Dumped from jury pool
Cliff
Jesus Christ dumped from jury pool for disruption
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. � Court officials say a Birmingham woman who changed her name
to Jesus Christ didn't live up to it when she reported for jury duty this week.
The woman, previously named Dorothy Lola Killingworth, was sent to Judge Clyde
Jones's courtroom for a criminal case Monday.
Court officials told The Birmingham News Tuesday that the 59-year-old was
excused because she was disruptive and kept asking questions instead of
answering them.
Efforts to reach Christ for comment were unsuccessful.
Court administrator Sandra Turner said people there were shocked when the woman
insisted her name was Jesus Christ and some potential jurors laughed out loud
when her name was called.
But Turner said unlike some Jefferson County residents, Christ didn't try to get
out of jury duty and was "perfectly happy to serve."
___
Information from: The Birmingham News, http://www.al.com/birminghamnews
]
r wiley
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message news:9nedh51aum5chluol...@4ax.com...
> [
> Jesus Christ dumped from jury pool for disruption
>
> to Jesus Christ didn't live up to it when she reported for jury duty this week.
> The woman, previously named Dorothy Lola Killingworth, was sent to Judge Clyde
> Jones's courtroom for a criminal case Monday.
>
> Court officials told The Birmingham News Tuesday that the 59-year-old was
> excused because she was disruptive and kept asking questions instead of
> answering them.
>
And Jesus of Nazareth questioned the scribes and pharisees of his day and said
that He would not answer their question unless they answered His.
rw
Cliff
Why?
--
Cliff
r wiley
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message news:6ssdh51p3gk682f3h...@4ax.com...
The scribes and pharisees asked Jesus by what authority he acted. They hoped to get
an answer that would justify punishing Jesus for blasphemy. Jesus said he would reply
if the scribes and pharisees would answer whether the babtism of John the Babtist was
of heaven or man. It was a trick question. John was an populist evangelist with a mass
following. The scribes and pharisees did not want to acknowledge John's babtism as
divine, but they feared that to deny it would turn the masses of the population against them.
rw
Darrell Stec
> They hoped to get
> an answer that would justify punishing Jesus for
blasphemy.
Why do Christians always get this one wrong? There
was no way Joshua could have committed blasphemy no
matter what he said. And there is a very good for
that. Too bad Christians spend all their time reading
poor translations instead of learning biblical
languages themselves (down right stupid because the
say they are staking their immortal soul on that ever
changing tome) and not enough time actually learning
the customs of the time.
There was only one way to commit blasphemy and that
was to recite in front of three righteous witnesses
the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew. That was impossible for
many, many reasons, the least of which the bible says
none are righteous (Remember Abraham and his
difficulty?) Today one tends to forget that if one
physically held the image of a god, that person could
control the god (which is the reason for the
injunction against graven images). But more the point
with this issue, if one knew the name of the god, then
one could acquire power over that god. The remnants
of this can be found in the story of Rumplestiltskin.
That and that reason only was why Yahweh's name could
not be spoken in the language the god was created.
By the second century CE when the New Testament was
written, Hebrew was a forgotten and dead language for
at least 400 years. If anything Aramaic might have
been spoken in the boondocks and that does not fit the
paradigm of blasphemy. But we now know since the
uncovering of Pompeii and Herculaneum that Greek (not
Latin) was the language of the Roman Empire of which
Israel, Judea and Galilee was a part. All indications
are that Greek was what the natives spoke which would
have included Joshua too if he weren't merely a
character in a work of fiction.
--
Later,
Darrell
jk
>r wiley wrote:
>
raNT DELETED
>There was only one way to commit blasphemy and that
>was to recite in front of three righteous witnesses
>the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew. That was impossible for
>many, many reasons, the least of which the bible says
>none are righteous (Remember Abraham and his
>difficulty?) Today one tends to forget that if one
>physically held the image of a god, that person could
>control the god (which is the reason for the
>injunction against graven images).
Just made this up?? have a cite for that?
> But more the point
>with this issue, if one knew the name of the god, then
>one could acquire power over that god.
Same question
> The remnants
>of this can be found in the story of Rumplestiltskin.
Knowing the name of something giving you power over it is common to
many mythologies, but I don't think that rumplestilskin arises from
the christian mythos.
>That and that reason only was why Yahweh's name could
>not be spoken in the language the god was created.
>
A dubious bit of logic there.
>By the second century CE when the New Testament was
>written, Hebrew was a forgotten and dead language for
>at least 400 years.
WHich magically reconstructed it self???
Pull my other one.
> If anything Aramaic might have
>been spoken in the boondocks and that does not fit the
>paradigm of blasphemy.
"It was the day-to-day language of Israel in the Second Temple period
(539 BCE � 70 CE), was the original language of large sections of the
biblical books of Daniel and Ezra, "
>But we now know since the
>uncovering of Pompeii and Herculaneum that Greek (not
>Latin) was the language of the Roman Empire of which
>Israel, Judea and Galilee was a part.
Care to provide cites for that.
If it was the case the "romance" languages would be all based on
greek, not vulgate latin.
Greek was common yes, but not as I understand it the dominate or
official language, until much later.
>All indications
>are that Greek was what the natives spoke
Doubtful
>which would
>have included Joshua too if he weren't merely a
>character in a work of fiction.
Like most of what you wrote above?
jk
Cliff
>r wiley wrote:
>
>> They hoped to get
>> an answer that would justify punishing Jesus for
>blasphemy.
>
>Why do Christians always get this one wrong? There
>was no way Joshua could have committed blasphemy no
>matter what he said. And there is a very good for
>that. Too bad Christians spend all their time reading
>poor translations instead of learning biblical
>languages themselves (down right stupid because the
>say they are staking their immortal soul on that ever
>changing tome) and not enough time actually learning
>the customs of the time.
>
>There was only one way to commit blasphemy and that
>was to recite in front of three righteous witnesses
>the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew. That was impossible for
>many, many reasons, the least of which the bible says
>none are righteous (Remember Abraham and his
>difficulty?) Today one tends to forget that if one
>physically held the image of a god, that person could
>control the god (which is the reason for the
>injunction against graven images).
Golem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
"The earliest stories of golems date to early Judaism. Adam is described in
the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 38b) as initially created as a golem when his
dust was "kneaded into a shapeless hunk"."
[
Having a golem servant was seen as the ultimate symbol of wisdom and holiness,
and there are many tales of golems connected to prominent rabbis throughout the
Middle Ages[citation needed].
Other attributes of the golem were gradually added over time. In many tales the
Golem is inscribed with magic or religious words that keep it animated. Writing
one of the names of God on its forehead, a slip of paper in its mouth, or
inscribed on its body, or writing the word Emet (???, "truth" in the Hebrew
language) on its forehead are examples of such words.
]
Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
I wonder who Jesus Christ votes for?
TMT
Billy Cox
> I wonder who Jesus Christ votes for?
Al Sharpton?
Jessie Jackson?
Drunken Air traffic controlers?
You?
Beam Me Up Scotty
A VFW
<7f3c3411-4e49-4fd7...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
and who would Jesus "waterboard" ?
Poetic Justice
Judas' benefactor that offered the 40 pieces of silver.
How do you think he prophetically knew he would be betrayed?
Darrell Stec
> Darrell Stec <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>r wiley wrote:
>>
> raNT DELETED
>
>>There was only one way to commit blasphemy and that
>>was to recite in front of three righteous witnesses
>>the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew. That was impossible for
>>many, many reasons, the least of which the bible says
>>none are righteous (Remember Abraham and his
>>difficulty?) Today one tends to forget that if one
>>physically held the image of a god, that person could
>>control the god (which is the reason for the
>>injunction against graven images).
>
> Just made this up?? have a cite for that?
There isn't any one, single source. To explain it in detail would take
chapters. I've distilled more than 45 years of study. I have a formal
education in theology and the scriptural languages not limited to Hebrew,
Greek and Latin.
Many religions have similar ideas. One needs merely review the Native
American Indians reticence to having photographs taken. In your extensive
study of the matter, why do you think the biblical authors invented that
injunction?
>> But more the point
>>with this issue, if one knew the name of the god, then
>>one could acquire power over that god.
>
> Same question
Same answer. To what do you attribute that injunction as invented by the
scriptural editors? Surely you don't believe some invisible pixie in the
sky handed down a mandate?
>> The remnants
>>of this can be found in the story of Rumplestiltskin.
> Knowing the name of something giving you power over it is common to
> many mythologies, but I don't think that rumplestilskin arises from
> the christian mythos.
>
It wasn't a Christian mythos. But the reasoning was the same. In other
words the Rumpelstiltskin idea is parallel to the Canaanite idea.
>>That and that reason only was why Yahweh's name could
>>not be spoken in the language the god was created.
>>
>
> A dubious bit of logic there.
What dubious logic would that be? When the returning priests and princes
forced their new theology (that of Zoroastrianism upon those who remained in
the Palestinian region and invented this new, supreme god called Yahweh they
cleverly had their invented god be invisible and set up injunctions that
would have compromised his power. You must think this invisible pixie in
the sky actually dictated scripture?
>
>>By the second century CE when the New Testament was
>>written, Hebrew was a forgotten and dead language for
>>at least 400 years.
> WHich magically reconstructed it self???
> Pull my other one.
>
Dead and forgotten like Hieroglyphics was dead and forgotten. But now we
can read them again.
For quite a few centuries the standard biblical text was the Greek
Septuagint. The Masoretic scribes reconstructed the Hebrew texts back from
it from about 600 to 1200 CE. And as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
demonstrate, they did a rather poor job. I take it you can read Hebrew and
have compared the two?
I don't know if you know much about Catholicism but for hundreds of years up
to the 1960s church goers would parrot a response back to the priest in
Latin even though they didn't have the foggiest idea what they were saying.
I have a few older acquaintances who still remember some of those responses,
and they still cannot tell you what the words exactly mean, just the general
idea because they cannot read Latin. The technique is called parroting or
aping and that is exactly what the Jews did during their rare visits to the
Temple in Jerusalem. By the way, there is not a single mention of any
synagogue in the Old Testament. Are we expected to believe they suddenly
appeared in the first century CE?
>> If anything Aramaic might have
>>been spoken in the boondocks and that does not fit the
>>paradigm of blasphemy.
>
> "It was the day-to-day language of Israel in the Second Temple period
> (539 BCE – 70 CE), was the original language of large sections of the
> biblical books of Daniel and Ezra, "
>
That is the standard (old) belief. By the way, archaeological studies have
demonstrated without doubt that the Second Temple Period, was in fact the
First Temple Period. The First Temple was a myth, as most of the Old
Testament was, and was created by the returning priests and princes released
from their Babylonian captivity. There was no escape from Egypt, no Moses
or Joshua, no united Kingdoms of David and Solomon.
You must learn to separate yourself from those mythologies. You are giving
the typical Christian responses. I've heard them time and again. In fact I
use to recite the same mantra before I learned better.
>>But we now know since the
>>uncovering of Pompeii and Herculaneum that Greek (not
>>Latin) was the language of the Roman Empire of which
>>Israel, Judea and Galilee was a part.
>
> Care to provide cites for that.
Read any book written in the last couple of years on the advances made on
archaeological discoveries in Pompeii and Herculaneum.
> If it was the case the "romance" languages would be all based on
> greek, not vulgate latin.
> Greek was common yes, but not as I understand it the dominate or
> official language, until much later.
You simply understand wrong. Why do you think the whole New Testament was
originally written in Greek? Why do you think that from about 300 BCE the
official language in Egypt was Greek and that Cleopatra was noted for being
the first monarch of Egypt for several hundred years that could speak
Egyptian? Discoveries in Pompeii and Herculaneum clearly show that Greek
rather than Latin was the official language of the court and the Empire.
Latin was briefly used by Vespasian for a year or two as noted by Pliny.
>>All indications
>>are that Greek was what the natives spoke
> Doubtful
You have a formal education in these matters I take it? You can read the
scriptural languages and keep abreast of all the latest archaeological
studies on the topic of biblical times and customs?
Next you will be telling us that Nazareth and synagogues existed in the
first century CE.
>
>>which would
>>have included Joshua too if he weren't merely a
>>character in a work of fiction.
>
> Like most of what you wrote above?
>
Rather unlike what I wrote above. You give typical Christian responses but
I doubt you have anywhere near the background I do on the topic. In case
you don't know it, Joshua was a myth and so was the New Testament Joshua
(whom translators call Jesus to obfuscate the matter). You probably believe
that the New Testament was written in the first century CE even though
Josephus and some of the Early Christian writers tell us that only the
Pentateuch was translated by the end of the first century CE. More
remarkable is that the NT contains word for word quotes of the Septuagint
from books of the Old Testament that were said not to exist at that time.
The paucity of the Aramaic and Greek texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls bears
that out.
> jk
--
Later,
Darrell
Cliff
<monik...@expires-2009-12-31.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>I have a question regarding the rule not to make pictures of the god and
>not to use his name, because either one would allow control. Moslems
>also disallow making pictures, but saying the name is just fine and they
>even draw it as pretty as possible.
But do they claim it's the real "name"?
>So do you think they took over the
>first rule from the Jews and dropped the second one?
Mostly still the same religion & core people (if in the Midde East) in any
case.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<monik...@expires-2009-12-31.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>And at what time did the Christians drop the picture rule? Would you say
>they are still keeping up the name rule by saying "God" and not "Jahwe"?
When did the Catholics start with the graven images & multiple "gods" again?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<monik...@expires-2009-12-31.arcornews.de> wrote:
>The Moslems seem to have taken over other rules from the Jews, like not
>to eat pork.
But the xtianss had no problms eating the Moslems it seems.
--
Cliff
jk
>>>difficulty?) Today one tends to forget that if one
>>>physically held the image of a god, that person could
>>>control the god (which is the reason for the
>>>injunction against graven images).
>>
>> Just made this up?? have a cite for that?
>
>There isn't any one, single source.
Or in other word you can't come up with even a single solid reference?
>
>>> But more the point
>>>with this issue, if one knew the name of the god, then
>>>one could acquire power over that god.
>>
>> Same question
>
>Same answer. To what do you attribute that injunction as invented by the
>scriptural editors? Surely you don't believe some invisible pixie in the
>sky handed down a mandate?
Could be magic pixies, could be three toed sloths from the outer
darkness. YOU re the one claiming this reason and no other, is the
reason. Could just be they got together and said
"Hey folks this is a religion, we need some damn rules here, the more
wierd the better. Who has an idea?"
Whatever..... YOU, not me are the one making definite claims at to
their reasons. Unsupported claims.
>
>>> The remnants
>>>of this can be found in the story of Rumplestiltskin.
>> Knowing the name of something giving you power over it is common to
>> many mythologies, but I don't think that rumplestilskin arises from
>> the christian mythos.
>
>It wasn't a Christian mythos. But the reasoning was the same.
If I paint my house blue, and you paint your hose blue, does that
require the conclusion that we did it for the same reasons? Hell no.
Only the results are the same.
>In other
>words the Rumpelstiltskin idea is parallel to the Canaanite idea.
So what
>
>>>That and that reason only was why Yahweh's name could
>>>not be spoken in the language the god was created.
>>>
>>
>> A dubious bit of logic there.
>
>What dubious logic would that be?
"That and that reason only "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THAT "logic"
> When the returning priests and princes
>forced their new theology (that of Zoroastrianism upon those who remained in
>the Palestinian region and invented this new, supreme god called Yahweh they
>cleverly had their invented god be invisible and set up injunctions that
>would have compromised his power. You must think this invisible pixie in
>the sky actually dictated scripture?
Some how knowingly "inventing" a god, and then worrying that one could
have "power over it" is logically inconsistent. Unless you are saying
that they believed they could "invent" a god, and yet have that god
actually exist?
>>>By the second century CE when the New Testament was
>>>written, Hebrew was a forgotten and dead language for
>>>at least 400 years.
>> WHich magically reconstructed it self???
>> Pull my other one.
>>
>
> The technique is called parroting or
>aping and that is exactly what the Jews did during their rare visits to the
>Temple in Jerusalem. By the way, there is not a single mention of any
>synagogue in the Old Testament. Are we expected to believe they suddenly
>appeared in the first century CE?
relevant how?
>
>>> If anything Aramaic might have
>>>been spoken in the boondocks and that does not fit the
>>>paradigm of blasphemy.
>>
>> "It was the day-to-day language of Israel in the Second Temple period
>> (539 BCE ? 70 CE), was the original language of large sections of the
>> biblical books of Daniel and Ezra, "
>That is the standard (old) belief. By the way, archaeological studies have
>demonstrated without doubt that the Second Temple Period, was in fact the
>First Temple Period. The First Temple was a myth, as most of the Old
>Testament was, and was created by the returning priests and princes released
>from their Babylonian captivity. There was no escape from Egypt, no Moses
>or Joshua, no united Kingdoms of David and Solomon.
>
>You must learn to separate yourself from those mythologies. You are giving
>the typical Christian responses. I've heard them time and again. In fact I
>use to recite the same mantra before I learned better.
Meaning before you decide to go trolling on a bunch of unrelated news
groups?
>>>But we now know since the
>>>uncovering of Pompeii and Herculaneum that Greek (not
>>>Latin) was the language of the Roman Empire of which
>>>Israel, Judea and Galilee was a part.
>>
>> Care to provide cites for that.
>Read any book written in the last couple of years on the advances made on
>archaeological discoveries in Pompeii and Herculaneum.
Or in other words no you can't.
>
>> If it was the case the "romance" languages would be all based on
>> greek, not vulgate latin.
>> Greek was common yes, but not as I understand it the dominate or
>> official language, until much later.
>
>You simply understand wrong.
Cite?
> Why do you think the whole New Testament was
>originally written in Greek? Why do you think that from about 300 BCE the
>official language in Egypt was Greek and that Cleopatra was noted for being
>the first monarch of Egypt for several hundred years that could speak
>Egyptian?
Duh, because they were greeks.
> Discoveries in Pompeii and Herculaneum clearly show that Greek
Was the literature of the time
>rather than Latin was the official language of the court and the Empire.
>Latin was briefly used by Vespasian for a year or two as noted by Pliny.
>
>
>>>All indications
>>>are that Greek was what the natives spoke
>
As I said earlier
If it was the case the "romance" languages would be all based on
greek, not vulgate latin.
>
>
>Next you will be telling us that Nazareth and synagogues existed in the
>first century CE.
Again relevant how?
If there were or were not, how does that change the language of the
empire?
>
>> Like most of what you wrote above?
>>
>
>Rather unlike what I wrote above. You give typical Christian responses but
not likely
>I doubt you have anywhere near the background I do on the topic.
WHich you have failed to demonstrate
>The paucity of the Aramaic and Greek texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls bears
>that out.
BY your argument there would be NO aramaic, and only greek.
jk
Cliff
>If I paint my house blue, and you paint your hose blue
You are now claming to be a Druid too?
And I spotted your attempt to trick us with the headers.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>> When the returning priests and princes
>>forced their new theology (that of Zoroastrianism upon those who remained in
>>the Palestinian region and invented this new, supreme god called Yahweh they
>>cleverly had their invented god be invisible and set up injunctions that
>>would have compromised his power. You must think this invisible pixie in
>>the sky actually dictated scripture?
>
>Some how knowingly "inventing" a god, and then worrying that one could
>have "power over it" is logically inconsistent. Unless you are saying
>that they believed they could "invent" a god, and yet have that god
>actually exist?
>
Would the priests want anybody able to test their claims
and find out they were bogus?
--
Cliff
jk
>On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:27:13 -0800, jk <kle...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>>If I paint my house blue, and you paint your hose blue
>
> You are now claming to be a Druid too?
That would be Pict...., and no, just my house :)
>
> And I spotted your attempt to trick us with the headers.
NO trick at all, after a few times I send follow ups to where they
belong, if there are a bunch of unrelated trollish news groups
attached to it.
I do that to the Nym-idiot all the time. If you care about getting
your point across you will notice. If you are just trying to kick up a
fuss, you won't have the time.
jk
jk
Essentially that is my point. if "Darrell Stec" were correct, then it
would be easy to prove or disprove the existence of the (Hypothetical)
made up god, Since everyone is either told or already knows the name,
the all have complete control over it/him/her, and yet it doesn't
work.
If you were inventing this up out of whole cloth, you wold say
essentially, "This god doesn't answer the phone, but you can leave a
message at the beep" NOT "here is god's phone number, give him a
call".
[Much more like would be to use a 976 number :) )
jk
Monika Eggers
> Darrell Stec <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> That and that reason only was why Yahweh's name could
>> not be spoken in the language the god was created.
>
> A dubious bit of logic there.
And since when have religions been logical?
Monika.
--
All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers ... Each one owes
infinitely more to the human race than to the particular country in
which he was born. - Francois Fenelon, theologian and writer (1651-1715)
E-mail address is valid until 4 weeks after the expiration date. Use
@arcor.de instead.
jk
>jk wrote:
>
>> Darrell Stec <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>[snipped jk's dribble demonstrating he is ill read on the topic]
Oh SO asking you to back up your statements, is that is it?
Why just because you CANT back them up? Just your claim of your vast
knowledge. Did that come in a crackerjack box or a gumball machine?
>>
>
>> jk
>
>I simply replied to the post on the one newsgroup that I frequent, namely
>alt.aol.tricks. Since I don't know where people who participate in this
>thread are reading it, I do not delete the headers, like you just did (I
>added them back) Nor do I add or redirect threads just like you did here.
Hose puckey, Your post was at BEST tangentially related to the
thread, and appears to be intended to elicit responses from the fundie
neocon crowd that you tried to inflame.
When asked to back up a couple of your claims your response was
>There isn't any one, single source.
"I simply replied to the post ..."
And I simply redirect the followups to the appropriate group,
something you don't seem to care for. That's what the headers are
FOR, especially the "Followup-To" header.
jk
Darrell Stec
Like all fundies, you lie. I don't read alt.flames and you added that while
you deleted all the newsgroups thereby excising everyone else who was
participating in the thread.
One's opinion is only as good as one's knowledge. And you have amply
demonstrated you don't even know the basics of scholarship on the topic.
--
Later,
Darrell
jk
>> "I simply replied to the post ..."
>> And I simply redirect the followups to the appropriate group,
>> something you don't seem to care for. That's what the headers are
>> FOR, especially the "Followup-To" header.
>>
>>
>> jk
>
>
>Like all fundies, you lie.
Ah how clever like any troll, when faced with questions resort to an
ad Hom attack.
> I don't read alt.flames and you added that while
>you deleted all the newsgroups thereby excising everyone else who was
>participating in the thread.
Precisely for the reasons stated, troll.
>
>One's opinion is only as good as one's knowledge.
And yours would seem to be lacking both in Usenet etiquette and the
original subject at hand.
Put up or shut up.
jk
Cliff
wrote:
>On Dec 5, 10:02�am, Monika Eggers
><monikak...@expires-2009-12-31.arcornews.de> wrote:
>> Darrell Stec wrote:
>> >>> That and that reason only was why Yahweh's name could
>> >>> not be spoken in the language the god was created.
>>
>> >> A dubious bit of logic there.
>>
>> > What dubious logic would that be? �When the returning priests and princes
>> > forced their new theology (that of Zoroastrianism) upon those who remained in
>> > the Palestinian region and invented this new, supreme god called Yahweh they
>> > cleverly had their invented god be invisible and set up injunctions that
>> > would have compromised his power. �
>>
>> When did they return from Babylonian captivity to Palestine and how long
>> had they been captured?
>>
>> How had they picked up Zoroastrianism, was it the religion of those the
>> Babylonians?
>>
>> >>> By the second century CE when the New Testament was
>> >>> written, Hebrew was a forgotten and dead language for
>> >>> at least 400 years.
>>
>> >> Which magically reconstructed itself???
>> >> Pull my other one.
>>
>> > Dead and forgotten like Hieroglyphics was dead and forgotten. �But now we
>> > can read them again.
>>
>> > For quite a few centuries the standard biblical text was the Greek
>> > Septuagint. �The Masoretic scribes reconstructed the Hebrew texts back from
>> > it from about 600 to 1200 CE. �
>>
>> So during that time the Greek bible texts were translated into Hebrew
>> texts? Or did they have partial Hebrew texts to work with?
>>
>> >>> But we now know since the
>> >>> uncovering of Pompeii and Herculaneum that Greek (not
>> >>> Latin) was the language of the Roman Empire of which
>> >>> Israel, Judea and Galilee was a part.
>>
>> >> Care to provide cites for that.
>>
>> > Read any book written in the last couple of years on the advances made on
>> > archaeological discoveries in Pompeii and Herculaneum.
>>
>> How many couple of years? 10? 20?
>>
>> >> If it was the case the "romance" languages would be all based on
>> >> greek, not vulgate latin.
>> >> Greek was common yes, but not as I understand it the dominate or
>> >> official language, until much later.
>>
>> > You simply understand wrong. �Why do you think the whole New Testament was
>> > originally written in Greek? �Why do you think that from about 300 BCE the
>> > official language in Egypt was Greek and that Cleopatra was noted for being
>> > the first monarch of Egypt for several hundred years that could speak
>> > Egyptian? �Discoveries in Pompeii and Herculaneum clearly show that Greek
>> > rather than Latin was the official language of the court and the Empire. �
>> > Latin was briefly used by Vespasian for a year or two as noted by Pliny.
>>
>> So Greek was used in South-Eastern Europe, Western Asia, Northern or
>> North-Eastern Africa. What about the area of e.g. France? Was Greek also
>> used there? (And Italy itself? Spain?)
>>
>> I always wondered if there was a connection between French using ou to
>> write the [u] sound and u to write the [�] sound on the one hand and
>> Greek using oy to write the [u] sound and y to write the [�] sound.
>> Maybe it's not connected, but maybe French was influenced by Greek on
>> that part. After all, there is no ou in Latin, which French is based on.
>>
>> > Next you will be telling us that Nazareth and synagogues existed in the
>> > first century CE.
>>
>> I heard Nazareth was a tiny village at that time.
>>
>> When did synagogues start to exist?
>>
>> > In case
>> > you don't know it, Joshua was a myth and so was the New Testament Joshua
>> > (whom translators call Jesus to obfuscate the matter).
>>
>> In the Qumran scrolls, is the name still written as Joshua or already as
>> Jesus? When was this change made?
>>
>> > You probably believe
>> > that the New Testament was written in the first century CE even though
>> > Josephus and some of the Early Christian writers tell us that only the
>> > Pentateuch was translated by the end of the first century CE. �More
>> > remarkable is that the NT contains word for word quotes of the Septuagint
>> > from books of the Old Testament that were said not to exist at that time. �
>> > The paucity of the Aramaic and Greek texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls bears
>> > that out.
>>
>> Are the Dead See Scrolls the same as the Qumran scrolls?
>> I am not sure what the last sentence means. Because there are few
>> Aramaic and Greek texts among them, one knows that these were written later?
>>
>> I have a question regarding the rule not to make pictures of the god and
>> not to use his name, because either one would allow control. Moslems
>> also disallow making pictures, but saying the name is just fine and they
>> even draw it as pretty as possible. So do you think they took over the
>> first rule from the Jews and dropped the second one?
>>
>> And at what time did the Christians drop the picture rule? Would you say
>> they are still keeping up the name rule by saying "God" and not "Jahwe"?
>>
>> The Moslems seem to have taken over other rules from the Jews, like not
>> to eat pork.
They pretty much are the same people & religion anyway.
>>
>> Monika.
>
> I always love reading Darrell's writings on religion.
He is good.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Dec 3, 8:30�am, "r wiley" <rawi...@southslope.net> wrote:
>> "Cliff" <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in messagenews:6ssdh51p3gk682f3h...@4ax.com...
>> > On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:42:47 -0600, "r wiley" <rawi...@southslope.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>"Cliff" <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in messagenews:9nedh51aum5chluol...@4ax.com...
>> >>> [
>> >>> Jesus Christ dumped from jury pool for disruption
>>
>> >>> BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Court officials say a Birmingham woman who changed her name
>> >>> to Jesus Christ didn't live up to it when she reported for jury duty this week.
>> >>> The woman, previously named Dorothy Lola Killingworth, was sent to Judge Clyde
>> >>> Jones's courtroom for a criminal case Monday.
>>
>> >>> Court officials told The Birmingham News Tuesday that the 59-year-old was
>> >>> excused because she was disruptive and kept asking questions instead of
>> >>> answering them.
>>
>> >>And Jesus of Nazareth questioned the scribes and pharisees of his day and said
>> >>that He would not answer their question unless they answered His.
>>
>> >>rw
>>
>> > �Why?
>> > --
>> > Cliff
>>
>> The scribes and pharisees asked Jesus by what authority he acted. �They hoped to get
>> an answer that would justify punishing Jesus for blasphemy. �Jesus said he would reply
>> if the scribes and pharisees would answer whether the babtism of John the Babtist was
>> of heaven or man. �It was a trick question. �John was an populist evangelist with a mass
>> following. �The scribes and pharisees did not want to acknowledge John's babtism as
>> divine, but they feared that to deny it would turn the masses of the population against them.
>>
>> rw- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>http://www.henrymakow.com/jesus_was_not_a_jew_--benjamin.html
"Jesus was NOT a Jew"
"The complete letter appeared in a pamphlet entitled "Facts are Facts.""