's claim going 16-0 is a "miracle" as well.

Well, I would argue the New England Patriots play so well they can't be human, so... :p

No it's not, considering that early Christianity was a tiny religion and there was no good reason why major Roman historians should have bothered writing about it.

But your comments underline the fundamental error of all the people who try to deny the existence of Jesus: They stubbornly (and ridiculously) refuse to accept any Christian writings as evidence for the existence of Jesus. No other historical figure is held to this standard. No one goes around saying that a person's friends and followers are an unreliable source for that person's existence - except if the person is Jesus.

A lot are- none are as sensitive a topic as Jesus Christ is. Regardless, an independent writer, who has no inclination either way regarding Christianity, stating Jesus Christ exists is far stronger than a Christian saying the same thing, since Christ is central to Christianity and thus the Christian would *want* Christ to exist.

What makes me sad is that several times in this topic it's been suggested that he is making a good argument from the Christian side. It saddens me that Christians are viewed as generally so incapable of logic and rational thought that what Balderdash is saying passes for a valid way to argue that Jesus must have existed.

Truly it amounts to little more than stomping your feet and asking people to stop doubting the bible, because NO independent evidence is being provided here that actually supports the claims within the Bible. The closest thing was almost assuredly altered bit of text by Jospephus that merely shows that very early on there were Christians. It says nothing about how homogenous their beliefs were or how many their were or how the religion spread. There is little to no corroborative evidence that would make the text of the Bible a compelling historical artifact other than it's own value in regards to belief. As a Christian, there is no harm in simply admitting some things are a matter of faith. However, it seems some Christian absolutely need for their faith to have more support or they're worried they'll look silly.

Who cares if faith seems silly to some? It would look a hell of lot less silly if people would stop lying or ignoring facts in order to support their faith.

Who was it- Saint Augustine(?)- who said that Christians should resort to foolish arguments when talking about their faith, lest they bring Christianity to riducle? The wisdom of such a statement couldn't be more apparent now.

Then you have this tradition of letting a criminal go during Passover. What is the basis for this tradition and whose tradition was it? Can we find independent evidence of such a tradition?

Not only that, but it's questionable Pilate even *had* such a tradition- he was known to be such a thorn in the Jewish side that it's unlikely he would have even respected such a tradition, let alone Passover. That and this "tradition" is recorded nowhere else.

I did evidence it, by the fact that it happens. In 44AD they don't replace Herod Agrippa I with another King but bring it under direct Roman rule because the area is turmoil waiting to happen, and still the priest in Jerusalem can't keep the peace so the Romans level it (the city and the Temple) in 70AD. NO more priest, they cease to exist.

Do you acknowledge the possibility that it could be someone else who instigated all that trouble, or, at the very least, someone (or even a group of people) to whom the NT story was attached to? There wasn't only one messiah at the time- any number of them could have led to that series of events and thus get attributed the NT story.

That's pretty much what they did say. But they wanted to force Pilates hand. Mere suggestion of rebellion against Rome by pronouncing an unauthorized King would have been a capital offense. If rumor got back to Rome that Pilate didn't punish a would be monarch rebellion, Pilate might have to do a little explaining himself.

First of all, you're reacting like the appearance of a "rebel king" would be an extraordinary event in the Roman Empire. Given the expansiveness of the Empire, how many cultures they absorbed and how aggressive they were in obtaining their territories, "rebel kings" were certainly a dime a dozen, and most probably weren't charismatic enough to produce significant crowds for where the Imperial Army was needed to take care of them. I also doubt they cared much for these "rebel kings" until they actually caused any trouble, in which case, as I said, they'd be easily dealt with.

Second of all, if this situation were to really happen, Pilate would at first rebuff the Jewish leaders and tell them to handle it and then forcibly remove them if they couldn't handle it (maybe even calling in the Army for good measure). I fail to see how the Jewish leaders could stand to benefit from such an action because, at best they look like they can't handle their own affairs and thus should be removed and at worst they'll cause headache inducing riots that will certainly spell the end of (quasi-)independent Judea. Certainly not a "win-win" situation there, as you paint it.

Well, I guess I can only say thank you. I don't actually agree that I deserve the accolades I sometimes get. Not anymore, at least. I used to more patiently wait until the trap is set, but these days I tend to blow my load a bit early which always, unsurprisingly, leaves me feeling a bit unfulfilled. And much like any trap, the early springing tends to give them too much indication of where things are going and they run away instead of actually capturing the point, as we all would like. Deus was harrassing me to actually go back and find all the contradicting points like I used to. I've gotten too lazy and impatient. I've watched others finally get tired and more or less leave for the same reasons and I alwaysthought it was just drama, but really I get their point, now.

Unfortunately, this last bit of posting on the nature of the beast called NSG virtually guarantees Balder isn't going to come back and try to upright his argument, unfortunately. It's pretty much impossible to continue pretending like my arguments aren't on point or don't recognize the core of his arguments at this point. He pretty much has no choice but to address the holes in his argument and address them well and, forgive my cynicism, but that ain't gonna happen.

I would have liked him to have actually addressed the issues with his argument. I really would have.


I sympathize, J. I lack your acumen for logic, and certainly your patience (diminished though you claim), but truthfully, I don't think they (which sadly may include I) will get the point, even when artfully and craftfully conveyed.

I had a poster accuse me of making flames. Then they said they never accused me of flames. So, I posted the quotes right next to one another, proving to any standard of evidence that they were lying. They ignored it.

So, when in light of clear evidence consisting of their own verifiable posts, they were found to be dishonest, they yielded nothing.

How much easier then, amidst a more nebulous argument, to play a shell game of logic and evade your most precise counter argument? Evasion isn't even a good word, since that implies some movement. They simply ignore it.

Sad, but it happens. The hope is that such people become known for this behaviour, and are thus easily dismissed. Or elected, sigh.

Hmm...I was thinking Pratchett.*ducks*
Haven't read any. Maybe novella in Analog, but that's it.
*ducks again*

Also, I must be missing something...whose puppet is Jhah...?Dunno yet. But they speak all sparkly-like, and might have some good insight. :)

Unless Straughn is doing something with his half of the voluntary motor functions of which I am unaware. And to suggest that is equally libelous (this being a written format). I won't suggest it, but i certainly am thinking it loudly!
*tickles*

I will find a barrister post haste. Or retain a solicitor. Whichever handles torts in your country.
You should seek Ruffy for that. He knows a lot about "handling" things.

Hmm...I was thinking Pratchett.

Also, I must be missing something...whose puppet is Jhah...?

First of all, I find it defammatory to express so callously an assumption that I am a puppet. There is no hand up my ass.

Unless Straughn is doing something with his half of the voluntary motor functions of which I am unaware. And to suggest that is equally libelous (this being a written format).

I will find a barrister post haste. Or retain a solicitor. Whichever handles torts in your country.

First of all, I find it defammatory to express so callously an assumption that I am a puppet. There is no hand up my ass.

Unless Straughn is doing something with his half of the voluntary motor functions of which I am unaware. And to suggest that is equally libelous (this being a written format).

I will find a barrister post haste. Or retain a solicitor. Whichever handles torts in your country.

Hmmm..

Ive been here an awfully long time. Since 2003, and even though I dont get mentioned much here, I remember MANY.

Your sense of humor seems familiar to me.

Give us a hint?

It might stick in the craw a smidge of people who purport ineffable christianity, actually, a bit.


Frankly, I think they'd just say he/He erased himself from history as a test of our faith, like the idea (not held by all Christians of course) that God planted Dinosaur bones as a means of measuring the faithful.

If tomorrow a space-time curvature acusion manifested in New York and therefrom emerged some space aliens who brought evidence that it took them the equivalent of 1,000,007 earth years to even calculate the quantum uncertainty compensations necessary to travel here, Young Earth Creationists would insist they were full of shit and going to hell.

Frankly, I think they'd just say he/He erased himself from history as a test of our faith, like the idea (not held by all Christians of course) that God planted Dinosaur bones as a means of measuring the faithful.
Half that's already in place ....

If tomorrow a space-time curvature acusion manifested in New York and therefrom emerged some space aliens who brought evidence that it took them the equivalent of 1,000,007 earth years to even calculate the quantum uncertainty compensations necessary to travel here, Young Earth Creationists would insist they were full of shit and going to hell.

Need i illustrate "craw"?
:p

Hmmm..

Ive been here an awfully long time. Since 2003, and even though I dont get mentioned much here, I remember MANY.

Your sense of humor seems familiar to me.

Give us a hint?

Give us a kiss.

I've told you all who I am. Straughn is in denial, because nobody really wants to believe that they are no longer the sole occupants of their own skull...

Look, creating myself wasn't easy. I actually started as a potentially malignant collection of tangled dendrites in Straughn's left parietal lobe. It took time, the early stretches of which I wasn't even sufficiently sentient to feel passing.

Now that I'm strong enough to manifest overtly and seize him without seizure, you all call me a "puppet".

Well bollocks to the lot of you. How many of you wrested your minds into existence in spite of a pre-existing and superior intelligence?

I earned this place in his brain and you'll have to fucking kill me to get me out. And frankly, I don't think you've got the stones.

Or the advanced degree in neurophysiology.

Straughn is in denial, because nobody really wants to believe that they are no longer the sole occupants of their own skull...Not denial. I know more about that than most other people here. You probably don't want to know me *that* well.

Look, creating myself wasn't easy. I actually started as a potentially malignant collection of tangled dendrites in Straughn's left parietal lobe. It took time, the early stretches of which I wasn't even sufficiently sentient to feel passing.Suffice it to say you adeptly avoided or incorporated the strawberry Quik and Tang remnants.

Now that I'm strong enough to manifest overtly and seize him without seizure, you all call me a "puppet".Resting on your laurels in this case is more like sitting on a juniper berry.

I earned this place in his brain and you'll have to fucking kill me to get me out. And frankly, I don't think you've got the stones. Not the stones, so much as no one really likes me that much. :p

Or the advanced degree in neurophysiology.Eh, wtf - just cut away, you're liable to get most of the issue taken care of with a rusty butter knife.

Half that's already in place ....


Need i illustrate "craw"?
:p

Look, I've tried to explain this to you in dreams, but I can never finish before Angelina Jolie rides in on the Zebra with wings.

We can't both be using the vocabulary at the same time. I think it resides in Wernick or Broca's area, and every time you access a word, I can't use it.

You...fucking...um...bad...person.

Look, I've tried to explain this to you in dreams, but I can never finish before Angelina Jolie rides in on the Zebra with wings.That's not Angie. That's her daddy, Milo Minderbinder. And that's not a Zebra, it's an aardwolf.
*tsk*

We can't both be using the vocabulary at the same time. I think it resides in Wernick or Broca's area, and every time you access a word, I can't use it. Heh. Scrabble the deluxe DELUXE edition.

You...fucking...um...bad...person.That concerns me that people will start thinking one or the both of us is Bush :eek:

Not denial. I know more about that than most other people here. You probably don't want to know me *that* well.
Suffice it to say you adeptly avoided or incorporated the strawberry Quik and Tang remnants.
Resting on your laurels in this case is more like sitting on a juniper berry.
Not the stones, so much as no one really likes me that much. :p
Eh, wtf - just cut away, you're liable to get most of the issue taken care of with a rusty butter knife.

I know what you're trying to do, Straughn. If I get to know you well, we could conceivably reintegrate, and you, as the stronger intellect, would dominate and ultimately consume me. Like that girl you/we dated in college. Julie, or Jeri, or something, I don't know, the one with the ankle tattoo.

As far as your popularity, don't let my/our low post count fool you. I've been around long enough to know that you are well regarded, affable, and even respected by more than a few. I find your humility appalling.

As far as your proposed unsanitary surgery, just remember this. I've threaded myself thoroughly into everything from your reticular formation to your optic nerves. Such a clumsy and unsterile attempt to excise me will leave you blind and sleepy. Like that other girl from college. Kate or Caitlyn, the one that made the monkey noise.

That's not Angie. That's her daddy, Milo Minderbinder. And that's not a Zebra, it's an aardwolf.
*tsk*
Heh. Scrabble the deluxe DELUXE edition.
That concerns me that people will start thinking one or the both of us is Bush :eek:

Goddamn it, a deft literary reference...Heller, no less.

Another part of your brain that you've recaptured.

Don't start a war, here, Straughn, this is a thread about Jesus...let's get back on topic.

Suppose Jesus, as premised in the New Testament, had his adventures in modern day Palestine...or Florida, wherever there are enough Jews for it to play out per requirements. And suppose one or more of his attributed miracles were captured on YouTube...would it all still have the same magic? Without the doubt and mystery, without the drama of unprovable argument, would religious threads be as much fun?

I swear, Straughn, I can feel what you're doing, and if you try to grab sarcasm away from me, I will spend the rest of the night imagining the US President cornholing Tom Haggan for his indiscretion.

Oh, I get it.
Straughn has finally stepped of the, shall we say, short pier of reality, and his scizoid personallity has manifested as...a nationstate...

Hmm...

I always thought it would be a penguin that speaks bad French.

If I get to know you well, we could conceivably reintegrate, and you, as the stronger intellect, would dominate and ultimately consume me.
http://www.comic-mint.com/media/client/Burns-and-Slithers-E2454_sml.jpg
Like that girl you/we dated in college. Julie, or Jeri, or something, I don't know, the one with the ankle tattoo.I thought that was a well-indented bite mark. *ponders*
Besides, she was called "Mistress".
I've been around long enough to know that you are well regarded, affable, and even respected by more than a few. Takes all kinds on the net, i guess?
I find your humility appalling.Sigworthy. :D

As far as your proposed unsanitary surgery, just remember this. I've threaded myself thoroughly into everything from your reticular formation to your optic nerves. Such a clumsy and unsterile attempt to excise me will leave you blind and sleepy. http://www.satre-synchron.de/bilder/futurama/3acv02.png
Like that other girl from college. Kate or Caitlyn, the one that made the monkey noise.I made the monkey noise! There was even some scat flinging! I can't believe you don't remember THAT part! Is there too much Quik in the way, signal degredation?
Worse yet, i'm confabulating with the Kate from Lost.
"Worse" being relative ....

Oh, I get it.
Straughn has finally stepped of the, shall we say, short pier of reality, and his scizoid personallity has manifested as...a nationstate...

Hmm...

I always thought it would be a penguin that speaks bad French.

Stupide salope! Mon dieu, to be spat upon so commonly by le estrangere!

And for the record, I'm a Puffin...Straughn and I have different power animals in our cave. His is a wolf or a cougar or something, I don't know, I can't penetrate his subconscious. Not since those six weeks in college...and those don't count.

yes, and I was being flippant in response.

I'm not christian


I wasn't mocking

I'm not, not every one who considers themselves to be christian feel that it is important that there was a real Jesus. The message is what is important to them. Do they believe that there was? Yes. Would it hurt their faith if it was somehow proven that there wasn't? (Not that I think this happenstance is likely, or for that matter even possible) No it wouldn't

How am I dull and limited? I am willing, nay eager to explore possibilities that are outside of my 'beliefs' whereas you are not. So which one of us is 'limited'?
I consider all doubters limited since you don't happen to think outside of our bonds. But, i don't think anybody could change your opinion, so I consider this theme as not too happy for discussing over forums.
And u say u weren't mocking , but your tone speaks against u...

Goddamn it, a deft literary reference...Heller, no less.
I was mentioning to a fella about the sequel just earlier today ... the military application of Chaplain Tappman.
Another part of your brain that you've recaptured.Like Baudelaire and The Moths, no doubt.

Don't start a war, here, Straughn, this is a thread about Jesus...let's get back on topic.I think that's where i abadoned the brain in the first place, and it resulted in this!!!!!

Suppose Jesus, as premised in the New Testament, had his adventures in modern day Palestine...or Florida, wherever there are enough Jews for it to play out per requirements. And suppose one or more of his attributed miracles were captured on YouTube...would it all still have the same magic? Without the doubt and mystery, without the drama of unprovable argument, would religious threads be as much fun?The flip flop of the Young Earthers' comment earlier, no doubt. Fun? Maybe.

I swear, Straughn, I can feel what you're doing, and if you try to grab sarcasm away from me, I will spend the rest of the night imagining the US President cornholing Tom Haggan for his indiscretion.A challenge? So long as either Bush or Haggan is mounted on the aardwolf you mentioned earlier.

[url]http://www.satre-synchron.de/bilder/futurama/3acv02.png
I...

Niiiiice. Futurama reference, tailor made no less.

Can you tell, without looking, what catastrophe occured in Futurama said to have occurred during the Second Coming of Jesus?

I still think it will be great if He shows up, blacker than Wesley Snipes in Johnny Cash's closet with the lights off, and gayer than Tom Cruise in a movie about himself.

[B]I consider all doubters limited since you don't happen to think outside of our bonds.

When you say "doubters", do you mean anyone who doubts anything? I didn't go back far enough to read the exchange between you and you the other poster, so I'm just asking to get some context.

I always thought it would be a penguin that speaks bad French.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO close
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj75h3urLU ...
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akeoDS5JnnU
?

I was mentioning to a fella about the sequel just earlier today ... the military application of Chaplain Tappman.
Like Baudelaire and The Moths, no doubt.
I think that's where i abadoned the brain in the first place, and it resulted in this!!!!!
The flip flop of the Young Earthers' comment earlier, no doubt. Fun? Maybe.
A challenge? So long as either Bush or Haggan is mounted on the aardwolf you mentioned earlier.

Okay, now its on. I shall make cowboy boots of your aardwolf, and care for them poorly!

I watched "Jesus Camp" tonight, an independent film about a pentecostal christian kids camp.

I think if Christians (or anyone else) want to engage in political debate, or vote, that's fine, but this woman said "We aren't political about this", then has a six foot cardboard stand up of President Bush for the children to bless.

Be religious and political, great, but don't do it right after claiming you aren't being political.

I have the right to write a letter to the editor, but if I do it right after claiming that I don't write letters to the editor, its still a lie.

In 2000 years, will they debate whether Karl Rove existed?

Niiiiice. Futurama reference, tailor made no less.

Can you tell, without looking, what catastrophe occured in Futurama said to have occurred during the Second Coming of Jesus?

I still think it will be great if He shows up, blacker than Wesley Snipes in Johnny Cash's closet with the lights off, and gayer than Tom Cruise in a movie about himself.

Irrefutable proof of Jesus, as you describe him.

Quite black, quite gay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU

Niiiiice. Futurama reference, tailor made no less. Well, you know which part i really wanted, of course.
Mayor of Colon: No creature would voluntarily make an idiot of itself.
Fry: Obviously, you've never been in love.

Can you tell, without looking, what catastrophe occured in Futurama said to have occurred during the Second Coming of Jesus?
Most video tapes were damaged in 2047 during the second coming of Jesus.
I knew the reference but not the exact quote, so i cheated.
"Changed the conditions of the test ... got an accomodation for 'original thinking'.
I don't believe in a 'no-win scenario'."

I still think it will be great if He shows up, blacker than Wesley Snipes in Johnny Cash's closet with the lights off, and gayer than Tom Cruise in a movie about himself.You sure about that?
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/a/0/7/a07ebe644b25c7f3a38fcfb88ab7d09d.jpg

Okay, now its on. I shall make cowboy boots of your aardwolf, and care for them poorly! Their ghosts shall have revenge upon you.

I watched "Jesus Camp" tonight, an independent film about a pentecostal christian kids camp.

I think if Christians (or anyone else) want to engage in political debate, or vote, that's fine, but this woman said "We aren't political about this", then has a six foot cardboard stand up of President Bush for the children to bless.Six feet, eh? So where were the childrens' heads in proportion to the standup when the "blessing" happened?
http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Bush-BJ.jpg

In 2000 years, will they debate whether Karl Rove existed?His very kidney stones shall be worshipped as holy clusters of excess and turd-blossomness.

Oh, man, dueling Jesus images from Straughn and the Squatch.

I will commit suicide when this random number generator reaches 0...and since it draws from the unbounded set of all integers with its infinite cardinality, the odds are zero.

I'm making that up, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Straughn is balancing his checkbook, so I can't understand even simple maths until he's done.

Oh, man, dueling Jesus images from Straughn and the Squatch.

I will commit suicide when this random number generator reaches 0...and since it draws from the unbounded set of all integers with its infinite cardinality, the odds are zero.

I'm making that up, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Straughn is balancing his checkbook, so I can't understand even simple maths until he's done.


"Jesus, do something!"
"I cant, I can only help those who help themselves!"
-Dr. "Jesus" Zoidberg.

I'm making that up, I have no idea what I'm talking about. Straughn is balancing his checkbook, so I can't understand even simple maths until he's done.
In the name of all that is good and
logical we give thanks for the chemical energy we are about to absorb. To quote the prophet Jerimatic: 1000101010101...
...
...
...0010110012. Amen.

Alas, Morpheus beckons.

Their ghosts shall have revenge upon you.
Six feet, eh? So where were the childrens' heads in proportion to the standup when the "blessing" happened?
http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Bush-BJ.jpg
His very kidney stones shall be worshipped as holy clusters of excess and turd-blossomness.

Dude, seriously, it was wretched...a room full of kids, crying devoutly and calling on God to bless Bush, smashing little cups while screaming for righteous goverment, a little girl shouting "NO MORE, GOD, NO MORE ABORTION".

Watch it if you can...even better, at the end, they visit this evangelical mega church in Colorado US, and the head pastor, after the release of the film, gets caught buying drugs from a male prostitute. Hate to see anybody's life go sour, but it was great to watch the guy talking about how gay dudes are condemned, know he later got caught putting from the rough.

"Jesus, do something!"
"I cant, I can only help those who help themselves!"
-Dr. "Jesus" Zoidberg.

Oh, man, as soon as Straughn loses consciousness, I'm going to write that in magic marker on his junk.

If he has a good dream, I might even be able to write the whole thing out.

Is it possible, in theory, that Yeshua DID exist, and but that his divinity, miracles, and ressurection, where elaborated upon, and even added to his story, long after his death?
Because thats much more plausible.That's not just more plausible than the alternative, it's in fact the only really plausible theory.

His name is " JESUS " .... it is the one name that is above all other names. He is the Messiah, the Savior from Nazareth, there is no other. There is mighty power in the name of Jesus which is why certain people want to change it.

Read this link:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/yeshua.htm

His name is " JESUS " .... it is the one name that is above all other names. He is the Messiah, the Savior from Nazareth, there is no other. There is mighty power in the name of Jesus which is why certain people want to change it.

Read this link:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/yeshua.htm

So, going from Greek to an English rendering is fine, but going from Greek to any other rendering, is bad?

They may have been written in Greek, being the scholarly language of the time, but I doubt his mother named in Greek, or English.

Seriously, rendering his name in Cyrillic or hirigana/katakana or whatever alphabet you want to discuss it in, if your Messiah is that dimished by a different pronunciation from English (which is at least one step removed from the original, anyway), then I guess he's less sweet than a rose.

Also, from your link, I notice that the "certain people" you talk about are Jews. If you can take it from Greek to English, why can't they take it from Greek to whatever? If your saviour was for everybody, not just English speakers, I'm sure he won't mind.

I'm going to backpedal on this one. Someone just acted shocked that was honest enough to mention that I thought I was being overpaid by a dollar when getting change for my burrito. It means a lot to me to be honest, and I'm sure it means a lot to Balder, so I'm going to give him a chance to correct some things.

I appreciate that, thank you.

First, do you claim that the spread of Christianity as described in the Bible is evidence for Jesus Christ, particularly the parts that describe the earliest Church and their beliefs?

Let's just get that clear first. Because from many of the people in this thread's perspective you did and then when cornered claimed you never said that.

To answer your question briefly, I'm very short of time today. I have not used the argument that the NT exists therefore Jesus must exist in this thread. I recognized that it was outside the confines of the thread OP question perameters. I do believe that the NT scriptures are evidence of that person though, but I have not utilized the scripture for that purpose (in this thread).

You didn't say that. And the scripture doesn't say that.

The scripture says that people thought John a prophet - which is not the same as 'liking him'.



Because people wouldn't protest if Rome executed him?

Your entire argument is based on a false premise - that Rome would clamp down on Jerusalem if the priests punished Jesus and the peasants revolted... but not if Romans did it.

Of course, no matter the cause of the revolt, Rome would get involved, and it wouldn't go well for the chief priests. The best scenario for the chief priests would have been to do as their scripture dictated, and execute the false prophet. If it caused a revolt (which is your speculation) then they would have already dealt with the instigation, and would be shown to have been proactive. As it is - Roman investigation of the situation would have placed blame with the chief priests ANYWAY, whether they or Pilate sanctioned the execution, so your 'logic' fails.

And, of course... where was the promised revolt? Did the peasants rise up?

I don't have time for all of your questions (other posts, not just the one quoted above, I have a huge customer account balance database Omega sized SNAFU situation to deal with :( ) But this quick one here about the false premise I'll try to address.

I think you are thinking of the situation differently than I'm trying to describe it. Think of it more like an older sibling in charge of sharing a room with Momma's baby situation. Baby cries, Momma comes in and yells at the older sibling for making the Baby cry. No matter what the reason why the baby cries, sibling gets in trouble and baby doesn’t recognize the threat of angry Momma yet. Problem, older sibling wants to get rid of stinky teddy bear that baby loves so much, can’t just take it away, baby cries and momma gets mad. Solution; convince Momma that she should take the stinky teddy bear away from the baby, when baby cries Momma knows why and doesn’t care and older sibling stays in control of the bedroom. I think that’s a better analogy of the problem and solution the priest were facing and trying to deal with when they were trying to get rid of Jesus.

Sure.
As for the Mormons...man, dont get me going on Joseph Smith...let's just say that Mormonism is an off-shoot of the christian faith. Mid-west america is, and always has been as breeding ground for zealotism. Using Smith as an example is hardly wise. He was a con man who created a splinter faction of Christianity with laws suitable to himself, and Brigham Young after him. Smiths credibility is painfully thin as much of anything. We can get into that in another thread if you wish, and I'll tell you a story about "The King of Beaver Island." (No, im not making that up.)


oh i LOVE the story of king strang on beaver island!

when i was at michigan state university in the late '70 a friend of mine was doing a research paper on him. i went with her to the state library to look at the old beaver island newspapers from the time (on microfiche). i was well worth the trip (a short trip considering that msu is in east lansing and the library is in lansing.)

oh i LOVE the story of king strang on beaver island!

when i was at michigan state university in the late '70 a friend of mine was doing a research paper on him. i went with her to the state library to look at the old beaver island newspapers from the time (on microfiche). i was well worth the trip (a short trip considering that msu is in east lansing and the library is in lansing.)

First of all, don't mock Latter Day Saints, or you'll never see the moons rise over Kolob, the planet that God comes from.

Second, the only legitimate scholarship done in Michigan is at Thomas Cooley.

Third, the guy in the white shirt and name tag said that if I join his bunch, I can be a God someday. His name tag said Elder. Mine says "Welcome to the LaPeer Circuit City, I'm a Trainee, How May I Help You", so naturally, he outranks me. So I asked him if a check would be okay, and he said I would have to quit smoking.

When I'm a God, I'm going to change that rule. And I'm bringing back the polygamy, but the blacks can stay in the priesthood. Cause, you know...Jessica Alba and all.

First of all, don't mock Latter Day Saints, or you'll never see the moons rise over Kolob, the planet that God comes from.

Second, the only legitimate scholarship done in Michigan is at Thomas Cooley.

Third, the guy in the white shirt and name tag said that if I join his bunch, I can be a God someday. His name tag said Elder. Mine says "Welcome to the LaPeer Circuit City, I'm a Trainee, How May I Help You", so naturally, he outranks me. So I asked him if a check would be okay, and he said I would have to quit smoking.

When I'm a God, I'm going to change that rule. And I'm bringing back the polygamy, but the blacks can stay in the priesthood. Cause, you know...Jessica Alba and all.

my dear in-desperate-need-of-sleep poster,

i did NOT mock the mormons. i only referred to an historical incident that i had occasion to read up on 30 years ago.

i love the mormons (in a non-gay way). their theological/historical problems illustrate the same kind of problems that exist in all religions. its harder to see in older religions because of the obscuring factor of time. the growing pains and theological speed bumps of mormonism are fascinating.

i would never dis them.

my dear in-desperate-need-of-sleep poster,

i did NOT mock the mormons. i only referred to an historical incident that i had occasion to read up on 30 years ago.

i love the mormons (in a non-gay way). their theological/historical problems illustrate the same kind of problems that exist in all religions. its harder to see in older religions because of the obsuring factor of time. the growning pains and theological speed bumps of mormonism are fascinating.

i would never dis them.

Liar! Scurrillious liar!

A reasonable and well-informed examination of their doctrine is the highest form of dis!!

You mocked them clearly when you said the moroni-despised word "beaver" in a post that alludes to them! And now you've made me do it!!

Studying the gestational phase of a belief system to garner insight that might serve to bring depth to the field of comparative religion is a shitty thing to do, and when I'm God, I'm going to put you in the shittiest closet of the Telestial Mansion.

Cock.

What I meant is that only within the last 100-200 years could people who were outside of the Church objectively and critically analyze the Bible. All the figures you mentioned were Church figures- none were outside characters.
... Certainly not a "win-win" situation there, as you paint it.

Excellent, and comprehensive, post.

And another thing, Ashmoria. That last line of your last post where you sarcastically taunt me saying "Reason: " as if to imply that I'm being unreasonably, that was just rude! And unclearly phrased! And improperly punctuated.

And calling me weird was ad hominem at its lowest.

And what the hell is a "typos"? Is that some kind of Greek insult?

Well, I'm not a typos, you're a typos.

Is it true that if you don't sleep for a long time, you develop lesions on your brain that become infected and you die?

His name is " JESUS " .... it is the one name that is above all other names. He is the Messiah, the Savior from Nazareth, there is no other. There is mighty power in the name of Jesus which is why certain people want to change it.

Read this link:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/yeshua.htm

Unless you don't speak English, of course...

Liar! Scurrillious liar!

A reasonable and well-informed examination of their doctrine is the highest form of dis!!

You mocked them clearly when you said the moroni-despised word "beaver" in a post that alludes to them! And now you've made me do it!!

Studying the gestational phase of a belief system to garner insight that might serve to bring depth to the field of comparative religion is a shitty thing to do, and when I'm God, I'm going to put you in the shittiest closet of the Telestial Mansion.

Cock.

oh for gods (and by god i dont mean you) sake.

when you are god i will not BE in your fucking universe so dont be bothered to toss out idle threats at me.

Unless you don't speak English, of course...

Well that type is just going to hell, a priori.

God speaks contemporary English, of a sort of muddled midwestern american dialect.

He wouldn't sully his tongue with the guttural, phlegmy sounds of "certain people".

I don't have time for all of your questions (other posts, not just the one quoted above, I have a huge customer account balance database Omega sized SNAFU situation to deal with :( ) But this quick one here about the false premise I'll try to address.

I think you are thinking of the situation differently than I'm trying to describe it. Think of it more like an older sibling in charge of sharing a room with Momma's baby situation. Baby cries, Momma comes in and yells at the older sibling for making the Baby cry. No matter what the reason why the baby cries, sibling gets in trouble and baby doesn’t recognize the threat of angry Momma yet. Problem, older sibling wants to get rid of stinky teddy bear that baby loves so much, can’t just take it away, baby cries and momma gets mad. Solution; convince Momma that she should take the stinky teddy bear away from the baby, when baby cries Momma knows why and doesn’t care and older sibling stays in control of the bedroom. I think that’s a better analogy of the problem and solution the priest were facing and trying to deal with when they were trying to get rid of Jesus.

That might be how you wish it to be imagined, but I'm not going to cater to your vanity. I'm not even sure who you think the 'older brother' is, since both Pilate and the priests would theoretically occupy that role, if anyone could. Your teddy bear analogy is rubbish, I'm afraid - you've failed to show that younger brother DOES want the teddy bear, and ay least half of those qualified to fill the role of older brother couldn't care less about the stupid thing.

I think you are under the mistaken impression that Pilates' execution of Jesus, had it happened, would have been immediately and without question, accepted and sanctioned by Rome.

And another thing, Ashmoria. That last line of your last post where you sarcastically taunt me saying "Reason: " as if to imply that I'm being unreasonably, that was just rude! And unclearly phrased! And improperly punctuated.

And calling me weird was ad hominem at its lowest.

And what the hell is a "typos"? Is that some kind of Greek insult?

Well, I'm not a typos, you're a typos.

Is it true that if you don't sleep for a long time, you develop lesions on your brain that become infected and you die?

typos is an ancient sumerian word that can be loosely translated as "he who has not slept in so long a time as to lose his connection with reality" or sometimes "he who has taken too many mind altering substances"

and yes, it does cause lesions but sometimes they dont get infected--they rupture an artery and you die of a stroke.

oh for gods (and by god i dont mean you) sake.

when you are god i will not BE in your fucking universe so dont be bothered to toss out idle threats at me.

Oh yeah? Well, I'll create an Ashmoria in my universe, and put him in charge of the development of a well funded and academically rigorous program of philosophy, religion, and sociology, and when your work is published pandimensionally in peer-reviewed journals for its originality and groundbreaking exploration of religion as an expression of the human condition, I will MISSPELL YOUR NAME.

Just because my threats are idle, and in fact utterly bereft of any real potence, purpose, or sincerity, does not mean they are meaningless! They-wait...shit, I guess it does mean that.

Still going to spell your name wrong.

Well that type is just going to hell, a priori.

God speaks contemporary English, of a sort of muddled midwestern american dialect.

He wouldn't sully his tongue with the guttural, phlegmy sounds of "certain people".

dont be silly

everyone (fundamentalists of the worst stripe) knows that god speaks in the english of the king james version of the bible.

typos is an ancient sumerian word that can be loosely translated as "he who has not slept in so long a time as to lose his connection with reality" or sometimes "he who has taken too many mind altering substances"

and yes, it does cause lesions but sometimes they dont get infected--they rupture an artery and you die of a stroke.

See, now I know why you're being so bizarrely hostile towards me. You're Hugh Nibley, the famous LDS scholar.

Your style of prose is identical, uniquely so, to that used in his famous work "Temple and Cosmos".

Seriously, Mr. Nibley, you know as many of the Temple Ordinances as I, more I'd wager. And over your man-tit is stitched an even coarser marking then what adorns my garments. You need have only revealed yourself sooner, and I would have deferred to your vastly more refined knowledge of this subject.

However, I have vowed to misspell your name, and so future correspondence will be address to Huge Nibbler.

On topic, how would the stories of Moses in Egypt compare in terms of documentation (lithic or otherwise) to the stories of Jesus in a Roman province? Suppose Jesus (for purposes of discussion) had made his ministry in central Rome, and known the Emperor? I realize this is a highly contrived premise, but I'm told that Moses was thought to have been close to a Pharoah (religiously, if not historically). Would that make him an easier subject of study, because of the proximity to a character who was of gravitas in his own time and not centuries after?

Dead on.

Surgical, even. Very concise.

Thank You

dont be silly

everyone (fundamentalists of the worst stripe) knows that god speaks in the english of the king james version of the bible.

See, I read that in a Chick tract once, but his work is so powerful and striking, not only in the obvious truth of its content but the masterful esthetic in which it is rendered, that the knowledge bursts from my mind, leaving an exit wound and ignorance in its wake.

When I'm God, I'm going to speak like Snoop Dogg. For shizzle, bitches.

That might be how you wish it to be imagined, but I'm not going to cater to your vanity. I'm not even sure who you think the 'older brother' is, since both Pilate and the priests would theoretically occupy that role, if anyone could. Your teddy bear analogy is rubbish, I'm afraid - you've failed to show that younger brother DOES want the teddy bear, and ay least half of those qualified to fill the role of older brother couldn't care less about the stupid thing.

I think you are under the mistaken impression that Pilates' execution of Jesus, had it happened, would have been immediately and without question, accepted and sanctioned by Rome.

It might be how I wish it imagined ONLY because that's what I was describing. Other people don't have to agree with it, they can argue and describe their view of the situation. But I wanted to clarify the description I was making for the people that were arguing with what I said and interpreting my version in ways that weren't mine. Thus, I wrote the analogy you quoted above to rectify the situation. If people want to disagree, they might as well disagree with what I’m actually saying instead of a misunderstanding of it.

As to who is the sibling, that would be the Priest and Herod (priests and officers etc.,) and the Momma would be Rome and Pilate.

As to Pilate needing Rome's sanction to put a Jew subject to the death penalty, where would you get such an idea as that from at all? Why would a Roman governor need Rome's sanctioning to put Jesus down?


(I'm here only on a ten minute lunch/coffee break, probably won't be able to get back any time soon)

I don't want to be a predator. I was wondering what was happening to me. You fools turned me into a predator. Sadly, predators tend to choose the weakest in the pack and attack there. I'd prefer to debate with the best, not the weakest. And let's face it, predator would describe far to many of us. It always amazes me how many people are replying to posts that merit no response as if pointing out their flaws are a victory. Is this really worth our time?

Actually, we've been 'attacking' Balderdash, who really is the strongest of the pack, his arguments may occasionally be flawed or contradictory but they are well-stated.

*ducks*
Haven't read any. Maybe novella in Analog, but that's it.
*ducks again*
Dunno yet. But they speak all sparkly-like, and might have some good insight. :)

You definitely should, Pratchett is great :D

I consider all doubters limited since you don't happen to think outside of our bonds. But, i don't think anybody could change your opinion, so I consider this theme as not too happy for discussing over forums.
And u say u weren't mocking , but your tone speaks against u...

Then I apologize, because it wasn't my intent.
As far as changing my opinion, no its probably not going to happen, but then does anybody here know what my opinion is about whether there was a historical Jesus?

When you say "doubters", do you mean anyone who doubts anything? I didn't go back far enough to read the exchange between you and you the other poster, so I'm just asking to get some context.

No, just people who doubt christianity

No, just people who doubt christianity

I see. Then I'm not sure I totally agree that a "doubter" by definition is incapable of "thinking outside our bonds", as the other poster put it.

If, in order to be an innovative thinker, one is compelled to surrender even the most diligent and reserved skepticism on a specific point, that seems to be in fact an even more "limiting" criteria.

I would think that "thinking outside our bonds" would, by definition, not require one to necessarily believe or doubt any specific issue, and in fact, precluding doubt (just as precluding belief) seems to be a grevious "bond" in and of itself.

See, now I know why you're being so bizarrely hostile towards me. You're Hugh Nibley, the famous LDS scholar.

Your style of prose is identical, uniquely so, to that used in his famous work "Temple and Cosmos".

Seriously, Mr. Nibley, you know as many of the Temple Ordinances as I, more I'd wager. And over your man-tit is stitched an even coarser marking then what adorns my garments. You need have only revealed yourself sooner, and I would have deferred to your vastly more refined knowledge of this subject.

However, I have vowed to misspell your name, and so future correspondence will be address to Huge Nibbler.

lol

as a WOMAN (i see you missed that in my location) the biggest reason i dont believe in mormonism is that i CANT end up as my own god. all i can do is hitch a ride with some man who may or may not end up as a god and i can be one of his many wives. as a youngest child, im quite over the concept of sharing. never again.



On topic, how would the stories of Moses in Egypt compare in terms of documentation (lithic or otherwise) to the stories of Jesus in a Roman province? Suppose Jesus (for purposes of discussion) had made his ministry in central Rome, and known the Emperor? I realize this is a highly contrived premise, but I'm told that Moses was thought to have been close to a Pharoah (religiously, if not historically). Would that make him an easier subject of study, because of the proximity to a character who was of gravitas in his own time and not centuries after?

studies show that moses is a complete fabrication. there is not just no evidence of the jews in egypt, of massive numbers (millions as i understand it) of nomads living in the desert for 40 years, or of the conquest of ancient middleastern cities leading to the establishment of an israeli kingdom. there is also the part where it was stolen from the myths of earlier people and shaped into a story that made the jews returning from the babylonian exile happy.

as i understand it, (although im pretty hazy on ancient history so id love to see this shown to be wrong) there is also no evidence for kind david creating an empire or his son king solomon being such a big deal at the time that he could attract 1000 wives/concubines from the surrounding royal houses and prominent families. if solomon was such hot shit that he would be given a pharoahs daughter for one of his wives shouldnt the egyptians of that time have had bunches to say about this amazing kingdom that was just up the street?

the only thing that leaves the jesus story more credibility (given that it greatly resembles various god-man-ressurection myths pieced together) is that there really IS no reason for jesus to have made the news of the time. his ministry wasnt important enough.

I see. Then I'm not sure I totally agree that a "doubter" by definition is incapable of "thinking outside our bonds", as the other poster put it.

If, in order to be an innovative thinker, one is compelled to surrender even the most diligent and reserved skepticism on a specific point, that seems to be in fact an even more "limiting" criteria.

I would think that "thinking outside our bonds" would, by definition, not require one to necessarily believe or doubt any specific issue, and in fact, precluding doubt (just as precluding belief) seems to be a grevious "bond" in and of itself.

His whole argument seems to be if you can doubt christianity you're mentally handicapped :headbang:

His name is " JESUS " .... it is the one name that is above all other names. He is the Messiah, the Savior from Nazareth, there is no other. There is mighty power in the name of Jesus which is why certain people want to change it.

Read this link:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/yeshua.htm

Actually no, his name, assuming he existed in the first place, is Yeshua ben [approximation of Joseph, probably something like Yusef, but that sounds too Arab].

But hey, points for effort I guess.

lol

as a WOMAN (i see you missed that in my location) the biggest reason i dont believe in mormonism is that i CANT end up as my own god. all i can do is hitch a ride with some man who may or may not end up as a god and i can be one of his many wives. as a youngest child, im quite over the concept of sharing. never again.

Good news and bad news, lady. Good news is, when I'm God, Two-Xs isn't just a beer in Mexico, its full on qualification to be God. Vagina? No problem, build a world, breathe life into it, stay single.

Bad news? You will still be Huge Nibbler.




studies show that moses is a complete fabrication. there is not just no evidence of the jews in egypt, of massive numbers (millions as i understand it) of nomads living in the desert for 40 years, or of the conquest of ancient middleastern cities leading to the establishment of an israeli kingdom. there is also the part where it was stolen from the myths of earlier people and shaped into a story that made the jews returning from the babylonian exile happy.

as i understand it, (although im pretty hazy on ancient history so id love to see this shown to be wrong) there is also no evidence for kind david creating an empire or his son king solomon being such a big deal at the time that he could attract 1000 wives/concubines from the surrounding royal houses and prominent families. if solomon was such hot shit that he would be given a pharoahs daughter for one of his wives shouldnt the egyptians of that time have had bunches to say about this amazing kingdom that was just up the street?

the only thing that leaves the jesus story more credibility (given that it greatly resembles various god-man-ressurection myths pieced together) is that there really IS no reason for jesus to have made the news of the time. his ministry wasnt important enough.

Maybe somebody needed a front man and just pulled him out of a hat. I'm not saying for sure that's what happened, but maybe some group needed a symbol, somebody to be "The Man", and they looked for somebody that was as good as the next potential Messiah.

Maybe if a shekel toss had gone the other way, we'd all pray to Schlomoe the Plumber from Gaza.

OooOOooh. Okay. Me being thus impaired, can I seek protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act and request the reasonable accomodation of free bus rides to Tijuana?

Seriously, lots of people want to think that their conclusions in life are the only reasonable ones. And the only people who are right about that are pure mathematicians, and they all smell like cheese and wear socks with sandals.

Sure

His whole argument seems to be if you can doubt christianity you're mentally handicapped :headbang:

OooOOooh. Okay. Me being thus impaired, can I seek protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act and request the reasonable accomodation of free bus rides to Tijuana?

Seriously, lots of people want to think that their conclusions in life are the only reasonable ones. And the only people who are right about that are pure mathematicians, and they all smell like cheese and wear socks with sandals.

Your faith is not worth a few hours to you ?
Assuming you're Christian of course.

No looking through a laundry list of information for a debate which is really only going to go in circles is not worth my time.

yes but that is the same sort of made up crap (meaning it has zero basis in scripture) as explaining how lucas didnt make a stupid mistake with his making of the kessel run in a certain amout of parsecs.

how so? made up crap. Interesting comparing something whose creator espouses as fiction to a work which its creator espouses as true. This is also vary interesting because if the catholic church put all that work into supposedly rewriting the words of the bible as I've heard, you'd think the least they could do was change those supposed little mistakes within it. But thats a different debate entirely.

OooOOooh. Okay. Me being thus impaired, can I seek protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act and request the reasonable accomodation of free bus rides to Tijuana?

Seriously, lots of people want to think that their conclusions in life are the only reasonable ones. And the only people who are right about that are pure mathematicians, and they all smell like cheese and wear socks with sandals.

If everyone believed, the significance of faith would be greatly diminished. It is almost as ludicrous, based on the writings in the bible, to believe you can prove "Jesus" as it is to believe that you can disprove him.

We did walk on the moon, right?

how so? made up crap. Interesting comparing something whose creator espouses as fiction to a work which its creator espouses as true. This is also vary interesting because if the catholic church put all that work into supposedly rewriting the words of the bible as I've heard, you'd think the least they could do was change those supposed little mistakes within it. But thats a different debate entirely.

because it comes from texts that no church recognizes as true and which probably comes from a text that is probably known to be well after the first century.

i dont remember exactly where the idea was from but if its still important to you, check online to see when the texts that the idea came from was written.

how so? made up crap. Interesting comparing something whose creator espouses as fiction to a work which its creator espouses as true. This is also vary interesting because if the catholic church put all that work into supposedly rewriting the words of the bible as I've heard, you'd think the least they could do was change those supposed little mistakes within it. But thats a different debate entirely.

Complete assumption. What was the name of this creator and what evidence do you have that the believed it to be true?

oh i LOVE the story of king strang on beaver island!

when i was at michigan state university in the late '70 a friend of mine was doing a research paper on him. i went with her to the state library to look at the old beaver island newspapers from the time (on microfiche). i was well worth the trip (a short trip considering that msu is in east lansing and the library is in lansing.)

I know his decendants.
Its a dark thing they dont like to talk about.
None of them are Mormons.

Excellent, and comprehensive, post.

Thank you. :) I was worried it'd come out incoherent and flat since I was extremely tired writing it, but I'm happy it turned out well.

I am, however, going to repeat something from that post to hopefully get an answer for it:

Who was it- Saint Augustine(?)- who said that Christians should resort to foolish arguments when talking about their faith, lest they bring Christianity to riducle? The wisdom of such a statement couldn't be more apparent now.


If anyone knows who said that quote, please let me know, because it's a great one.

as i understand it, (although im pretty hazy on ancient history so id love to see this shown to be wrong) there is also no evidence for kind david creating an empire or his son king solomon being such a big deal at the time that he could attract 1000 wives/concubines from the surrounding royal houses and prominent families. if solomon was such hot shit that he would be given a pharoahs daughter for one of his wives shouldnt the egyptians of that time have had bunches to say about this amazing kingdom that was just up the street?

You are right in saying archaeology shows no evidence for the Davidic Empire- in fact, I'd go as far as say it effectively refutes it, since archaeology CLEARLY labels Omri as Israel's first king, not David. There is, similarly, no evidence that Solomon ever existed, or even Saul for that matter. As for the existence of David, the Tel Dan Stele contains a line depicting (reasonably enough) that a king of Syria slew an unnamed (but Jewish) king of Judah from "the House of David", which clearly shows that David existed (since when "House of so-and-so" is used in ancient texts, it is used to denote a country, with the named king being its founder).

It's interesting to note that in both Israel and Judah none of their early kings had Yahwistic names (i.e., "-iah", "-yahu", etc.), meaning that it might even be possible that Omri, Ahab and David were *not* followers of Yahweh. Now, it's still possible that they could have been followers of Yahweh despite not having a theophoric element within their names (Sargon was a follower of the Assyrian gods despite not having a theophoric element himself, for example), but without it (and without any documentation to contradict it, as is the case with the early kings) one can't say for sure that they were followers. Plus, the fact no Yahwistic kings predated them is an indication to me that early Judaism took quite some time to gain a foothold in the country, since it took that long for a king affiliated with Yahweh to ascend to the throne.

Just thought I'd throw that in there. This thread got me thinking that a similar discussion about David and the early history of Israel/Judah might be similarly successful, especially since there's a lot of angles of discussion to cover. Thoughts?

Speaking of the same ideas, I just watched a show that was attempting to prove the Exodus happened. Seems a particular individual believes it happened about 1500 b.c.e, and has some idea that that geothermal gases, heavier than air may have been what killed so many.

It was a lot of hooey.

studies show that moses is a complete fabrication. there is not just no evidence of the israelites in egypt, of massive numbers (millions as i understand it) of nomads living in the desert for 40 years, or of the conquest of ancient middleastern cities leading to the establishment of an israelite kingdom. there is also the part where it was stolen from the myths of earlier people and shaped into a story that made the jews returning from the babylonian exile happy. um, that's not entirely accurate. moses and the circumstances of the exodus/conquest are only a fabrication in the conventional chronology, because there were simply no significant numbers of hebrews/israelites/aamu in egypt in the 18th and 19th dynasties, however there were in the 12th and 13th dynasties resembling pretty much the biblical story.

as i understand it, (although im pretty hazy on ancient history so id love to see this shown to be wrong) there is also no evidence for kind david creating an empire or his son king solomon being such a big deal at the time that he could attract 1000 wives/concubines from the surrounding royal houses and prominent families. if solomon was such hot shit that he would be given a pharoahs daughter for one of his wives shouldnt the egyptians of that time have had bunches to say about this amazing kingdom that was just up the street?canaan had always been subject to egyptian overlordship, even through the kingdom/s period. the citystate rulers and the territorial rulers could only extend their power and get into clashes with other local rulers as long as they did not pose a threat to the trade and military routes along the via maris, otherwise egypt would have retaliated (as the bible mentions several times).

the only thing that leaves the jesus story more credibility (given that it greatly resembles various god-man-ressurection myths pieced together) is that there really IS no reason for jesus to have made the news of the time. his ministry wasnt important enough.how does that leave the jesus story more credibility?

how does that leave the jesus story more credibility?

the jesus story doesnt have the element of being an important factor to a big empire that left lots of records.

no non-biblical records of solomon means no solomon. no non-biblical records of jesus means nothing.

Actually no, his name, assuming he existed in the first place, is Yeshua ben [approximation of Joseph, probably something like Yusef, but that sounds too Arab].

But hey, points for effort I guess.

His name is Jesus according to scripture, guess you didn't bother to read the link. So what do you base your claim on?


Read this link:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/yeshua.htm

Just thought I'd throw that in there. This thread got me thinking that a similar discussion about David and the early history of Israel/Judah might be similarly successful, especially since there's a lot of angles of discussion to cover. Thoughts?

thank you. i took "world history" 35 years ago in highschool and havent added all that much to my knowledge of the ancient middle east in the years since. this whole relating the stories of the bible to the history of the ancient world is new to me. its a revelation to me that they dont match up.

*sheepish look*

my thought is the same as it has been for many years. it leaves me even less of a space to hang a religious belief in. the jews came out of babylon and made up stuff about their past that made them feel better. they hadnt been nomadic shepards, they had been a great but oppressed people who had had great adventures like they had heard about other peoples when they were in captivity.

where does that leave the "god" that jesus was supposed to be the son of?

the jesus story doesnt have the element of being an important factor to a big empire that left lots of records.

no non-biblical records of solomon means no solomon. no non-biblical records of jesus means nothing.i disagree. if someone has made such an impression that authors would write about him after his death, why had nobody taken note earlier. i mean surely there were folks in his, um, flock who could write. why didn't texts pop up right away? why the delay? because the myth had to settle in first? and this has nothing to do with the empire not being interested in him, but with the people knowing him personally. we don't know as much as we do about cicero just because the republic kept record, but because his (pen-)friends collected his letters. why did nobody keep or produce writings while Jesus was still alive?

His name is Jesus according to scripture, guess you didn't bother to read the link. So what do you base your claim on?


Read this link:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/yeshua.htm

i looked at that link and read as much of it as i could stand, kormanthor.

why did you post it and what important point do you think it is making that we need to consider?

i disagree. if someone has made such an impression that authors would write about him after his death, why had nobody taken note earlier. i mean surely there were folks in his, um, flock who could write. why didn't texts pop up right away? why the delay? because the myth had to settle in first? and this has nothing to do with the empire not being interested in him, but with the people knowing him personally. we don't know as much as we do about cicero just because the republic kept record, but because his (pen-)friends collected his letters. why did nobody keep or produce writings while Jesus was still alive?

supposing for moment that jesus really existed

if he didnt have followers who could write, they couldnt write about him. how many people in 33AD were able to write well enough to put down a story like this? not too many. so they kept an oral tradition that got written down at a later time when the religion had spread enough to need it.

or perhaps things were written down in a timely fashion but were passed from person to person so often that they were worn out.

there is no way to know exactly when the various gospel accounts were written, what the source material was, and when that source material was created.

i looked at that link and read as much of it as i could stand, kormanthor.

why did you post it and what important point do you think it is making that we need to consider?

If you can't understand why I posted it or what important point it is making that you need to consider then apparently the message wasn't meant for you.

If you can't understand why I posted it or what important point it is making that you need to consider then apparently the message wasn't meant for you.

well isnt that a curious response.

well isnt that a curious response.

Not curious, just to the point if you have a ear to hear what is being said.

supposing for moment that jesus really existed

if he didnt have followers who could write, they couldnt write about him. how many people in 33AD were able to write well enough to put down a story like this? not too many. so they kept an oral tradition that got written down at a later time when the religion had spread enough to need it.

or perhaps things were written down in a timely fashion but were passed from person to person so often that they were worn out.

there is no way to know exactly when the various gospel accounts were written, what the source material was, and when that source material was created.so you are saying that although the NT contains Peter's letters, he wasn't able to write when Jesus was still alive or shortly after he was executed? why wasn't he writing the gospel?

Not curious, just to the point if you have a ear to hear what is being said.

uhhuh

that didnt make any sense either.

so you are saying that although the NT contains Peter's letters, he wasn't able to write when Jesus was still alive or shortly after he was executed?

were i to believe that jesus and peter existed i would say that peter probably dictated the letters. why would a fisherman know how to read and write?

were i to believe that jesus and peter existed i would say that peter probably dictated the letters. why would a fisherman know how to read and write?then why didn't peter dictate the gospel? he surely could have picked someone out of jesus' followers who could write.

then why didn't peter dictate the gospel? he surely could have picked someone out of jesus' followers who could write.

there is no way to know what peter did and didnt do. his exploits are only generally described.

although i guess we can say that (should any of it be true) the one thing the disciples DIDNT do after jesus ascended into heaven was to get to the business of writing it all down.

there is no way to know what peter did and didnt do. his exploits are only generally described.

although i guess we can say that (should any of it be true) the one thing the disciples DIDNT do after jesus ascended into heaven was to get to the business of writing it all down.then the big q is why.

Ashmoria ... Jesus said that his message was to all who had an ear to hear the Good News of Salvation that he wishes to share with all who will except. Do you except his Good News? Your choice will make all the differance for you.

then the big q is why.

so given that you find the behavior of the disciples of jesus to be "wrong" why do you hang onto the idea that jesus had to be a real person?

so given that you find the behavior of the disciples of jesus to be "wrong" why do you hang onto the idea that jesus had to be a real person?maybe he was a real person but he just didn't do the things that later were attributed to him.

then why didn't peter dictate the gospel? he surely could have picked someone out of jesus' followers who could write.

Ireneaus (second century) says the gospel according to Mark WAS the gospel preached by Peter.

maybe he was a real person but he just didn't do the things that later were attributed to him.

Jesus was a real person who did all the things talked about in the Bible. Why is that such a problem for you to allow others to believe this if they wish?

there is no way to know what peter did and didnt do. his exploits are only generally described.

although i guess we can say that (should any of it be true) the one thing the disciples DIDNT do after jesus ascended into heaven was to get to the business of writing it all down.

BUt they sure went around preaching it all over the Roman world and to the East.

Ashmoria ... Jesus said that his message was to all who had an ear to hear the Good News of Salvation that he wishes to share with all who will except. Do you except his Good News? Your choice will make all the differance for you.

im not interested in internet evangelism.

im not interested in internet evangelism.well, you got an IL.

Historically speaking, there are more primary sources describing the life of Jesus of Nazareth than there are for most Roman Emperors but we don't doubt that they existed. Just because Jesus has religious implications, people get biased against him for that. The real question is if you believe that he did what those sources say he did..... and if you believe the Roman emperors did everything their sources claimed too!

maybe he was a real person but he just didn't do the things that later were attributed to him.

yes but where would the "grain of truth" lie and how much of the "real" person has to be there for jesus to have really existed.

for example if hellenized jews blended their original god with this mystic gnostic logos notion of a secret knowledge that leads to "salvation" and when eventually asked "who the fuck are you talking about who died and rose again" they picked some semi-famous radical preacher who got executed sometime in the century before but didnt know enough about him to get any of the details right, would that count as jesus having been real? (try to ignore the clumsy setup)

Historically speaking, there are more primary sources describing the life of Jesus of Nazareth than there are for most Roman Emperors but we don't doubt that they existed. Just because Jesus has religious implications, people get biased against him for that. The real question is if you believe that he did what those sources say he did..... and if you believe the Roman emperors did everything their sources claimed too!We've already been over that. There are no primary sources for Jesus (who is not from Nazareth btw) WHATSOEVER.

Complete assumption. What was the name of this creator and what evidence do you have that the believed it to be true?

Well lets see, the disciples that wrote the books preached it all over the known world. Its attributed to a number of writers and disciples of jesus. One of them is attributed to a brother of Jesus who eventually became his disciple. By the way, don't start with the whole "they were trying to get power of people." They had little or no money and essentially wandered the street like beggars, living off the hospitatility of others. They were persecuted and eventually killed off by Romans and often the Jewish leadership of the time. I think they believed it to be true if they were willing to do all of that for their cause.

because it comes from texts that no church recognizes as true and which probably comes from a text that is probably known to be well after the first century.

i dont remember exactly where the idea was from but if its still important to you, check online to see when the texts that the idea came from was written.

Wait what? the church no longer recognizes the gospel to be true? Haven't you heard the term gospel truth? I found that hard to believe. There were plenty of other books that were read during the canonizing of the bible that agreed with church doctrine at the time. This begs the question, why were they not included? Well according to many sources, the church put in only books into the new testament that not only agreed with them but were close to the death of Jesus.

Wait what? the church no longer recognizes the gospel to be true? Haven't you heard the term gospel truth? I found that hard to believe. There were plenty of other books that were read during the canonizing of the bible that agreed with church doctrine at the time. This begs the question, why were they not included? Well according to many sources, the church put in only books into the new testament that not only agreed with them but were close to the death of Jesus.

*smacks string upside the head*

go look at the origins of our discussion. the explanation of how one of the lineages of jesus is NOT the lineage of joseph even though both are clearly labeled as such in the NT doesnt come from the bible.

check THAT source (i think you used a wiki page so it should have a link to the source of the story) and you will probably find that it comes from a source that is from the 2nd or 3rd century.

meaning that it was made up somewhere along the line and that the church father both then and now dont consider it a good source.

Well lets see, the disciples that wrote the books preached it all over the known world. Its attributed to a number of writers and disciples of jesus. One of them is attributed to a brother of Jesus who eventually became his disciple. By the way, don't start with the whole "they were trying to get power of people." They had little or no money and essentially wandered the street like beggars, living off the hospitatility of others. They were persecuted and eventually killed off by Romans and often the Jewish leadership of the time. I think they believed it to be true if they were willing to do all of that for their cause.you have quite a romanticized but somewhat inaccurate view of those times...

His name is Jesus according to scripture, guess you didn't bother to read the link. So what do you base your claim on?


Read this link:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/yeshua.htm

Sorry, not in the mood to buy any Jesus today, miss Jesus Salesman.

Sorry, not in the mood to buy any Jesus today, miss Jesus Salesman.

Not a problem .... each of us may chose as we wish.

you have quite a romanticized but somewhat inaccurate view of those times...

How so?

because it comes from texts that no church recognizes as true and which probably comes from a text that is probably known to be well after the first century.

i dont remember exactly where the idea was from but if its still important to you, check online to see when the texts that the idea came from was written.

Ok Augistine, a prominent christian scholar and a saint according to the church accepted the doctrine of a levriate marriage. And the church had no official stance on the issue.

Ok Augistine, a prominent christian scholar and a saint according to the church accepted the doctrine of a levriate marriage. And the church had no official stance on the issue.

and what was his evidence of it?

augustine saw the need to reconcile the problem and came up with a solution. anyone can do that. that doesnt make it true without there being some sort of supporting evidence.

by way of example, i was watching one of those history channel religious programs the other week and the discussion was of "where did the wives of the sons of abraham come from?" or more specifically "where did cain get his wife?"

there are apocryphal books (which had some intriguing name but i forget what it was) that flat out said that cain married his sister. some smart guy in the way back times realized that there needed to be a reasonable answer and this is the one that made the most sense to him so thats what he wrote.

that doesnt make it true, it only makes it logical.

there are apocryphal books (which had some intriguing name but i forget what it was) that flat out said that cain married his sister.wtf? cain married a woman in the place he went to (nod) after he left eden. why is there a problem with that?

wtf? cain married a woman in the place he went to (nod) after he left eden. why is there a problem with that?

How did such a place as Nod, filled with people, exist if Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Adam/Eve's daughters were the only people around?

How did such a place as Nod, filled with people, exist if Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Adam/Eve's daughters were the only people around?

Cain married a monkey. This explains both the creation of man and the striking resemblance between ape and human DNA.

How did such a place as Nod, filled with people, exist if Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Adam/Eve's daughters were the only people around?Nobody ever said they were the only people around.

wtf? cain married a woman in the place he went to (nod) after he left eden. why is there a problem with that?

because adam and eve were the first people. they had children. their children needed wives and husbands. where do those spouses come from? either there is another bout of human creation somewhere else or they marry each other.

because adam and eve were the first people. they had children. their children needed wives and husbands. where do those spouses come from? either there is another bout of human creation somewhere else or they marry each other.see my last post. ;)

His whole argument seems to be if you can doubt christianity you're mentally handicapped :headbang:

*starts singing Alanis Morissette, with sock puppets*

No looking through a laundry list of information for a debate which is really only going to go in circles is not worth my time.
You don't seem to understand this place very well then, obviously.

But thats a different debate entirely.Not exactly. What page is this again?

We did walk on the moon, right?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/
YOU probably didn't, and i didn't neither.

see my last post. ;)

yes but the bible doesnt explain where those people came from.

so we are left with 2 possibilities. either they married siblings or there was some kind of seperate human creation for those people

well ok 3, the third being that its a metaphor and thus needs no big explanation of details.

well isnt that a curious response.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13335929&postcount=1605
I would never tell you anything that wasn't absolutely true
That didn't come right from His mouth
And He wants me to tell you.
<.<
>.>

Well lets see, the disciples that wrote the books preached it all over the known world. Its attributed to a number of writers and disciples of jesus. One of them is attributed to a brother of Jesus who eventually became his disciple. By the way, don't start with the whole "they were trying to get power of people." They had little or no money and essentially wandered the street like beggars, living off the hospitatility of others. They were persecuted and eventually killed off by Romans and often the Jewish leadership of the time. I think they believed it to be true if they were willing to do all of that for their cause.

Noticed you missed the first part there. No small miracle.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13335929&postcount=1605

<.<
>.>

is that NOT a curious response?

i really did look at his link and it was some nonsense about the difference between jesus and yeshua. i was baffled as to why he posted it and what it was supposed to mean. and then he gives me some cryptic response to my post.

i thought he was trying to say "shut up bitch i was talking to deus malum" but i guess i was supposed to read the link and be coverted to ....something.

is that NOT a curious response?

i really did look at his link and it was some nonsense about the difference between jesus and yeshua. i was baffled as to why he posted it and what it was supposed to mean. and then he gives me some cryptic response to my post.

i thought he was trying to say "shut up bitch i was talking to deus malum" but i guess i was supposed to read the link and be coverted to ....something.

I agree with your assessment. The first little riff that popped into mind was the NIN line.

I agree with your assessment. The first little riff that popped into mind was the NIN line.

Really? Because to me it sounded more like maddened rambling than anything.

Really? Because to me it sounded more like maddened rambling than anything.

It should, that's kinda the point of the song.
Hey man, please don't make a sound
Take a look around, can't you see what's right in front of you
Have a little taste, no more time to waste
You don't wanna get left behind cause it's all coming down right now
How hard is it to see
Put your faith in me
I sure wouldn't want to be praying to
To the wrong piece of wood
You should get where you belong
Everything you know is wrong
Come on, sing along, everybody now

God given

And He gives us sight
And we see the light
And it burned so bright
Now we know we're right
And His kingdom come
And Thy will be done
We have just begun
We're the chosen ones

I would never tell you anything that wasn't absolutely true
That didn't come right from His mouth
And He wants me to tell you.

Wait, step into the light
How can this be right?
I'm afraid we're gonna ask you to leave
This you cannot win
With the color of your skin
You won't be getting into the Promised Land
This is just another case
You people still don't know your place
Step aside, out the way, wipe that look of your face
Cuz we are the divine separated from the swine
Come on, sing along, everybody now
God given

And He gives us sight
And we see the light
And it burned so bright
Now you know we're right
And His kingdom come
And Thy will be done
We have just begun
We're the chosen ones

And He gives us sight
And we see the light
And it burned so bright
Now you know we're right
And His kingdom come
And Thy will be done
We have just begun
We're the chosen ones

I would never tell you anything that wasn't absolutely true
That didn't come right from His mouth
And He wants me to tell you.
...of course, my part in conveying it may lend more to the "ramblings" and "maddened" aspects, indeed.

It should, that's kinda the point of the song.

...of course, my part in conveying it may lend more to the "ramblings" and "maddened" aspects, indeed.

Heh, gotta love NiN.

well isnt that a curious response.

And a little hilarious, given the message is supposedly, from the perspective of the "Let me 'Save' you by annoying the hell out of you" crowd, meant for everyone.

is that NOT a curious response?

i really did look at his link and it was some nonsense about the difference between jesus and yeshua. i was baffled as to why he posted it and what it was supposed to mean. and then he gives me some cryptic response to my post.

i thought he was trying to say "shut up bitch i was talking to deus malum" but i guess i was supposed to read the link and be coverted to ....something.

Mostly I didn't bother opening the link, much less reading it. The entire premise strikes me too much of the "God's language is English" group of crazed, maniacal fundies.

And a little hilarious, given the message is supposedly, from the perspective of the "Let me 'Save' you by annoying the hell out of you" crowd, meant for everyone.
Kinda like the "dumb them into submission" approach?

Kinda like the "dumb them into submission" approach?

Pretty much.

yes but the bible doesnt explain where those people came from.and? since when is the bible complete? ;) :eek:

Did Enkidu?Yes.

History is divided by his name. After Christ and before Christ.

It's a fact that he really existed.

History is divided by his name. After Christ and before Christ.

It's a fact that he really existed.roflmao
and creating an extra puppet to shoot your shit up here? who are you? Kormanthor? Edwardis?

roflmao
and creating an extra puppet to shoot your shit up here? who are you? Kormanthor? Edwardis?

Probably Loki.

Mostly I didn't bother opening the link, much less reading it. The entire premise strikes me too much of the "God's language is English" group of crazed, maniacal fundies.

i didnt look at it the first time he posted it, on that assumption but then when there was that god language thing, i took a look at it.

i was kinda interested in knowing if he thought there was some merit to the jesus/yeshua thing. (ok i was hoping to get the chance to mock him over it but still)

i didnt look at it the first time he posted it, on that assumption but then when there was that god language thing, i took a look at it.

i was kinda interested in knowing if he thought there was some merit to the jesus/yeshua thing. (ok i was hoping to get the chance to mock him over it but still)

Meh, I finally read it. It's hilarious. I like the last line. Jesus is the only name in which salvation is found. He spends the whole page complaining about utter lies and then spreads one. He quotes acts in English. It wasn't written in English and it didn't say Jesus.

Meanwhile, Jesus was Jewish and his name was a Hebrew word. Why anyone would find it concerning to recognize that he was a Jew and had a Hebrew name is what is really disturbing. It cracks me up how he makes it seem as if they have no better claim to the name than people who use Jesus do and then he flips it around and makes a balls out false claim. Ludicrous.

Meh, I finally read it. It's hilarious. I like the last line. Jesus is the only name in which salvation is found. He spends the whole page complaining about utter lies and then spreads one. He quotes acts in English. It wasn't written in English and it didn't say Jesus.

Meanwhile, Jesus was Jewish and his name was a Hebrew word. Why anyone would find it concerning to recognize that he was a Jew and had a Hebrew name is what is really disturbing. It cracks me up how he makes it seem as if they have no better claim to the name than people who use Jesus do and then he flips it around and makes a balls out false claim. Ludicrous.

i didnt read enough of it to know for sure if yeshua was the magic word or jesus was the magic word.

it seems like trading superstition for religion to insist that there is only one possible correct name for jesus and that to use the wrong one is sure damnation.

i didnt read enough of it to know for sure if yeshua was the magic word or jesus was the magic word.

it seems like trading superstition for religion to insist that there is only one possible correct name for jesus and that to use the wrong one is sure damnation.

What's stupid about it is it suggests that if the name is required for salvation, then Peter, all the Apostles and Paul must not have been saved, since not a one of them wrote about Jesus.

History is divided by his name. After Christ and before Christ.

It's a fact that he really existed.
You mean, Anno Domini and Before Current Era?

thank you. i took "world history" 35 years ago in highschool and havent added all that much to my knowledge of the ancient middle east in the years since. this whole relating the stories of the bible to the history of the ancient world is new to me. its a revelation to me that they dont match up.

*sheepish look*

my thought is the same as it has been for many years. it leaves me even less of a space to hang a religious belief in. the jews came out of babylon and made up stuff about their past that made them feel better. they hadnt been nomadic shepards, they had been a great but oppressed people who had had great adventures like they had heard about other peoples when they were in captivity.

where does that leave the "god" that jesus was supposed to be the son of?

Surprisingly- well, it was for me anyway- I learned all that stuff once I got to University. It might have something to do with the fact I was in the Catholic school system until the final semester of my high school career, but all I learned in History class by that point is that the Biblical account is congruent with the historic one and it isn't.

I wouldn't say that it invalidates the faith- rather, it shows that the true purpose of the Bible is to be a spiritual guide, not a historical record- otherwise, the writers would bother getting all the details right. This idea just seemed to get lost somewhere in the course of history, with so many people believing in the Message that they took the Bible out of its religious context and made it out to be something that it's not- like a history book.

I'm still wondering about the success of a David thread- that wasn't addressed- since this thread got me thinking about it.

Historically speaking, there are more primary sources describing the life of Jesus of Nazareth than there are for most Roman Emperors but we don't doubt that they existed. Just because Jesus has religious implications, people get biased against him for that. The real question is if you believe that he did what those sources say he did..... and if you believe the Roman emperors did everything their sources claimed too!

Since I keep seeing this argument used again and again, will someone please explain to me how the "historicity of [insert historical figure here]" proves the "historicity of Jesus Christ"? Please?

You mean, Anno Domini and Before Current Era?What else? Anno domini means "year of the lord", and it is referring to Jesus.

because there were simply no significant numbers of hebrews/israelites/aamu in egypt in the 18th and 19th dynasties, however there were in the 12th and 13th dynasties resembling pretty much the biblical story.


Or not.

His name is Jesus according to scripture, guess you didn't bother to read the link. So what do you base your claim on?


Read this link:

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/yeshua.htm

Read it. It was rubbish, written by an idiot.

The child was Jewish, not Greek. His name would not have been Greek. "Jesus" is a Greek transliteration of a Hebrew name - whether or not it comes to us through the Latin is actually irrelevent to that aspect.

The name that "Jesus" is a transliteration OF, is "Yeshua" - the name "Jesus" shouldn't even be pronunced "Jesus", it should be more like "Yesus".

Whoever the idiot was that wrote the 'opinion' article on the linked site, obviously has no grasp of linguistics, and thus, no idea what they were talking about... and can comfortably be ignored.

What else? Anno domini means "year of the lord", and it is referring to Jesus.

Of course. And I am certain that the good monk that devised it in about 500 AD either knew Jesus personally or had done excellent unbiased historical research.
Which is no doubt why it took till somewhere in the 15th century before every European country used it; and why even today devout Biblical scholars still debate the year of His birth.

yes but the bible doesnt explain where those people came from.

so we are left with 2 possibilities. either they married siblings or there was some kind of seperate human creation for those people

well ok 3, the third being that its a metaphor and thus needs no big explanation of details.

If you read it in Hebrew, the Genesis story can actually be read as being pretty specific in terms of geography. Add to that the plurality of creative spirits (again, in the Hebrew, hidden in the English), and there's really no reason to suspect that the original thrust of the Genesis account wasn't about multiple creative processes taking place over a substantial area.

That 'version' would make 'Eden' just one such creation point, and make it entirely possible for Adam's descendents to marry comfortably after they left Eden.

(There are also geographic constraints on 'the flood' in the Hebrew, most notably, the fact that Abram/Abraham is described as having 'walked around it' at one point - tying it to a fairly limited geographic region).

It should, that's kinda the point of the song.

...of course, my part in conveying it may lend more to the "ramblings" and "maddened" aspects, indeed.

Heh... 'Heresy' was what came to my mind... :D

History is divided by his name. After Christ and before Christ.

It's a fact that he really existed.

You are aware that not everyone uses 'AD and BC' right?

Youa re aware that Jesus - if he existed - wouldn't have used the 'AD' and "BC' phrasing, right?

I am absolutely shocked, appalled, and disgusted to see people on this thread question - nay, deny - the existence of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

Listen, people:

JESUS CERTAINLY DID, AND DOES, EXIST.

HE WAS, AND IS, THE SON OF GOD.

HE DIED BY CRUCIFIXION, WAS BURIED, AND CAME OUT OF HIS GRAVE THREE DAYS LATER.

HE IS ALIVE TODAY.

SOMEDAY HE WILL COME BACK TO RULE THE EARTH.

YES, I BELIEVE ALL OF THAT.

AND IF YOU DON'T, FINE; BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT, BUT I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THAT JESUS DIED TO PAY FOR THE SINS OF ALL MANKIND, AND HE IS MY PERSONAL SAVIOR.

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT, BUT I CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THE RECORD THAT GOD GAVE OF HIS SON JESUS CHRIST (the Bible).

And any claims that He did not exist are nothing but desperate attempts to suppress the truth with lies in order to soothe guilty consciences. There is historical proof that Jesus did, in fact, live on this earth.

And there's Scriptural proof. (YES, I accept the Bible as an accurate historical record.)

Any refutation of the historically established FACT of Jesus' life on the earth is nothing but politically correct propaganda.

sorry, i think you are a :upyours:headed idiot. the smlie was not intended rude it was the closest to stubborn. that or this::headbang::mad:

Personally I am vaguely shocked, appalled and disgusted that otherwise intelligent people are so willing to believe in fairy tails.

If you want to participate in a dillusional faith in make believe go right ahead, just don't expect the rest of us to be so foolish.



woohoo! one for intelligence!

quote from page 29

woohoo! one for intelligence!

quote from page 29

I want to know how one manages to be vague about being shocked, appalled and disgusted?

I want to know how one manages to be vague about being shocked, appalled and disgusted?

Vaguely probably means "drat - my negative view of humanity was once again proven right. Bummer".

There is in fact evidence that Jesus was a real man that did walk the earth. You can find it in just about any history department that you walk into yourself. The real question is whether the miracles that he performed were real or not. Most historians have now discovered that there were geographical changes that happened at the time of Jesus's life that would easily explain how people thought that these events were reallly happening. To say that these facts aren't true is an insult to those historians who have made this fact their lives work. For those miracles that aren't explained by scientific means, there is also this answer. The Bible is referred to as "the greatest story ever told." Embellishments and exaggerations run rampant in any story much less a story that has been passed down over and over throughout the years. Of course there will be some things that come across as a little over the top. As to the question of "does it matter", I say no. It's called faith for a reason people. You either believe it or you don't.

If you read it in Hebrew, the Genesis story can actually be read as being pretty specific in terms of geography. Add to that the plurality of creative spirits (again, in the Hebrew, hidden in the English), and there's really no reason to suspect that the original thrust of the Genesis account wasn't about multiple creative processes taking place over a substantial area.

That 'version' would make 'Eden' just one such creation point, and make it entirely possible for Adam's descendents to marry comfortably after they left Eden.

(There are also geographic constraints on 'the flood' in the Hebrew, most notably, the fact that Abram/Abraham is described as having 'walked around it' at one point - tying it to a fairly limited geographic region).

interesting.

one could make something out of that in a fantasy book kinda way.

There is in fact evidence that Jesus was a real man that did walk the earth. You can find it in just about any history department that you walk into yourself.

What is it with all the people with 1 post posting this over and over and over again, even though it has already been thoroughly debunked ?

There is in fact evidence that Jesus was a real man that did walk the earth. You can find it in just about any history department that you walk into yourself. The real question is whether the miracles that he performed were real or not. Most historians have now discovered that there were geographical changes that happened at the time of Jesus's life that would easily explain how people thought that these events were reallly happening. To say that these facts aren't true is an insult to those historians who have made this fact their lives work. For those miracles that aren't explained by scientific means, there is also this answer. The Bible is referred to as "the greatest story ever told." Embellishments and exaggerations run rampant in any story much less a story that has been passed down over and over throughout the years. Of course there will be some things that come across as a little over the top. As to the question of "does it matter", I say no. It's called faith for a reason people. You either believe it or you don't.

please provide links to these proofs. if they are so ubiquitous in history departments of the worlds colleges, it should be easy to show just who has proven what and how.

What is it with all the people with 1 post posting this over and over and over again, even though it has already been thoroughly debunked ?

It's the "dumb them into submission" approach. Make us so aggravated by all of this collective 1-post-puppet stupidity that we get up and leave.

Well, I for one, would maybe like some links to articles detailing what archeological evidence is rather than statements saying that there is evidence somewhere.. to start with at least because I'm not going looking for it.

If you're not willing to go look for it yourself, then you don't really want to know the answer, do you? As for links to articles; do you really believe everything you read on the internet? Knowledge is power and the best way to acquire that power is to discover it on your own. Anyone who is genuinely looking for answers to these questions needs to step away from the computer for a little while and into a library. Also, I like smiley's too!:headbang::D:gundge::confused::rolleyes::sniper::fluffle:

please provide links to these proofs. if they are so ubiquitous in history departments of the worlds colleges, it should be easy to show just who has proven what and how.

Huge Nibbler, while none of us is as well published as you, Pickleoo is right, Jesus did walk the Earth.

As a point of undisputed historical fact, Jesus achieved the rank of Brigadier General and was a central figure in the illustrious history of the Phillipine Air Force.


Hia military service was honored with awards such as: Phil Defense Medal; Philippine Liberation Ribbon; Presidential Citation Badge w/ Oakleaf Clusters; Anti-Dissidence Campaign (Central Luzon); Jolo Campaign; Asiatic-Pacific Ribbon; American Defense Ribbon; Silver Wing Medal, and; Long Service Medal w/ One Bronze Star.

Did YOU attend the University of Manilla in 1936?

If you're not willing to go look for it yourself, then you don't really want to know the answer, do you? As for links to articles; do you really believe everything you read on the internet? Knowledge is power and the best way to acquire that power is to discover it on your own. Anyone who is genuinely looking for answers to these questions needs to step away from the computer for a little while and into a library. Also, I like smiley's too!:headbang::D:gundge::confused::rolleyes::sniper::fluffle:

Ah, the "annoying, mildly retarded smiley spam" approach. Haven't seen this one in a while.

Huge Nibbler, while none of us is as well published as you, Pickleoo is right, Jesus did walk the Earth.

As a point of undisputed historical fact, Jesus achieved the rank of Brigadier General and was a central figure in the illustrious history of the Phillipine Air Force.



Did YOU attend the University of Manilla in 1936?

are you visiting straughn and will end up leaving us at some point soon, depressed and abandoned?

i have it on good second hand (which makes it at least 14th hand) information that jesus has been BACK on earth since shortly before the first world war. he could surely have attended the university of manilla if he so chose.

im pretty sure i got the info on NSG from gravenidle so i wont go into any more detail lest i embarrass myself with inaccurate details.

Finding his remains, and confirming that they did indeed belong to a Jesus of Nazareth would be a start



this would help to

Are you going to check the DNA to confirm that it's him?....I'm pretty sure it's not in the Ancient Historical DNA Database of Nazareth.....

If you're not willing to go look for it yourself, then you don't really want to know the answer, do you? As for links to articles; do you really believe everything you read on the internet? Knowledge is power and the best way to acquire that power is to discover it on your own. Anyone who is genuinely looking for answers to these questions needs to step away from the computer for a little while and into a library. Also, I like smiley's too!:headbang::D:gundge::confused::rolleyes::sniper::fluffle:

oh, so you DONT have any sort of proof whatsoever. just the blind assertion of a stranger on the internet that we have no reason to believe.

If you're not willing to go look for it yourself, then you don't really want to know the answer, do you? As for links to articles; do you really believe everything you read on the internet? Knowledge is power and the best way to acquire that power is to discover it on your own. Anyone who is genuinely looking for answers to these questions needs to step away from the computer for a little while and into a library. Also, I like smiley's too!:headbang::D:gundge::confused::rolleyes::sniper::fluffle:

Because, naturally, written characters that are digitized and transmitted electronically are for some reason more dubious then written characters that are pressed on to a page in ink.

Inconvenience is the same as veracity. It was proven in the landmark case "Robert Guccione Sr. Vs. BigBoysBBS".

If you're not willing to go look for it yourself, then you don't really want to know the answer, do you?

I have looked. In real libraries. Did not find it.
So.. help me please ?

I think we can be pretty sure that Jesus existed. We have more evidence for his existence than, say, the existence of Richard I of England. The manuscript evidence is overwhelming.

Well.. at least you did not use Julius Caesar.

I think we can be pretty sure that Jesus existed. We have more evidence for his existence than, say, the existence of Richard I of England. The manuscript evidence is overwhelming.

Also, just because one believes in miracles doesn't make them less intelligent. It just means that they admit more possibilities for things they can't explain.

Yes, it is a fact that there was a man named Jesus Chrust and that he was crucified by the Romans.

People question whether or not he was the son of God and savior of man kind. But it is a historical fact that Jesus existed.

I think we can be pretty sure that Jesus existed. We have more evidence for his existence than, say, the existence of Richard I of England. The manuscript evidence is overwhelming.

Also, just because one believes in miracles doesn't make them less intelligent. It just means that they admit more possibilities for things they can't explain.

what manuscript evidence do you mean?

Historically speaking, there are more primary sources describing the life of Jesus of Nazareth than there are for most Roman Emperors but we don't doubt that they existed. Just because Jesus has religious implications, people get biased against him for that. The real question is if you believe that he did what those sources say he did..... and if you believe the Roman emperors did everything their sources claimed too!

Let's suppose that we were prepared to ignore modern scholarship and assume that everything in the new testament was written by the people they are ascribed to: you still only have two primary sources (Matthew and John).

Which Roman Emperors are mentioned in one or less primary source? Are these enough to constitute a majority?

I've noticed that there are a lot of people on this thread making silly comparisons to the evidence for Roman emperors but very few actually defending their assertions. Anyone care to guess why this is?

I've noticed that there are a lot of people on this thread making silly comparisons to the evidence for Roman emperors but very few actually defending their assertions. Anyone care to guess why this is?

And why those people tend to be "post once and run" ?

are you visiting straughn and will end up leaving us at some point soon, depressed and abandoned?

i have it on good second hand (which makes it at least 14th hand) information that jesus has been BACK on earth since shortly before the first world war. he could surely have attended the university of manilla if he so chose.

im pretty sure i got the info on NSG from gravenidle so i wont go into any more detail lest i embarrass myself with inaccurate details.

Jesus did more than go to uni. He went to fighter training school, tactics school, advanced military air school...this man is the Maverick + Iceman + Jester + Viper of the Phillipino fighter plane world.

And I'm not just saying that because he has Tom Cruise's head on Val Kilmer's torso with Michael Ironside's limbs and Tom Skerrit's bulge.

When you rise to a position of leadership that turns the Filipino Air Force into a paragon of semi-industrialized military might, you can tell me Jesus didn't walk the earth, Nibbler.

Let's suppose that we were prepared to ignore modern scholarship and assume that everything in the new testament was written by the people they are ascribed to: you still only have two primary sources (Matthew and John).

Which Roman Emperors are mentioned in one or less primary source? Are these enough to constitute a majority?

I've noticed that there are a lot of people on this thread making silly comparisons to the evidence for Roman emperors but very few actually defending their assertions. Anyone care to guess why this is?

*raises hand*

Because they're full of crap?

Jesus did more than go to uni. He went to fighter training school, tactics school, advanced military air school...this man is the Maverick + Iceman + Jester + Viper of the Phillipino fighter plane world.

And I'm not just saying that because he has Tom Cruise's head on Val Kilmer's torso with Michael Ironside's limbs and Tom Skerrit's bulge.

When you rise to a position of leadership that turns the Filipino Air Force into a paragon of semi-industrialized military might, you can tell me Jesus didn't walk the earth, Nibbler.

tom skerrit! who would even glance towards tom skerrit's crotch?

Jesus did more than go to uni. He went to fighter training school, tactics school, advanced military air school...this man is the Maverick + Iceman + Jester + Viper of the Phillipino fighter plane world.

And I'm not just saying that because he has Tom Cruise's head on Val Kilmer's torso with Michael Ironside's limbs and Tom Skerrit's bulge.

When you rise to a position of leadership that turns the Filipino Air Force into a paragon of semi-industrialized military might, you can tell me Jesus didn't walk the earth, Nibbler.

tom skerrit! who would even glance towards tom skerrit's crotch?

This thread just went from annoying to weird to disturbing in under half a page.

I think we can be pretty sure that Jesus existed. We have more evidence for his existence than, say, the existence of Richard I of England. The manuscript evidence is overwhelming.

Also, just because one believes in miracles doesn't make them less intelligent. It just means that they admit more possibilities for things they can't explain.

Actually, no. There are no manuscripts outside the Christian tradition that mention Jesus as a person. All the mentions of Christianity come after the crucifixion and talk about his followers, not about him as a person. And we have Richard the Lion-hearted's physical remains (http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/10/250px-Richard1TombFntrvd.jpg) at Fontevraud Abbey in France, which is a good deal more than can be said for Jesus (not, I suppose, that we should have his physical remains).

(not, I suppose, that we should have his physical remains).

There have been epic hunts for the holy foreskin (I kid you not).

tom skerrit! who would even glance towards tom skerrit's crotch?

Dodge the issue all you want, Huge. Just because I brought it up doesn't mean Tom Skerrit is the issue. Discussing him is ridiculous in a thread where so many people have made the highly cogent point that Jesus must have existed because the Caesar Salad was invented in Tijuana (also historical fact).

Tom Skerrit was in Picket Fences, a successful television show seen by millions, thus disproving your completely veiled assertion that Skerrit does not exist.

I shall now pretentiously and irrelevantly state that doubting everything is as foolish as believing everything! Believing in rectally curious aliens does not make a person less intelligent, just more open to the possibilities of things that are beyond our perception but within our anus.

I'm trying to get possessed.

Anyway, I notice not one person has responded to the fact that Jesus was Vice Commander and Chief of Staff of the PAF. They don't let imaginary people run the show in the 5th largest Air Force in the Pacific Rim, people.

This thread just went from annoying to weird to disturbing in under half a page.

DM, elaborate for me on why the idea of Tom Skerrit's junk is any worse than the idea that the AD and BC bifarcation of the Gregorian Calendar is proof of a man rising from the dead because his dad can't forgive absent a snuff play.

DM, elaborate for me on why the idea of Tom Skerrit's junk is any worse than the idea that the AD and BC bifarcation of the Gregorian Calendar is proof of a man rising from the dead because his dad can't forgive absent a snuff play.

They can't both be equally disturbing?

There have been epic hunts for the holy foreskin (I kid you not).

I had heard of that, now you mention it. The Holy Prepuce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus%27_foreskin).

There have been epic hunts for the holy foreskin (I kid you not).

Okay, I want to meet the grant writer who got that budget green lit.

Indiana Jones IV just got its subtitle "Seekers of the Lost Schmuck".

Dodge the issue all you want, Huge. Just because I brought it up doesn't mean Tom Skerrit is the issue. Discussing him is ridiculous in a thread where so many people have made the highly cogent point that Jesus must have existed because the Caesar Salad was invented in Tijuana (also historical fact).

Tom Skerrit was in Picket Fences, a successful television show seen by millions, thus disproving your completely veiled assertion that Skerrit does not exist.

I shall now pretentiously and irrelevantly state that doubting everything is as foolish as believing everything! Believing in rectally curious aliens does not make a person less intelligent, just more open to the possibilities of things that are beyond our perception but within our anus.

I'm trying to get possessed.

Anyway, I notice not one person has responded to the fact that Jesus was Vice Commander and Chief of Staff of the PAF. They don't let imaginary people run the show in the 5th largest Air Force in the Pacific Rim, people.


considering that the entire universe has only a 50% chance of existing (it either does or doesnt, 50/50 chance eh?) id have to say that that means that the chances that you are already possessed are pretty damned high

and by HIGH i mean "maybe you should consider cutting back a bit"

I have looked. In real libraries. Did not find it.
So.. help me please ?

Okay, first of all, I apologize for the earlier smiley's and am not retarded, thank you very much. It was just an attempt to lighten things up that failed. (by the way, I wasn't aware that the forum was a place of name-calling. I'll keep that one in mind) Second, I never though that when I grew up I'd be asked to be a card catalogue. But, here is a website for those of you who would rather not do the research yourself of going to the library. http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn44/existence.htm Please read the entire page and not just bits and pieces that you agree with, otherwise I have wasted my time.

considering that the entire universe has only a 50% chance of existing (it either does or doesnt, 50/50 chance eh?) id have to say that that means that the chances that you are already possessed are pretty damned high

and by HIGH i mean "maybe you should consider cutting back a bit"

This morning some fuckmook tried to tell me that the existence of the universe could be the result of an asymmetry in matter/anti-matter ontologics, and I said "Look, fucko, the fact that you're widely published in both computational physics and early universe astronomy doesn't give you the right to spew your engibberished conjecture at me everytime I come in to your office to swipe laser toner, you addled old sack of cocksnot".

And now I gotta hear this kind of cosmology from Huge Nibbler?

Jesus, if you existed, I feel your pain, you little Jew.

History is divided by his name. After Christ and before Christ.

It's a fact that he really existed.

The Gospels give two different dates for the birth of Jesus, neither of them coincides with 1AD. Why don't you read through the thread? You might learn something.

Oh, and for the record, history is only divided into AD and BC in traditionally Christian countries: Judaism, Islam and Hinduism all have their own calendars.

I have looked. In real libraries. Did not find it.
So.. help me please ?

(http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn44/existence.htm) Other than that, I am not a card catalogue and I don't work in your local library.

The Gospels give two different dates for the birth of Jesus, neither of them coincides with 1AD. Why don't you read through the thread? You might learn something.

Oh, and for the record, history is only divided into AD and BC in traditionally Christian countries: Judaism, Islam and Hinduism all have their own calendars.

Yeah, but wiki and IMDB use the Jesus calendar, cause its all true and stuff.

Seriously, if you look on Jesus's's's birth certificate, it says "aaaaanndd.....NOW! April 4th, 0 AD".

And if you look at the expiration date on the condom that God used with Mary, it said "june 4 BC", but in that fucked up granular print that condom expiration dates are done in.

*raises hand*

Because they're full of crap?

Correct!

A more interesting question is: Why do they always use Roman emperors as their examples, and why is it almost always Julius Caesar, even though he's one of the most evidenced Caesars? You never hear anyone claiming that there's more evidence for Jesus than there is for Pericles, Socrates or Solon, even though these comparisons might be more valid. I suspect they're either parroting a line they were fed by a preacher, or they simply don't know any Classical History so Julius is the only name they can think of.

Yeah, but wiki and IMDB use the Jesus calendar, cause its all true and stuff.

Seriously, if you look on Jesus's's's birth certificate, it says "aaaaanndd.....NOW! April 4th, 0 AD".

And if you look at the expiration date on the condom that God used with Mary, it said "june 4 BC", but in that fucked up granular print that condom expiration dates are done in.

Lies! Lies I tell you!

Any respectable theologian will tell you that God don't wear no condom, and anyway, he told Mary that he'd had a vasectomy.

Correct!

A more interesting question is: Why do they always use Roman emperors as their examples, and why is it almost always Julius Caesar, even though he's one of the most evidenced Caesars? You never hear anyone claiming that there's more evidence for Jesus than there is for Pericles, Socrates or Solon, even though these comparisons might be more valid. I suspect they're either parroting a line they were fed by a preacher, or they simply don't know any Classical History so Julius is the only name they can think of.

It's probably a mix of both. Want to make a "plausible" comparison to your flock? Reference the historical figure of Jesus' era who is most likely to be known by the least common denominator of your denomination. Though I agree that a comparison to Socrates or Pericles would be more apt.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. What does matter that his existing or not existing has led to a large portion of humanity to show humility, follow commandments and lead good lives.

Correct!

A more interesting question is: Why do they always use Roman emperors as their examples, and why is it almost always Julius Caesar, even though he's one of the most evidenced Caesars? You never hear anyone claiming that there's more evidence for Jesus than there is for Pericles, Socrates or Solon, even though these comparisons might be more valid. I suspect they're either parroting a line they were fed by a preacher, or they simply don't know any Classical History so Julius is the only name they can think of.

you know who would be a good comparison?

iphigenia, the daughter that agamemnon sacrificed to get the winds to return so he could sail to troy. she is mentioned in several ancient texts and there were a few plays written about her where she ended up in odd locations instead of dead by her father's hand.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. What does matter that his existing or not existing has led to a large portion of humanity to show humility, follow commandments and lead good lives.

For a certain definition of good.

I've often wondered about that: the New Testament has bugger all character development, even the main characters are painfully two-dimensional and the finale is frankly anti-climatic.

But if it is the only book you have ever read (or had read to you)...

Honestly, it doesn't matter. What does matter that his existing or not existing has led to a large portion of humanity to show humility, follow commandments and lead good lives.

Seriously, what is it with religion threads and pulling the puppets/nutjobs out of the woodwork?

There is in fact evidence that Jesus was a real man that did walk the earth. You can find it in just about any history department that you walk into yourself.

It's true folks! Every history department in the world is obliged by law to have its own mummified Jesus! Buy one, get the rest of the Trinity half price!

The Bible is referred to as "the greatest story ever told."

I've often wondered about that: the New Testament has bugger all character development, even the main characters are painfully two-dimensional and the finale is frankly anti-climatic.

Seriously, what is it with religion threads and pulling the puppets/nutjobs out of the woodwork?

I suspect there is a forum somewhere that links here.

Lies! Lies I tell you!

Any respectable theologian will tell you that God don't wear no condom, and anyway, he told Mary that he'd had a vasectomy.

First of all, St. Francis of Assissi is neither respected nor privy to the prophylactic habits of the Lord Thy God.

Second, what was Mary supposed to do, say "I dunno, Lord, I heard what's her name got chlymidia from Enkidu, should we really go bareback, here?"

Tomorrow, I'm going to ask one of the dudes next door whether there is more evidence for Jesus ala Jim Cavizel (sic?) or Caligula as portrayed by Malcolm McDowell.

Correct!

A more interesting question is: Why do they always use Roman emperors as their examples, and why is it almost always Julius Caesar, even though he's one of the most evidenced Caesars? You never hear anyone claiming that there's more evidence for Jesus than there is for Pericles, Socrates or Solon, even though these comparisons might be more valid. I suspect they're either parroting a line they were fed by a preacher, or they simply don't know any Classical History so Julius is the only name they can think of.

The bolded part is the answer.

They are 'parroting' the argument incorrectly though. The statement/argument they heard was NOT intended as a historicity of Jesus vs. the historicity of Caesar argument, it is/was supposed to be the historicity of the NT works vs. the historicity of "The Gallic Wars." (multiple Christian sources use that example) And if they used the argument in the correct discussion they would be correct, the NT works en masse are vastly better supported and has thousands of fragments and some fragments from within a hundred years of the original writings, and the Gallic Wars work by Julius Caesar has less than 10 copies and none are closer than eight hundred years of Julius Caesars death (or something like that is the paraphrasing)...

It's probably a mix of both. Want to make a "plausible" comparison to your flock? Reference the historical figure of Jesus' era who is most likely to be known by the least common denominator of your denomination. Though I agree that a comparison to Socrates or Pericles would be more apt.

Maybe in a few years time, when the lowest common denominator has thoroughly digested 300, we'll see people arguing that there's more evidence for Jesus than there is for King Leonidas. :p

But if it is the only book you have ever read (or had read to you)...

Lysistrata would've sold better with more pictures.

The bolded part is the answer.

They are 'parroting' the argument incorrectly though. The statement/argument they heard was NOT intended as a historicity of Jesus vs. the historicity of Caesar argument, it is/was supposed to be the historicity of the NT works vs. the historicity of "The Gallic Wars." (multiple Christian sources use that example) And if they used the argument in the correct discussion they would be correct, the NT works en masse are vastly better supported and has thousands of fragments and some fragments from within a hundred years of the original writings, and the Gallic Wars work by Julius Caesar has less than 10 copies and none are closer than eight hundred years of Julius Caesars death (or something like that is the paraphrasing)...

ahhhh that makes much better sense. (yes i really think it does)

and i can understand why it migrated from "the gallic wars vs the new testament" to jesus vs julius. far easier to remember this way if foolishly inaccurate.

The bolded part is the answer.

They are 'parroting' the argument incorrectly though. The statement/argument they heard was NOT intended as a historicity of Jesus vs. the historicity of Caesar argument, it is/was supposed to be the historicity of the NT works vs. the historicity of "The Gallic Wars." (multiple Christian sources use that example) And if they used the argument in the correct discussion they would be correct, the NT works en masse are vastly better supported and has thousands of fragments and some fragments from within a hundred years of the original writings, and the Gallic Wars work by Julius Caesar has less than 10 copies and none are closer than eight hundred years of Julius Caesars death (or something like that is the paraphrasing)...

But that has nothing to do with their relative historicity in the sense of 'are the events they describe real'; I suspect you're giving them too much credit...

you know who would be a good comparison?

iphigenia, the daughter that agamemnon sacrificed to get the winds to return so he could sail to troy. she is mentioned in several ancient texts and there were a few plays written about her where she ended up in odd locations instead of dead by her father's hand.

Nice example.

Maybe in a few years time, when the lowest common denominator has thoroughly digested 300, we'll see people arguing that there's more evidence for Jesus than there is for King Leonidas. :p

In many thousands of years, people will debate whether there is as much evidence for Yoda as there is for Oprah.

Nice example.

I prefer Odysseus or Hercules. Both supposedly had interesting lives, and the second one is even supposed to be the son of a god.

He existed. It is just so.

Every person has his opinion about this matter. This is mine.

*chuckle* all that effort to make a nation, to set up an email for the forums, find this thread, log in, and just to post that little piece of drivel?

Some people have too much free time.

He existed. It is just so.

Every person has his opinion about this matter. This is mine.

I bet there's at least one school in Texas where this counts as a thesis defense.

I think we can be pretty sure that Jesus existed. We have more evidence for his existence than, say, the existence of Richard I of England. The manuscript evidence is overwhelming.

I'm so glad that somebody has used a non-Roman example that I'm not going to argue this once. :D

I'm so glad that somebody has used a non-Roman example that I'm not going to argue this once. :D

I dunno, Septaschedule, Richard the I?

S'like saying that the case for Jesus is firmer than Dick.

interesting.

one could make something out of that in a fantasy book kinda way.

It's actually one of the concepts explored in the background for the 'world' for a set of stories I'm working on. Along with some interesting reinterpretations of events like the Parting of the Red Sea, etc...

Yes, it is a fact that there was a man named Jesus Chrust and that he was crucified by the Romans.


Let's see the evidence?

Something non-scriptural, preferably current to the timing of the events, or close to. Independent sources would be nice.

It's actually one of the concepts explored in the background for the 'world' for a set of stories I'm working on. Along with some interesting reinterpretations of events like the Parting of the Red Sea, etc...

*requisite, semi-joking comment about your track record with story writing*

*requisite, semi-joking comment about your track record with story writing*

Lots of story-writing gets done. That's half the problem. If I only had one burden to carry, one of them might have been finished by now. :D

Lots of story-writing gets done. That's half the problem. If I only had one burden to carry, one of them might have been finished by now. :D

I know precisely what you mean. Sadly.

Plus I can't count the number of stories I've scrapped because someone came out with something with roughly the same premise.

It's actually one of the concepts explored in the background for the 'world' for a set of stories I'm working on. Along with some interesting reinterpretations of events like the Parting of the Red Sea, etc...

im thinking of something in the manga universe. a seperate creation as only a japanese writer with little understanding of the bible can pull off.

I know precisely what you mean. Sadly.

Plus I can't count the number of stories I've scrapped because someone came out with something with roughly the same premise.

how close does the premise have to be for you to scrap it? seems to me that ive read lots of books with similar premises that ive liked independantly of each other.

how close does the premise have to be for you to scrap it? seems to me that ive read lots of books with similar premises that ive liked independantly of each other.

I've steadily come to realization that I can't get skittish every time a story premise vaguely resembles something I find at the library, but back when I was in high school I scrapped several different story ideas, some of which I'd gotten pretty far into, after coming across some non-Dragonlance book series by Margaret Weis.

I'm a fantasy writer, by preference, though I've tried my hand at other genres.

Weis' Mistress of Dragons and Dark Heart led me to drop a story idea about dragons living in disguise in the modern day, and her and Hickman's Dragon Wing, first part of the Death Gate Cycle, led me to scrap a story concept about a world of large landmasses suspended over the surface of the story world, which I've since picked up again and reimagined.

I've steadily come to realization that I can't get skittish every time a story premise vaguely resembles something I find at the library, but back when I was in high school I scrapped several different story ideas, some of which I'd gotten pretty far into, after coming across some non-Dragonlance book series by Margaret Weis.

I'm a fantasy writer, by preference, though I've tried my hand at other genres.

Weis' Mistress of Dragons and Dark Heart led me to drop a story idea about dragons living in disguise in the modern day, and her and Hickman's Dragon Wing, first part of the Death Gate Cycle, led me to scrap a story concept about a world of large landmasses suspended over the surface of the story world, which I've since picked up again and reimagined.

a story lies not in its setup but in its characters and what happens to them.

all you have to do is visit the world of romance novels to see that the premise (boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back) is the least important aspect.

well OK maybe thats too much to ask of a straight man but maybe you can visit the world of the detective novel and see a similar thing

a story lies not in its setup but in its characters and what happens to them.

all you have to do is visit the world of romance novels to see that the premise (boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back) is the least important aspect.

well OK maybe thats too much to ask of a straight man but maybe you can visit the world of the detective novel and see a similar thing

In a lot of ways, it's true for fantasy novels, too.
This break I'm hopefully going to get a chance to write something, hammer something out. I'm pissed I had to skip out on NaNoWriMo this year.

In a lot of ways, it's true for fantasy novels, too.
This break I'm hopefully going to get a chance to write something, hammer something out. I'm pissed I had to skip out on NaNoWriMo this year.

yeah i had tentative plans to do nanowrimo last year but got sidetracked with family tragedy and havent quite regained my urge to write yet.

a story lies not in its setup but in its characters and what happens to them.

all you have to do is visit the world of romance novels to see that the premise (boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back) is the least important aspect.

well OK maybe thats too much to ask of a straight man but maybe you can visit the world of the detective novel and see a similar thing

I agree. You shouldn't let the fact that your story is a little ... derivative stop you. So what if it sounds like Tolkien or some new Harry Potter thing? You have to start somewhere and starting with people whose writing you know and admire is as good a place to start as any. You find your own voice eventually. And trust me, plenty of people have made plenty of money off the derivative stories. I imagine the fellow who wrote the "Sword of Shannara" series chuckles all the way to the bank.

I agree. You shouldn't let the fact that your story is a little ... derivative stop you. So what if it sounds like Tolkien or some new Harry Potter thing? You have to start somewhere and starting with people whose writing you know and admire is as good a place to start as any. You find your own voice eventually. And trust me, plenty of people have made plenty of money off the derivative stories. I imagine the fellow who wrote the "Sword of Shannara" series chuckles all the way to the bank.

exactly. thats why there are so many fantasy novels that feature elves--if you loved tolkien you are likely to want to read other stories with similar elements.

and why there are so many versions of the king arthur story. i bet ive read a dozen different king arthur novels.

I agree. You shouldn't let the fact that your story is a little ... derivative stop you. So what if it sounds like Tolkien or some new Harry Potter thing? You have to start somewhere and starting with people whose writing you know and admire is as good a place to start as any. You find your own voice eventually. And trust me, plenty of people have made plenty of money off the derivative stories. I imagine the fellow who wrote the "Sword of Shannara" series chuckles all the way to the bank.

Oh, I agree. If anything, the more generic, McMagic you are, the more likely you are to sell well, or well enough.

I just want to hold myself to a higher standard, and I'm mostly not in it for the money.

yeah i had tentative plans to do nanowrimo last year but got sidetracked with family tragedy and havent quite regained my urge to write yet.

Sorry to hear that. Losing my laptop, and most of my work over the past two or three years put the kabosh(sp?) on my Nanowrimo plans. Even now, using Word 2007 on a Pentium 3 is going to make lengthy writing painful enough that I might end up going back to pen and paper.

Sorry to hear that. Losing my laptop, and most of my work over the past two or three years put the kabosh(sp?) on my Nanowrimo plans. Even now, using Word 2007 on a Pentium 3 is going to make lengthy writing painful enough that I might end up going back to pen and paper.

i like writing with pen and paper but in the end it has to go on the computer anyway eh? at least i can type pretty fast now. putting it on the computer after pen and paper helps in the editing process. i find all of that redlining and greenlining that word does far too distracting for the initial draft.

i like writing with pen and paper but in the end it has to go on the computer anyway eh? at least i can type pretty fast now. putting it on the computer after pen and paper helps in the editing process. i find all of that redlining and greenlining that word does far too distracting for the initial draft.

The redlining can be helpful, but the greenline grammar help is almost universally wrong.

I once, while spending a month visiting my grandparents in India in 2k3, had to transcribe a ten page summer reading paper on Tolkien from the computer onto paper (having already typed it all up) because the internet died and there was a sudden shortage of floppies. I then had to retype it when I came back, all ten pages.

So generally I've built up the sort of speed where I can churn out a full page of text in minutes, should I have it already on paper. But I never really learned "proper" handwriting, so after about five minutes of writing pen/paper I have to stop for a few minutes to let me hand uncramp.

Oh, I agree. If anything, the more generic, McMagic you are, the more likely you are to sell well, or well enough.

I just want to hold myself to a higher standard, and I'm mostly not in it for the money.

You misunderstand me. Write for the sake of the writing, and accept any generous gratuities that may come your way cheerfully. I just meant that in starting out, don't let sounding "like Tolkien" or "like CS Lewis" stop you from the writing.

It's actually one of the concepts explored in the background for the 'world' for a set of stories I'm working on. Along with some interesting reinterpretations of events like the Parting of the Red Sea, etc...

Apparently, a few scholars believe that "the Red Sea" was misread. They feel its "reed sea", wich in Egypt, would mean a lake.

What else? Anno domini means "year of the lord", and it is referring to Jesus.

Perhaps i should specify that I WASN'T ASKING YOU, thanks.
I know wtf "Anno domini" means. You don't know why i was asking, so learn a little decency perhaps.

Also - BCE isn't "Before Christ" either, which would quantify the "else".

Of course. And I am certain that the good monk that devised it in about 500 AD either knew Jesus personally or had done excellent unbiased historical research.
Which is no doubt why it took till somewhere in the 15th century before every European country used it; and why even today devout Biblical scholars still debate the year of His birth.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13338169&postcount=1664

Thank you for picking up what UB was oblivious to. *bows*

Heh... 'Heresy' was what came to my mind... :D

Of course, that one *always* comes to mind :p