Happy rebirth of your favorite god day
Joe
your favorite god whether its, Jesus, Mithras,
Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, or Dionysus and many more I just
don't know of. All of whom died and were reborn, It's also time to celebrate
the rebirth and renewal that such stories suggest. Any ideas out there on
ways that this can be done?
Miranda Writes, B.Sci, JD, EAC!
Sure. Eat chocolate. LOTS of chocolate. Chocolate bunnies,
Cadbury eggs, speckled eggs ( candy-coated chocolate-malted-milk balls ),
Toblerone and Lindt bars...
Next year, more will return to the shelves of your favorite
retailer where you can buy and eat again. 'Tis a miracle! Ayyyyyy-men and
halleluia!
Miranda
.....waiting to see his face when he wakes up in the morning and notices the
milk-chocolate cross in his Feast of Choclate basket. Hell, why don't they sell
a milk-chocolate crucifix with a tortured gawwwd du jour filled with cordial
cherries? Not fair! Not fair at all!
duke32
wrote:
Actually, Joe, not so much as one died and was reborn.
Mithras, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, and Dionysus and all
the others you can't remember are fakes.
Jesus, who was fully man, died on the cross for the salvation of our
souls. He was not reborn. He was resurrected from the dead.
He is the only one that is real - yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Bet you didn't know that.
duke
*****
One day every tongue
Will confess You are God.
One day every knee will bow.
Still the greatest treasure remains
For those who gladly choose you now.
*****
Peter Cassidy
<duk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:42:29 GMT, "Joe" <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Happy easter everyone, it's now time to celebrate the death and rebirth of
> >your favorite god whether its, Jesus, Mithras,
> >Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, or Dionysus and many more I just
> >don't know of. All of whom died and were reborn, It's also time to celebrate
> >the rebirth and renewal that such stories suggest. Any ideas out there on
> >ways that this can be done?
>
> Actually, Joe, not so much as one died and was reborn.
>
> Mithras, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, and Dionysus and all
> the others you can't remember are fakes.
There's as much evidence for many of them as there is for your
Jesus dude. Howya know they're all fakes (without referencing
the Bible)?
Where did the English word 'Easter' come from??
> Jesus, who was fully man, died on the cross for the salvation of our
> souls. He was not reborn. He was resurrected from the dead.
Too bad the gospels couldn't get the story straight, then.
> He is the only one that is real - yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
>
> Bet you didn't know that.
Bet you didn't know *that*.
> duke
Pete C (egging Earl on ...)
--
Pete Cassidy
Cork, Ireland
Joe
duke32 <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3ca76e58...@news.earthlink.net...
that followed has just
as much "reality" as the other gods I listed. You see often times small
historical facts get blown up into
legends. As an example the trojan war. There was a trojan war but did it
contain all the god, goddesses
and monsters that the legends contained that grew out of it. No. The same
with christianity Duke.
I'm trying toexplain this as simple as I can, I know how dense headed some
of you religionists(especially RC's)
can be. Just about every major pantheon has a god who is killed or dies and
is resurrected
or reborn. The early xtians, took the stories of a man, Jesus(we'll admit to
his existence for the sake of arguement)
and turned him into another version of the gods I mentioned. Why this is
done. Who knows for sure. Man is constantly
evolving and changing. If you want to worship a legend, fine that's your
buisness. Just keep in the back of your mind though
that what you think is the absolute truth now will probably seem very
different a thousand years from now. When our
future ancestors sift through the ruble of a church and wonder about the
people that ritually sacrificed their god on a cross
along with a lamb. And then ate the body and blood of some poor chump as a
token of rememberance performing their
cannabalism on an altar in front of their impaled god.
amban
"Joe" <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net> wrote in message
news:pIup8.2624$d7.8...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
I just like the chocolate.
AMBAN
The Toxic Avenger
"Joe" <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net> wrote in message
Nice post, Joe. The person with whom you are trying to communicate is a
complete catholopathic fuckwit and any effort spent trying to reason with
him is simply wasted. Most of us keep him in our killfile.
The Toxic Avenger
duke32
wrote:
>Well duke, Jesus may have existed as a man, maybe. But the cult of christ
>that followed has just as much "reality" as the other gods I listed.
Any particular reason for your unfounded statement.
Only one you mentioned has an evergrowing following for 2000 years,
and set up for 4000 (if one believes the definition of a day) before
that.
The others you listed are myths. Never existed - no following.
> You see often times small
>historical facts get blown up into
>legends. As an example the trojan war. There was a trojan war but did it
>contain all the god, goddesses
>and monsters that the legends contained that grew out of it. No. The same
>with christianity Duke.
Of course not - it's a myth.
>I'm trying toexplain this as simple as I can, I know how dense headed some
>of you religionists(especially RC's)
>can be. Just about every major pantheon has a god who is killed or dies and
>is resurrected or reborn. The early xtians, took the stories of a man, Jesus(we'll admit to
>his existence for the sake of arguement)
>and turned him into another version of the gods I mentioned. Why this is
>done.
Only one had a man die on the cross, and 3 days later rise from the
dead and was seen, talked with, eaten with, and drank with for the
next 40 days before ascending to the Father, and there were 500 eye
witnesses to this.
> Who knows for sure. Man is constantly
>evolving and changing. If you want to worship a legend, fine that's your
>buisness.
53% of the current world population expresses belief in God Almighty.
33% of the current world population expresses belief in God the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
17% of the current world population is Roman Catholic.
>Just keep in the back of your mind though
>that what you think is the absolute truth now will probably seem very
>different a thousand years from now. When our
>future ancestors sift through the ruble of a church and wonder about the
>people that ritually sacrificed their god on a cross
>along with a lamb.
"Along" with a lamb. You are funny.
>And then ate the body and blood of some poor chump as a
>token of rememberance performing their
>cannabalism on an altar in front of their impaled god.
You really don't know much about Christianity, do you.
duke32
<fa...@e-mail.com> wrote:
>Nice post, Joe. The person with whom you are trying to communicate is a
>complete catholopathic fuckwit and any effort spent trying to reason with
>him is simply wasted. Most of us keep him in our killfile.
>The Toxic Avenger
Please put me back, owner of FBI.
You can't reason with me, ta, you don't have any tools.
amban
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:47:07 GMT, "Joe" <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Well duke, Jesus may have existed as a man, maybe. But the cult of christ
> >that followed has just as much "reality" as the other gods I listed.
>
> Any particular reason for your unfounded statement.
>
> Only one you mentioned has an evergrowing following for 2000 years,
> and set up for 4000 (if one believes the definition of a day) before
> that.
>
Bahnnnn! Wrong answer. The indiginous people of Austrailia have the
longest continously practiced religion in the world. 40,000 years at some
estimates. Oh mah gosh Earl you may be barking up the wrong tree. Oh no!
14% are non religious.
AMBAN
Apostate
<fa...@e-mail.com> wrote:
How mean-spirited of you, TA.
You've done a disservice to fuckwits everywhere.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 -- I've found it!
Coconut CUSSARD; Denizen of Darkness #3
Responding to TROLLS is futile! -- You will be assimilated!
Joe
The Toxic Avenger <fa...@e-mail.com> wrote in message
news:j44q8.9979$SG2.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
>
> Nice post, Joe. The person with whom you are trying to communicate is a
> complete catholopathic fuckwit and any effort spent trying to reason with
> him is simply wasted. Most of us keep him in our killfile.
>
> The Toxic Avenger
>
I've been here.
But every now and then I get a little bored and like to troll for troll.
duke32
wrote:
What's the matter, joe. Can't discuss - arcers can't, you know.
duke32
<ex_alt...@apostate.mailshell.com> wrote:
>>Nice post, Joe. The person with whom you are trying to communicate is a
>>complete catholopathic fuckwit and any effort spent trying to reason with
>>him is simply wasted. Most of us keep him in our killfile.
>>The Toxic Avenger
> How mean-spirited of you, TA.
> You've done a disservice to fuckwits everywhere.
>/Apostate
Aprostrate, shouldn't talk about yourself that way. Arcerland, give
it up for aprostrate - he's getting senile in his old age.
duke32
wrote:
>> Only one you mentioned has an evergrowing following for 2000 years,
>> and set up for 4000 (if one believes the definition of a day) before
>> that.
>Bahnnnn! Wrong answer. The indiginous people of Austrailia have the
>longest continously practiced religion in the world. 40,000 years at some
>estimates. Oh mah gosh Earl you may be barking up the wrong tree. Oh no!
May be. I don't think so.
You will of course furnish some documented evidence of said 40,000
year continuously practiced religion in the world.
I'll be interested in the "continuously practiced" in your words
versus my point of "evergrowing".
>14% are non religious.
>AMBAN
Another biased, unfounded and silly ambanism.
Truth is not really one of your strong points, is it?
amban
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 23:15:46 GMT, "amban" <amban...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Only one you mentioned has an evergrowing following for 2000 years,
> >> and set up for 4000 (if one believes the definition of a day) before
> >> that.
>
> >Bahnnnn! Wrong answer. The indiginous people of Austrailia have the
> >longest continously practiced religion in the world. 40,000 years at
some
> >estimates. Oh mah gosh Earl you may be barking up the wrong tree. Oh
no!
>
> May be. I don't think so.
>
> You will of course furnish some documented evidence of said 40,000
> year continuously practiced religion in the world.
>
> I'll be interested in the "continuously practiced" in your words
> versus my point of "evergrowing".
>
> >14% are non religious.
> >AMBAN
>
> Another biased, unfounded and silly ambanism.
Remember when the olympics was in Austrailia? It was all over the news.
You never provide info so why should I?
AMBAN
amban
> On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 23:15:46 GMT, "amban" <amban...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Only one you mentioned has an evergrowing following for 2000 years,
> >> and set up for 4000 (if one believes the definition of a day) before
> >> that.
>
> >Bahnnnn! Wrong answer. The indiginous people of Austrailia have the
> >longest continously practiced religion in the world. 40,000 years at
some
> >estimates. Oh mah gosh Earl you may be barking up the wrong tree. Oh
no!
>
> May be. I don't think so.
>
> You will of course furnish some documented evidence of said 40,000
> year continuously practiced religion in the world.
>
> I'll be interested in the "continuously practiced" in your words
> versus my point of "evergrowing".
There are less indigenous people now because of your upstart christian
religion. But have no doubts the indigenous people of Australian are
believed to be the oldest culture on earth perhaps as old as 80,000 older
than domesticated animals, I believe. They have survived much longer than
christianity and they have done it without huge churches or without killing
off other cultures. If you want to use longevity as a marker for
legitimacy, christianity does not have what it takes. You better think of a
more credible reason for legitimacy or convert.
>
> >14% are non religious.
> >AMBAN
>
> Another biased, unfounded and silly ambanism.
Check it out Duke Earl of Weber
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html But you won't. None
are so blind that those who will not see. Where do you get your facts?
You never ever ever ever show any proof. You are only good at searching
for info to humiliate people.
AMBAN
Bob Pease
"amban" <amban...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:LLtq8.197928$702.30158@sccrnsc02...
I have to place the "LRTTTNSW" (Let's-return-to-the-noble-savage-way)
school of thought in the list of Newage annoying stuff rather than in the
DodoDung list ( NeoKluxers,JackChickers, Fundoes, Condescending Catholics,
Catholopaths)
I really don't think that the destiny of humanity rests in SotneAge
digeridoo-playing and sitting around thinking about the Ancient "Dreamtime".
Or in the unspeakable sruelties that the Amerinds inflicted on each other.
The vision of Happy Indians living off the land and praying to the great
spirit and other animins practices, while having no technology and everybody
loves everybodyelse, this is a Hippy Utopianism idea that belongs with the
Happy Dolphin Culture that lived along with people in Atlantis until the
evil Honkeys sunk the whole place.
I regret that my 16 grandfathers, ( Indian, White, and Kingsblood Royal
Blacks?? ) fought with each other's ethnic groups and tried to wipe out the
Hostiles/niggers with Manifest destiny..But I don't think we can live in the
past.
If I have a vision for Earthpeople, it is sort of a Jedi/Unitarianism thing.
Dr. I.B. Nutz
Dept of Ethnofickology
Dobbs University
amban
"Bob Pease" <bobp...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:a8f8e8$s...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Perhaps but when one claims that their religion has legitimacy because it
has lasted longer than any other (a mere 2,000 years) that person needs to
take his head out of the sand and perhaps examine other cultures which we as
catholics were never allowed to do. To each his/her own path.
AMBAN
duke32
wrote:
>Remember when the olympics was in Austrailia? It was all over the news.
>You never provide info so why should I?
>AMBAN
Can't answer the question, can you?
duke32
wrote:
>> I'll be interested in the "continuously practiced" in your words
>> versus my point of "evergrowing".
> There are less indigenous people now because of your upstart christian
>religion. But have no doubts the indigenous people of Australian are
>believed to be the oldest culture on earth perhaps as old as 80,000 older
>than domesticated animals, I believe. They have survived much longer than
>christianity and they have done it without huge churches or without killing
>off other cultures. If you want to use longevity as a marker for
>legitimacy, christianity does not have what it takes. You better think of a
>more credible reason for legitimacy or convert.
You've avoided both of my questions above:
1. I'm not one that believes that life on earth is only 6000 years
old. The Australian people may very well be the oldest culture on
earth - not that it proves anything. Seeing that Christianity is only
2000 years old, I certainly concur "something" that is older than
domesticated animals by 80,000 years is older than Christianity. And
I have no idea what point you're trying to make with that comment.
2. I'm not one that believes that starting a fire by rubbing two
sticks together constitutes a 40,000 year *continuously-practiced* and
*ever growing* religion either.
Possibly a little reference other than the one you gave me that shows
the largest religion in the world to be Christianity might help.
>Check it out Duke Earl of Weber
>http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html But you won't.
But I did, and found nothing to back up your claim. It's sort of like
telling someone to go to google to find something and leaving it at
that. I see nothing about 40000 year old "continuously practiced" and
"ever growing" religions like you claim.
>None
>are so blind that those who will not see. Where do you get your facts?
>You never ever ever ever show any proof. You are only good at searching
>for info to humiliate people.
Isn't it interesting to note that your own reference showed
Christianity to be 50% larger than the next largest religious faith.
Is that what you wanted to point out to me on this reference?
duke32
wrote:
>Perhaps but when one claims that their religion has legitimacy because it
>has lasted longer than any other (a mere 2,000 years) that person needs to
>take his head out of the sand and perhaps examine other cultures which we as
>catholics were never allowed to do. To each his/her own path.
Regardless of age, only one had it's savior rise from the dead and
walk and talk and eat and drink for 40 days with 500 of his followers
before ascending to the Father in Heaven.
Age has nothing to do with it.
amban
No that non-relgious are almost as large as catholics because you said in
your precious way.
> >14% are non religious.
> >AMBAN
>
> Another biased, unfounded and silly ambanism.
>
> duke
Dream on Earl, archeologist find no evidence for a great king david in
Jerusalem even the old testament is fable and myth stolen from other
religions and forced down people's throats by killing off and destroying
other cultures. Be proud.
AMBAN
fj...@hotmail.com
How much British beef have you had, Bob?
Bob Pease
<fj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81061c7d.0204...@posting.google.com...
Dr. Nutz is not gay, but prefers American Women.
El Popestro
Joe
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:14:30 GMT, "amban" <amban...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
> Regardless of age, only one had it's savior rise from the dead and
> walk and talk and eat and drink for 40 days with 500 of his followers
> before ascending to the Father in Heaven.
You were there and saw this? Or you read it in some book, of which the
earliest
editions appeared 50+ years after this supposed event.
Caillean McMahon
I believe that Mithrias also rose.
Not a Mithrias fan myself, I tend toward Lilith
Brightest Blessings;
Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
Oh, Satanica romantica
Oh, Vampyria erotica
Oh, I'm Lilith with a killer kiss
Oh, you'll lose your mind while we're entwined
"Vampriella" Inkubus Sukkubus
FlyingEagle
"Joe" <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net> wrote in message
NorthernPiker]
duke32
wrote:
I gather by your words that you reject pretty much all historical
events because they were recorded years later.
You can't even offer differential evidence for the American Revolution
than for the biblical events.
duke32
<cail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> duke32 <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:3cab547a...@news.earthlink.net...
>> > On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:14:30 GMT, "amban" <amban...@attbi.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > Regardless of age, only one had it's savior rise from the dead and
>> > walk and talk and eat and drink for 40 days with 500 of his followers
>> > before ascending to the Father in Heaven.
>>
>> You were there and saw this? Or you read it in some book, of which the
>> earliest
>> editions appeared 50+ years after this supposed event.
>I believe that Mithrias also rose.
>Not a Mithrias fan myself, I tend toward Lilith
>Brightest Blessings;
>Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
Mithraism
A pagan religion consisting mainly of the cult of the ancient
Indo-Iranian Sun-god Mithra.
Mithra was born of a mother-rock by a river under a tree. He came into
the world with the Phrygian cap on his head (hence his designation as
Pileatus, the Capped One), and a knife in his hand.
It is said that shepherds watched his birth, but how this could be,
considering there were no men on earth, is not explained.
duke32
wrote:
>> Isn't it interesting to note that your own reference showed
>> Christianity to be 50% larger than the next largest religious faith.
>> Is that what you wanted to point out to me on this reference?
>No that non-relgious are almost as large as catholics because you said in
>your precious way.
2000 years ago, there were just 13 people. Now there's over 1
billion. Growing, growing, growing.
>> >14% are non religious.
>> >AMBAN
>> Another biased, unfounded and silly ambanism.
>Dream on Earl, archeologist find no evidence for a great king david in
>Jerusalem even the old testament is fable and myth stolen from other
>religions and forced down people's throats by killing off and destroying
>other cultures. Be proud.
I think it's sad the way you have deceived yourself.
Joe
You made a claim, "regardless of age, only one had its savior ......."
I asked how do you know this to be the "truth".
Don't answer my question with another question or switch the topic.
If you say because it's in the bible, how do you prove the accuracy
of it's words. Don't come up with some b.s. such as "faith" either.
That leaves very few options, the most likely one being that you
believe this merely because you were taught to.
dvs519
>On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 01:55:39 GMT, "Joe" <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>duke32 <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:3cab547a...@news.earthlink.net...
>>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 16:14:30 GMT, "amban" <amban...@attbi.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> Regardless of age, only one had it's savior rise from the dead and
>>> walk and talk and eat and drink for 40 days with 500 of his followers
>>> before ascending to the Father in Heaven.
>>
>>
>>You were there and saw this? Or you read it in some book, of which the
>>earliest
>>editions appeared 50+ years after this supposed event.
>
>I gather by your words that you reject pretty much all historical
>events because they were recorded years later.
>
>You can't even offer differential evidence for the American Revolution
>than for the biblical events.
>
>duke
So what is differential evidence?
There are records that name most of the people who served in the
American Revolution. They are probably available in the Smithsonian.
What are some of the names of the 500 followers that you cited above.
What is your source for this information.
It has been over 2 weeks now that we have been asking you for this
info. Are you making this up? You wouldn't be lieing to us, again,
would you?
====================
Dave by the Beach
Redondo Beach
Southern California
Bob Pease
"Joe" <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net> wrote in message
To paraphrase Roseanna Roseannadanna
If you don't believe in one thing, you probably believe in another...
RJ Pease
duke32
wrote:
>You made a claim, "regardless of age, only one had its savior ......."
>I asked how do you know this to be the "truth".
The same way I accept the truth of the American Revolution - written
documents, pictures (no photos), eye witnesses (none alive) that put
words to paper, artifacts, archeology, etc that I have *FAITH* is
true.
If you have another specific false and imaginary god like Mithra that
you wish to discuss, let's have a name.
>Don't answer my question with another question or switch the topic.
If you want an answer at all, don't tell me how to do it.
>If you say because it's in the bible, how do you prove the accuracy
>of it's words. Don't come up with some b.s. such as "faith" either.
Don't tell me what I can use as my guiding light. Foolish pople do
the same thing and don't even realize it.
>That leaves very few options, the most likely one being that you
>believe this merely because you were taught to.
Do you posess differential evidence of the American Revolution that is
other than exactly the same type of evidence for the truth of the
bible?
Answer - no you don't. ONe is 2000 years old with a small amount of
evidence, and the other is 200 years old with much more but the same
type of evidence. But only the same type of evidence.
duke32
>>You can't even offer differential evidence for the American Revolution
>>than for the biblical events.
>>duke
>So what is differential evidence?
A type of evidence for one that is not available for the other.
Actual videos of the AR that were not available for the bible would be
differential evidence.
There is none for the two events.
>There are records that name most of the people who served in the
>American Revolution. They are probably available in the Smithsonian.
That's just another piece of unverifible documentation that is taken
on faith to be true and accurate.
>What are some of the names of the 500 followers that you cited above.
>What is your source for this information.
The 12 apostles, Mary.
Written down, just like the events of the AR.
>It has been over 2 weeks now that we have been asking you for this
>info. Are you making this up? You wouldn't be lieing to us, again,
>would you?
Never lie.
Your answer is above.
Joe
> On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 12:16:04 GMT, "Joe" <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net>
> wrote:
>
> >You made a claim, "regardless of age, only one had its savior ......."
> >I asked how do you know this to be the "truth".
>
> The same way I accept the truth of the American Revolution - written
> documents, pictures (no photos), eye witnesses (none alive) that put
> words to paper, artifacts, archeology, etc that I have *FAITH* is
> true.
>
> If you have another specific false and imaginary god like Mithra that
> you wish to discuss, let's have a name.
> >Don't answer my question with another question or switch the topic.
>
> If you want an answer at all, don't tell me how to do it.
I am asking for a rebuttal to claims you have made. You
are still avoiding my questions.
> >If you say because it's in the bible, how do you prove the accuracy
> >of it's words. Don't come up with some b.s. such as "faith" either.
>
> Don't tell me what I can use as my guiding light. Foolish pople do
> the same thing and don't even realize it.
Again I am asking for reasons that you claim your beliefs are based on
factual events. Instead of "faith". But if you stick to "faith" be honest
about
what it implies. That your beliefs are your *opinion* , something you either
read about or were taught to believe. And not necessarily
the *truth* for all and that it is possible since it is just your opinion
that
you could be wrong about your beliefs.
> >That leaves very few options, the most likely one being that you
> >believe this merely because you were taught to.
>
> Do you posess differential evidence of the American Revolution that is
> other than exactly the same type of evidence for the truth of the
> bible?
>
> Answer - no you don't. ONe is 2000 years old with a small amount of
> evidence, and the other is 200 years old with much more but the same
> type of evidence. But only the same type of evidence.
>
Again you are avoiding the issue. But maybe you can't answer me.
But to answer you I do not personally possess differential evidence of the
American
Revolution. It is quit possible that a some of the details of said event may
not be
exactly as they are recorded in history books. So what, it wouldn't rock my
world
to learn that.
duke32
wrote:
> To paraphrase Roseanna Roseannadanna
>If you don't believe in one thing, you probably believe in another...
>RJ Pease
And we now know how badly you want to be right, and can't.
duke32
wrote:
>> If you have another specific false and imaginary god like Mithra that
>> you wish to discuss, let's have a name.
>> >Don't answer my question with another question or switch the topic.
>> If you want an answer at all, don't tell me how to do it.
>I am asking for a rebuttal to claims you have made. You
>are still avoiding my questions.
You're not making any poiints telling me how I can answer - when you
drop that restriction, I'll be glad to discuss.
>> >If you say because it's in the bible, how do you prove the accuracy
>> >of it's words. Don't come up with some b.s. such as "faith" either.
>> Don't tell me what I can use as my guiding light. Foolish pople do
>> the same thing and don't even realize it.
>Again I am asking for reasons that you claim your beliefs are based on
>factual events. Instead of "faith". But if you stick to "faith" be honest
>about what it implies. That your beliefs are your *opinion* , something you either
>read about or were taught to believe. And not necessarily
>the *truth* for all and that it is possible since it is just your opinion
>that you could be wrong about your beliefs.
Hint: because there were eye witnesses to events 2000 years ago and
200 years ago. Both of these events were recorded in writing from
"moments" to "years" later and in which none of the authors are alive
today to certify the data or its accuracy.
Both instances are limited to drawings (no still or moving pictures,
no videocams, no tv), verbal stories some written some not, artifacts,
graves, archeology, etc.
I have faith in the truth of both events. The only difference between
the two events is the number of documents from each, but nothing of
any different type of information. Both have exactly the same.
>> >That leaves very few options, the most likely one being that you
>> >believe this merely because you were taught to.
>> Do you posess differential evidence of the American Revolution that is
>> other than exactly the same type of evidence for the truth of the
>> bible?
>> Answer - no you don't. ONe is 2000 years old with a small amount of
>> evidence, and the other is 200 years old with much more but the same
>> type of evidence. But only the same type of evidence.
>Again you are avoiding the issue. But maybe you can't answer me.
>But to answer you I do not personally possess differential evidence of the
>American
>Revolution. It is quit possible that a some of the details of said event may
>not be
>exactly as they are recorded in history books. So what, it wouldn't rock my
>world
>to learn that.
Does this verify or refute the overall truth of the two events?
No.
dvs519
>On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:03:21 GMT, dvs519 <dvs...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>There are records that name most of the people who served in the
>>American Revolution. They are probably available in the Smithsonian.
>
>That's just another piece of unverifible documentation that is taken
>on faith to be true and accurate.
I have seen and touched Paul Revere's grave stone in Boston last
January. There are many others near by that date from the time of the
American Revolution. There are church records and city land records
from the American Revolution that can be viewed in Boston.
>
>>What are some of the names of the 500 followers that you cited above.
>>What is your source for this information.
>
>The 12 apostles, Mary.
487 to go.
>
>Written down, just like the events of the AR.
Where can I see the source material? What page and volume of the Latin
census reports? Where are they?
>
>>It has been over 2 weeks now that we have been asking you for this
>>info. Are you making this up? You wouldn't be lieing to us, again,
>>would you?
>
Two weeks to get 13 out of 500 names. Are you hoping you will die
before you finish answering this?
Joe
Well, in regards to the revolution much was written down very soon if not
during the events as opposed to the
acount of jesus of whom very few people around him were even literate. When
ever something
is recorded or remembered there is always a bias towards the recorders
personal thoughts
and views, so while what we have of the revolution may not be exactly
accurate it is probably
pretty close. We have original documents from that time. The same can not be
said of the gospels.
Where (if I remember correctly) the earliest account that has been found was
written many years after jesus(assuming he existed) left. The RCC's
history of these events can be considered highly suspect. When you look at
all the other *truths* that they tried to pass off.
So you are left with a book of dubious accuracy and the mutterings of a
bunch of ignorant men from the middle ages upon which
to base your spiritual beliefs your faith.
> Both instances are limited to drawings (no still or moving pictures,
> no videocams, no tv), verbal stories some written some not, artifacts,
> graves, archeology, etc.
>
> I have faith in the truth of both events. The only difference between
> the two events is the number of documents from each, but nothing of
> any different type of information. Both have exactly the same.
Again you have faith, a belief, an opinion, based on the words of others,
that could be wrong.
The account of Jesus as written in the *bible* let alone all the other texts
that were
not included are basically unverifiable, compared to latter history. I
cannot *prove*
jesus didn't exist, but neither can you *prove* that he did, in the end you
are left
with your faith, a belief, that you were taught to believe.
duke32
wrote:
>Well, in regards to the revolution much was written down very soon if not
>during the events as opposed to the
>acount of jesus of whom very few people around him were even literate.
It only takes one literate person to record accurately what he
say/heard. And there were some.
>When
>ever something
>is recorded or remembered there is always a bias towards the recorders
>personal thoughts
>and views, so while what we have of the revolution may not be exactly
>accurate it is probably
>pretty close. We have original documents from that time. The same can not be
>said of the gospels.
Of course we can say the same for the gospels.
>Where (if I remember correctly) the earliest account that has been found was
>written many years after jesus(assuming he existed) left. The RCC's
>history of these events can be considered highly suspect.
You referring to the biblical text itself, such as those commonly
referred to as by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These 4 were not
necessarily the real authors or the only authors of recorded events.
Even if it was just these 4 does not make them incorrect in their
messages.
>When you look at
>all the other *truths* that they tried to pass off.
>So you are left with a book of dubious accuracy and the mutterings of a
>bunch of ignorant men from the middle ages upon which
>to base your spiritual beliefs your faith.
Anything in particular in these other "truths" you're
misunderstanding.
>Again you have faith, a belief, an opinion, based on the words of others,
>that could be wrong.
>The account of Jesus as written in the *bible* let alone all the other texts
>that were
>not included are basically unverifiable, compared to latter history.
Sorry, there are clearly more documents, but nothing to suggest one is
more truthful than the other.
>I cannot *prove*
>jesus didn't exist, but neither can you *prove* that he did, in the end you
>are left
>with your faith, a belief, that you were taught to believe.
You can't *prove* the American Revolution story is true either.
You rely on your faith, a belief, that you were taught to believe.
Both events rely on documents from the relative eras, drawings and
paintings, words written down at the moment or years later, artifacts,
archeology, etc for truth. We believe what they tell us.
Do you believe, for instance, that the Declaration of Independence was
signed by everyone at one time. I think 5 signed it. It took another
9 years to gather signatures, of which the signee may or may not be
the person named.
duke
duke32
>>That's just another piece of unverifible documentation that is taken
>>on faith to be true and accurate.
>I have seen and touched Paul Revere's grave stone in Boston last
>January. There are many others near by that date from the time of the
>American Revolution. There are church records and city land records
>from the American Revolution that can be viewed in Boston.
I can go to Rome and touch St. Peters grave also. And church records
and city land records are taken on faith as to their authenticity.
>>>What are some of the names of the 500 followers that you cited above.
>>>What is your source for this information.
>>The 12 apostles, Mary.
>487 to go.
You said "some" - I gave you 13.
>>Written down, just like the events of the AR.
>Where can I see the source material? What page and volume of the Latin
>census reports? Where are they?
Did George Washington chop down the cherry tree?
>>>It has been over 2 weeks now that we have been asking you for this
>>>info. Are you making this up? You wouldn't be lieing to us, again,
>>>would you?
>Two weeks to get 13 out of 500 names. Are you hoping you will die
>before you finish answering this?
I answered you question - you asked for "some", I gave you 13.
That's all you're going to get.
amban
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 19:09:18 GMT, dvs519 <dvs...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >>That's just another piece of unverifible documentation that is taken
> >>on faith to be true and accurate.
>
> >I have seen and touched Paul Revere's grave stone in Boston last
> >January. There are many others near by that date from the time of the
> >American Revolution. There are church records and city land records
> >from the American Revolution that can be viewed in Boston.
>
> I can go to Rome and touch St. Peters grave also. And church records
> and city land records are taken on faith as to their authenticity.
You go to Rome and take a tour under the vatican. They take you to a room
and they show you a hole in the wall that is behind Plexiglas. You can see
a chamber beyond the small hole and they claim that chamber is the tomb of
ST. Peter but you don't see much of anything and you certainly can't touch
anything. None of this has been corroborated scientifically all of it is
circumstantial.
AMBAN
Joe
> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 19:00:01 GMT, "Joe" <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net>
> >When
> >ever something
> >is recorded or remembered there is always a bias towards the recorders
> >personal thoughts
> >and views, so while what we have of the revolution may not be exactly
> >accurate it is probably
> >pretty close. We have original documents from that time. The same can not
be
> >said of the gospels.
>
> Of course we can say the same for the gospels.
Wrong, there is no gospel from Jesus's time, they came decades if not
later.
There is no written records of Jesus directly recorded during his life that
are known
to be in existence (assuming of course that was a Jesus). In contrast from
the revolution
we have original documents, imagine if all the accounts of the revolution
were written sometime into the 1800's with no written works to go on, just
oral tradition.
> >Where (if I remember correctly) the earliest account that has been found
was
> >written many years after jesus(assuming he existed) left. The RCC's
> >history of these events can be considered highly suspect.
>
> You referring to the biblical text itself, such as those commonly
> referred to as by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These 4 were not
> necessarily the real authors or the only authors of recorded events.
So now we don't even know who wrote them?
> >When you look at
> >all the other *truths* that they tried to pass off.
> >So you are left with a book of dubious accuracy and the mutterings of a
> >bunch of ignorant men from the middle ages upon which
> >to base your spiritual beliefs your faith.
>
> Anything in particular in these other "truths" you're
> misunderstanding.
Just the standard stuff, the inquisition, all the "relics" of Jesus,
selling of indulgences, lack of scientific knowledge, trying to
keep literacy from the masses. etc..... The RCC tried to pass off
all this b.s. with a straight face as sure as they tried to pass off their
dogma. To me this taints just about anything from this organization,
when it comes to historical accuracy about the god (Jesus) they worship.
> >Again you have faith, a belief, an opinion, based on the words of others,
> >that could be wrong.
> >The account of Jesus as written in the *bible* let alone all the other
texts
> >that were
> >not included are basically unverifiable, compared to latter history.
>
> Sorry, there are clearly more documents, but nothing to suggest one is
> more truthful than the other.
That's right so noone really knows, it's all a big maybe.
> >I cannot *prove*
> >jesus didn't exist, but neither can you *prove* that he did, in the end
you
> >are left
> >with your faith, a belief, that you were taught to believe.
>
> You can't *prove* the American Revolution story is true either
Maybe we can't prove all the details, but from the first hand written
accounts
we do know quite a bit. Even if it is a little wrong who cares.
> You rely on your faith, a belief, that you were taught to believe.
> Both events rely on documents from the relative eras, drawings and
> paintings, words written down at the moment or years later, artifacts,
> archeology, etc for truth. We believe what they tell us.
>
> Do you believe, for instance, that the Declaration of Independence was
> signed by everyone at one time. I think 5 signed it. It took another
> 9 years to gather signatures, of which the signee may or may not be
> the person named.
Fine, maybe. Just like your *faith* is a big maybe, that's even a stretch.
That's a long way from what you originally posted.
> Only one had a man die on the cross, and 3 days later rise from the
> dead and was seen, talked with, eaten with, and drank with for the
> next 40 days before ascending to the Father, and there were 500 eye
> witnesses to this.
>
and
> Mithras, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Balder, Attis, and Dionysus and all
> the others you can't remember are fakes.
>
> Jesus, who was fully man, died on the cross for the salvation of our
> souls. He was not reborn. He was resurrected from the dead.
>
> He is the only one that is real - yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
>
> Bet you didn't know that.
A big difference between the maybe happened but I believe it did. From the
tone you were using where you claimed surety. To admit this means that
there is a chance you could be wrong. Maybe all this stuff about Jesus
didn't
happen they way you were taught, maybe it didn't happen at all.
Joe
From: "dvs519" <dvs...@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Happy rebirth of your favorite god day
Date: Saturday, April 06, 2002 2:09 PM
On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 16:53:02 GMT, duk...@earthlink.net (duke32) wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:03:21 GMT, dvs519 <dvs...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>There are records that name most of the people who served in the
>>American Revolution. They are probably available in the Smithsonian.
>
>That's just another piece of unverifible documentation that is taken
>on faith to be true and accurate.
I have seen and touched Paul Revere's grave stone in Boston last
January. There are many others near by that date from the time of the
American Revolution. There are church records and city land records
from the American Revolution that can be viewed in Boston.
Also how many bones and skulls of St. Peter are floating around the RC
universe?
Not too mention all the other dubious relics that the popes vouched for.
duke32
wrote:
>> >When
>> >ever something
>> >is recorded or remembered there is always a bias towards the recorders
>> >personal thoughts
>> >and views, so while what we have of the revolution may not be exactly
>> >accurate it is probably
>> >pretty close. We have original documents from that time. The same can not
>be
>> >said of the gospels.
>> Of course we can say the same for the gospels.
>
>Wrong, there is no gospel from Jesus's time, they came decades if not
>later.
And what makes you think the historian was standing there pencil and
paper in hand ready to record all that was said and done at the very
moment of it's occurance.
Probably there were some, but all events in the AR, forget it. It was
written by historians from verbal accounts, "small" writings or
viewings or hearsay of one small local event to be subsequently
assemblied into a bigger writing, etc
>There is no written records of Jesus directly recorded during his life that
>are known
>to be in existence (assuming of course that was a Jesus).
And what great knowledge do you have to confirm that. You don't have
any. We have 4 Gospels, the words of Christ himself,
>In contrast from
>the revolution
>we have original documents,
Same for the bible.
>imagine if all the accounts of the revolution
>were written sometime into the 1800's with no written works to go on, just
>oral tradition.
Don't you think that most of the AR was recorded days to years later
after the event.
>> >Where (if I remember correctly) the earliest account that has been found
>was
>> >written many years after jesus(assuming he existed) left. The RCC's
>> >history of these events can be considered highly suspect.
>> You referring to the biblical text itself, such as those commonly
>> referred to as by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These 4 were not
>> necessarily the real authors or the only authors of recorded events.
>
>So now we don't even know who wrote them?
Nor the AR.
>> >When you look at
>> >all the other *truths* that they tried to pass off.
>> >So you are left with a book of dubious accuracy and the mutterings of a
>> >bunch of ignorant men from the middle ages upon which
>> >to base your spiritual beliefs your faith.
>>
>> Anything in particular in these other "truths" you're
>> misunderstanding.
>Just the standard stuff, the inquisition, all the "relics" of Jesus,
>selling of indulgences, lack of scientific knowledge, trying to
>keep literacy from the masses. etc..... The RCC tried to pass off
>all this b.s. with a straight face as sure as they tried to pass off their
>dogma. To me this taints just about anything from this organization,
>when it comes to historical accuracy about the god (Jesus) they worship.
No more tainted than the historical records of the AR.
>> Sorry, there are clearly more documents, but nothing to suggest one is
>> more truthful than the other.
>That's right so noone really knows, it's all a big maybe.
Now you're starting to understand the real truth of the matter. Only
5 people signed the Declaration of Independence originally. It took
another 9 years to get the rest, if they are who they say they are.
I have no trouble accepting it's authenticity.
>> >I cannot *prove*
>> >jesus didn't exist, but neither can you *prove* that he did, in the end
>you
>> >are left
>> >with your faith, a belief, that you were taught to believe.
>> You can't *prove* the American Revolution story is true either
>Maybe we can't prove all the details, but from the first hand written
>accounts
>we do know quite a bit. Even if it is a little wrong who cares.
We know quite a bit about both - that's the point I'm making.
Both are true - we have more from the AR because it was a more recent
event, only 200 years, but we don't have any different type of proof
for one vs the other.
>> You rely on your faith, a belief, that you were taught to believe.
>> Both events rely on documents from the relative eras, drawings and
>> paintings, words written down at the moment or years later, artifacts,
>> archeology, etc for truth. We believe what they tell us.
>>
>> Do you believe, for instance, that the Declaration of Independence was
>> signed by everyone at one time. I think 5 signed it. It took another
>> 9 years to gather signatures, of which the signee may or may not be
>> the person named.
>Fine, maybe. Just like your *faith* is a big maybe, that's even a stretch.
>That's a long way from what you originally posted.
Not at all - my story has been consistent - and I've been repeating it
for a long, long time.
The arguments against it are always the same, and to this date prove
no more than the 1st rebuttal to it did.
>> Jesus, who was fully man, died on the cross for the salvation of our
>> souls. He was not reborn. He was resurrected from the dead.
>> He is the only one that is real - yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
>> Bet you didn't know that.
>A big difference between the maybe happened but I believe it did. From the
>tone you were using where you claimed surety. To admit this means that
>there is a chance you could be wrong. Maybe all this stuff about Jesus
>didn't
>happen they way you were taught, maybe it didn't happen at all.
It's not a matter of "me" being right or wrong - it's a matter of fact
and how it was arrived at is the key point.
I would expect that, in 2000 years, there are many, many more people
worldwide that have accepted the truths of the bible than does the AR.
For sure, 200 years of British and American history believes the
truths of the AR.
Christianity started with 12 men 2000 years ago. 1/6, or 17%, of the
current world population is Roman Catholic, 33% of the current world
population believes in Christanity (RCatholics, Protestants, etc), 53%
of the current world population believes in God Almighty (Jewish,
Chrisitanity, Islam).
duke32
wrote:
>
>"duke32" <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3cb0c3bf...@news.earthlink.net...
>> On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 19:09:18 GMT, dvs519 <dvs...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>That's just another piece of unverifible documentation that is taken
>> >>on faith to be true and accurate.
>>
>> >I have seen and touched Paul Revere's grave stone in Boston last
>> >January. There are many others near by that date from the time of the
>> >American Revolution. There are church records and city land records
>> >from the American Revolution that can be viewed in Boston.
>>
>> I can go to Rome and touch St. Peters grave also. And church records
>> and city land records are taken on faith as to their authenticity.
>You go to Rome and take a tour under the vatican. They take you to a room
>and they show you a hole in the wall that is behind Plexiglas. You can see
>a chamber beyond the small hole and they claim that chamber is the tomb of
>ST. Peter but you don't see much of anything and you certainly can't touch
>anything. None of this has been corroborated scientifically all of it is
>circumstantial.
>AMBAN
I have seen and touched Bonnie & Clydes's headstones also, but so
what.
Is there more proof that Paul and Bonnie and Clyde are really and
truly there but not St Peter - clearly the most protected and sacred
site of the 4.
amban
Bonnie and Clyde now with ST peter that wouldn't work. In fact what saint
was it Peter (?) that they found chicken bones a couple of years ago mixed
in with the human bones?
AMBAN
amban
DNA testing could prove who they are, not any of your Bible people.
It was officially adopted on July 4th (New York had not yet agreed) On July
9th the New York convention agreed.
On July 19th it was ordered by congress to be a unanimous declaration of the
13 united states of america and ordered to be signed. It was signed on
August 2nd. 5O delegates signed it on that day. Six others signed later
five before November of 1776 and the last by 1781. Two never did sign
because they didn't agree.
You manipulate the facts to try and it make it seem like it took nine years
to get the majority to sign. The majority signed on August 2, 1776 when it
was decided it was to be signed. Just because you didn't know that the
declaration wasn't signed on that day doesn't mean the rest of the whole
world doesn't know it. You feel misled because you haven't studied your
history Earl not because anyone lied!
AMBAN
Darklady
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 00:15:53 GMT, "Joe" <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> >When
> >> >ever something
> >> >is recorded or remembered there is always a bias towards the recorders
> >> >personal thoughts
> >> >and views, so while what we have of the revolution may not be exactly
> >> >accurate it is probably
> >> >pretty close. We have original documents from that time. The same can not
> >be
> >> >said of the gospels.
>
> >> Of course we can say the same for the gospels.
>
> >
> >Wrong, there is no gospel from Jesus's time, they came decades if not
> >later.
>
> And what makes you think the historian was standing there pencil and
> paper in hand ready to record all that was said and done at the very
> moment of it's occurance.
>
> Probably there were some, but all events in the AR, forget it. It was
> written by historians from verbal accounts, "small" writings or
> viewings or hearsay of one small local event to be subsequently
> assemblied into a bigger writing, etc
Are you insane? (Why am I even asking?)
The study of the AR doesn't rely upon historians standing pencil
in hand to jot down notes. Historians may interpret history and create
books -- but they don't necessarily *create* it. They gain an
understanding of historic events by studying primary and secondary
(etc.) documentation of historic events. The AR is full of such
documents. Letters, printed and coined money, flags, clothing,
buildings, battlefields, military records, naval records, treaties,
etc. etc. There is ample evidence that the AR occured, although
differences in interpretation of some events still exist. But the life
and death of Jesus? There are no primary documents about his life and
all we have to go on are the Gospels (a study in and of themselves)
and the development of the Christian religion. We know that
*something* caused Christianity to come into existence. We know who
it's said to be based upon. But the actual facts of the life of Jesus?
Nothing beyond the "inspired" books of the NT.
> >There is no written records of Jesus directly recorded during his life that
> >are known
> >to be in existence (assuming of course that was a Jesus).
>
> And what great knowledge do you have to confirm that. You don't have
> any. We have 4 Gospels, the words of Christ himself,
We have 4 Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Gospels have been
reworked during history, sometimes contradict one another, and are
*not* supposed to be the "words of Christ himself" literally -- unless
you're a Protestant and you've assured us that you are not. The Dead
Sea Scrolls contradict some commonly held ideas about Jesus, so
they're not necessarily going to be much help to you.
> >In contrast from
> >the revolution
> >we have original documents,
>
> Same for the bible.
The "bible" is a meaningless term here since all one needs to
support your statement is show that any city in the book existed.
We're talking about the magical events of Jesus' life -- not whether
or not Bethlemen existed. And there's no primary documentation to
support anything regarding the life and death of Jesus. Heck, even the
info about when he was supposed to have been born is wrong, as is the
story of the census his parents were supposed to be part of.
I also wouldn't recommend you use the OT as any kind of travel
guide. Several times it gets very simple geography wrong.
> >imagine if all the accounts of the revolution
> >were written sometime into the 1800's with no written works to go on, just
> >oral tradition.
>
> Don't you think that most of the AR was recorded days to years later
> after the event.
Nope. People on the lines were writing home, keeping diaries,
signing treaties, buying land, etc. And we have that information in
its original form. I can trace my own family's involvement in the AR,
in fact. The records are that good.
> >> >Where (if I remember correctly) the earliest account that has been found
> >was
> >> >written many years after jesus(assuming he existed) left. The RCC's
> >> >history of these events can be considered highly suspect.
>
> >> You referring to the biblical text itself, such as those commonly
> >> referred to as by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These 4 were not
> >> necessarily the real authors or the only authors of recorded events.
> >
> >So now we don't even know who wrote them?
>
> Nor the AR.
No one "wrote the AR," you fool.
But at least you admit you don't know what you're talking about.
> >> >When you look at
> >> >all the other *truths* that they tried to pass off.
> >> >So you are left with a book of dubious accuracy and the mutterings of a
> >> >bunch of ignorant men from the middle ages upon which
> >> >to base your spiritual beliefs your faith.
> >>
> >> Anything in particular in these other "truths" you're
> >> misunderstanding.
>
>
> >Just the standard stuff, the inquisition, all the "relics" of Jesus,
> >selling of indulgences, lack of scientific knowledge, trying to
> >keep literacy from the masses. etc..... The RCC tried to pass off
> >all this b.s. with a straight face as sure as they tried to pass off their
> >dogma. To me this taints just about anything from this organization,
> >when it comes to historical accuracy about the god (Jesus) they worship.
>
> No more tainted than the historical records of the AR.
Again you show your ignorance of both the Bible, the AR, and the
concept of documentation and historical research.
> >> Sorry, there are clearly more documents, but nothing to suggest one is
> >> more truthful than the other.
>
> >That's right so noone really knows, it's all a big maybe.
>
> Now you're starting to understand the real truth of the matter. Only
> 5 people signed the Declaration of Independence originally. It took
> another 9 years to get the rest, if they are who they say they are.
>
> I have no trouble accepting it's authenticity.
Given the copious writing that the signers did on the subject, I
hardly think that's a sign of your broad minded interpretation of
historic documentation. No one except yourself appears interested in
claiming that the AR is as likely to have happened as the life and
death of Jesus as told by the NT.
> >> >I cannot *prove*
> >> >jesus didn't exist, but neither can you *prove* that he did, in the end
> >you
> >> >are left
> >> >with your faith, a belief, that you were taught to believe.
>
> >> You can't *prove* the American Revolution story is true either
> >Maybe we can't prove all the details, but from the first hand written
> >accounts
> >we do know quite a bit. Even if it is a little wrong who cares.
>
> We know quite a bit about both - that's the point I'm making.
We know quite a bit about the AR and quite a bit about what the
Bible as we currently have it says about the life and death of Jesus.
That's not the same thing as knowing "quite a bit about both."
> Both are true - we have more from the AR because it was a more recent
> event, only 200 years, but we don't have any different type of proof
> for one vs the other.
<sigh>
You really are married to your ignorance.
> >> You rely on your faith, a belief, that you were taught to believe.
> >> Both events rely on documents from the relative eras, drawings and
> >> paintings, words written down at the moment or years later, artifacts,
> >> archeology, etc for truth. We believe what they tell us.
> >>
> >> Do you believe, for instance, that the Declaration of Independence was
> >> signed by everyone at one time. I think 5 signed it. It took another
> >> 9 years to gather signatures, of which the signee may or may not be
> >> the person named.
>
> >Fine, maybe. Just like your *faith* is a big maybe, that's even a stretch.
> >That's a long way from what you originally posted.
>
> Not at all - my story has been consistent - and I've been repeating it
> for a long, long time.
A lie repeated is still a lie.
> The arguments against it are always the same, and to this date prove
> no more than the 1st rebuttal to it did.
>
> >> Jesus, who was fully man, died on the cross for the salvation of our
> >> souls. He was not reborn. He was resurrected from the dead.
> >> He is the only one that is real - yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
> >> Bet you didn't know that.
>
> >A big difference between the maybe happened but I believe it did. From the
> >tone you were using where you claimed surety. To admit this means that
> >there is a chance you could be wrong. Maybe all this stuff about Jesus
> >didn't
> >happen they way you were taught, maybe it didn't happen at all.
>
> It's not a matter of "me" being right or wrong - it's a matter of fact
> and how it was arrived at is the key point.
Correct.
The point you're missing is that you're not correct in your
claims.
> I would expect that, in 2000 years, there are many, many more people
> worldwide that have accepted the truths of the bible than does the AR.
> For sure, 200 years of British and American history believes the
> truths of the AR.
Yup. You're an idiot.
> Christianity started with 12 men 2000 years ago. 1/6, or 17%, of the
> current world population is Roman Catholic, 33% of the current world
> population believes in Christanity (RCatholics, Protestants, etc), 53%
> of the current world population believes in God Almighty (Jewish,
> Chrisitanity, Islam).
>
> duke
Yup. An idiot. I could make a more compelling argument for
Christianity than you make. At least I know there were more than 12
men allegedly involved.
--
-- Darklady
http://www.darklady.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dark-Lady
duke32
wrote:
>> Now you're starting to understand the real truth of the matter. Only
>> 5 people signed the Declaration of Independence originally. It took
>> another 9 years to get the rest, if they are who they say they are.
> DNA testing could prove who they are, not any of your Bible people.
How would it prove "who" they are "what"?
>It was officially adopted on July 4th (New York had not yet agreed) On July
>9th the New York convention agreed.
>On July 19th it was ordered by congress to be a unanimous declaration of the
>13 united states of america and ordered to be signed. It was signed on
>August 2nd. 5O delegates signed it on that day. Six others signed later
>five before November of 1776 and the last by 1781. Two never did sign
>because they didn't agree.
My point exactly.
>You manipulate the facts to try and it make it seem like it took nine years
>to get the majority to sign.
My facts are not the time frame involved, but that there *was* a time
frame.
> The majority signed on August 2, 1776 when it
>was decided it was to be signed.
But not all - as the facts erronously suggest.
>Just because you didn't know that the
>declaration wasn't signed on that day doesn't mean the rest of the whole
>world doesn't know it.
You made my point.
>You feel misled because you haven't studied your
>history Earl not because anyone lied!
Nobody lied - you've proved history is not necessarily exactly what it
appears to be.
My point exactly.
Did George Washington chop down the cherry tree? I'll give you an
easier one - did he throw a coin accross the Potomac?
duke32
> Are you insane? (Why am I even asking?)
Because you are so unsure of yourself.
> The study of the AR doesn't rely upon historians standing pencil
>in hand to jot down notes. Historians may interpret history and create
>books -- but they don't necessarily *create* it. They gain an
>understanding of historic events by studying primary and secondary
>(etc.) documentation of historic events. The AR is full of such
>documents. Letters, printed and coined money, flags, clothing,
>buildings, battlefields, military records, naval records, treaties,
>etc. etc. There is ample evidence that the AR occured, although
>differences in interpretation of some events still exist. But the life
>and death of Jesus? There are no primary documents about his life and
>all we have to go on are the Gospels (a study in and of themselves)
>and the development of the Christian religion. We know that
>*something* caused Christianity to come into existence. We know who
>it's said to be based upon. But the actual facts of the life of Jesus?
>Nothing beyond the "inspired" books of the NT.
Actually, did you know that what Jesus gave us was Holy Tradition,
some of which was written down to become the "inspired" NT.
The point you overlooked is that the books of the bible are typically
credited with "one" person (or more) writing anywheres from 8 years to
110 years after the death of Christ. Matthew for instance is dated
AD40 to AD140. These observances and facts are based on verbage, what
knowledge the author displayed on various biblical events, etc.
One thing that it does not say is what written notes "Matthew" may
have had in his possession from actual eye witnesses, or sitdown
converstations with people who were eye witnesses.
> We have 4 Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Gospels have been
>reworked during history, sometimes contradict one another, and are
>*not* supposed to be the "words of Christ himself" literally
WHAT??????? Not his words - where did you get this wild one from?
>unless
>you're a Protestant and you've assured us that you are not. The Dead
>Sea Scrolls contradict some commonly held ideas about Jesus, so
>they're not necessarily going to be much help to you.
Like what ideas? I proclaim you have no idea what you're talking
about.
> The "bible" is a meaningless term here since all one needs to
>support your statement is show that any city in the book existed.
Actually, the bibical stories have been repeated historically for 2000
years.
You're back to square one - eyewitness accounts are meaningless in the
bible, but eyewitness accounts are the bible in the American
Revolution.
>We're talking about the magical events of Jesus' life -- not whether
>or not Bethlemen existed. And there's no primary documentation to
>support anything regarding the life and death of Jesus.
Grow up lady. You have no idea what you're talking aboutl.
> Heck, even the
>info about when he was supposed to have been born is wrong, as is the
>story of the census his parents were supposed to be part of.
And the exact date of his birthday has exactly nothing to do with
nothing in the bible. A reasonable date was determined, but could be
as much as 4 years off. Does it really bother you to know that it
might be 2006 After the Day of Jesus' birthday.
> I also wouldn't recommend you use the OT as any kind of travel
>guide. Several times it gets very simple geography wrong.
And such a comment would not be made by anyone who understood what the
bible represents.
>> >imagine if all the accounts of the revolution
>> >were written sometime into the 1800's with no written works to go on, just
>> >oral tradition.
>>
>> Don't you think that most of the AR was recorded days to years later
>> after the event.
> Nope. People on the lines were writing home, keeping diaries,
>signing treaties, buying land, etc. And we have that information in
>its original form. I can trace my own family's involvement in the AR,
>in fact. The records are that good.
Right - and you talked to them personally about it.
Give it up, dl, you have exactly no idea what you talking about.
> No one "wrote the AR," you fool.
> But at least you admit you don't know what you're talking about.
You fool, both the bible and the AR are records of history and events.
> Again you show your ignorance of both the Bible, the AR, and the
>concept of documentation and historical research.
So far you've moved your lips, but no knowledge came out.
> Given the copious writing that the signers did on the subject, I
>hardly think that's a sign of your broad minded interpretation of
>historic documentation. No one except yourself appears interested in
>claiming that the AR is as likely to have happened as the life and
>death of Jesus as told by the NT.
More people have believed the bible over 2000 years than the AR over
200 years.
> We know quite a bit about the AR and quite a bit about what the
>Bible as we currently have it says about the life and death of Jesus.
>That's not the same thing as knowing "quite a bit about both."
Correction - we know quite a bit about the biblical events and the AR
events based on verbal discussions, remembrances, drawings and
pictures, artifacts, and archeology.
> You really are married to your ignorance.
You really are married to your blindedness.
>> Not at all - my story has been consistent - and I've been repeating it
>> for a long, long time.
> A lie repeated is still a lie.
It's not a lie, not that you would know.
>> It's not a matter of "me" being right or wrong - it's a matter of fact
>> and how it was arrived at is the key point.
> Correct.
> The point you're missing is that you're not correct in your
>claims.
Just as correct as you are.
> Yup. You're an idiot.
Why, because you can't explain your position well enough to make your
point?
> Yup. An idiot. I could make a more compelling argument for
>Christianity than you make. At least I know there were more than 12
>men allegedly involved.
Why don't you take a moment and explain your point, and we'll see just
what you don't know.
duke32
wrote:
>> Is there more proof that Paul and Bonnie and Clyde are really and
>> truly there but not St Peter - clearly the most protected and sacred
>> site of the 4.
>> duke
> We could do some DNA testing and that would prove whether or not it was
>Bonnie and Clyde now with ST peter that wouldn't work.
And why would it work for one and not the rest?.
>In fact what saint
>was it Peter (?) that they found chicken bones a couple of years ago mixed
>in with the human bones?
>AMBAN
And if true, that would say ....what?
amban
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 21:06:56 GMT, "amban" <amban...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Now you're starting to understand the real truth of the matter. Only
> >> 5 people signed the Declaration of Independence originally. It took
> >> another 9 years to get the rest, if they are who they say they are.
>
> > DNA testing could prove who they are, not any of your Bible people.
>
> How would it prove "who" they are "what"?
Huh?
>
> >It was officially adopted on July 4th (New York had not yet agreed) On
July
> >9th the New York convention agreed.
> >On July 19th it was ordered by congress to be a unanimous declaration of
the
> >13 united states of america and ordered to be signed. It was signed on
> >August 2nd. 5O delegates signed it on that day. Six others signed
later
> >five before November of 1776 and the last by 1781. Two never did sign
> >because they didn't agree.
>
> My point exactly.
No it wasn't. You were trying to prove that the whole signing of the
declaration of independence was a very nebulous and vague thing lost to
history. It was not.
>
> >You manipulate the facts to try and it make it seem like it took nine
years
> >to get the majority to sign.
>
> My facts are not the time frame involved, but that there *was* a time
> frame.
Well yeah, what is the point? For you information it had to be written
in long hand, two weeks is not 30 years after the deaths of the committee of
5. That would have been a point. Yours was not a point. Most probably
most of the people who were alive when jeusus was, were dead 30 years later
or very close to it even if they were babies when he was alive.
>
> > The majority signed on August 2, 1776 when it
> >was decided it was to be signed.
>
> But not all - as the facts erronously suggest.
What facts? I call for a source. Where did you study history? Just
because that is all you surmised does not mean that the rest of the world or
those who have paid attention to history didn't know this fact. You
believe everything Earl without investigating. Man learn to use your
brain.
>
> >Just because you didn't know that the
> >declaration wasn't signed on that day doesn't mean the rest of the whole
> >world doesn't know it.
>
> You made my point.
Huh? Because you have limited knowledge of an incident is your fault not
because of faulty history. Get a clue.
>
> >You feel misled because you haven't studied your
> >history Earl not because anyone lied!
>
> Nobody lied - you've proved history is not necessarily exactly what it
> appears to be.
No, you have proven Earl Weber doesn't know his American history.
>
> My point exactly.
>
> Did George Washington chop down the cherry tree? I'll give you an
> easier one - did he throw a coin accross the Potomac?
Get a life Earl. Oh I get it!!! You confuse rumors and passed down tales
about American history as fact just as you confuse the point that the bible
is just like these rumors. There is no concrete evidence for the bible.
It is just the stuff of story telling! See one can study American history
and find fact. Better stop using your little lame AR arguments Earl they
don't fly.
>
> duke
>
Amban
Psst guess what! Aliens didn't land in 1938 either. It was a radio show
by Orson Wells in case no one has gotten around to cluing you in yet.
Darklady
> On 8 Apr 2002 15:04:24 -0700, dark...@darklady.com (Darklady) wrote:
>
> > Are you insane? (Why am I even asking?)
>
> Because you are so unsure of yourself.
Keep telling yourself that, little man.
> > The study of the AR doesn't rely upon historians standing pencil
> >in hand to jot down notes. Historians may interpret history and create
> >books -- but they don't necessarily *create* it. They gain an
> >understanding of historic events by studying primary and secondary
> >(etc.) documentation of historic events. The AR is full of such
> >documents. Letters, printed and coined money, flags, clothing,
> >buildings, battlefields, military records, naval records, treaties,
> >etc. etc. There is ample evidence that the AR occured, although
> >differences in interpretation of some events still exist. But the life
> >and death of Jesus? There are no primary documents about his life and
> >all we have to go on are the Gospels (a study in and of themselves)
> >and the development of the Christian religion. We know that
> >*something* caused Christianity to come into existence. We know who
> >it's said to be based upon. But the actual facts of the life of Jesus?
> >Nothing beyond the "inspired" books of the NT.
>
> Actually, did you know that what Jesus gave us was Holy Tradition,
> some of which was written down to become the "inspired" NT.
Tradition.
Tradition is not the same as a verifiable fact. My understanding
of the RCC policy on the Bible is that it is not to be taken as a
literal document and that much that is of importance is not in the
Bible but part of "tradition." Tradition which, handily, has been
changed and invented and reworked by humans as they developed their
religious agenda.
Jesus never dictated anything to anyone to write down for later.
> The point you overlooked is that the books of the bible are typically
> credited with "one" person (or more) writing anywheres from 8 years to
> 110 years after the death of Christ. Matthew for instance is dated
> AD40 to AD140. These observances and facts are based on verbage, what
> knowledge the author displayed on various biblical events, etc.
I didn't overlook anything. Obviously each of the Gospels has
been credited to one writer, that's why they each have a single name
on them. Duh. Did you know that they were all *anonymous* until the
2nd century?
The 8 years number is one I've never read before, however.
> One thing that it does not say is what written notes "Matthew" may
> have had in his possession from actual eye witnesses, or sitdown
> converstations with people who were eye witnesses.
My guess is that he was passing on sacred legend as it had come
to him. Matthew and Mark were written after Mark, btw. Since Matthew
and Luke have about 100 verses (mostly the Beatitudes) in common, some
scholars think there may have been a common primitive document that
the writers used as referrence. Said document is called "Q" and may
have contained aphorisms from Jesus, basically, and may have
circulated in a various forms. It is believed that if such a document
existed, Matthew and Luke may have each had different versions of it.
Kinda sucks that even the earliest written records may have been
inconsistent -- and are missing.
> > We have 4 Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Gospels have been
> >reworked during history, sometimes contradict one another, and are
> >*not* supposed to be the "words of Christ himself" literally
>
> WHAT??????? Not his words - where did you get this wild one from?
My reading of the work of Christian and secular scholars. Ever
seen that color coded NT where they went through and differentiated
between words that are very likely, somewhat likely, uncertain,
unlikely, and definitely unlikely to have been the words of Jesus? Of
course you haven't. The Protestants worked on that and you'd never
sully yourself with their influence.
> >unless
> >you're a Protestant and you've assured us that you are not. The Dead
> >Sea Scrolls contradict some commonly held ideas about Jesus, so
> >they're not necessarily going to be much help to you.
>
> Like what ideas? I proclaim you have no idea what you're talking
> about.
Proclaim what you like.
It's been a while since I've read up on this subject and I admit
I don't recall the exact findings I was reading about, but I do recall
that the article concluded that the some of the findings were going to
be very challenging to conventional ideas about Christianity, its
history, and the world that Jesus may have been part of. No wonder the
RCC tried to stifle academic study of the documents.
> > The "bible" is a meaningless term here since all one needs to
> >support your statement is show that any city in the book existed.
>
> Actually, the bibical stories have been repeated historically for 2000
> years.
Actually, that means nothing. There are plenty of ancient myths
still in circulation -- but that doesn't make them historically
accurate.
My point is, the "bible" spans the OT and the NT. There's plenty
of truth and plenty of fiction in it. You were being very imprecise
with your language.
> You're back to square one - eyewitness accounts are meaningless in the
> bible, but eyewitness accounts are the bible in the American
> Revolution.
I never said that. There simply happens to be NO eyewitness
accounts in the Bible regarding the life of Jesus. There are letters
written by people and they certainly are eyewitness accounts to their
own stories, although interpretation of those stories is obviously
likely to be varied. But there's very little in the OT or the NT that
was written by eyewitnesses. They were not a literate people, Duke.
They couldn't have written down a grocery list, had there been
anyplace to go grocery shopping.
> >We're talking about the magical events of Jesus' life -- not whether
> >or not Bethlemen existed. And there's no primary documentation to
> >support anything regarding the life and death of Jesus.
>
> Grow up lady. You have no idea what you're talking aboutl.
Oh, but I do. That's what makes you so uncomfortable.
> > Heck, even the
> >info about when he was supposed to have been born is wrong, as is the
> >story of the census his parents were supposed to be part of.
>
> And the exact date of his birthday has exactly nothing to do with
> nothing in the bible. A reasonable date was determined, but could be
> as much as 4 years off. Does it really bother you to know that it
> might be 2006 After the Day of Jesus' birthday.
The exact date obviously isn't important. But placing it within a
historical event IS important. The story of the census is very
important. If it didn't happen then that's kind of a big goof, IMO.
Same with the slaughter of the innocents (no proof of that ever
happening, although it's a classic ancient story with previous
god-heros).
> > I also wouldn't recommend you use the OT as any kind of travel
> >guide. Several times it gets very simple geography wrong.
>
> And such a comment would not be made by anyone who understood what the
> bible represents.
<sigh> Right. You're foaming at the mouth about how we should
take the Bible at its word and I'm pointing out that it can't even get
basic geography correct. Clearly I'm the one who's not understanding.
> >> >imagine if all the accounts of the revolution
> >> >were written sometime into the 1800's with no written works to go on, just
> >> >oral tradition.
> >>
> >> Don't you think that most of the AR was recorded days to years later
> >> after the event.
>
> > Nope. People on the lines were writing home, keeping diaries,
> >signing treaties, buying land, etc. And we have that information in
> >its original form. I can trace my own family's involvement in the AR,
> >in fact. The records are that good.
>
> Right - and you talked to them personally about it.
Did I say that? No. Once again you're changing the rules.
I'm pointing out that there was no lag in coverage of the AR. The
documents available to us for reference are contemporary with the
events. The NT does not have anything of the sort. The documents about
the AR are also international in scope, and independently varifiable.
The NT has none of these things going for it.
Doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. It just means this particular
argument you're using won't work.
> Give it up, dl, you have exactly no idea what you talking about.
Yeah, that would explain the degrees in ancient history and
anthropology, the years of Classical Greek, and the membership in Phi
Alpha Theta, the national historian's honor society.
> > No one "wrote the AR," you fool.
> > But at least you admit you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> You fool, both the bible and the AR are records of history and events.
The AR was an event. A verb. The Bible is a noun.
> > Again you show your ignorance of both the Bible, the AR, and the
> >concept of documentation and historical research.
>
> So far you've moved your lips, but no knowledge came out.
One can not teach, one can only learn. You have no desire to
learn.
> > Given the copious writing that the signers did on the subject, I
> >hardly think that's a sign of your broad minded interpretation of
> >historic documentation. No one except yourself appears interested in
> >claiming that the AR is as likely to have happened as the life and
> >death of Jesus as told by the NT.
>
> More people have believed the bible over 2000 years than the AR over
> 200 years.
That's unverifiable and, frankly, not important. People have
believed all kinds of wild things but it hasn't made them correct. If
you're going to keep falling back on this popularity contest version
of apologetics then you're going to look pretty weak in your defense.
> > We know quite a bit about the AR and quite a bit about what the
> >Bible as we currently have it says about the life and death of Jesus.
> >That's not the same thing as knowing "quite a bit about both."
>
> Correction - we know quite a bit about the biblical events and the AR
> events based on verbal discussions, remembrances, drawings and
> pictures, artifacts, and archeology.
Same difference. Still doesn't mean we know anything about Jesus,
since there's been none of the verbal discussions, rememberances,
drawings, pictures, artifacts or archeology to support his even having
existed.
> > You really are married to your ignorance.
>
> You really are married to your blindedness.
>
> >> Not at all - my story has been consistent - and I've been repeating it
> >> for a long, long time.
> > A lie repeated is still a lie.
>
> It's not a lie, not that you would know.
>
> >> It's not a matter of "me" being right or wrong - it's a matter of fact
> >> and how it was arrived at is the key point.
>
> > Correct.
> > The point you're missing is that you're not correct in your
> >claims.
>
> Just as correct as you are.
>
> > Yup. You're an idiot.
>
> Why, because you can't explain your position well enough to make your
> point?
I can explain fine. But I can't make anyone change their mind if
they don't want to. You're too busy being "right" to learn anything
from anyone.
> > Yup. An idiot. I could make a more compelling argument for
> >Christianity than you make. At least I know there were more than 12
> >men allegedly involved.
>
> Why don't you take a moment and explain your point, and we'll see just
> what you don't know.
>
> duke
Well, there we have it folks. An admission that you're not
interested in learning anything, not interested in really
understanding my point, not interested in much of anything other than
waiting until it's your turn to post so you can show off what you seem
to think is an impressive collection of knowledge and truth.
amban
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:37:03 GMT, "amban" <amban...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Is there more proof that Paul and Bonnie and Clyde are really and
> >> truly there but not St Peter - clearly the most protected and sacred
> >> site of the 4.
> >> duke
>
> > We could do some DNA testing and that would prove whether or not it was
> >Bonnie and Clyde now with ST peter that wouldn't work.
>
> And why would it work for one and not the rest?.
Do you know any living relatives or descendants of ST. Peter?
>
> >In fact what saint
> >was it Peter (?) that they found chicken bones a couple of years ago
mixed
> >in with the human bones?
> >AMBAN
>
> And if true, that would say ....what?
That whoever was in the hole probably was not venerated or well respected
more likely a bum thrown out with the garbage.
AMBAN
Apostate
wrote:
>>
>> >> Is there more proof that Paul and Bonnie and Clyde are really and
>> >> truly there but not St Peter - clearly the most protected and sacred
>> >> site of the 4.
>> >> duke
>>
>> > We could do some DNA testing and that would prove whether or not it was
>> >Bonnie and Clyde now with ST peter that wouldn't work.
>>
>> And why would it work for one and not the rest?.
>
>Do you know any living relatives or descendants of ST. Peter?
>>
>> >In fact what saint
>> >was it Peter (?) that they found chicken bones a couple of years ago
>mixed
>> >in with the human bones?
>> >AMBAN
>>
>> And if true, that would say ....what?
>
>That whoever was in the hole probably was not venerated or well respected
>more likely a bum thrown out with the garbage.
>
>AMBAN
>>
>>
'Course, considering the line of work he was in, could be Pete
was a chicken-hawk.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
Denizen of Darkness #3
Coconut CUSSARD
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never
accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
something he can understand.
-- attributed to Bertrand Russel
dvs519
>On 8 Apr 2002 15:04:24 -0700, dark...@darklady.com (Darklady) wrote:
>
>Actually, did you know that what Jesus gave us was Holy Tradition,
>some of which was written down to become the "inspired" NT.
>
>The point you overlooked is that the books of the bible are typically
>credited with "one" person (or more) writing anywheres from 8 years to
>110 years after the death of Christ. Matthew for instance is dated
>AD40 to AD140. These observances and facts are based on verbage, what
>knowledge the author displayed on various biblical events, etc.
What was the subject of the sermon your priest gave 8 years ago? What
was the topic of the sermon 6 months ago? Can't remember? How do you
expect someone to remember 8 years after an event happened?
For an example, let's say that 6 people are standing in line in the
bank and a guy comes in and robs it. If you immediately ask those 6
people what the robber was wearing and what type of gun s/he had you
will get different answers from the same 6 people.
My point is that you want us to believe something that was written
from 8 years to 110 years AFTER the event happened?
>
>One thing that it does not say is what written notes "Matthew" may
>have had in his possession from actual eye witnesses, or sitdown
>converstations with people who were eye witnesses.
So where are the newspaper accounts? WHere did Matt put his notebooks?
>
>> We have 4 Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Gospels have been
>>reworked during history, sometimes contradict one another, and are
>>*not* supposed to be the "words of Christ himself" literally
>
>WHAT??????? Not his words - where did you get this wild one from?
>
>> The "bible" is a meaningless term here since all one needs to
>>support your statement is show that any city in the book existed.
>
>
====================
OldguyTeck
"amban" <amban...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:6xLs8.260361$q2.30261@sccrnsc01...
>
> "duke32" <duk...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3cb31152...@news.earthlink.net...
> > On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:37:03 GMT, "amban" <amban...@attbi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> Is there more proof that Paul and Bonnie and Clyde are really and
> > >> truly there but not St Peter - clearly the most protected and sacred
> > >> site of the 4.
> > >> duke
> >
> > > We could do some DNA testing and that would prove whether or not it
was
> > >Bonnie and Clyde now with ST peter that wouldn't work.
> >
> > And why would it work for one and not the rest?.
>
> Do you know any living relatives or descendants of ST. Peter?
> >
> > >In fact what saint
> > >was it Peter (?) that they found chicken bones a couple of years ago
> mixed
> > >in with the human bones?
> > >AMBAN
> >
> > And if true, that would say ....what?
>
> That whoever was in the hole probably was not venerated or well respected
> more likely a bum thrown out with the garbage.
>
> AMBAN
Now you sound like your OD'ing.
Ed.................(Oldguyteck)
OldguyTeck
"Apostate" <ex_alt...@apostate.mailshell.com> wrote in message
news:8437bu0v2ja3v64ts...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 00:18:10 GMT, "amban" <amban...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Is there more proof that Paul and Bonnie and Clyde are really and
> >> >> truly there but not St Peter - clearly the most protected and sacred
> >> >> site of the 4.
> >> >> duke
> >>
> >> > We could do some DNA testing and that would prove whether or not it
was
> >> >Bonnie and Clyde now with ST peter that wouldn't work.
> >>
> >> And why would it work for one and not the rest?.
> >
> >Do you know any living relatives or descendants of ST. Peter?
> >>
> >> >In fact what saint
> >> >was it Peter (?) that they found chicken bones a couple of years ago
> >mixed
> >> >in with the human bones?
> >> >AMBAN
> >>
> >> And if true, that would say ....what?
> >
> >That whoever was in the hole probably was not venerated or well respected
> >more likely a bum thrown out with the garbage.
> >
> >AMBAN
> >>
> >> duuche
> >>
> 'Course, considering the line of work he was in, could be Pete
> was a chicken-hawk.
Begs the question now..Are or are not cock fights lawfull in you stick of
the woods......?
Ed......................(Oldguyteck)
amban
"dvs519" <dvs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:biu7bukmut6ldd0sd...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:05:08 GMT, duk...@earthlink.net (duke32) wrote:
>
> >On 8 Apr 2002 15:04:24 -0700, dark...@darklady.com (Darklady) wrote:
> >
> >Actually, did you know that what Jesus gave us was Holy Tradition,
> >some of which was written down to become the "inspired" NT.
> >
> >The point you overlooked is that the books of the bible are typically
> >credited with "one" person (or more) writing anywheres from 8 years to
> >110 years after the death of Christ. Matthew for instance is dated
> >AD40 to AD140. These observances and facts are based on verbage, what
> >knowledge the author displayed on various biblical events, etc.
>
> What was the subject of the sermon your priest gave 8 years ago? What
> was the topic of the sermon 6 months ago? Can't remember? How do you
> expect someone to remember 8 years after an event happened?
>
> For an example, let's say that 6 people are standing in line in the
> bank and a guy comes in and robs it. If you immediately ask those 6
> people what the robber was wearing and what type of gun s/he had you
> will get different answers from the same 6 people.
I was trying to find out from my Aunts and Uncle what my paternal
grandfather died from. He died in a hospital and had been sick for some
time.
He has only been dead 27 years. Now you would think that the death of a
parent would be clear in their memories but I got different answers! And
when I asked them he had only been dead for about 10 years.
AMBAN
amban
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Is there more proof that Paul and Bonnie and Clyde are really and
> >> >> truly there but not St Peter - clearly the most protected and sacred
> >> >> site of the 4.
> >> >> duke
> >>
> >> > We could do some DNA testing and that would prove whether or not it
was
> >> >Bonnie and Clyde now with ST peter that wouldn't work.
> >>
> >> And why would it work for one and not the rest?.
> >
> >Do you know any living relatives or descendants of ST. Peter?
> >>
> >> >In fact what saint
> >> >was it Peter (?) that they found chicken bones a couple of years ago
> >mixed
> >> >in with the human bones?
> >> >AMBAN
> >>
> >> And if true, that would say ....what?
> >
> >That whoever was in the hole probably was not venerated or well respected
> >more likely a bum thrown out with the garbage.
> >
> >AMBAN
> >>
> >> duuche
> >>
> 'Course, considering the line of work he was in, could be Pete
> was a chicken-hawk.
ROTFLOL. That remark will probably go right over their heads.
AMBAN
duke32
wrote:
>> >> Now you're starting to understand the real truth of the matter. Only
>> >> 5 people signed the Declaration of Independence originally. It took
>> >> another 9 years to get the rest, if they are who they say they are.
>> > DNA testing could prove who they are, not any of your Bible people.
>> How would it prove "who" they are "what"?
>Huh?
How will DNA tell who they are?
>> My point exactly.
>No it wasn't. You were trying to prove that the whole signing of the
>declaration of independence was a very nebulous and vague thing lost to
>history. It was not.
*****
One of the most widely held misconceptions about the Declaration is
that it was signed on July 4, 1776, by all the delegates in
attendance.
John Hancock, the President of the Congress, was the first to sign the
sheet of parchment measuring 24ź by 29ž inches. He used a bold
signature centered below the text. In accordance with prevailing
custom, the other delegates began to sign at the right below the text,
their signatures arranged according to the geographic location of the
states they represented. New Hampshire, the northernmost state, began
the list, and Georgia, the southernmost, ended it. Eventually 56
delegates signed, although all were not present on August 2. Among the
later signers were Elbridge Gerry, Oliver Wolcott, Lewis Morris,
Thomas McKean, and Matthew Thornton, who found that he had no room to
sign with the other New Hampshire delegates. A few delegates who voted
for adoption of the Declaration on July 4 were never to sign in spite
of the July 19 order of Congress that the engrossed document "be
signed by every member of Congress." Nonsigners included John
Dickinson, who clung to the idea of reconciliation with Britain, and
Robert R. Livingston, one of the Committee of Five, who thought the
Declaration was premature.
*****
>Well yeah, what is the point? For you information it had to be written
>in long hand, two weeks is not 30 years after the deaths of the committee of
>5. That would have been a point. Yours was not a point. Most probably
>most of the people who were alive when jeusus was, were dead 30 years later
>or very close to it even if they were babies when he was alive.
Well, what is the point?
>> > The majority signed on August 2, 1776 when it
>> >was decided it was to be signed.
> But not all - as the facts erronously suggest.
>What facts? I call for a source. Where did you study history? Just
>because that is all you surmised does not mean that the rest of the world or
>those who have paid attention to history didn't know this fact. You
>believe everything Earl without investigating. Man learn to use your
>brain.
See above.
>Huh? Because you have limited knowledge of an incident is your fault not
>because of faulty history. Get a clue.
When the shoe fits.
>> Nobody lied - you've proved history is not necessarily exactly what it
>> appears to be.
>No, you have proven Earl Weber doesn't know his American history.
But see what I duke said above.
>> Did George Washington chop down the cherry tree? I'll give you an
>> easier one - did he throw a coin accross the Potomac?
>Get a life Earl. Oh I get it!!! You confuse rumors and passed down tales
>about American history as fact just as you confuse the point that the bible
>is just like these rumors. There is no concrete evidence for the bible.
Sure there is - 2000 years of history - things witnessed and written
down, drawings, artifacts, archelolog.
The same type of data for the AR..
>It is just the stuff of story telling! See one can study American history
>and find fact. Better stop using your little lame AR arguments Earl they
>don't fly.
You're out of your league, amban.
duke32
>> > Are you insane? (Why am I even asking?)
>> Because you are so unsure of yourself.
> Keep telling yourself that, little man.
I'm convinced.
>> > The study of the AR doesn't rely upon historians standing pencil
>> >in hand to jot down notes. Historians may interpret history and create
>> >books -- but they don't necessarily *create* it. They gain an
>> >understanding of historic events by studying primary and secondary
>> >(etc.) documentation of historic events. The AR is full of such
>> >documents. Letters, printed and coined money, flags, clothing,
>> >buildings, battlefields, military records, naval records, treaties,
>> >etc. etc. There is ample evidence that the AR occured, although
>> >differences in interpretation of some events still exist. But the life
>> >and death of Jesus? There are no primary documents about his life and
>> >all we have to go on are the Gospels (a study in and of themselves)
>> >and the development of the Christian religion. We know that
>> >*something* caused Christianity to come into existence. We know who
>> >it's said to be based upon. But the actual facts of the life of Jesus?
>> >Nothing beyond the "inspired" books of the NT.
Correction - the "inspired" books of the NT are only part of the
documentation from the time of Jesus.
You misuse the term "inspired" - which is that part of that which is
written down, which is just part of that which occurred, which
addresses the Holy Spirits passing on what mankind needs to secure the
salvation of his soul.
Much of the bible is historical, and not all historical data is found
in the bible.
>> Actually, did you know that what Jesus gave us was Holy Tradition,
>> some of which was written down to become the "inspired" NT.
> Tradition.
> Tradition is not the same as a verifiable fact. My understanding
>of the RCC policy on the Bible is that it is not to be taken as a
>literal document and that much that is of importance is not in the
>Bible but part of "tradition." Tradition which, handily, has been
>changed and invented and reworked by humans as they developed their
>religious agenda.
You don't even know what tradition means. It's things that happened,
some of which eventually found their way into the books of the NT as
being done by specific authors. There's nothing there to deny that
much of what did occur was written down and then entered into the
written form is each of hte books of the NT.
> Jesus never dictated anything to anyone to write down for later.
When did he tell you this?
>> The point you overlooked is that the books of the bible are typically
>> credited with "one" person (or more) writing anywheres from 8 years to
>> 110 years after the death of Christ. Matthew for instance is dated
>> AD40 to AD140. These observances and facts are based on verbage, what
>> knowledge the author displayed on various biblical events, etc.
> I didn't overlook anything. Obviously each of the Gospels has
>been credited to one writer, that's why they each have a single name
>on them. Duh. Did you know that they were all *anonymous* until the
>2nd century?
Now there's a solid reason to declare them false.
> The 8 years number is one I've never read before, however.
And those numbers are established based on what the "author" appeared
to be limited to in his knowledge of other events during that time.
Mark, for instance, displays knowledge in his words of events leading
up to the Jewish war against Rome AD66-70 but displays no clear
knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem AD70.
So when did he really start - maybe years before to maybe years after.
He is generally credited with AD65-75.
>> One thing that it does not say is what written notes "Matthew" may
>> have had in his possession from actual eye witnesses, or sitdown
>> converstations with people who were eye witnesses.
> My guess is that he was passing on sacred legend as it had come
>to him. Matthew and Mark were written after Mark, btw. Since Matthew
>and Luke have about 100 verses (mostly the Beatitudes) in common, some
>scholars think there may have been a common primitive document that
>the writers used as referrence. Said document is called "Q" and may
>have contained aphorisms from Jesus, basically, and may have
>circulated in a various forms. It is believed that if such a document
>existed, Matthew and Luke may have each had different versions of it.
>Kinda sucks that even the earliest written records may have been
>inconsistent -- and are missing.
The value of the bible is the inspired words of the Holy Spirit as
they relate to the salvation of mankinds soul. Historical events,
math, foreign langauge, etc is not the value of the bible.
>> > We have 4 Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Gospels have been
>> >reworked during history, sometimes contradict one another, and are
>> >*not* supposed to be the "words of Christ himself" literally
>> WHAT??????? Not his words - where did you get this wild one from?
> My reading of the work of Christian and secular scholars. Ever
>seen that color coded NT where they went through and differentiated
>between words that are very likely, somewhat likely, uncertain,
>unlikely, and definitely unlikely to have been the words of Jesus? Of
>course you haven't. The Protestants worked on that and you'd never
>sully yourself with their influence.
And seeing as they have a separate agenda to deny much of what Christ
gave us (ask one of them to discuss the 7 sacraments - they took out
5, took 7 books out of the OT 1500 years after Christ, and generally
do a cafeteria Christian number on the bible to suit their needs is
hardly a work to be relied on.
> Proclaim what you like.
> It's been a while since I've read up on this subject and I admit
>I don't recall the exact findings I was reading about, but I do recall
>that the article concluded that the some of the findings were going to
>be very challenging to conventional ideas about Christianity, its
>history, and the world that Jesus may have been part of. No wonder the
>RCC tried to stifle academic study of the documents.
The RCC as been the leader in biblical research of the documents.
>> > The "bible" is a meaningless term here since all one needs to
>> >support your statement is show that any city in the book existed.
Facts like "city existance" are in no way inspired scripture.
>> Actually, the bibical stories have been repeated historically for 2000
>> years.
> Actually, that means nothing. There are plenty of ancient myths
>still in circulation -- but that doesn't make them historically
>accurate.
Nor do the documents of 200 years ago.
> My point is, the "bible" spans the OT and the NT. There's plenty
>of truth and plenty of fiction in it. You were being very imprecise
>with your language.
The only part of the bible that is unquestionably accurate is that
inspired part about what mankind must do in order to save his soul.
Beatitude - Any of the declarations of blessedness made by Jesus in
the Sermon on the Mount.
The fact that he was on the "Mount" has nothing to do with nothing.
>> You're back to square one - eyewitness accounts are meaningless in the
>> bible, but eyewitness accounts are the bible in the American
>> Revolution.
> I never said that. There simply happens to be NO eyewitness
>accounts in the Bible regarding the life of Jesus.
You can't say that - you don't know that. You can't arbitrarily deny
lack of communication because you can't see it.
>There are letters
>written by people and they certainly are eyewitness accounts to their
>own stories, although interpretation of those stories is obviously
>likely to be varied. But there's very little in the OT or the NT that
>was written by eyewitnesses. They were not a literate people, Duke.
>They couldn't have written down a grocery list, had there been
>anyplace to go grocery shopping.
But factual and accurate communication in those days were based on
verbal skills. You think Mithra, which goes back before even the OT,
is real.
> >We're talking about the magical events of Jesus' life -- not whether
>> >or not Bethlemen existed. And there's no primary documentation to
>> >support anything regarding the life and death of Jesus.
>> Grow up lady. You have no idea what you're talking aboutl.
> Oh, but I do. That's what makes you so uncomfortable.
You don't have the tools to undo 2000 years of scriptural and
historical research covering millions and millions of manhours.
I'm not worried.
>> > Heck, even the
>> >info about when he was supposed to have been born is wrong, as is the
>> >story of the census his parents were supposed to be part of.
>> And the exact date of his birthday has exactly nothing to do with
>> nothing in the bible. A reasonable date was determined, but could be
>> as much as 4 years off. Does it really bother you to know that it
>> might be 2006 After the Day of Jesus' birthday.
> The exact date obviously isn't important. But placing it within a
>historical event IS important. The story of the census is very
>important. If it didn't happen then that's kind of a big goof, IMO.
The census is the supposed, and reasonably so, purpose for the trip.
It's not exactly inspired scripture. Mary didn't give birth in a
manger - it was a cave.
>> > I also wouldn't recommend you use the OT as any kind of travel
>> >guide. Several times it gets very simple geography wrong.
Geography is clearly not inspired.
>> And such a comment would not be made by anyone who understood what the
>> bible represents.
> <sigh> Right. You're foaming at the mouth about how we should
>take the Bible at its word and I'm pointing out that it can't even get
>basic geography correct. Clearly I'm the one who's not understanding.
It's not a geography book - it's not a math book, or archeology book
or geology book, or Greek book. It's total value is in the inspired
words of the Holy Spirit regarding mankind and the salvation of his
soul.
>> > Nope. People on the lines were writing home, keeping diaries,
>> >signing treaties, buying land, etc. And we have that information in
>> >its original form. I can trace my own family's involvement in the AR,
>> >in fact. The records are that good.
>> Right - and you talked to them personally about it.
> Did I say that? No. Once again you're changing the rules.
I'm trying to show you that you take the accuracy of them on faith.
> I'm pointing out that there was no lag in coverage of the AR. The
>documents available to us for reference are contemporary with the
>events. The NT does not have anything of the sort.
You don't know that.
>The documents about
>the AR are also international in scope, and independently varifiable.
>The NT has none of these things going for it.
It's got 2000 years of scriptural research behind it.
> Doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. It just means this particular
>argument you're using won't work.
It's as good as the one you use for the AR.
>> Give it up, dl, you have exactly no idea what you talking about.
> Yeah, that would explain the degrees in ancient history and
>anthropology, the years of Classical Greek, and the membership in Phi
>Alpha Theta, the national historian's honor society.
Well, I'm happy for you that you have these things - the NT bible has
2000 years of scriptural research behind it, and none by me.
> > No one "wrote the AR," you fool.
>> > But at least you admit you don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>> You fool, both the bible and the AR are records of history and events.
> The AR was an event. A verb. The Bible is a noun.
Yeah, it's called a book, and books are what you use to develop faith
that the events of the AR are real.
>
>> > Again you show your ignorance of both the Bible, the AR, and the
>> >concept of documentation and historical research.
>> So far you've moved your lips, but no knowledge came out.
> One can not teach, one can only learn. You have no desire to
>learn.
I'm the one with the open mind.
>> > Given the copious writing that the signers did on the subject, I
>> >hardly think that's a sign of your broad minded interpretation of
>> >historic documentation. No one except yourself appears interested in
>> >claiming that the AR is as likely to have happened as the life and
>> >death of Jesus as told by the NT.
>>
>> More people have believed the bible over 2000 years than the AR over
>> 200 years.
> That's unverifiable and, frankly, not important.
To you, of course not.
> People have
>believed all kinds of wild things but it hasn't made them correct. If
>you're going to keep falling back on this popularity contest version
>of apologetics then you're going to look pretty weak in your defense.
It's all I have. And sadly, it's also all you have.
>> > We know quite a bit about the AR and quite a bit about what the
>> >Bible as we currently have it says about the life and death of Jesus.
>> >That's not the same thing as knowing "quite a bit about both."
>>
>> Correction - we know quite a bit about the biblical events and the AR
>> events based on verbal discussions, remembrances, drawings and
>> pictures, artifacts, and archeology.
> Same difference. Still doesn't mean we know anything about Jesus,
>since there's been none of the verbal discussions, rememberances,
>drawings, pictures, artifacts or archeology to support his even having
>existed.
Just a neverending line of growing belief that started with 12 people
2000 years ago and now number 33% of 6 billion (Christians) people
alive today that believe it.
>> Why, because you can't explain your position well enough to make your
>> point?
> I can explain fine. But I can't make anyone change their mind if
>they don't want to. You're too busy being "right" to learn anything
>from anyone.
Then you're not doing too good a job.
>> > Yup. An idiot. I could make a more compelling argument for
>> >Christianity than you make. At least I know there were more than 12
>> >men allegedly involved.
>> Why don't you take a moment and explain your point, and we'll see just
>> what you don't know.
> Well, there we have it folks. An admission that you're not
>interested in learning anything, not interested in really
>understanding my point, not interested in much of anything other than
>waiting until it's your turn to post so you can show off what you seem
>to think is an impressive collection of knowledge and truth.
What's the matter - afraid to try and show what you do, or don't,
know.
You said "more than 12 men" above. I know what 12 represents, so why
don't you explain yourself and we can see if you do too.
duke32
>What was the subject of the sermon your priest gave 8 years ago? What
>was the topic of the sermon 6 months ago? Can't remember? How do you
>expect someone to remember 8 years after an event happened?
Because what my priest said 8 years ago is not historical data of a
nature that would shake the very roots of civilization.
>For an example, let's say that 6 people are standing in line in the
>bank and a guy comes in and robs it. If you immediately ask those 6
>people what the robber was wearing and what type of gun s/he had you
>will get different answers from the same 6 people.
Now if there were 100 people there, and 99 gave you the same story,
what would it mean then?
>My point is that you want us to believe something that was written
>from 8 years to 110 years AFTER the event happened?
No body said the only/earliest written notes were 8-110 years
afterwards. The official written versions are that old. But not
necessarily the earliest "written" words.
>>One thing that it does not say is what written notes "Matthew" may
>>have had in his possession from actual eye witnesses, or sitdown
>>converstations with people who were eye witnesses.
>So where are the newspaper accounts? WHere did Matt put his notebooks?
Don't be silly.
duke32
wrote:
>I was trying to find out from my Aunts and Uncle what my paternal
>grandfather died from. He died in a hospital and had been sick for some
>time.
> He has only been dead 27 years. Now you would think that the death of a
>parent would be clear in their memories but I got different answers! And
>when I asked them he had only been dead for about 10 years.
>AMBAN
I know exactly what my dad died of in 1958. And there is no doubt at
all in my words.
duke32
wrote:
>> > We could do some DNA testing and that would prove whether or not it was
>> >Bonnie and Clyde now with ST peter that wouldn't work.
>> And why would it work for one and not the rest?.
>Do you know any living relatives or descendants of ST. Peter?
Nope - and not Bonnie and Clyde, or Paul Revere.
And how long does DNA remain viable.
>> >In fact what saint
>> >was it Peter (?) that they found chicken bones a couple of years ago
>mixed
>> >in with the human bones?
>> >AMBAN
>> And if true, that would say ....what?
>That whoever was in the hole probably was not venerated or well respected
>more likely a bum thrown out with the garbage.
No sign of intelligance in that statement.
duke32
<ex_alt...@apostate.mailshell.com> wrote:
> 'Course, considering the line of work he was in, could be Pete
>was a chicken-hawk.
>A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never
>accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
>something he can understand.
> -- attributed to Bertrand Russel
I think Bert was talking about you.
Joe
All the bs about the revolution is just that, a red herring. To get back to
the point.
There is no way you can prove Jesus is god let alone that he even existed.
Everything
from the RCC is tainted and can be considered unreliable. You are left with
just your faith. Faith is just a belief. People get
their beliefs either from what they are taught to believe or from what they
experience,
ie. reading, society. That is all your beliefs are your opinion of what you
might hope happened.
To say anymore then that or that such things are *absolute* is bs. You just
refuse to face the fact
that like any other religious belief yours is based on a bunch of myths and
stories. They may be popular now(waning though)
and they may have existed for a while(due to the militant vigilance of
Rome). But someday they will be but a memory, looked
upon by future humans as sure as we look upon past religions ourselves. I'm
sure most devout zoroastrians, or zeus worshippers,
or bull god devotees all felt the same way you did about their gods. But
maybe you are too old to see, maybe the neuron pathways in your brain
are too fossilized to move in any other pattern but the rigid ways they were
taught. Someday maybe man will find a *god* but I bet if that ever happens
it will be a vastly different reality then what is commonly understood now.
Darklady
> On 9 Apr 2002 14:34:34 -0700, dark...@darklady.com (Darklady) wrote:
>
> >> > Are you insane? (Why am I even asking?)
> >> Because you are so unsure of yourself.
> > Keep telling yourself that, little man.
>
> I'm convinced.
Someone has to be. Might as well be you.
> >> > The study of the AR doesn't rely upon historians standing pencil
> >> >in hand to jot down notes. Historians may interpret history and create
> >> >books -- but they don't necessarily *create* it. They gain an
> >> >understanding of historic events by studying primary and secondary
> >> >(etc.) documentation of historic events. The AR is full of such
> >> >documents. Letters, printed and coined money, flags, clothing,
> >> >buildings, battlefields, military records, naval records, treaties,
> >> >etc. etc. There is ample evidence that the AR occured, although
> >> >differences in interpretation of some events still exist. But the life
> >> >and death of Jesus? There are no primary documents about his life and
> >> >all we have to go on are the Gospels (a study in and of themselves)
> >> >and the development of the Christian religion. We know that
> >> >*something* caused Christianity to come into existence. We know who
> >> >it's said to be based upon. But the actual facts of the life of Jesus?
> >> >Nothing beyond the "inspired" books of the NT.
>
> Correction - the "inspired" books of the NT are only part of the
> documentation from the time of Jesus.
It corrects nothing, Duke. The point is that there's nothing
outside of the NT that refers to Jesus. There's all kinds of
documentation "from the time of Jesus" but nothing mentioning him. I
can tell you that there's a million books "from the time of the
Pillbury Doughboy" but it doesn't mean the Pillsbury Doughboy ever
actually drew breath, although the time in which he was said to exist
was real.
> You misuse the term "inspired" - which is that part of that which is
> written down, which is just part of that which occurred, which
> addresses the Holy Spirits passing on what mankind needs to secure the
> salvation of his soul.
When I use the word I mean that your god supposedly dictated the
information to the writers, who were not eye witnesses.
> Much of the bible is historical, and not all historical data is found
> in the bible.
You got that small part correct.
> >> Actually, did you know that what Jesus gave us was Holy Tradition,
> >> some of which was written down to become the "inspired" NT.
>
> > Tradition.
> > Tradition is not the same as a verifiable fact. My understanding
> >of the RCC policy on the Bible is that it is not to be taken as a
> >literal document and that much that is of importance is not in the
> >Bible but part of "tradition." Tradition which, handily, has been
> >changed and invented and reworked by humans as they developed their
> >religious agenda.
>
> You don't even know what tradition means. It's things that happened,
> some of which eventually found their way into the books of the NT as
> being done by specific authors. There's nothing there to deny that
> much of what did occur was written down and then entered into the
> written form is each of hte books of the NT.
Tradition is not "things that happened."
Tradition is an inherited, established or customary way of
thinking or doing something.
The maverick thought or action today may become the tradition of
our descendants. The RCC is full of things that have become
traditional merely because they've been done in a certain way for a
long enough time that people can't remember when it was otherwise.
> > Jesus never dictated anything to anyone to write down for later.
>
> When did he tell you this?
<sigh>
You're really hopeless. Given that Jesus was illiterate and so was
just about everyone else he knew, it is logical to conclude that he
didn't dictate anything to anyone to write down for later.
> >> The point you overlooked is that the books of the bible are typically
> >> credited with "one" person (or more) writing anywheres from 8 years to
> >> 110 years after the death of Christ. Matthew for instance is dated
> >> AD40 to AD140. These observances and facts are based on verbage, what
> >> knowledge the author displayed on various biblical events, etc.
>
> > I didn't overlook anything. Obviously each of the Gospels has
> >been credited to one writer, that's why they each have a single name
> >on them. Duh. Did you know that they were all *anonymous* until the
> >2nd century?
>
> Now there's a solid reason to declare them false.
I didn't say it was a reason to do anything. I merely pointed out
that they were unnamed until the 2nd century.
You appear to feel threatened by information given your
stimulus-response attempts at sarcasm and distain.
> > The 8 years number is one I've never read before, however.
>
> And those numbers are established based on what the "author" appeared
> to be limited to in his knowledge of other events during that time.
Could you supply me with a reference for this? I've honestly never
seen it in all of my years of study.
> Mark, for instance, displays knowledge in his words of events leading
> up to the Jewish war against Rome AD66-70 but displays no clear
> knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem AD70.
>
> So when did he really start - maybe years before to maybe years after.
> He is generally credited with AD65-75.
Ummm... but that's still not 8 years after the presumed death of
Jesus. That's 32 - 42 years later.
> >> One thing that it does not say is what written notes "Matthew" may
> >> have had in his possession from actual eye witnesses, or sitdown
> >> converstations with people who were eye witnesses.
>
> > My guess is that he was passing on sacred legend as it had come
> >to him. Matthew and Mark were written after Mark, btw. Since Matthew
> >and Luke have about 100 verses (mostly the Beatitudes) in common, some
> >scholars think there may have been a common primitive document that
> >the writers used as referrence. Said document is called "Q" and may
> >have contained aphorisms from Jesus, basically, and may have
> >circulated in a various forms. It is believed that if such a document
> >existed, Matthew and Luke may have each had different versions of it.
> >Kinda sucks that even the earliest written records may have been
> >inconsistent -- and are missing.
>
> The value of the bible is the inspired words of the Holy Spirit as
> they relate to the salvation of mankinds soul. Historical events,
> math, foreign langauge, etc is not the value of the bible.
Then why do you keep trying to use these non-valuable elements to
support your claims?
You've basically said, "Don't bother me with the facts, I already
know the answer."
You sound like the Islamics who've made it a sin punishable by
death to study the Koran. Fortunately, heretics are doing just that
and finding that horrible mistranslations have taken a basically
peaceful religion with strong acknowledged roots in Judaism and
Christianity and turned it into the militant vehicle for hate that it
is today.
> >> > We have 4 Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Gospels have been
> >> >reworked during history, sometimes contradict one another, and are
> >> >*not* supposed to be the "words of Christ himself" literally
>
> >> WHAT??????? Not his words - where did you get this wild one from?
>
> > My reading of the work of Christian and secular scholars. Ever
> >seen that color coded NT where they went through and differentiated
> >between words that are very likely, somewhat likely, uncertain,
> >unlikely, and definitely unlikely to have been the words of Jesus? Of
> >course you haven't. The Protestants worked on that and you'd never
> >sully yourself with their influence.
>
> And seeing as they have a separate agenda to deny much of what Christ
> gave us (ask one of them to discuss the 7 sacraments - they took out
> 5, took 7 books out of the OT 1500 years after Christ, and generally
> do a cafeteria Christian number on the bible to suit their needs is
> hardly a work to be relied on.
Who said they've got a "separate agenda to deny much of what
Christ gave us?"
I'm talking about what's left after they remove the Apocrapha.
Maybe they did cut out books that should have been left in (it
wouldn't be the first time). Let's focus on the parts they left in. If
even those aren't something we can depend on then you're going to have
to work hard to convince me I should trust the rest of the book
> > Proclaim what you like.
> > It's been a while since I've read up on this subject and I admit
> >I don't recall the exact findings I was reading about, but I do recall
> >that the article concluded that the some of the findings were going to
> >be very challenging to conventional ideas about Christianity, its
> >history, and the world that Jesus may have been part of. No wonder the
> >RCC tried to stifle academic study of the documents.
>
> The RCC as been the leader in biblical research of the documents.
It was smothering research into them, Duke. It sat on them and did
very little for many years and the SECULAR academic community finally
managed to wrestle the things out of its hands. Once there,
translations began in earnest. I subscribed to Biblical Archaeology
Review for years and this was a very hot topic.
> >> > The "bible" is a meaningless term here since all one needs to
> >> >support your statement is show that any city in the book existed.
>
> Facts like "city existance" are in no way inspired scripture.
But if those who channel god can't get the directions to the local
Quickie Mart right why should I believe anything else they say?
> >> Actually, the bibical stories have been repeated historically for 2000
> >> years.
>
> > Actually, that means nothing. There are plenty of ancient myths
> >still in circulation -- but that doesn't make them historically
> >accurate.
>
> Nor do the documents of 200 years ago.
You're correct. However, documents from 200 years ago can be
independently verified and corraberated. Your myths can't. How handy.
> > My point is, the "bible" spans the OT and the NT. There's plenty
> >of truth and plenty of fiction in it. You were being very imprecise
> >with your language.
>
> The only part of the bible that is unquestionably accurate is that
> inspired part about what mankind must do in order to save his soul.
Oh, you mean the part that can't be proven? Again, how handy.
> Beatitude - Any of the declarations of blessedness made by Jesus in
> the Sermon on the Mount.
>
> The fact that he was on the "Mount" has nothing to do with nothing.
>
> >> You're back to square one - eyewitness accounts are meaningless in the
> >> bible, but eyewitness accounts are the bible in the American
> >> Revolution.
>
> > I never said that. There simply happens to be NO eyewitness
> >accounts in the Bible regarding the life of Jesus.
>
> You can't say that - you don't know that. You can't arbitrarily deny
> lack of communication because you can't see it.
There are no eyewitness accounts in the Bible, Duke.
I'm not saying there weren't eyewitnesses if the events happened
-- but they didn't write it down and if they did it didn't get into
the Bible.
> >There are letters
> >written by people and they certainly are eyewitness accounts to their
> >own stories, although interpretation of those stories is obviously
> >likely to be varied. But there's very little in the OT or the NT that
> >was written by eyewitnesses. They were not a literate people, Duke.
> >They couldn't have written down a grocery list, had there been
> >anyplace to go grocery shopping.
>
> But factual and accurate communication in those days were based on
> verbal skills. You think Mithra, which goes back before even the OT,
> is real.
Oral tradition was very important in the OT times and this is
amply demonstrated by the fact that Jesus was said to teach via story.
The message is important in parables (which Jewish teachers used). The
specific details are less important. But many Christians have not
figured this out and keep getting caught up in the piddling details.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in Mithra or any other gods.
> > >We're talking about the magical events of Jesus' life -- not whether
> >> >or not Bethlemen existed. And there's no primary documentation to
> >> >support anything regarding the life and death of Jesus.
>
> >> Grow up lady. You have no idea what you're talking aboutl.
> > Oh, but I do. That's what makes you so uncomfortable.
>
> You don't have the tools to undo 2000 years of scriptural and
> historical research covering millions and millions of manhours.
I don't need to undo anything. I'm just pointing out where your
logic threads unravel.
> I'm not worried.
Good for you.
> >> > Heck, even the
> >> >info about when he was supposed to have been born is wrong, as is the
> >> >story of the census his parents were supposed to be part of.
>
> >> And the exact date of his birthday has exactly nothing to do with
> >> nothing in the bible. A reasonable date was determined, but could be
> >> as much as 4 years off. Does it really bother you to know that it
> >> might be 2006 After the Day of Jesus' birthday.
>
> > The exact date obviously isn't important. But placing it within a
> >historical event IS important. The story of the census is very
> >important. If it didn't happen then that's kind of a big goof, IMO.
>
> The census is the supposed, and reasonably so, purpose for the trip.
> It's not exactly inspired scripture. Mary didn't give birth in a
> manger - it was a cave.
Oh, now the census is merely "supposed." That's really lame
apologetics, Duke. When specific rulers are mentioned and specific
legal proceedings, then it's pretty pathetic to turn around and say
those verifiable things aren't important, IMO.
> >> > I also wouldn't recommend you use the OT as any kind of travel
> >> >guide. Several times it gets very simple geography wrong.
>
> Geography is clearly not inspired.
No, but the inability to get it straight is a valid reason to
doubt other information being presented. If you're going to tell me
how to get to a city then I expect you to know the directions.
> >> And such a comment would not be made by anyone who understood what the
> >> bible represents.
>
> > <sigh> Right. You're foaming at the mouth about how we should
> >take the Bible at its word and I'm pointing out that it can't even get
> >basic geography correct. Clearly I'm the one who's not understanding.
>
> It's not a geography book - it's not a math book, or archeology book
> or geology book, or Greek book. It's total value is in the inspired
> words of the Holy Spirit regarding mankind and the salvation of his
> soul.
<sigh>
Once again, if the book can't get the verifiable facts straight
then I'm not inclined to believe it on the unverifiable stuff.
> >> > Nope. People on the lines were writing home, keeping diaries,
> >> >signing treaties, buying land, etc. And we have that information in
> >> >its original form. I can trace my own family's involvement in the AR,
> >> >in fact. The records are that good.
>
> >> Right - and you talked to them personally about it.
>
> > Did I say that? No. Once again you're changing the rules.
>
> I'm trying to show you that you take the accuracy of them on faith.
But you're not showing that. You're only showing that you can
twist my words.
> > I'm pointing out that there was no lag in coverage of the AR. The
> >documents available to us for reference are contemporary with the
> >events. The NT does not have anything of the sort.
>
> You don't know that.
I certainly do. There's nothing in the NT that was written at the
same time as the events being discussed.
This is not a controversial issue.
> >The documents about
> >the AR are also international in scope, and independently varifiable.
> >The NT has none of these things going for it.
>
> It's got 2000 years of scriptural research behind it.
The research didn't start 2000 years ago, Duke.
> > Doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. It just means this particular
> >argument you're using won't work.
>
> It's as good as the one you use for the AR.
Only in your mind.
> >> Give it up, dl, you have exactly no idea what you talking about.
>
> > Yeah, that would explain the degrees in ancient history and
> >anthropology, the years of Classical Greek, and the membership in Phi
> >Alpha Theta, the national historian's honor society.
>
> Well, I'm happy for you that you have these things - the NT bible has
> 2000 years of scriptural research behind it, and none by me.
There hasn't been 2000 years of research and it's obvious you've
never done any.
> > > No one "wrote the AR," you fool.
> >> > But at least you admit you don't know what you're talking about.
> >>
> >> You fool, both the bible and the AR are records of history and events.
>
> > The AR was an event. A verb. The Bible is a noun.
>
> Yeah, it's called a book, and books are what you use to develop faith
> that the events of the AR are real.
No, I haven't used books exclusively to reach my conclusions and I
don't take them on "faith," either. The concepts behind the scientific
research method are valid and can be verified and thus I find them
more convincing than "it's god's will," which is basically what your
method boils down to.
> >> > Again you show your ignorance of both the Bible, the AR, and the
> >> >concept of documentation and historical research.
>
> >> So far you've moved your lips, but no knowledge came out.
>
> > One can not teach, one can only learn. You have no desire to
> >learn.
>
> I'm the one with the open mind.
Only if you define "open" as meaning it's likely to topple out of
your skull at any moment.
> >> > Given the copious writing that the signers did on the subject, I
> >> >hardly think that's a sign of your broad minded interpretation of
> >> >historic documentation. No one except yourself appears interested in
> >> >claiming that the AR is as likely to have happened as the life and
> >> >death of Jesus as told by the NT.
> >>
> >> More people have believed the bible over 2000 years than the AR over
> >> 200 years.
>
> > That's unverifiable and, frankly, not important.
>
> To you, of course not.
Any sensible person refuses to accept an argument from popularity,
Duke.
> > People have
> >believed all kinds of wild things but it hasn't made them correct. If
> >you're going to keep falling back on this popularity contest version
> >of apologetics then you're going to look pretty weak in your defense.
>
> It's all I have. And sadly, it's also all you have.
I don't base my beliefs on what's popular or in fashion. Nor do I
try to support them by arguments relying upon popularity.
> >> > We know quite a bit about the AR and quite a bit about what the
> >> >Bible as we currently have it says about the life and death of Jesus.
> >> >That's not the same thing as knowing "quite a bit about both."
> >>
> >> Correction - we know quite a bit about the biblical events and the AR
> >> events based on verbal discussions, remembrances, drawings and
> >> pictures, artifacts, and archeology.
>
> > Same difference. Still doesn't mean we know anything about Jesus,
> >since there's been none of the verbal discussions, rememberances,
> >drawings, pictures, artifacts or archeology to support his even having
> >existed.
>
> Just a neverending line of growing belief that started with 12 people
> 2000 years ago and now number 33% of 6 billion (Christians) people
> alive today that believe it.
People who've mostly not taken the time to do any research. People
often believe what they're told by loved ones -- or what they find
comforting to believe.
> >> Why, because you can't explain your position well enough to make your
> >> point?
>
> > I can explain fine. But I can't make anyone change their mind if
> >they don't want to. You're too busy being "right" to learn anything
> >from anyone.
>
> Then you're not doing too good a job.
So I'm responsible for your behavior now?
> >> > Yup. An idiot. I could make a more compelling argument for
> >> >Christianity than you make. At least I know there were more than 12
> >> >men allegedly involved.
>
> >> Why don't you take a moment and explain your point, and we'll see just
> >> what you don't know.
>
> > Well, there we have it folks. An admission that you're not
> >interested in learning anything, not interested in really
> >understanding my point, not interested in much of anything other than
> >waiting until it's your turn to post so you can show off what you seem
> >to think is an impressive collection of knowledge and truth.
>
> What's the matter - afraid to try and show what you do, or don't,
> know.
Oh, yeah. That's me. I'm sooooo afraid of your intellectual
prowess.
> You said "more than 12 men" above. I know what 12 represents, so why
> don't you explain yourself and we can see if you do too.
>
> duke
Well, there was supposedly that whore they hung out with... and
the untold numbers of followers who weren't willing to abandon their
wives.
--
amban
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:23:32 GMT, "amban" <amban...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> Now you're starting to understand the real truth of the matter.
Only
> >> >> 5 people signed the Declaration of Independence originally. It took
> >> >> another 9 years to get the rest, if they are who they say they are.
>
> >> > DNA testing could prove who they are, not any of your Bible people.
>
> >> How would it prove "who" they are "what"?
>
> >Huh?
>
> How will DNA tell who they are?
>
> >> My point exactly.
>
> >No it wasn't. You were trying to prove that the whole signing of the
> >declaration of independence was a very nebulous and vague thing lost to
> >history. It was not.
> *****
> One of the most widely held misconceptions about the Declaration is
> that it was signed on July 4, 1776, by all the delegates in
They should have said by those who do not know their history because that is
what they meant Earl. The records say otherwise. Just because you and
many others never paid attention or did any real study of history it is your
fault not the fault of the record keepers. Just don't believe everything
you hear dear, you have to learn to study and think.
What facts? Your fifth grade teacher? No the facts do not erroneously
suggest that. You Earl assumed that because you were to lazy to ever read
a book.
>
> >What facts? I call for a source. Where did you study history? Just
> >because that is all you surmised does not mean that the rest of the world
or
> >those who have paid attention to history didn't know this fact. You
> >believe everything Earl without investigating. Man learn to use your
> >brain.
>
> See above.
You see above.
>
> >Huh? Because you have limited knowledge of an incident is your fault
not
> >because of faulty history. Get a clue.
>
> When the shoe fits.
Huh???????
>
> >> Nobody lied - you've proved history is not necessarily exactly what it
> >> appears to be.
> >No, you have proven Earl Weber doesn't know his American history.
>
> But see what I duke said above.
HUH???? You don't know something so the whole world is to blame because you
spout off at the mouth about subjects you are not an expert in?
>
> >> Did George Washington chop down the cherry tree? I'll give you an
> >> easier one - did he throw a coin accross the Potomac?
>
> >Get a life Earl. Oh I get it!!! You confuse rumors and passed down
tales
> >about American history as fact just as you confuse the point that the
bible
> >is just like these rumors. There is no concrete evidence for the bible.
>
> Sure there is - 2000 years of history - things witnessed and written
> down, drawings, artifacts, archelolog.
>
> The same type of data for the AR..
Right. Dream on.
>
> >It is just the stuff of story telling! See one can study American
history
> >and find fact. Better stop using your little lame AR arguments Earl
they
> >don't fly.
>
> You're out of your league, amban.
Tell me about it Earl I know that when it comes to arguing with you.
AMBAN
>
> duke
>
duke32
wrote:
>> >> How would it prove "who" they are "what"?
>> >Huh?
>> How will DNA tell who they are?
You didn't answer amban - lost for words.
>> *****
>> One of the most widely held misconceptions about the Declaration is
>> that it was signed on July 4, 1776, by all the delegates in
>They should have said by those who do not know their history because that is
>what they meant Earl. The records say otherwise. Just because you and
>many others never paid attention or did any real study of history it is your
>fault not the fault of the record keepers. Just don't believe everything
>you hear dear, you have to learn to study and think.
Hey, I furnish the crow, you eat it.
> What facts? Your fifth grade teacher? No the facts do not erroneously
>suggest that. You Earl assumed that because you were to lazy to ever read
>a book.
poor amban - just gotta toss out those false innuendoes.
>> >What facts? I call for a source. Where did you study history? Just
>> >because that is all you surmised does not mean that the rest of the world
>or
>> >those who have paid attention to history didn't know this fact. You
>> >believe everything Earl without investigating. Man learn to use your
>> >brain.
*****
One of the most widely held misconceptions about the Declaration is
that it was signed on July 4, 1776, by all the delegates in
*****
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
Presented by the Indiana University School of Law唯loomington
The assembled Continental Congress deleted a few passages of the
draft, and amended others, but outright rejected only two sections: 1)
a derogatory reference to the English people; 2) a passionate
denunciation of the slave trade. The latter section was left out, as
Jefferson reported, to accede to the wishes of South Carolina and
Georgia, who wanted to continue the importation of slaves. The rest of
the draft was accepted on July 4, and 56 members of Congress began
their formal signing of the document on August 2, 1776.
*****
duke32
> It corrects nothing, Duke. The point is that there's nothing
>outside of the NT that refers to Jesus. There's all kinds of
>documentation "from the time of Jesus" but nothing mentioning him. I
>can tell you that there's a million books "from the time of the
>Pillbury Doughboy" but it doesn't mean the Pillsbury Doughboy ever
>actually drew breath, although the time in which he was said to exist
>was real.
and somehow I suspect you learned your NT from the Pillsbury Doughboy
books.
>> You misuse the term "inspired" - which is that part of that which is
>> written down, which is just part of that which occurred, which
>> addresses the Holy Spirits passing on what mankind needs to secure the
>> salvation of his soul.
> When I use the word I mean that your god supposedly dictated the
>information to the writers, who were not eye witnesses.
No he didn't *dictate* the information (like a boss to a secretary).
Which well explains why you don't understand what the NT is.
>> Much of the bible is historical, and not all historical data is found
>> in the bible.
> You got that small part correct.
But enough.
>> You don't even know what tradition means. It's things that happened,
>> some of which eventually found their way into the books of the NT as
>> being done by specific authors. There's nothing there to deny that
>> much of what did occur was written down and then entered into the
>> written form is each of hte books of the NT.
> Tradition is not "things that happened."
You have no idea what the bible is.
> Tradition is an inherited, established or customary way of
>thinking or doing something.
Exactly, and some of which was subsequently written down to become the
NT.
> The maverick thought or action today may become the tradition of
>our descendants.
As will solid belief of the times.
>The RCC is full of things that have become
>traditional merely because they've been done in a certain way for a
>long enough time that people can't remember when it was otherwise.
Compliments of Jesus' leadership.
>> > Jesus never dictated anything to anyone to write down for later.
>> When did he tell you this?
> <sigh>
dl, you just don't understand what the bible is.
> You're really hopeless. Given that Jesus was illiterate and so was
>just about everyone else he knew, it is logical to conclude that he
>didn't dictate anything to anyone to write down for later.
Most people involved in the AR signed their name with an "x". Not
everybody could write like the authors of the DofI.
>> Now there's a solid reason to declare them false.
> I didn't say it was a reason to do anything. I merely pointed out
>that they were unnamed until the 2nd century.
So? They were still the facts of life.
> You appear to feel threatened by information given your
>stimulus-response attempts at sarcasm and distain.
Just showing you that you know next to nothing about the bible, nad
apparently the records fo the AR.
>> > The 8 years number is one I've never read before, however.
>>
>> And those numbers are established based on what the "author" appeared
>> to be limited to in his knowledge of other events during that time.
> Could you supply me with a reference for this? I've honestly never
>seen it in all of my years of study.
It's in each book's introductions in my bible, as applicable.
Authorship and/or the time of is "established" based on what the
author appeared to know about in his writings.
>> Mark, for instance, displays knowledge in his words of events leading
>> up to the Jewish war against Rome AD66-70 but displays no clear
>> knowledge of the fall of Jerusalem AD70.
>> So when did he really start - maybe years before to maybe years after.
>> He is generally credited with AD65-75.
> Ummm... but that's still not 8 years after the presumed death of
>Jesus. That's 32 - 42 years later.
Mark, yes. Matthew is estimated from 40AD (7-8 years after Jesus
died) to as late as 140AD, but expected real date is AD80-90, or 47 to
57 years after Christ died - AD33.
>> The value of the bible is the inspired words of the Holy Spirit as
>> they relate to the salvation of mankinds soul. Historical events,
>> math, foreign langauge, etc is not the value of the bible.
> Then why do you keep trying to use these non-valuable elements to
>support your claims?
I don't other than to establish dates, etc. The bible is not a
history book, or a geopgraphy, math, or archeology book, but it does
include some of these things. The bible is the inspired works of God
as they relate, without error, to what mankind must do in order to
save his soul.
For instance, the first 5 books of the OT, or the Jewish part, re
Moses, splitting the Red Sea, etc is labeled as "prehistory". Quite
likely the Red Sea is the Reed Sea, a swamp that the Hebrews went thur
and were followed by the Egyptians is heavy metal body armor - they
drowned.
> You've basically said, "Don't bother me with the facts, I already
>know the answer."
You are the one that professes the ingorance of life 2000 years ago
and that the facts couldn't possibly be true.
> You sound like the Islamics who've made it a sin punishable by
>death to study the Koran. Fortunately, heretics are doing just that
>and finding that horrible mistranslations have taken a basically
>peaceful religion with strong acknowledged roots in Judaism and
>Christianity and turned it into the militant vehicle for hate that it
>is today.
That's the Islamics - we Christians profess love for one another as
God loves us.
> Who said they've got a "separate agenda to deny much of what
>Christ gave us?"
Because in the Protest_ant Reformation of 1500AD the Protest_ants
removed the parts of the bible they didn't like - King Henry VIII (?)
wanted an annunment to marry someone else and raise a son and the Pope
said no, etc.
> I'm talking about what's left after they remove the Apocrapha.
>Maybe they did cut out books that should have been left in (it
>wouldn't be the first time). Let's focus on the parts they left in. If
>even those aren't something we can depend on then you're going to have
>to work hard to convince me I should trust the rest of the book
They also removed 4 of the 7 sacraments. Notable Holy Eucharist,
Confession, Holy Orders (presthood), and something else, probably
Confirmation.
>> The RCC as been the leader in biblical research of the documents.
> It was smothering research into them, Duke. It sat on them and did
>very little for many years and the SECULAR academic community finally
>managed to wrestle the things out of its hands. Once there,
>translations began in earnest. I subscribed to Biblical Archaeology
>Review for years and this was a very hot topic.
How can you say that. the bible/early writings have been under
intense research for 2000 years.
The secular community has no idea of what God said people must do to
save their soul. Take out the Red and add the Reed sea. The how and
why of the distruction of the Egyptian forces is not the issue. That
just makes a good "Ten Commandments" movie.
>> >> > The "bible" is a meaningless term here since all one needs to
>> >> >support your statement is show that any city in the book existed.
>> Facts like "city existance" are in no way inspired scripture.
> But if those who channel god can't get the directions to the local
>Quickie Mart right why should I believe anything else they say?
Well, it all depends on your intention and what you're looking for.
Jesus spoke to Saul on the road to Eamaus. If it was the road to
Jerico instead, it would not matter.
> You're correct. However, documents from 200 years ago can be
>independently verified and corraberated. Your myths can't. How handy.
How can you declare 100% faith in documents 200 years old and 0% faith
in documents 2000 years old?
> There are no eyewitness accounts in the Bible, Duke.
You have no validity in that statement. Just because the "books" of
the bible are dated 40AD to ... does not mean that "george" wasn't
writing down exactly what he saw, and that those words were picked up
by "Pete" and written down again in his gospel.
> I'm not saying there weren't eyewitnesses if the events happened
>-- but they didn't write it down and if they did it didn't get into
>the Bible.
Totally unprovable.
> Oral tradition was very important in the OT times and this is
>amply demonstrated by the fact that Jesus was said to teach via story.
>The message is important in parables (which Jewish teachers used). The
>specific details are less important. But many Christians have not
>figured this out and keep getting caught up in the piddling details.
I can accept your word re "Christian" because many fundamentalists do
just that. But not all Chrisitans, and genereally not RC's.
> I am an atheist. I do not believe in Mithra or any other gods.
Many of your arcer buddies do.
> I don't need to undo anything. I'm just pointing out where your
>logic threads unravel.
"My" threads are not mine but based on much reading.
> Oh, now the census is merely "supposed." That's really lame
>apologetics, Duke. When specific rulers are mentioned and specific
>legal proceedings, then it's pretty pathetic to turn around and say
>those verifiable things aren't important, IMO.
It's not "inspired" words. A census which dictated Joseph and Mary
return home is good enough for me to appreciate a need for them to
take a cross-country trip.
> No, but the inability to get it straight is a valid reason to
>doubt other information being presented. If you're going to tell me
>how to get to a city then I expect you to know the directions.
We dealing with mankind and the salvation of his soul here, not a
trip. Jimmy Swaggert would go ballistic if he saw my words.
> Once again, if the book can't get the verifiable facts straight
>then I'm not inclined to believe it on the unverifiable stuff.
That's because you trying to misuse the bible. Again, people like
Jimmy Swaggert believes every word in the bible is inspired. We RC's
believe in the parts which relate to the salvation of our souls.
Genesis is a general old, old story of the beginnings of life. If one
adds the dates found in the bible up, the world is only 6000 years
old.
I believe the early biblical books as they "explain" the formation of
the universe, and man's sinfulness. As far as an Adam and an Eve and
a garden of Eden, I generally do not accept their reality.
> I certainly do. There's nothing in the NT that was written at the
>same time as the events being discussed.
> This is not a controversial issue.
It's only the people that catagorically reject the NT that even
question it; ie, it couldn't possibly be accurate.
>> It's got 2000 years of scriptural research behind it.
> The research didn't start 2000 years ago, Duke.
Well, just what do you call it when a group of people originally start
to document a life style. Add 4000 years to it to include the OT.
>> > Doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. It just means this particular
>> >argument you're using won't work.
>> It's as good as the one you use for the AR.
> Only in your mind.
You are trying to factualize an unconfirmed action in the AR when your
documents are the same as for the bilical events, which you reject as
factual.
> There hasn't been 2000 years of research and it's obvious you've
>never done any.
1. I don't need to do any. I have 2000 years of biblical research to
back me up.
2. The OT goes back another 4000 years.
3. Mithra didn't exist before that.
>> > The AR was an event. A verb. The Bible is a noun.
>>
>> Yeah, it's called a book, and books are what you use to develop faith
>> that the events of the AR are real.
> No, I haven't used books exclusively to reach my conclusions and I
>don't take them on "faith," either. The concepts behind the scientific
>research method are valid and can be verified and thus I find them
>more convincing than "it's god's will," which is basically what your
>method boils down to.
All you're saying is you believe yours and reject mine.
> Only if you define "open" as meaning it's likely to topple out of
>your skull at any moment.
I just caught yours.
> Any sensible person refuses to accept an argument from popularity,
>Duke.
Like the AR for instance.
> I don't base my beliefs on what's popular or in fashion. Nor do I
>try to support them by arguments relying upon popularity.
No, you just apply lack of reason and determine for yourself what you
will confuse yourself over.
> People who've mostly not taken the time to do any research. People
>often believe what they're told by loved ones -- or what they find
>comforting to believe.
Well, when one talks of love, the bible certianly the place to look.
>> Then you're not doing too good a job.
> So I'm responsible for your behavior now?
I have no idea at all what you're claiming now.
> Oh, yeah. That's me. I'm sooooo afraid of your intellectual
>prowess.
But what's worst, for you, is that I'm sooooo unafraid of your
intellectual prowess.
> Well, there was supposedly that whore they hung out with... and
>the untold numbers of followers who weren't willing to abandon their
>wives.
As Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Now that's inspired.
duke32
wrote:
>All the bs about the revolution is just that, a red herring. To get back to
>the point.
>There is no way you can prove Jesus is god let alone that he even existed.
>Everything
>from the RCC is tainted and can be considered unreliable. You are left with
>just your faith. Faith is just a belief. People get
>their beliefs either from what they are taught to believe or from what they
>experience,
>ie. reading, society. That is all your beliefs are your opinion of what you
>might hope happened.
>To say anymore then that or that such things are *absolute* is bs. You just
>refuse to face the fact
>that like any other religious belief yours is based on a bunch of myths and
>stories. They may be popular now(waning though)
>and they may have existed for a while(due to the militant vigilance of
>Rome). But someday they will be but a memory, looked
> upon by future humans as sure as we look upon past religions ourselves. I'm
>sure most devout zoroastrians, or zeus worshippers,
>or bull god devotees all felt the same way you did about their gods. But
>maybe you are too old to see, maybe the neuron pathways in your brain
>are too fossilized to move in any other pattern but the rigid ways they were
>taught.
Well, my belief in God, and my willingness to follow his guidance, is
directed towards an eternity of happiness in the next life - not this
life.
When you are on your deathbed, assuming you have the time, are you
going to curse God and reject his existance to prove how much of a man
you are, all the while secretly wishing you really hadn't taken such
an approach.
Because if you were wrong all along - you've blown it now. Time up -
it's too late to change your mind.
>Someday maybe man will find a *god* but I bet if that ever happens
>it will be a vastly different reality then what is commonly understood now.
Any particular reason I should believe this?
Joe
> Because if you were wrong all along - you've blown it now. Time up -
> it's too late to change your mind.
If your idea of a *god* is one that will damn you for eternity for
a few mispent years then you can keep your god.
Apostate
wrote:
Note that, even allowing, arguendo, that the
rest of the silly Pascal's Wager scenario is sound,
contemporary Catholic teachings don't agree with whatever dumbass it
is you're quoting from, above. The *current* Catholic version of a
god is still willing to receive your good will and your 'belonging' in
the community of saints, even if you died in error but with a good
conscience. That was a necessary adjustment, because even
Catholic rank-and-file aren't as dumb as they used to be, and are
able, as that dumbass is not, to grasp the consistency of the primacy
of conscience.
(shhhh!! don't tell me who)
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
Denizen of Darkness #3
Coconut CUSSARD
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never
amban
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:39:29 GMT, "amban" <amban...@attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >> How would it prove "who" they are "what"?
> >> >Huh?
> >> How will DNA tell who they are?
>
> You didn't answer amban - lost for words.
Zues Earl. If the DNA of those people can be matched to their descendants.
ST. Peter is a faith based myth we don't know any of his descendants.
Scientist have gathered DNA from mammoths that was between 50,000 and
100,000 years old.
>
> >> *****
> >> One of the most widely held misconceptions about the Declaration is
> >> that it was signed on July 4, 1776, by all the delegates in
>
> >They should have said by those who do not know their history because that
is
> >what they meant Earl. The records say otherwise. Just because you
and
> >many others never paid attention or did any real study of history it is
your
> >fault not the fault of the record keepers. Just don't believe everything
> >you hear dear, you have to learn to study and think.
>
> Hey, I furnish the crow, you eat it.
Huh? Sorry World we are responsible Of course that Earl doesn't know
something. (we may be responsible however we are not surprised)
> >> >What facts? I call for a source. Where did you study history?
Just
> >> >because that is all you surmised does not mean that the rest of the
world
> >or
> >> >those who have paid attention to history didn't know this fact. You
> >> >believe everything Earl without investigating. Man learn to use your
> >> >brain.
>
> *****
> One of the most widely held misconceptions about the Declaration is
> that it was signed on July 4, 1776, by all the delegates in
> *****
Earl the people who have the records knew and the people who know history
knew. It isn't a fact it is a misconception. Do you know what
misconception means? Santa Claus is a widely held misconception.
> The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
> Presented by the Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington
>
> The assembled Continental Congress deleted a few passages of the
> draft, and amended others, but outright rejected only two sections: 1)
> a derogatory reference to the English people; 2) a passionate
> denunciation of the slave trade. The latter section was left out, as
> Jefferson reported, to accede to the wishes of South Carolina and
> Georgia, who wanted to continue the importation of slaves. The rest of
> the draft was accepted on July 4, and 56 members of Congress began
> their formal signing of the document on August 2, 1776.
> *****
Oh by the way the passage about the English people was a derogatory remark
about a "christian king."
AMBAN
The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have
seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the
church.
-- Ferdinand Magellan
>
> duke
>
> *****
duke32
wrote:
>Zues Earl. If the DNA of those people can be matched to their descendants.
And so you have a old corpse identifiable by dna as your relative. If
said corpse has recoverable dna. Now what.
>ST. Peter is a faith based myth we don't know any of his descendants.
>Scientist have gathered DNA from mammoths that was between 50,000 and
>100,000 years old.
St Peter was also a known real man that played a real part in the
evolution of hte world.
>> Hey, I furnish the crow, you eat it.
>Huh? Sorry World we are responsible Of course that Earl doesn't know
>something. (we may be responsible however we are not surprised)
I made my point. What are you trying to say?
>> *****
>> One of the most widely held misconceptions about the Declaration is
>> that it was signed on July 4, 1776, by all the delegates in
>> *****
>Earl the people who have the records knew and the people who know history
>knew. It isn't a fact it is a misconception. Do you know what
>misconception means? Santa Claus is a widely held misconception.
But St Peter isn't. Wise up amban.
>> The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
>> Presented by the Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington
>> The assembled Continental Congress deleted a few passages of the
>> draft, and amended others, but outright rejected only two sections: 1)
>> a derogatory reference to the English people; 2) a passionate
>> denunciation of the slave trade. The latter section was left out, as
>> Jefferson reported, to accede to the wishes of South Carolina and
>> Georgia, who wanted to continue the importation of slaves. The rest of
>> the draft was accepted on July 4, and 56 members of Congress began
>> their formal signing of the document on August 2, 1776.
>> *****
>Oh by the way the passage about the English people was a derogatory remark
>about a "christian king."
amban, you're making no sense at all. You still are dead in the water
as far as differential evidence of the two events.
>AMBAN
>The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have
>seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the
>church.
>-- Ferdinand Magellan
Was he an atheist also?
duke32
wrote:
>> Because if you were wrong all along - you've blown it now. Time up -
Then again that's exactly what he won't do. Get it.
arjay
> "amban" wrote:
>
> >> > We could do some DNA testing and that would prove whether or not it was
> >> >Bonnie and Clyde now with ST peter that wouldn't work.
>
> >> And why would it work for one and not the rest?.
>
> >Do you know any living relatives or descendants of ST. Peter?
>
> Nope - and not Bonnie and Clyde, or Paul Revere.
How about members of the Long family -- those fine exemplars of political
rectitude?
Remember them? Huey, his brother Earl, and Huey's son, Russell?
They were all from your part of the swamp.
> And how long does DNA remain viable.
Viable? No one's proposing to clone Clyde Barrow or Bonnie Parker.
And Peter least of all.
For the purposes of establishing family identity, the needed kind (and amount)
of DNA could be scraped from the Shroud of Turin -- if the RCC permitted, and
the stains were ever proven to be made by human blood.
> >> >In fact what saint
> >> >was it Peter (?) that they found chicken bones a couple of years ago
> >> >mixed in with the human bones?
> >> >AMBAN
>
> >> And if true, that would say ....what?
>
> >That whoever was in the hole probably was not venerated or well respected
> >more likely a bum thrown out with the garbage.
>
> No sign of intelligance in that statement.
Spoken like a man who venerates barnyard fowl.
--
arjay
Denizen of Darkness #111
Damned by Dore #42
Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
> duke
Apostate
<arjaykw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>For the purposes of establishing family identity, the needed kind (and amount)
>of DNA could be scraped from the Shroud of Turin -- if the RCC permitted, and
>the stains were ever proven to be made by human blood.
>
It's well to keep the conditional sense of "could" in mind,
here. In our case, that's "could" not in any present or future tense,
but in the pluperfect.
The technique involved for 'amplifying' minute traces of DNA,
the polymerase chain reaction, (developed during one of my
hiatuses from study; I had the benefit of seeing several revolutions
in information and technology spanned, while I was pursuing an
undergrad program) is the chemical equivalent of a mindless
machine that makes *more* of what is fed to it as input. For
the *output* to have any meaning at all, however, as a thing to
examine for identity, requires the most extraordinary fastidiousness
about the pristine single-source(ness) of the material being examined,
since the polymerase cannot hope to distinguish the original target
material from that accidentally accumulated from the first twenty
thousand rubes who have handled the shroud. This factor was one among
the many making a meaningful trial of that guy named after a breakfast
drink nearly impossible.
duke32
<arjaykw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>How about members of the Long family -- those fine exemplars of political
>rectitude?
>Remember them? Huey, his brother Earl, and Huey's son, Russell?
>They were all from your part of the swamp.
rj, are you trying to make a point at all, especially an intelligent
one? Better try again, if you are.
>> And how long does DNA remain viable.
>Viable? No one's proposing to clone Clyde Barrow or Bonnie Parker.
>And Peter least of all.
There is no point in cloning any of the three. Why would anyone want
to at all, other than amban, to see if she is related to the
dinosaurs.
>For the purposes of establishing family identity, the needed kind (and amount)
>of DNA could be scraped from the Shroud of Turin -- if the RCC permitted, and
>the stains were ever proven to be made by human blood.
Only if it's still usable, then what?
>Spoken like a man who venerates barnyard fowl.
Are you the chicken or the duck?
duke32
<ex_alt...@apostate.mailshell.com> wrote:
>>For the purposes of establishing family identity, the needed kind (and amount)
>>of DNA could be scraped from the Shroud of Turin -- if the RCC permitted, and
>>the stains were ever proven to be made by human blood.
> It's well to keep the conditional sense of "could" in mind,
>here. In our case, that's "could" not in any present or future tense,
>but in the pluperfect.
> The technique involved for 'amplifying' minute traces of DNA,
>the polymerase chain reaction, (developed during one of my
>hiatuses from study; I had the benefit of seeing several revolutions
>in information and technology spanned, while I was pursuing an
>undergrad program) is the chemical equivalent of a mindless
>machine that makes *more* of what is fed to it as input. For
>the *output* to have any meaning at all, however, as a thing to
>examine for identity, requires the most extraordinary fastidiousness
>about the pristine single-source(ness) of the material being examined,
>since the polymerase cannot hope to distinguish the original target
>material from that accidentally accumulated from the first twenty
>thousand rubes who have handled the shroud. This factor was one among
>the many making a meaningful trial of that guy named after a breakfast
>drink nearly impossible.
>/Apostate
rj and amban, and myself in this case, appreciate your input. but I
guess amban will never know whether she is related to a dinosaur or
not.
Shame.
Darklady
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:06:45 -0400, "arjay"
> <arjaykw...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >How about members of the Long family -- those fine exemplars of political
> >rectitude?
> >Remember them? Huey, his brother Earl, and Huey's son, Russell?
> >They were all from your part of the swamp.
>
> rj, are you trying to make a point at all, especially an intelligent
> one? Better try again, if you are.
>
> >> And how long does DNA remain viable.
>
> >Viable? No one's proposing to clone Clyde Barrow or Bonnie Parker.
> >And Peter least of all.
>
> There is no point in cloning any of the three. Why would anyone want
> to at all, other than amban, to see if she is related to the
> dinosaurs.
>
> >For the purposes of establishing family identity, the needed kind (and
amount)
> >of DNA could be scraped from the Shroud of Turin -- if the RCC permitted,
and
> >the stains were ever proven to be made by human blood.
>
> Only if it's still usable, then what?
"Usable?
You're talking cloning talk here even though you insulted arjay earlier.
We don't want to "use" the DNA, just read it. They've been able to get
viable DNA from prehistoric bodies (human) found frozen in the ice. Time
isn't the concern, it's condition.
DNA research has been used in the Sally Hemings/Thomas Jefferson debate.
It's been used to sequence the Black Death's bacterium genome. And it's been
used to show that modern humans are not related to the Neanderthals.... so
obviously DNA older than Jesus has successfully been found and used.
Maybe instead of attacking everyone who has an idea you're not familiar
with you might consider asking questions in a respectful manner. No, you're
right. What a stupid idea...
> >Spoken like a man who venerates barnyard fowl.
>
> Are you the chicken or the duck?
>
> duke
Why would it matter to you?
duke32
wrote:
>> Only if it's still usable, then what?
> "Usable?
> You're talking cloning talk here even though you insulted arjay earlier.
>We don't want to "use" the DNA, just read it. They've been able to get
>viable DNA from prehistoric bodies (human) found frozen in the ice. Time
>isn't the concern, it's condition.
Wake up dl - my "usable" is your "condition".
And I repeat my original question - "and then what"?
> DNA research has been used in the Sally Hemings/Thomas Jefferson debate.
>It's been used to sequence the Black Death's bacterium genome. And it's been
>used to show that modern humans are not related to the Neanderthals.... so
>obviously DNA older than Jesus has successfully been found and used.
Cool, now what does amban want to do with it?
> Maybe instead of attacking everyone who has an idea you're not familiar
>with you might consider asking questions in a respectful manner. No, you're
>right. What a stupid idea...
It's stupid alright - talk to amban.
> Why would it matter to you?
None at all.