Onyx Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Amazing Rando February 2nd 2005 04:02 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue: Reference to Jesus by Josephus and Tacitus provide sufficent evidence to conclude that Jesus existed as a person. jpholding will be defending the affirmative and Rameus will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as Rameus makes his first post. The debate will last 5 rounds with up to 4 weeks allowed between posts. Rameus' first response will be a reply to the evidence presented in these two articles: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html This debate is taking place here, and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate. Mark_S February 2nd 2005 04:04 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] Ohhh. How exciting. I got 5 pearls on JP, what are the current odds? salvationfound February 3rd 2005 07:29 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] No bet here Mark. I'm with you. This is indeed the kind of debate that JP should be doing more of. I just unfortunately don't hear enough people trying to refute Holding on these topics. Too many focus on his impossible faith arguments. I wish more would deal with his authorship and historical Jesus papers. Can you tell I'm excited? {Tim} February 3rd 2005 07:46 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] Yep, no odds, otherwise i'd put my pearls on JP too... Amazing Rando February 3rd 2005 08:50 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] Rameus is going against the grain of nearly all contemporary historical thought in postulating a mythical Jesus. Christ-mythers are in the extreme minority among respectable historians. Mad_Gerbil February 3rd 2005 04:11 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] I highly doubt Rameus is up to it, in large part because I don't believe he is really an archeologist but rather some bored high school kid who likes to pretend he's off on expeditions and so forth. Most of his arguments will probably be along the lines of something one might find scrawled on a bathroom wall -- only even less relevent, and even more tasteless. Rameus is the kind of punk that spends his weekend watching Indiana Jones flicks over and over again -- his only form of exercise being that of digging fossilized cat poopie out of a local school yard sand box and pretending his 'finds' are clay tablets. Go easy on him, JP. salvationfound February 3rd 2005 05:34 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] The main thing I can't stand about Christ-mythers is that there is no common standard with them for all historical events. They put the existence of Jesus into a standard all its own even though it shouldn't be. Yoshiyahu February 3rd 2005 07:41 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] I'll say what I said on Rameus' favorite forum, which I visit frequently to spar with a friend of mine of 10 years who moderates that forum. Rameus and JP are of similar natures. Both are very smart, intelligent men, and when they are not on the defensive are wells of information and knowledge. I have learned much from both. However, once they enter the defensive they seem to be full of ad hominems and any chance of having a reasonable conversation goes down the toilet. Jayrok February 3rd 2005 10:10 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] Quote: Originally posted by salvationfound The main thing I can't stand about Christ-mythers is that there is no common standard with them for all historical events. They put the existence of Jesus into a standard all its own even though it shouldn't be. I have no doubt that a jewish man named Jesus existed in the first century.. I don't even know if there is much of a reason to doubt it.. Now, was he God encarnate, or God's son and is everything said/written about him true? That is the $30 question... Clergi February 4th 2005 08:25 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] JP Holding has the truth on his side, and I don't see how he can lose to this man. Diogenes February 4th 2005 10:46 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] After reading the Gamaliel Challenge essay, I hold out little hope for refuting JP Holding on this subject. Looks like a Shaquille O'Neal slam dunk to me. bandecoot February 6th 2005 05:48 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] Oh thats just plain silly. Even I dont make that assertion. If rameus sticks with the Redaction of josephus he might score some points, but thats about it. Andrew Mark_S February 7th 2005 06:12 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] Quote: Originally posted by bandecoot Oh thats just plain silly. Even I dont make that assertion. If rameus sticks with the Redaction of josephus he might score some points, but thats about it. Andrew Maybe on the divinity of Jesus, but I doubt it will help him much on the historical existance of Jesus Rameus February 7th 2005 10:28 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] The fact remains, J.P. Holding will lose in the first round. He has no formal education in the subject matter whatsoever (which is demonstrated in his essays) and as such he has no business writing in this field. This will be painfully clear to everyone who isn’t suffering from a fundamentalist concussion when my essay is complete in a few weeks. Rameus Moderator Notice: post moderated by: Xavier As a point of protocol, participants of a debate cannot post here once the debate is started. This is an FYI. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Locker Room unless told otherwise. Goldsteinian February 7th 2005 03:46 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] I'm with the Mad Gerbil on this one...I would be utterly stunned if this Rameus guy is acutally going on digs and doing all this "research"...unless it's with Acharya S. in a seance somewhere. This guy has a habit of promising long detailed essays, cussing out his opponents and disappearing. Don't expect much from him eliyosef February 9th 2005 11:11 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] I gonna have to place my bet on Rameus on this one I think he may have a sufficient case to to win this battle...I will take your bet! 5 pearls on rameus...all the way... Page 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 4, 2005 Author Share Posted May 4, 2005 Mountain Man February 9th 2005 12:49 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] Quote: Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil Rameus is the kind of punk that spends his weekend watching Indiana Jones flicks over and over again... And what's wrong with that? :whip: roger_pearse February 12th 2005 11:07 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] Quote: Originally posted by Rameus The fact remains, J.P. Holding will lose in the first round. He has no formal education in the subject matter whatsoever (which is demonstrated in his essays) and as such he has no business writing in this field. This will be painfully clear to everyone who isn’t suffering from a fundamentalist concussion when my essay is complete in a few weeks. I'm not sure why Rameus imagines that only people with 'formal education' can make valid points. A.E.Housman became the great scholar that he was while working as a clerk. I would hope that any argument is measured by merit, not by the irrelevant claims to education of its advocates. All the best, Roger Pearse Stacey_J February 15th 2005 09:15 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) The outcome of this debate will either strengthen my faith, or shatter it. Mark_S February 15th 2005 12:47 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) I wouldn't worry about it that much. Its two people argueing over a couple of old dusty manuscripts. Besides, I'm sure you've already got the important manuscripts that attest to His existance sitting somewhere in your house right now. Between you and me, I think that it sometimes annoys these "scholars" that you can pick up a copy of all these ancient documents for $19.95 at your local bookstore, in just about any language you prefer. It's like something needs to be stuck under a rock for 2000 years before it means something. Amazing Rando February 15th 2005 02:12 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Rameus is sure taking his good old time writing his opening statement. :zzz: Mark_S February 15th 2005 02:29 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) :popcorn: We're just here early. The previews haven't even started yet Johnny EC February 15th 2005 03:28 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Stacey_J The outcome of this debate will either strengthen my faith, or shatter it. I wouldn't worry about that, JP will win hands-down if Rameus' reputation is accurate. Man, that exchristian.com, it's like the raptureready.com of athiests, all the nutjobs post there. roger_pearse February 18th 2005 06:31 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Stacey_J The outcome of this debate will either strengthen my faith, or shatter it. I'm not sure in what you have faith. But if our trust in something is based on words, rather than experience, then it's really very shallow, surely? And things based on experience are not that easily shifted by some clever words. All the best, Roger Pearse Pate February 21st 2005 12:35 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by roger_pearse I'm not sure in what you have faith. But if our trust in something is based on words, rather than experience, then it's really very shallow, surely? And things based on experience are not that easily shifted by some clever words. All the best, Roger Pearse I tend to disagree. From my perspective, it's precisely the experiences that are too unstable to be relied upon. roger_pearse February 21st 2005 05:18 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Pate I tend to disagree. From my perspective, it's precisely the experiences that are too unstable to be relied upon. Do we prefer a syllogism proving a man is reliable to our own instinct? If so, I have some business opportunities to offer you. NB: By experience I did *not* mean personal subjective and possible imaginary feelings. I meant the experience we have garned as we went through life. All the best, Roger Pearse Amazing Rando February 22nd 2005 02:39 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by roger_pearse Quote: Originally posted by Pate I tend to disagree. From my perspective, it's precisely the experiences that are too unstable to be relied upon. Do we prefer a syllogism proving a man is reliable to our own instinct? If so, I have some business opportunities to offer you. NB: By experience I did *not* mean personal subjective and possible imaginary feelings. I meant the experience we have garned as we went through life. All the best, Roger Pearse Maybe, as in so many matters of faith, it's a bit of both? Christians have faith in something amazing that happened a long time ago in Jerusalem. But on a daily basis, we also experience the same power that caused that extraordinary event. So our faith is both historical and experiential. Either one is meaningless without the other. Jesus' resurrection is meaningless if we do not experience the holy spirit in our lives today, but those experiences are meaningless if Jesus was not raised from the dead. Anyhow, what's keeping Rameus? For all his bluster, this long expected opening statement had better be good. John Powell February 24th 2005 08:27 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- to Roger_Pearse and Pate POWELL: Although I'm a Jesus mythicist, based on the (bad) wording of the proposition of this debate, I favor JP Holding's position. Hopefully, the debate will still be informational. Quote: ROGER_PEARSE: I'm not sure why Rameus imagines that only people with 'formal education' can make valid points. A.E.Housman became the great scholar that he was while working as a clerk. I would hope that any argument is measured by merit, not by the irrelevant claims to education of its advocates. POWELL: Remember that, Roger. In the future I would like to hear little, if anything, about your alleged scientific credentials. You don't know who you're talking to. I prefer to hear your arguments. Quote: ROGER_PEARSE (to Stacey-J): I'm not sure in what you have faith. But if our trust in something is based on words, rather than experience, then it's really very shallow, surely? And things based on experience are not that easily shifted by some clever words. POWELL: I agree. Quote: PATE (to Roger_Pearse): I tend to disagree. From my perspective, it's precisely the experiences that are too unstable to be relied upon. POWELL: Casual observations are not so reliable, but careful ones are. Science works because it relies on the relative consistency of humans taking careful, detailed, repeatable observations rather than the relative inconsistency of casual observations or what humans otherwise feel or think (such as when they read a book or watch a sunset). More than other scholarly fields, scientists "ask nature" (who is without interest in possibly deceiving the questioner) rather than asking the esteemed expert. If I see God outside my door then I have high confidence that any other seeing person, theist or otherwise, would also see God. However, if I like a movie then I have much less confidence that everyone else who sees the movie will also like it. Similarly, if I read a book or an argument and agree with the author, I have much less confidence (than the seeing God example) that everyone else who reads the book or the argument will also agree with the author. Quote: ROGER_PEARSE: NB: By experience I did *not* mean personal subjective and possible imaginary feelings. I meant the experience we have garned as we went through life. POWELL: If such things were as consistent between humans as our vision then scientists could use them too. For example, if everyone who read the Book of Mormon then asked "God, is the Book of Mormon true?" then heard in their minds "Yes, it is true." then that would be extraordinary evidence that the Book of Mormon is true. John Powell Yoshiyahu March 2nd 2005 04:26 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] I think it's a 50/50 here. But if Rameus is putting as much work into this as he claims to be doing, JP is going to be fighting an uphill battle. CRCampbell March 3rd 2005 02:12 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Johnny EC I wouldn't worry about that, JP will win hands-down if Rameus' reputation is accurate. Man, that exchristian.com, it's like the raptureready.com of athiests, all the nutjobs post there. I post there, and you're lying. Nice try. Jayrok March 3rd 2005 05:09 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) When is this shindig going to kick off? I think my watch stopped.. C. D. Ward March 3rd 2005 08:48 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] Quote: Originally posted by Amazing Rando Rameus is going against the grain of nearly all contemporary historical thought in postulating a mythical Jesus. Christ-mythers are in the extreme minority among respectable historians. That's true, but it seems to me that arguing the negative on the debate proposition doesn't commit one to a mythicist position. All one would be saying is that Josephus and Tacitus alone are insufficient. One could believe that the evidence from all available sources was sufficient to disprove the mythicist hypothesis and still affirm the negative of the debate proposition. Or were you making a general comment about Rameus and not the debate proposition itself? Or am I just confused? Page 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 4, 2005 Author Share Posted May 4, 2005 Slayer-2004 March 6th 2005 06:03 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Man, that exchristian.com, it's like the raptureready.com of athiests, all the nutjobs post there. not really . The thing with exchristian is that almost everything we post is satire and sarcasm . You sort of have to know the various members and their devious ways to actually understand what the heck is going on . The downisde to this is that Im sure many christians look at eXC and take a thread intended as sarcasm seriously . The good side ? Its rediculously fun when you know what the heck is going on . Jayrok March 24th 2005 12:19 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) This debate is awesome so far! :ale: :popcorn: :hmph: :rant: :read: :brood: :candle: :zzz: :outtie: Mark_S March 24th 2005 12:27 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Rameus is just using a little known debate tactic. If you outlive your opponent then he can't counter your arguements. Mountain Man March 24th 2005 01:31 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespear, Macbeth jpholding March 25th 2005 09:38 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Pardon the interruption; though I am a participant I feel this is the best place to announce this. I just got an email from Derek Sansone, an apostate who also seems (last I checked) to adhere to the Christ myth. He challenged me to a debate in front of my church; I countered with an offer of one here at TWeb. If Rameus does not get off his hiney by April 1, and if Sansone accepts the offer, I believe I am justified in celebrating April Fools' Day by exchanging one fool for another. No? Lazy Agnostic March 25th 2005 07:59 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Oh, please do it in front of your church members. I would just love to hear a tape of that. Johnny EC March 30th 2005 02:20 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Lazy Agnostic Oh, please do it in front of your church members. I would just love to hear a tape of that. JP doesn't do live debates. and JP, I thought that the debaters weren't supposed to post in this thread. GakuseiDon March 30th 2005 02:59 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) What's happened to Rameus? Has he postponed again? jpholding March 30th 2005 03:32 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Johnny EC JP doesn't do live debates. and JP, I thought that the debaters weren't supposed to post in this thread. We aren't, but AFAIC in 32 hours this debate is over since Rameus said he'd have something by March. And I needed the opinion of the people here. Mods may move this if it offends. Realize that inmate LA only wants live debate so he can find out if I am fat, chain-smoke, or have pimples. Amazing Rando March 30th 2005 04:28 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jpholding Pardon the interruption; though I am a participant I feel this is the best place to announce this. I just got an email from Derek Sansone, an apostate who also seems (last I checked) to adhere to the Christ myth. He challenged me to a debate in front of my church; I countered with an offer of one here at TWeb. If Rameus does not get off his hiney by April 1, and if Sansone accepts the offer, I believe I am justified in celebrating April Fools' Day by exchanging one fool for another. No? Absolutely. Rameus has had ample time to prepare- going on almost three months now. If he doesn't post his opening statement by tomorrow at midnight I'll close the thread. jpholding March 31st 2005 09:02 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) No word back from Sansone yet. The above sounds fine to me. I'd ordinarily not care and allow for more time, but given Rammy's fat mouth and that he is out to evangelize his garbage, enough is enough. Just look at this: http://forum.anointedyouth.org/arch...php/t-2294.html He's trying to deconvert Christian youth with the Christ myth. And if he has time to slum at a board like this, he has time to write a response. Clearly he has no intent to do so. Is this what an alleged Ph D sort spends his spare time doing? Trying to deconvert Christian youth? Gotta love what one guy named "killpotts" said: Quote: Rameus: Apparently I am wasting my time typing out responses for a fake Christian to respond to. killpotts: then maybe its time to write the holding essay . Less than 20 hours to go, Rammy. Where art thou, little man? Mark_S March 31st 2005 09:09 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Rameus is a myth. The man never existed. If you wish to debate this, I'll give my reasons by oh the end of April. I'm a busy guy. jpholding March 31st 2005 03:15 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) If Sansone does not show, I open this also to all the loudmouth apostates at ex-crybaby.net who figured Rammy would kick the can with me and win. Can Mad Gerbil or Jayrok or Slayer go over there and say so? (Jayrok, shame on you for that naughty thing you said about me. Shame, shame.) Amazing Rando March 31st 2005 04:18 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Anybody heard from Rameus? He is seriously trying my patience. Slayer-2004 March 31st 2005 06:17 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Anybody heard from Rameus? He is seriously trying my patience. Nope . He hasnt even posted in the new forums . Chances are he just doesnt care anymore . Quote: ex-crybaby.net Technically how you worded that means christians are crybabies . I think thats the opposite of what you intended . Quote: figured Rammy would kick the can with me and win. I actually figured it would be a draw , since you and rameus are very alike . Ive even suspected you two may be the same person at times and are trying to pull everyones leg from both worlds . Quote: Can Mad Gerbil or Jayrok or Slayer go over there and say so? Most of them already know . Amazing Rando April 1st 2005 09:31 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Debate has been closed due to Rameus' failure to deliver his opening statement. I'm disappointed. Page 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 4, 2005 Author Share Posted May 4, 2005 jpholding April 1st 2005 09:36 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Slayer-2004 Nope . He hasnt even posted in the new forums . Chances are he just doesnt care anymore . From what I see of Rameus, that would fit, other than that I don't think he ever really cared. Quote: Technically how you worded that means christians are crybabies . I think thats the opposite of what you intended . No...it's suitable. Western Christianity has produced many crybabies; I see most of the denizens there as simply continuing the tradition from the other side of the fence. Later today Rammy will also be awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award in my Screwball of the Month feature. Jayrok April 1st 2005 04:02 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jpholding If Sansone does not show, I open this also to all the loudmouth apostates at ex-crybaby.net who figured Rammy would kick the can with me and win. Can Mad Gerbil or Jayrok or Slayer go over there and say so? (Jayrok, shame on you for that naughty thing you said about me. Shame, shame.) Refresh my memory, please. LakeGeorgeMan April 1st 2005 07:35 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Originally posted by jpholding No...it's suitable. Western Christianity has produced many crybabies... I wonder what we can blame for producing a frustrated, delusional, puerile prison librarian with an ancient near east obsessive compulsive disorder? LGM ...not to mention his Western Christian fan club... Mad_Gerbil April 1st 2005 07:51 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jpholding If Sansone does not show, I open this also to all the loudmouth apostates at ex-crybaby.net who figured Rammy would kick the can with me and win. Can Mad Gerbil or Jayrok or Slayer go over there and say so? (Jayrok, shame on you for that naughty thing you said about me. Shame, shame.) Don't ask me, he skipped out on a Question and Answer session I was having with him as well. (This was two months ago, worked out well for me because I was busy as well. Rammy is an academic, he gets busy I guess) My theory is he converted to Christianity, emasculated himself, and joined a convent of nuns in southern France. blush Mad_Gerbil April 1st 2005 07:55 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by LakeGeorgeMan I wonder what we can blame for producing a frustrated, delusional, puerile prison librarian with an ancient near east obsessive compulsive disorder? LGM ...not to mention his Western Christian fan club... Oh see, I go against my better instincts and click on the 'view post' button to see a post from someone I've set on 'ignore' and I get this nonsense on my screen. I think I've enough resolve to not click 'view post' for at least another month now. LakeGeorgeMan April 1st 2005 08:28 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil Oh see, I go against my better instincts and click on the 'view post' button to see a post from someone I've set on 'ignore' and I get this nonsense on my screen. I guess your going out of your way to tell me that while I disturb you; you can't seem to resist me... love Thanks... Quote: I think I've enough resolve to not click 'view post' for at least another month now. I doubt it...mad gerbils are not known for their "resolve" or "better instincts", only for chasing their tails and eating their own droppings. LGM ...I wonder if gerbil's a "crybaby Western Christian"? I wonder if he has JPH on ignore?... Richbee April 1st 2005 11:01 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by LakeGeorgeMan I guess your going out of your way to tell me that while I disturb you; you can't seem to resist me... love Thanks... I doubt it...mad gerbils are not known for their "resolve" or "better instincts", only for chasing their tails and eating their own droppings. LGM ...I wonder if gerbil's a "crybaby Western Christian"? I wonder if he has JPH on ignore?... Wow, what a positive thinker you are??? You need a new hobby! jpholding April 2nd 2005 07:32 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Jayrok Refresh my memory, please. 2/23/05 Quote: Originally posted by Jayrok I've talked with JPH on a few topics on his home forum.. He was actually friendly to me, but I've seen him blow up on some folks. It appears that when he is pushed in a corner on an issue, he will resort to attacking the credentials and scholarship authority of his opponent. Nevermind if the issue is ironclad, if he can discredit your credentials, he thinks you're toast.. You know better than that. Shame on you. waggingfinger Quote: Originally posted by LooseGearMonstrosity I wonder what we can blame for producing a frustrated, delusional, puerile prison librarian with an ancient near east obsessive compulsive disorder Familiarity with credentialed, certified, detailed Christian scholarship with in-depth Ancient Near Eastern knowledge. What's your excuse for your present disability of mind that makes you unable to address a single factual basis for what I believe? :tongue: I don't suppose you'd like to take Rameus' place in the ring...maybe on some other topic (since for all of your innumerable flaws, at the very least, you don't seem to be a Christ myther....). JPH ...in a world of rapid change, it's nice to have a reliable fellow like LGM around...you can always count on him to shout the usual stale phrases as he runs from the ring... lmbo Jayrok April 2nd 2005 09:45 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jpholding 2/23/05 You know better than that. Shame on you. waggingfinger I'm sorry you were offended by that.. That's the impression I got in reading some of your debates. You do comment on credentials, and if their's aren't stellar, you pounce.. Amazing Rando April 2nd 2005 10:35 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Jayrok I'm sorry you were offended by that.. That's the impression I got in reading some of your debates. You do comment on credentials, and if their's aren't stellar, you pounce.. Well, what are Rameus' credentials anyhow? He asserts he's an academic, but he wasn't even professional enough to follow through on his debate committment. That makes me wonder how forthright he was being. Jayrok April 2nd 2005 10:43 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Amazing Rando Well, what are Rameus' credentials anyhow? He asserts he's an academic, but he wasn't even professional enough to follow through on his debate committment. That makes me wonder how forthright he was being. oh I agree Rando.. I don't know anything about Rameus. He might be a college student at North Hampton Junior college for all I know.. He said he would show up and he didn't.. He lost credibility. John Powell April 2nd 2005 04:37 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) POWELL: I'm tired of hearing Jesus historicists making a big deal of the Rameus fiasco. It looks bad on the rest of us Jesus mythicists. brood Therefore, consider this thread closed. matrixed John Powell self-appointed moderator lolo jpholding April 4th 2005 10:32 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Jayrok I'm sorry you were offended by that.. That's the impression I got in reading some of your debates. You do comment on credentials, and if their's aren't stellar, you pounce.. True, but only AFTER or AS WELL AS directly addressing arguments....and I don't think you will disagree that credentials are of SOME relevance, especially with the likes of Acharya S around... I am not "offendable" but I do desire that I be represented accurately. And I have come to expect fairness from you. LakeGeorgeMan April 4th 2005 11:13 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jpholding Familiarity with credentialed, certified, detailed Christian scholarship with in-depth Ancient Near Eastern knowledge. Oh now it's credentialed and "certified"? Is that like Angus BeefTM Who certifies your tripe? Is it UL listed by United Lobotomies? Quote: What's your excuse for your present disability of mind that makes you unable to address a single factual basis for what I believe? tongue You believe in a "life" that somehow survives for eternity after the death of a biological organism. You believe that human brain function can survive the death of the brain. You believe that Christopher Reeves is conscious "somewhere" different than Calvin or the Pope based on some cognitive belief he had. We had a long thread discussing this, don't you remember? You never provided ANY empirical evidence to support this claim other than some low rent cut and paste philosophical tripe from Glen Miller. Is he "credentialed" and "certified" when it comes to these matters? :rofl: All you have are some early first century Christian correspondence that never mentions the life and times of Jesus and his homies, and an anonymous first century hagiography attributed to someone named "mark”, that was clearly copied and expanded on by others afterwards. Especially the alleged post resurrection accounts. All the credentials and "certifications" ain't changing that fact librarian. Please feel free to dredge up some musings from second century apologists who desperately needed to overcome that fact to keep the faithful in line. It doesn't impress me. Neither does a footnote by Tacitus or Josephus. It don't prove squat about what is historical and what is myth in the bible. Get over yourself, you don't have a clue about what really happened, you and everyone else are just torturing the same tired scraps of ancient literature. Let it go, get yourself a hobby Quote: I don't suppose you'd like to take Rameus' place in the ring...maybe on some other topic (since for all of your innumerable flaws, at the very least, you don't seem to be a Christ myther....). The gospels are clearly filled with myth, parable, allegory and midrash. Is there a real first century man named Yeshua underneath its layers? Who can tell? Not me. But then I don't make my living by needing to claim every word of it is historical and accurate like you do. Is there a real Trojan War behind the works of Homer? Same difference to me. I can still enjoy the literature and not appear obsessed. Certainly the "credentialed" and "certified" scholars like Wright, Borg, Crossan and Price can't agree on the historical Jesus, so why would I want the opinion of a prison librarian whose position and motivation is clear to me? Sorry librarian, I can read just as well as you, I'm simply not obsessed like you. Quote: ...in a world of rapid change, it's nice to have a reliable fellow like LGM around...you can always count on him to shout the usual stale phrases as he runs from the ring... lmbo The only thing stale is your profession, and your typical lame attempts at wit or insults. I’ve moved on, I’m more interested in learning about things that frighten you…culture and science! jpholding April 4th 2005 12:31 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by LoonyGoofyMan Oh now it's credentialed and "certified"? Is that like Angus BeefTM lol You'd have to ask, I suppose, being at best familiar only with the poultry side of the cuisine spectrum, in particular, chicken. :teeth: Quote: Who certifies your tripe? Is it UL listed by United Lobotomies? twitch Let's see, my sources teach at places like Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Creighton...had enough yet? Or is it that they aren't qualified unless they get it from the only UL that matters (Uncle LakeGeorgeGuy) and they sign a declaration of your rampant genius? tongue Quote: You believe in a "life" that somehow survives for eternity after the death of a biological organism. You believe that human brain function can survive the death of the brain. Whoa. Yep, that puts me in the Dum Dum Bin. Hey, who else is in there? Wow. People with Ph D's. Most of the world's greatest philosophers and thinkers. It sure is crowded in here. Hey, who's that calling us names from the trash can next door? rofl Quote: We had a long thread discussing this, don't you remember? You never provided ANY empirical evidence to support this claim other than some low rent cut and paste philosophical tripe from Glen Miller. Is he "credentialed" and "certified" when it comes to these matters? rofl Nope, but the sources he used were. And I sure do recall what happened -- you and jimbo the dimbo ran like little girls in high heels from it. What pleasant memories we have. whistle Quote: All you have are some early first century Christian correspondence that never mentions the life and times of Jesus and his homies, and an anonymous first century hagiography attributed to someone named "mark”, Ah yes, the usual vague summary tripe that you have been challenged to defend time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, but have refused to do so in all that blatant courage displayed, hiding behind the "facts" alleged not be able to be "changed". It will never, never, never, never change, because as has been proven time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, LooseGearGuy is capable of nothing other than telling us he's "not impressed" (duly noted, as the most rational argument we will ever hear from the yawning chasm he possesses that is sometimes called a mouth) by "a footnote by Tacitus or Josephus" (though strangely, real and credentialed historians like Grant, Syme, Feldman, et al don't describe the texts in such terms and apparently waste their considerable erudition on discussing these "footnotes" and their contribution to verifying the historicity of what they describe; they should receive their advice from our modern day Cornfucious, LoopyGoofyGuy, who advises them to "chill with their homies") and yea, that are "just torturing the same tired scraps of ancient literature" those poor credentialed souls. Quote: Who can tell? Not me. But then I don't make my living by needing to claim every word of it is historical and accurate like you do It would have taken far less time to simply say, "Yes, I am a coward." Then you could have gone back to guzzling your beer. Quote: Certainly the "credentialed" and "certified" scholars like Wright, Borg, Crossan and Price can't agree on the historical Jesus, Pffft. rofl Three of the four agree that a man named Jesus existed; the odd man out has been forced to start his own journal because he knows his nonsense won't stand peer review. But that's fine -- take the easy way out of citing mere diversity of views as a way to escape your utter inabibility to subject them to critical analysis, much less survive such scrutiny upon your own views. Quote: Sorry librarian, I can read just as well as you, I'm simply not obsessed like you. Agreed; one cannot be obsessed or even concerned while passed out on a couch with a potato. glare Quote: The only thing stale is your profession, and your typical lame attempts at wit or insults. I’ve moved on, I’m more interested in learning about things that frighten you…culture and science! eek IOW not interested in defending your sound bites. And oh dear, you forgot your signature move -- the closing italicized burp-comment. It looks like JPHOCD is starting to afflict the very one who named it. rofl If he replies again we'll know we have a confirmed case. LakeGeorgeMan April 4th 2005 02:05 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jpholding You'd have to ask, I suppose, being at best familiar only with the poultry side of the cuisine spectrum, in particular, chicken. teeth I’m asking the one who used the word “certified”. I see as usual you can’t defend your own words. So please, by all means, start the clumsy dancing…I enjoy it…how about singing me that Village People song again while you do it? Quote: Let's see, my sources teach at places like Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Creighton...had enough yet? Let’s see my unnamed sources teach at Yale, Columbia and Johns Hopkins…so what?...are we having fun yet? Your dancing is as sharp as your wit. Quote: Whoa. Yep, that puts me in the Dum Dum Bin. Hey, who else is in there? Wow. People with Ph D's. Most of the world's greatest philosophers and thinkers. It sure is crowded in here. For over a thousand years, the best educated Christian minds on the planet thought the earth was the center of the universe, and that heaven was just beyond the clouds. Then, when faced with observations that clearly disputed that belief, they resisted the truth for many decades. So what? Is there something new going on now in Christian thought? I readily admit that my species is full of allegedly educated men who are still ignorant, superstitious and will cling to cherished sacred beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence that refutes those beliefs. You’re living proof, YEC boy. Why not real off the names of the world’s current “greatest thinkers” who are YECs??? Still searching for the Ark, and the evidence for a worldwide flood librarian? Perhaps there’s an opening for a librarian at Bryan College…and you can hang with the other “great thinkers” who agree with you… lol Cause you ain't gettin a job at Harvard... Quote: Hey, who's that calling us names from the trash can next door? rofl MDs and Scientists with docorates in the various life sciences, not ancient literature studies or "philosophy"…sorry you’ve never been down the "non-fiction" aisles in the library… Quote: Nope, but the sources he used were. And I sure do recall what happened -- you and jimbo the dimbo ran like little girls in high heels from it. What pleasant memories we have. whistle No. You could never support your claims. As usual, instead of making a case with your own words and evidence, you needed to cut and paste Miller’s tripe referencing the work of still other ancient philosophers…sorry…when you’ve got no clue, you always run to Miller, or whip out your incredibly lame wit and tweb name mangling…you’re exposed librarian. Quote: Ah yes, the usual vague summary tripe that you have been challenged to defend time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, but have refused to do so in all that blatant courage displayed, hiding behind the "facts" alleged not be able to be "changed". Post your “certified” evidence that clearly shows the biography, sources, date, and location for whoever wrote the gospel of “mark”. Sorry librarian, objective "certified" historians don’t claim to know based on the evidence, so neither do you. But you look cute in a tutu. Quote: It would have taken far less time to simply say, "Yes, I am a coward." Then you could have gone back to guzzling your beer. Again, being called a “coward” by a pudgy, socially retarded, librarian who enjoys smurf cartoons does nothing but amuse me. Quote: Pffft. rofl Three of the four agree that a man named Jesus existed; So what? 3 scholars agree a man named Jesus existed. Is that the concession you’re after? Who cares? Even Doherty assumes that the wisdom teaching in the gospels came from a Galilean tradition that could have been based on a key individual. So what? It doesn’t prove he was born of a virgin, was the son of god, or was physically resurrected and jetted off the planet into space holding his breath…does it? Nor does the footnote in Tacitus. Does it? Your only evidence comes from those trying to forge the cult. Big surprise. And alot of the evidence that disputed it was destroyed. Big surprise. Is that what your money grubbing “ministry” is about? To prove a man named Yeshua probably existed 2000 years ago…congratulations on that great ambition. Quote: the odd man out has been forced to start his own journal because he knows his nonsense won't stand peer review. Seems apostle Paul was the odd man out who was forced to start his own cult because his nonsense didn’t stand the peer review of his Pharisee contemporaries…I wonder why? “Hey guys! I read the scriptures, and had this gnostic vision, and heard voices on the road to Damascus…you must believe me!” Sorry, but Price’s analysis is a little more rational than that…I guess he’s not allowed to start a journal, but you can start your own internet wasteland? Nice try… Quote: But that's fine -- take the easy way out of citing mere diversity of views as a way to escape your utter inabibility to subject them to critical analysis, much less survive such scrutiny upon your own views. You’re the one who started this exchange with the claims of “credentialed and certified” scholars. Now that I’ve identified some that disagree with YOU, you’re squirming and dancing. Your appeals to authority are baseless Holding…so please, don’t treat me like some garden variety dolt, I know your tactics, you’re exposed. You seem to think that ancient history, or the veracity of the countless miraculous claims in the gospels, is something that can be verified with the certainty of radiometric dating….sorry librarian…you and your fundy scholars are just playing with yourself and quoting each other all the way back to Eusebius…I’m sure there is a good living in it, and it beats returning books to their shelves or greeting people at Walmart. Quote: Agreed; one cannot be obsessed or even concerned while passed out on a couch with a potato. glare So clever and original. duh Quote: IOW not interested in defending your sound bites. And oh dear, you forgot your signature move -- the closing italicized burp-comment. It looks like JPHOCD is starting to afflict the very one who named it. :rofl: If he replies again we'll know we have a confirmed case. No, I’m just interested in exposing your “certified” soundbites, and vague appeals to authority, for the lame tripe that they always are. And no, I certainly am not inflicted with any JPHOCD, but I do feel sorry for those that are, and would counsel them to realize that what you think, or your witty “style”, just isn’t that important. So, go grab a twinkie, your blanket, your Wright and Malina books, and have a good cry…I'm not interested in wasting my time with you...I can go read Miller for myself if I want to... Page 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 4, 2005 Author Share Posted May 4, 2005 jpholding April 4th 2005 03:29 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by LoonyGoofyMan I’m asking the one who used the word “certified”. I see as usual you can’t defend your own words. Wow. LonelyGuyMan doesn't know what common words like "certified" mean. Next week: He asks for definitions of words like "food" and "water". :tongue: Quote: So please, by all means, start the clumsy dancing…I enjoy it…how about singing me that Village People song again while you do it? Nah, I'll have it recorded. We hired James White and the Singing Dwarfs to do that one in studio and play it on 400 foot speakers outside your house 24 hours a day, sort of like that time with Manuel Noeriega. Quote: Let’s see my unnamed sources teach at Yale, Columbia and Johns Hopkins…so what?...are we having fun yet? Yes, it is quite the ball to see you running and hiding like this, refusing to engage specifics because you can't. Quote: So what? Is there something new going on now in Christian thought? :lmbo: Sad to say, few people realize just how funny this comment is -- particularly, Jaltus and GrayPilgrim. That speaks for itself. Quote: I readily admit that my species is full of allegedly educated men who are still ignorant, superstitious and will cling to cherished sacred beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence that refutes those beliefs. Can you also admit that your species is full of rampants cowards who mouth off constantly and refuse to defend their beliefs from detailed scrutiny, precisely because they have no such "evidence" to present, being that they can barely understand what is presented? :rofl: Quote: MDs and Scientists with docorates in the various life sciences, not ancient literature studies or "philosophy"… Oh I see. MDs and Scientists with no training in formal logic, just a materialist worldview based on them not knowing what to look for. I see. :thumb: Quote: As usual, instead of making a case with your own words and evidence, you needed to cut and paste Miller’s tripe referencing the work of still other ancient philosophers… So what? You'd run and hide just as fast if I used my own words. :lmbo: You're exposed, little girl. Quote: Post your “certified” evidence that clearly shows the biography, sources, date, and location for whoever wrote the gospel of “mark”. See below. Then I expect you to do the same for the Annals of Tacitus, little one. Then explain why we should accept authorship of the former and reject the latter. The Annals have no "biography" of Tacitus or date or location on them, by the way. But maybe you are far more brialliant than Greco-Roman historians who say we have enough information. Quote: So what? 3 scholars agree a man named Jesus existed. Is that the concession you’re after? It was what you were challenged on, little one. Having problems with your literacy again? Is that why you need to gut the red herrings so publicly? :rofl: Quote: Seems apostle Paul was the odd man out who was forced to start his own cult because his nonsense didn’t stand the peer review of his Pharisee contemporaries… So you admit Price is a wayward nobody in context, then? Or does Price hear voices? Quote: Sorry, but Price’s analysis is a little more rational than that…I guess he’s not allowed to start a journal, but you can start your own internet wasteland? Nice try… He can start all the journals he wants; but the day he represents himself as a lone and sane voice in the wilderness, while everyone else (including the other three you named) are said to be biased, delusional, or subject to wishful thinking, he steps beyond what can be claimed as "rational" and becomes a glory hog of the LGM School of Thought. Luckily he has gullible guys like you to keep him cheered. :thumb: Quote: Holding…so please, don’t treat me like some garden variety dolt, I know your tactics, you’re exposed. I'll readily admit that you're definitely a special kind of dolt rather than a garden variety one. How else to explain all the plaques on your wall? Quote: You seem to think that ancient history, or the veracity of the countless miraculous claims in the gospels, is something that can be verified with the certainty of radiometric dating….sorry librarian…you and your fundy scholars are just playing with yourself and quoting each other all the way back to Eusebius… And you, as usual, are merely vomiting forth with the usual non-answers -- because you have none, and never will have any, and will remaining hiding in your little dark corner, eating your curds and whey. :rofl: Quote: No, I’m just interested in exposing your “certified” soundbites, and vague appeals to authority, for the lame tripe that they always are. Definitely not by direct engagement with them, heavens no. That would involve thinking, and such is forbidden by law in your household. :rofl: Quote: And no, I certainly am not inflicted with any JPHOCD, Of course you are. It's clear now how you discovered the disease: Home testing. Quote: I'm not interested in wasting my time with you... For a guy not interested in wasting time, he sure keeps doing it a lot. :rofl: Here's what I can fit on Mark. Run the other way, quick! ****** The "anonymity" of the Gospels authors is something that many skeptics hang their hat upon. Yet I have noted that in making this argument, critics never explain to us how their arguments would work if applied equally to secular ancient documents whose authenticity and authorship is never (or is no longer) questioned, but are every bit as "anonymous" in the same sense that the Gospels are. If it is objected that the Gospel authors nowhere name themselves in their texts -- and this is a very common point to be made, even among traditionalists -- then this applies equally to numerous other ancient documents, such as Tacitus' Annals. Authorial attributions are found not in the text proper, but in titles, just like the Gospels. Critics may claim that these were added later to the Gospels, but they need to provide textual evidence of this (i.e., an obvious copy of Matthew with no title attribution to Matthew, and dated earlier or early enough to suggest that it was not simply a late, accidental ommission), and at any rate, why is it not supposed that the titles were added later to the secular works as well? In order for readers to appreciate the magnitude of this situation, I would like to present here a listing of external evidences for the authorship of the works of Tacitus. I wish to thank Roger Pearse for helpfully sending me copies of relevant pages from the works of the Tacitean scholar Mendell, from Tacitus: The Man and His Work. Mendell surveys evidence for knowledge of Tacitus throughout history; we will only look at evidence up to the sixth century (for reasons noted in Mendell below). In doing this we would challenge potential respondents to compare this record to that of the Gospels. We will present Mendell's comments and intersperse our own. THE Annals were probably "published" in 116, the last of the works of Tacitus to appear. Only Pliny of Tacitus' contemporaries mentions him, and his writings and the evidence of subsequent use up to the time of Boccaccio is slight. It is not true, however, that Tacitus and his writings were practically unknown. They were neglected----possibly, in part at least, because of his strong republican bias on the one hand and because, on the other, the church fathers felt him to be unfair to Christianity. Vopiscus in his life of the emperor Tacitus (chapter 10) indicates the state of affairs in the third century: "Cornelium Tacitum, scriptorem historiae Augustae, quod parentem suum eundem diceret, in omnibus bibliothecis conlocari iussit neve lectorum incuria deperiret, librum per an-nos singulos decies scribi publicitus evicos archiis iussit et in bibliothecis poni" (the text is obviously corrupt in the reading evicos archiis). Nevertheless, Tacitus is mentioned or quoted in each century down to and including the sixth. In fact, the seventh and eighth are the only centuries that have as yet furnished no evidence of knowing him. The following are the known references to Tacitus or use of Tacitean material after the day of Tacitus and Pliny until the time of Boccaccio. The material was well collected in 1888 and published at Wetzler by Emmerich Cornelius, but a considerable amount of new material has turned up from time to time since. About the middle of the second century Ptolemy published his Gewgrafikh& 'Ufh&ghsij. In 2. 11. 12 (ed. C. Muller, Paris, 1883) he lists in succession along the northern shore of Germany the towns of Flhou&m, and Siatouta&nda. The latter name occurs nowhere else and has a dubious sound. The explanation is to be found in Tacitus, Ann. 4. 72, 73: "Rapti qui tributo aderant milites et patibulo adfixi; Olennius infensos fuga prae-venit, receptus castello, cui nomen Flevum; et haud spernenda illic civium sociorumque manus litora Oceani praesidebat." The governor of lower Germany takes prompt action, the account of which winds up: "utrumque exercitum Rheno devectum Frisiis intulit, soluto iam castelli obsidio et ad sua tutanda degressis rebellibus." The source of Ptolemy's mistake is obvious. Note here that Ptolemy's obvious use of Tacitus is taken as a signal of the Annals existing. This is in stark contrast to how quotes in patristic writers from the Gospels are excused asway as "floating, independent tradition" rather than evidence of the Gospels. Note as well that Ptolemy does not name Tacitus. We still do not have an attribution of authorship to work with some 40-50 years after the writing. It is hard to believe that Cassius Dio (who published shortly after A.D. 200) did not know at least the Agricola. In 38. 50 and 66. 20 he mentions Gnaeus Julius Agricola as having proved Britain to be an island and in the later instance tells the story of the fugitive Usipi. If we make allowance for the method of Tacitus, which leaves his account far from clear, and for the use of a different language by Dio, there can be little if any doubt that Tacitus is the source for Dio. We know also of no other possible source today. The last part of the section, dealing with Agricola's return and death, confirms the conclusion that Dio drew from Tacitus, and it sounds as though Tacitus had left the impression he desired. Notice we still do not have an attribution, and we are now 80 and more years past the publication of these works by Tacitus. We are already at or past the number of years Papias was from the Gospels. In the third century Tertullian cites Tacitus with a hostile tone. He had spoken without respect of the Jews and had implied that the Christians were an undesirable sect of the Jews. It is not a surprise, therefore, to have Tertullian (early third century) refer to him as ille mendaciorum loquacissimus. The Apologist is defending the Christians against the charge that they worshiped an ass. The origin of this scandal he ascribes to Tacitus, Hist. 5. 3, 9. Apologeticus 16... This is the first direct attribution of something to Tacitus -- apparently over 100 years later! Tertullian also cited Tacitus in two other places. Lactantius, in the time of Diocletian, is at least once (Div. inst. 1. 18. 8) somewhat reminiscent of Tacitean style but that is as far as it is safe to go in claiming him as a reader of Tacitus, in spite of something of a resemblance between Lactantius 1. 11, 12 and Germ. 40. At about the same date, Eumenius of Autun, in his Panegyricus ad Constantinum 9, quite clearly has Agric. 12 before him. He follows Tacitus in the error of thinking that the nights are always short, and he assigns as reasons the same that the Roman had...Not only the actual quotation from Tacitus is of interest but the careful substitution of synonyms. Vopiscus, still in the fourth century, cites Tacitus with Livy, Sallust, and Trogus as the greatest of Roman historians...Ammianus Marcellinus, about 400, published his history, which began where Tacitus left off, indicating a knowledge at least of what Tacitus had written. At about the same time Sulpicius Severus of Aquitaine wrote his Chronicorum libri and, in 2. 28. 2 and 2. 29. 2, used Tacitus, Ann. 15. 37 and 44 as his source. On the detailed matter of Nero's marriage with Pythagoras and the punishment of the Christians the verbal resemblances make it impossible to think that he was drawing on any other source....Jerome in his commentary on Zacchariah 14. 1, 2 (3, p. 914) cites Tacitus: "Cornelius quoque [i.e. as well as Josephus] Tacitus, qui post Augustum usque ad mortem Domitiani vitas Caesarum triginta voluminibus exaravit." He gives no proof of having read Tacitus----he may not even have seen his works at all----but he did know of a tradition in which the thirty books were numbered consecutively. Claudian cannot be safely claimed as a reader of Tacitus in spite of his suggestive references to Tiberius and Nero. 8, Fourth Consulship of Honorius...Servius, on the other hand, at the end of the fourth century, while his reference is to a lost part of Tacitus, evidently had read the text. Hegesippus made a free Latin version of Josephus' Jewish War with independent additions, many of which seem to come from Tacitus' Histories. An example is 4. 8: "denique neque pisces neque adsuetas aquis et laetas mergendi usu aves." Compare Hist. 5.6: "neque vento impellitur neque pisces aut suetas aquis volucres patitur." There is a certain studied attempt at variation of wording without concealment of the source. Of the fifth-century writers, two, Sidonius Apollinaris and Orosius, have left evidence of considerable familiarity with Tacitus as well as respect for him as a writer. In Ep. 4. 22. 2 Sidonius makes a pun on the name Tacitus. After comparing himself and Leo to Pliny and Tacitus he says that should the latter return to life and see how eloquent Leo was in the field of narrative, he would become wholly Tacitus. The name as he gives it is Gaius Cornelius Tacitus. Again in Ep. 4. 14. 1 he quotes Gaius Tacitus as an ancestor of his friend Polemius. He was, says Sidonius, a consular in the time of the Ulpians: "Sub verbis cuiuspiam Germanici ducis in historia sua rettulit dicens : cum Vespasiano mihi vetus amicitia" etc...The citations in Orosius are naturally quite different from these casual references and general estimates. Orosius is always after material for argument, and it is the content rather than the style that interests him. He refers to Tacitus explicitly and at length. He compares critically the statements of Cornelius Tacitus and Pompeius Trogus and again of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus. The quotations and citations from Tacitus are all in the Adversus paganos and all from the Histories. In 1. 5. 1 Orosius says: "Ante annos urbis conditae MCLX confinem Arabiae regionem quae tune Pentapolis vocabatur arsisse penitus igne caeleste inter alios etiam Cornelius Tacitus refert, qui sic ait: Haud procul inde campi . . . vim frugiferam perdidisse. Et cum hoc loco nihil de incensis propter peccata hominum civitatibus quasi ignarus expresserit, paulo post velut oblitus consilii subicit et dicit: Ego sicut inclitas . . . cor-rumpi reor." The quotation is from Hist. 5.7 and, in spite of some interesting variants, it is reasonably exact. The same is true of his quotation of Hist. 5. 3 in Adv. pag. 1. 10. 1... Cassiodorus is a sixth-century writer who seems to have used Tacitus as source material. He does not, however, seem to know much about his source, for he speaks of "a certain Cornelius"; but he draws on Germania 45...Perhaps a hundred years or less after Cassiodorus, Jordanes wrote his De origine actibusque getarum which he took largely from Cassiodorus' history of the Goths. That one or the other of these two must have known Agric. 10 is shown by the following passage in Jordanes (2. 12, 13): "Mari tardo circumfluam quod nec remis facile impellentibus cedat, nec ventorum flatibus intumescat, credo quia remotae longius terrae causas motibus negant. Quippe illic latius quam usquam aequor extenditur . . . Noctem quoque clariorem in extrema eius parte menima quam Cornelius etiam annalium scriptor enarrat. . . Labi vero per earn multa quam maxima relabique flumina gemmas margaritasque volventia." The textual confusion memma quam is usually taken to come from minimamque but we should expect brevemque. The very last item is probably from Mela. The Scholiast to Juvenal 2. 99 and 14. 102 refers to the Histories, ascribing them in the one case to Cornelius, in the other to Cornelius Tacitus. The first note is as follows: "Hunc incomparabilis vitae bello civili Vitellius vicit apud Bebriacum campum. Horum bellum scripsit Cornelius, scripsit et Pompeius Planta, qui sit Bebriacum vicum a Cremona vicesimo lapide." The second is a twofold description of Moses: (a) "sacerdos vel rex eius gentis"; ( "aut ipsius quidem religionis inventor, cuius Cornelius etiam Tacitus meminit" (cf. Hist. 5. 3). Comparably speaking, this evidence is vanishingly small compared to the incredible number of attestations and attributions by patristic writers, some few earlier than (but many as late as) those listed for Tacitus above. How can someone dealing with the evidence fairly claim to be sure of Tacitus' authorship of his various works (where such external evidence is concerned) and dismiss the Gospels, which have far better external evidence? I have recently checked a book titled Texts and Tranmission (Clarendon Press, 1993) which records similar data for other ancient works. Throughout the book classic works from around the time of the NT whose authorship and date no one questions (though some have textual issues, just like the NT) are recorded as having the earliest copy between 5th and 9th century, earliest attributions at the same period (for example, Celsus' De medicina is attested no earlier than 990 AD, and then not again until 1300!), and having so little textual support that if they were treated as the NT is, all of antiquity would be reduced to a blank wall of paranoid unknowingness. If the Gospels are treated consistenly, there will be no question at all about their provenance, but that is clearly the last thing critics want to do. *** In favor of Markan authorship of the Gospel of Mark are the following considerations: Direct testimony that Mark authored the Gospel that bears his name. Between 110 and 130 AD, the following statement was recorded by Papias, whose words are passed on to us by the church historian Eusebius: Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them. Critics tend to reject this testimony out of hand. Kümmel, in particular, simply says that Papias "had no reliable knowledge of the connection of Mark with Peter" [Kumm.Int, 95], but fails to provide any significant basis for this assertion. Contrarily, Boyd notes that there "is as yet no convincing reason to doubt the historical accuracy of this statement." That it "predates any concern to artificially give Mark's Gospel apostolic clout," and the "incidental and unpretentious nature" of the statement itself, is testimony to its veracity. Further testimony may be found in that there was certainly no apologetic value to attaching Mark's name to a Gospel, not just because he was a rotten kid, but also because he was a relative unknown, and not an apostle, and there were much better candidates to choose from (even if one proposes, in a desperate moment of conspiracy-mongering, that Mark was chosen precisely because he was low on the totem pole!), like those selected for the late apocryphal Gospels. (Even Kümmel agrees the attribution to a non-apostle adds weight to the argument that Mark was the author. - [ibid., 97]) Reicke also adds [Reic.Root, 165] that Papias' inquiry was undertaken in a time when apostolic dignity was highly esteemed, thus making the ascription to Mark even more unlikely to be fake. We have noted that such "external evidence" as this is key for secular historians in determining authorship, and it is interesting to note the comments of one such secular scholar, George Kennedy [Walk.RAG, 148ff]. To begin, Kennedy observes that contrary to what many in NT scholarship claim, and in line with typical procedures of composition in ancient times, Papias' remark that Mark wrote "not in order" is not a criticism of Mark's gospel, but a reference to hypomnema, or what we might refer to as notes, on Peter's preaching. Papias is therefore actually stressing Mark's great care in composition: He did not simply belch out a narrative, but carefully wrote up notes based on Peter's preaching as he recalled it, and in the same order as Peter preached (which, being "individual sermons," would not reflect historical order, but the need of each audience and/or the occassion). Eusebius went on to note that Peter neither approved nor disapproved of these notes; this may be simply have been the expected reaction of someone like Peter for whom literacy was not a central issue -- or else, the resigned reaction of one who recognized these notes as fostering his inevitable "replacement". Backing up Papias' statement are the following considerations: Mark's Gospel is constructed around Peter more than any other Gospel. Throughout Mark, Peter is given top billing. He is the first of the disciples to be mentioned; he is portrayed as being in Jesus' inner circle, and there are many instances where Peter is the only individual to stand over and against Jesus. In terms of proportion, Peter in mentioned more times per page in Mark than in Matthew or Luke. He is also the most "true to life" character in the Gospel other than Jesus: Kelber [Kelb.OWG, 68] observes that in Mark, "Auerbach was certainly right in contending that Peter showed a distinct mark of individuality...As an individual he ranks above all other disciples" and is the most fully developed character, other than Jesus. There are also many personal touches reflecting Peter, including the frequent and incidental mention of his house (5 times in Mark); phrases such as "Simon and his companions" (1:36) and Andrew being identified as Simon's brother (1:16); and the direct address to Simon by Jesus (14:37). Many third-person verses, if shifted to first- or second-person, would fit right in the mouth of Peter. (1:29, 5:1, 5:38, 6:53-4, 8:22, 10:32, 11:1, 14:18, etc. - [Mart.NTF, 212]) Mark's Gospel has the character of an eyewitness account. As would be expected if the material found its source in an eyewitness, the use of incidental details and characters matches the way an eyewitness account would be composed. Beck notes of the character of Mark's Gospel [beck.TGJ, 84]: His vivid language arrests the reader. The Spirit drives Jesus, his followers hunt him out, he sighs deeply. The demoniac hacks himself, the blind man leaps up, the great crowd jostles Jesus or sits like garden plots on the green grass. And Kelber, although he does not make the connection that Mark's Gospel is based on Peter's preaching, observes [Kelb.OWG, 66]: The prolific use of the third person plural instead of the passive is in keeping with the popular style of storytelling. Pritchard [Pritch.Lit, 37-44] offers correspondence with our determination criteria. He points out that a literary analysis of Mark indicating that someone very like Peter (as we conventionally recognize him) was behind it: Mark's Gospel has a limited vocabulary (1330 words) and was written in "man on the street" Koine Greek; the rhetorical devices used are few in number and are the sort that would be used by someone who was uneducated; and, it bears an uncomplicated sentence structure: "Its sentences are made like the speech of the less educated men, upon whom the niceties of logically subordinated ideas are largely wasted." (! - Nice words about Peter, eh!) Obviously, one who is desperately conspiracy-minded might suggest that all of this could be faked, but this would suggest a literary artistry beyond what the author of the second Gospel evidences otherwise (i.e., faking being uneducated). Further, it has been objected that much of Mark looks like "community tradition" rather than a personal account - although remember that it is not held that ALL of Mark's material came from Peter, and at any rate, the community had to get the material from somewhere! [Mart.NTF, 204-5] The most parsimonious explanation for the above is not some wild conspiracy, but that Mark's Gospel was created "essentially on the basis of traditions imparted by Peter" [Reic.Root, 57] and on his preaching - just as Papias indicates. Page 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 4, 2005 Author Share Posted May 4, 2005 LakeGeorgeMan April 4th 2005 08:22 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jpholding Wow. LonelyGuyMan doesn't know what common words like "certified" mean. I certainly do know what the word means with regards to “certified” to practice law or medicine in the state of NY. I guess I’m still struggling with what it means in regards to “Christian scholarship”, as in the following quote you still can’t defend: Quote: Originally posted by Senile Librarian Familiarity with credentialed, certified, detailed Christian scholarship So since you can’t defend what that means, I’ll just have to assume that the scholarship of Price, Crossan and the Jesus Seminar are all “certified”. And I’m quite familiar with them. So I guess your lame attempt and technique is still exposed. Nice try librarian…gosh that tutu sure looks tight on you…perhaps the low carb twinkies would help get you back on your toes? Quote: Yes, it is quite the ball to see you running and hiding like this, refusing to engage specifics because you can't. What specifics? I’m calling you on your weak appeal to this hilarious notion of “certified” Christian scholarship, and my alleged “lack of familiarity” with it. It seems it's you who can’t identify what it is, and defend it in your own words. I’m not running, I’m right here laughing at your tripe. You’re exposed librarian, your game is tired, your mind is weak, your schtick never varies, and your insults are permanently stuck at the third grade level. But you do amuse me…please continue… Quote: Sad to say, few people realize just how funny this comment is -- particularly, Jaltus and GrayPilgrim. That speaks for itself. Sorry librarian, no one is here to defend you. Are you scared of me? Do you need some more friends to help you? Are Jaltus and GrayPilgrim “certified”? Sure you don’t want to cut and paste something from Glenn Miller at this point? Quote: Can you also admit that your species is full of rampants cowards who mouth off constantly and refuse to defend their beliefs from detailed scrutiny, precisely because they have no such "evidence" to present, being that they can barely understand what is presented? :rofl: Yes. You’re a perfect example in the Christopher Reeves thread. You mouth off constantly about things you know NOTHING about, things you have ZERO evidence for, and then claim, “Garsh, some udder smart people agree with me…”…nice try librarian…tell us about the card catalog system…something you do know… Quote: Oh I see. MDs and Scientists with no training in formal logic, just a materialist worldview based on them not knowing what to look for. I see. :thumb: Oh, so now all scientists don’t have training in “formal logic”? But I guess librarians, apologists and ancient historians do? Tell us about N.T. Wright’s formal training in “logic” as it relates to verifying eternal life or the authenticity of "mark's" writings. Tell us about your own training in “formal logic”… I wonder, what would you have someone “look for” with regards to supporting your claim that “life” continues after death?Where should we “look” for wherever Christopher Reeves consciousness is hiding? Is it under the ground like your ancient ignorant ancestors thought? Or is it in your closet? Please…consider that a SPECIFIC question for you…oh bastion of logic and deep thinking… I’ll hold my breath waiting for your witty SPECIFIC answer. :troll: Quote: So what? You'd run and hide just as fast if I used my own words. :lmbo: You're exposed, little girl. Ahhh…now the little librarian monkey is mimicking me…how precious…I’m right here badass…show me your evidence…show all the stupid “materialists”, and untrained scientists, “where to look” for your eternal life evidence, your worldwide flood evidence, your “young earth” evidence… oh yeah…answersingenesis.com Quote: See below. Then I expect you to do the same for the Annals of Tacitus, little one. Are you claiming that our knowledge of the biography and sources of “mark” is equal in quality to our knowledge of Tacitus? Is that what you’re claiming? I just want to make sure and give you a moment to retract that before you make a bigger fool of yourself…if that’s possible. Did Tacitus record any accounts of magical stars wandering the sky, virgin births, singing angels, dead people being raised, dead saints trippin’ around Jerusalem? Did Tacitus ever claim he was god, or the only way to god? I musta missed that… Quote: The Annals have no "biography" of Tacitus or date or location on them, by the way. But maybe you are far more brialliant than Greco-Roman historians who say we have enough information. Enough information for what? We have many surviving documents by Tacitus, what do we have from “mark”? Is anyone here declaring the works of Tacitus inerrant and god’s word? I don’t know any historians saying that…so this whole distraction is all irrelevant. This is just your standard dodge librarian…you’re exposed…you’re a monkey trained to push a button when you hear a skeptic’s challenge… “If you don’t believe in god men walking on water…you can’t believe in any history right up till WWII…" :duh: …sorry ignorant librarian…your “logic” is flawed…and your historical critical method is clearly biased…should I be surprised? Quote: It was what you were challenged on, little one. Having problems with your literacy again? Sorry…I already conceded that there lived a man named Yeshua. I’m sure there were many. Next claim. Quote: So you admit Price is a wayward nobody in context, then? Or does Price hear voices? Price has all those degrees, affiliations, teaching positions and books that you can only dream about….librarian… Quote: He can start all the journals he wants; but the day he represents himself as a lone and sane voice in the wilderness, while everyone else (including the other three you named) are said to be biased, delusional, or subject to wishful thinking, he steps beyond what can be claimed as "rational" and becomes a glory hog of the LGM School of Thought. Luckily he has gullible guys like you to keep him cheered. :thumb: He’s not alone, there’s plenty of scholars who question the historicity of the gospel claims. Maybe you missed the whole Jesus Seminar thing 15 years ago? Maybe you’ve never heard of Crossan, Mack, Wells, Riley, Paterson, etc. Peter’s got some of them summarized pretty well here. Seems they run the gamut. Sorry librarian, nice try, but your lame tactics are again exposed. Price just happens to be one good example of a former confessional Christian PhD apologist, with all the degrees that you only dream of, who suspects from his scholarly investigation that the gospels are just run-of-the-mill fictional hagiography. Quote: And you, as usual, are merely vomiting forth with the usual non-answers -- because you have none, and never will have any, and will remaining hiding in your little dark corner, eating your curds and whey. :rofl: I've got an answer for all your lame tripe and I’m right here...librarian. Your tactics are exposed. It’s you who are frightened, it’s you who doesn’t have answers, it’s you who can’t keep a job at a prison library, it’s you who’s wearing the tutu and making the same tired cliché insults…please continue. This is what you do for a living, and yet you’re being dismantled by a “little school girl”. Is that who first beat you up on the playground back in third grade?…a little girl you called names, who proceeded to kick your butt and gave you a complex? Is that what turned JP into the grumpy, anti-social, dork we see today? How tragic… Quote: For a guy not interested in wasting time, he sure keeps doing it a lot. :rofl: Here's what I can fit on Mark. Run the other way, quick! I enjoy dismantling the pompous and pretentious. And they don’t get much bigger than you on this site, although perhaps Richbee comes close... Quote: The "anonymity" of the Gospels authors is something that many skeptics hang their hat upon. I don’t “hang my hat” on it. And I don’t speak in the first person plural. I simply point it out, and ask why would anyone believe an anonymous document from the first century is the “inerrant word of god”? Strike one librarian… Quote: Yet I have noted that in making this argument, critics never explain to us how their arguments would work if applied equally to secular ancient documents whose authenticity and authorship is never (or is no longer) questioned, but are every bit as "anonymous" in the same sense that the Gospels are. I’m sorry, what other ancient documents does anyone claim is the “inerrant word of god”? The Qu’ran? I don’t believe it either. What other documents claim to be the innerant word of god? Certainly not Tacitus or Josephus. Strike two librarian…you didn’t even get the bat off your pudgy shoulder for that fastball… Quote: If it is objected that the Gospel authors nowhere name themselves in their texts -- and this is a very common point to be made, even among traditionalists -- then this applies equally to numerous other ancient documents, such as Tacitus' Annals. Authorial attributions are found not in the text proper, but in titles, just like the Gospels. Nobody worships the writings of Tacitus. Nobody claims that any of the writing ascribed to Tacitus is sacred or inerrant or anything other than Tacitus thoughts on history and morality. Strike 3 librarian… {*snip long irrelevant history lesson on Tacitus* ho hum…} So all you’ve got is a quote from a desperate early church promoter - Eusebius, allegedly quoting a source he doesn’t even trust - “Papias”, who didn’t claim to know “Mark” or “Peter”, as claiming that the author of this first gospel document, that is the foundation for your complete worldview, might have been written by an associate of Peter. And this is all you need to claim it is the inerrant word of god! How wonderful for you! Your mastery of logic and credulity, even for one as highly educated as a prison librarian, is still quite impressive. Seems I trust Peter Kirby’s scholarly research on how trustworthy "Papias" is, a bit more than yours. Strike Four librarian…seems you’ve been exposed…but please…continue to amuse me in your tutu... GakuseiDon April 4th 2005 09:51 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by LakeGeorgeMan Seems I trust Peter Kirby’s scholarly research on how trustworthy "Papias" is, a bit more than yours. Strike Four librarian…seems you’ve been exposed…but please…continue to amuse me in your tutu... Well, this is what Kirby says: "Papias attests the role that oral tradition continued to play in the first half of the second century. Papias himself preferred "the living voice" to what could be found in books. Nevertheless, Papias seems to have known the Gospels, and he provides the earliest tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospel of Mark." Doesn't this part agree with what Holding said? (I think you may have read Kirby's comment about fragment X and thought he was referring to all of the fragments) jpholding April 5th 2005 12:19 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by LoonlyGoofyGuy I certainly do know what the word means with regards to “certified” to practice law or medicine in the state of NY. Then it's time to expand your horizons beyond the state of New York and start using a dictionary. :rofl: Quote: I guess I’m still struggling with what it means in regards to “Christian scholarship”, We know well your struggles with the most basic vocabulary. Check the dictionary and see if you can figure this one out. Try to use one other than the one you got yesterday in Mrs. Kibbitz's class right after you got done with nap time. Quote: So since you can’t defend what that means, I’ll just have to assume that the scholarship of Price, Crossan and the Jesus Seminar are all “certified”. I never said otherwise, goofy boy. :tongue: What I said is that you're utterly and woefully incapable of responding to material presented from such scholarship. In fact, you'd be hard pressed even to defend positions from any of those scholars you agree with, or to defend against any position you might take against them if such existed. Indeed you would not even be able to blow your nose with their support, or tie your shoes, or butter your bread, or use soap and water. Quote: And I’m quite familiar with them. Rubbing them repeatedly on your head isn't what we are talking about here, little one. We're talking about serious and intellectual use of their work, critical evaluation of it, comparison to other (and responding) works, and so on. This you could not do with the help of a Cray supercomputer. Quote: Nice try librarian…gosh that tutu sure looks tight on you…perhaps the low carb twinkies would help get you back on your toes? The evidence suggests that if any of us has been ingesting anything with the toxic levels of preservatives that Twinkies have, it is you, since your "arguments" never change. :rofl: Quote: What specifics? The ones you dutifully ignore other than with vague sound bites. Quote: It seems it's you who can’t identify what it is, and defend it in your own words. I’m not running, I’m right here laughing at your tripe. Ah, smell that...irony, roasting on an open flame, from one who cannot even PRODUCE words to call his own, and calls running, laughing. :lmbo: Quote: Sorry librarian, no one is here to defend you. Are you scared of me? To the same level, mayhaps, I might fear a garden slug. Quote: Do you need some more friends to help you? Are Jaltus and GrayPilgrim “certified”? Yes, they indeed are. Especially compared to you, my dear little short order Burger King grease jockey. :whistle: Quote: Sure you don’t want to cut and paste something from Glenn Miller at this point? What for? You can't answer it anyway, and never will, ever. No, all we will get is shallow, ignorant, mouth-foaming whining about cutting and pasting. :rofl: Quote: Oh, so now all scientists don’t have training in “formal logic”? No, just the ones that don't and show they don't. So much for that red herring. Now what fish will come out of that cavernous mouth next? Quote: But I guess librarians, apologists and ancient historians do? Some indeed do (per above). Some even offer actual answers. Quote: Tell us about N.T. Wright’s formal training in “logic” as it relates to verifying eternal life or the authenticity of "mark's" writings. What for? It's all above your addled little head to begin with. You can't read Wright; it contains words with more than 5 letters. Much less could you ever directly address any of his arguments. Quote: I wonder, what would you have someone “look for” with regards to supporting your claim that “life” continues after death? Here's a hint, little one: "I'm going to go out and look for some wooden clothespins!" "Oh yeah? How?" "I'll take my metal detector!" :duh: The absolute inanity of using physical means to find an extra-physical entity evidently escapes these brilliant minds. :lmbo: When you have the guts to actually answer Miller directly, in detail, we'll see if you're anywhere near as "bad" as you claim to be, Mr. Urkel.... :rofl: Quote: Are you claiming that our knowledge of the biography and sources of “mark” is equal in quality to our knowledge of Tacitus? Yep, if not better. So when do you plan to address the comparative evidence rather than wheedling off into red herrings like this one: Quote: Did Tacitus record any accounts of magical stars wandering the sky, virgin births, singing angels, dead people being raised, dead saints trippin’ around Jerusalem? Uh, well, he did record healing miracles by Vespasian, but what has this to do with the tea in China, little man? I can't wait to hear the explanation of how recording of miraculous events somehow casts doubt upon the authorship of a document and somehow erases the value of external attestations and internal evidence. If you don't like Tacitus, heck, we'll just play with Suetonious. No one doubts he wrote his Lives of the Caesars, and that has miracles coming out of its ears. So want to come out and play, grease jockey? :lmbo: Quote: Did Tacitus ever claim he was god, or the only way to god? No. What's your point? Mark didn't either. And I still wait for why this affects evidence related to attestation. Quote: We have many surviving documents by Tacitus, what do we have from “mark”? We have maybe 4 works by Tacitus. What do you mean "many"? And what in the world does number of surviving documents have to do with external attestation and internal evidence for authorship? While you're at it, why don't you ask what color floor Tacitus and Mark used for their kitchen tiles? Quote: Is anyone here declaring the works of Tacitus inerrant and god’s word? No, and who cares? That's yet another red herring, as if claims made post-authorship have a whit to do that changes any lick of evidence regarding external attestation and internal evidence. Oh, I see. So if someone now claims Tacitus' Annals is God's inerrant Word, all of the evidence I cited goes out the window, fwip, just like that? It reduces in value at once? Sayit again, guy. How stupid. Be more stupider. :rofl: Show us your red herrings. Quote: I don’t know any historians saying that…so this whole distraction is all irrelevant. This is just your standard dodge librarian…you’re exposed… Oh my, but the irony reeks. :whistle: Quote: you’re a monkey trained to push a button when you hear a skeptic’s challenge… “If you don’t believe in god men walking on water…you can’t believe in any history right up till WWII…" :duh: If the button-impression fits -- WEAR IT. :thumb: As usual, your epistemology is a presumptive sham, devoid of any rational basis. Quote: Sorry…I already conceded that there lived a man named Yeshua. I’m sure there were many. Next claim. Take your pick -- I have 1500+ articles for you to choose from; take up to 5 as options if you dare. Quote: Price has all those degrees, affiliations, teaching positions and books that you can only dream about….librarian… Who cares? My sources have thousands of degrees, affiliations, teaching positions, and books of their own...lose the straw man...grease jockey... :rofl: Quote: He’s not alone, there’s plenty of scholars who question the historicity of the gospel claims. But not the historicity of Jesus himself, little one. Maybe you missed the category on Jeapordy for this round -- and that the Jesus Seminar thing is regarded as fringe lunacy by the majority. I think that the Jesus Seminar is a scholarly hoax in which people are pretending to know things that we cannot possibly know and no scholarly issue is settled by having scholars vote. At first I thought it was a joke, but it isn’t a joke. They really take themselves very seriously and they pretend to have informed opinions about issues that are very hard to settle. They also pretend to settle these by voting. I think that is absurd. If this isn’t a hoax then it signifies that the New Testament studies as we know them become intellectually bankrupt because they have used up all of the capital of rationality, logic and rigorous argument that sustains scholarship. You cannot give up on all of the rules and still be a going concern. -- Jacon Neusner A group of secularized theologians and secular academics went seeking a secular Jesus, and they found him! They think they found him, but, in fact, they created him. Jesus the 'party animal,' whose zany wit and caustic humor would enliven an otherwise dull cocktail party --this is the product of the Jesus Seminar's six years' research. -- Birger Pearson No, the case argued by this book (The Five Gospels) would not stand up in any court. The critical study of the historical Jesus is an important task-perhaps important for reasons theological as well as historical-but The Five Gospels does not advance that task significantly, nor does it represent a fair picture of the current state of research on this problem. Some of its purported revelations are old news, and many of its novel claims are at best dubious. No, I was not involved in the project, nor were any of my colleagues at Yale and Duke, all of whom share my view that the Jesus Seminar is methodologically misguided. Should you take it seriously? Only if you want to compare its findings to other scholarly reconstructions of Jesus of Nazareth. If you are interested in the problem, there are at least a dozen other books I would recommend in preference to this one. But their authors are less likely to be interviewed on the radio: no scandalous sound bites. -- Richard Hays I'd challenge you to debate specifics, but what for? You'll just run and hide as you always do, screaming like a little girl in high heels. Quote: Maybe you missed the whole Jesus Seminar thing 15 years ago? Maybe you’ve never heard of Crossan, Mack, Wells, Riley, Paterson, etc. Yawn. Them and their little dogs, too. Even have written depth articles three of them. Care to try refuting or debating any of them, grease jockey? Quote: Peter’s got some of them summarized pretty well here. Seems they run the gamut. Which one? Harvard to Claremont? :rofl: Quote: Price just happens to be one good example of a former confessional Christian PhD apologist, with all the degrees that you only dream of, who Price just happens to be a spoiled crybaby, a good example of a brat who didn't learn enough the first time and now resents any correction. In the meantime there are Ph D sources I use that make mincemeat of him -- and which you have no power to dispute, grease jockey... :rofl: Quote: I don’t “hang my hat” on it. And I don’t speak in the first person plural. I simply point it out, and ask why would anyone believe an anonymous document from the first century is the “inerrant word of god”? True, not your hat, your whole head...and we're still waiting for an actual argument in favor of "anonymity" and not merely red herrings that have zero to do with issues of authorship...ball one grease jockey... Quote: I’m sorry, what other ancient documents does anyone claim is the “inerrant word of god”? Oops, what's that greasy red thing? It's a burger jockey carrying a fish...looks like all that evidence about Tacitus gets flushed if someone somewhere calls the Annals the Word of God....ball two, grease jockey....you didn't even pick up a ball, you picked up a fish.... Quote: Nobody worships the writings of Tacitus. Nobody claims that any of the writing ascribed to Tacitus is sacred or inerrant or anything other than Tacitus thoughts on history and morality. Whoa, it was the same pitch again, high and wide and smelling of fish...ball three, grease jockey... Quote: {*snip long irrelevant history lesson on Tacitus* ho hum…} Yep. Long avoidance manuever; ignoring all the actual argument. Ball four, I walk, all over you. :rofl: Quote: So all you’ve got is a quote from a desperate early church promoter - And all you do is namecall, in place of actual argument. Who is Eusy "promoting" too and how does this make what he says untrue? Oh -- so if someone "promotes" a view, they must be wrong? That means you who promote materialism.... :rofl: Quote: Eusebius, allegedly quoting a source he doesn’t even trust - Er, excuse me? Nowhere does Eusy say he does not "trust" Papias. He says that he thinks he is not always the sharpest tool in the shed...and he says that because of his theology, not because of his relating of hard authorship data. Oops. Red herring #465,384 and reason #8593 why you are dumb stupid, though wise to avoid detailed debate with me. You can't even get the simplest things right, so what hope do you have against someone who knows the ropes? Quote: “Papias”, who didn’t claim to know “Mark” or “Peter”, as claiming that the author of this first gospel document, Uh, wheeee. Like, you have to claim to "know" the author in person to be authoritative. So much for all that about Tacitus authoring the Annals then, since people like Tertuallian never met the guy. So much indeed for the vast majority of ancient external attestations. So much for the grease jockey's credibility as an arguer. Just one greasy red herring after another. :whistle: Quote: And this is all you need to claim it is the inerrant word of god! No, it's all I need to make a case for Marcan authorship of Mark. That's it. Put the herring down and back away from the fish tank.... Quote: Seems I trust Peter Kirby’s scholarly research on how trustworthy "Papias" is, a bit more than yours. Ball five -- as GDon noted, you just made a "arse" of yourself linking (cutting and pasting, the lazy way) to someone who has agreement with what I say...and otherwise doesn't affect my point. Seems you've been exposed, gutted, laid out, and buried. Funeral at 2 PM, right after John Paul 2's. :mourn: So there we have it. Another long-winded avoidance maneuver by the grease jockey showing yet again that he couldn't argue his way out of a parchment bag, though he is good at filling it with fish, lemon, dill, and other spices, and in the process making a horrendous odor. Stay tuned tomorrow for yet another gutting of the Loony Guy with the JPHOCD. :thumb: Page 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 4, 2005 Author Share Posted May 4, 2005 LakeGeorgeMan April 6th 2005 08:19 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Holding in a tutu...what could be more amusing? Quote: Originally posted by jpholding Then it's time to expand your horizons beyond the state of New York and start using a dictionary. rofl We know well your struggles with the most basic vocabulary. Check the dictionary and see if you can figure this one out. Try to use one other than the one you got yesterday in Mrs. Kibbitz's class right after you got done with nap time. There are few things more simultaneously amusing and hideous than watching a pudgy, ugly, grumpy librarian flailing about in a tight pink tutu. :eww: You’re exposed librarian. There is no such thing as CERTIFIED Christian scholarship or apologetics. It’s another BS phrase you pulled out your rectum to try and impress the credophiles who buy your tripe. Any frustrated, unemployed, halfwit librarian can pick up the bible and some commentary and do it. Oh look, here comes one now. So spare me your constant hilarious appeals to the chosen authorities that you’ve decided to worship. They’re all in the same boat, torturing the same ancient literature, and coming to vastly different conclusions. Get over it…Wright isn’t right…and Malina can’t get inside the head of a first century Canaanite slave girl… Quote: I never said otherwise, goofy boy. :tongue: What I said is that you're utterly and woefully incapable of responding to material presented from such scholarship. In fact, you'd be hard pressed even to defend positions from any of those scholars you agree with, or to defend against any position you might take against them if such existed. Indeed you would not even be able to blow your nose with their support, or tie your shoes, or butter your bread, or use soap and water. I don’t need to defend ANY position librarian, that’s your chosen profession for milking your twinkie money from those who want the puerile, obsessed, Reader Digest version of “certified” scholarship. lol I have a real profession that pays very well, and provides a real benefit to my society. And unlike you, I pay federal and state income taxes…heck, I paid more in tips last year than you paid in taxes…get a real job you lazy prig, then maybe you can support your wife like proud paternal ANE men are supposed to. Have you no SHAME? lol I’ve read enough “certified scholarship” to know that there is NO high ground in Christian scholarship. That biblical scholarship has been going through a period of rapid change in the last century, as new documents are found, and various forms of literary and historical criticism are applied to these documents. I also understand enough history to know that without the Roman sword and patronage, that there was NO original Christian orthodoxy either, Paul was constantly battling opposing views to his cult, and now without that sword and patronage, Spong’s claims to orthodox scholarship are just as valid as Jack Chick’s… Freedom from being burned at the stake has finally allowed this sacred collection of myths and fairytales to be dissected by scholarship without an “orthodox” confessional bent. Sorry librarian, the jig is up, but I’m sure there are plenty of credophiles left who will admire your tutu and dance steps and send you 5 dollars on paypal for your lame performance. Scholars and historians have evidence that early Christianity was a schizophrenic diverse patchwork of movements from Paul’s cosmic "savior" cult, to the wisdom teaching of reforming communities of Q/Gospel of Thomas sayings, to the gnostics and mystics. That’s why fictions like Acts were written, to give one tradition some authoritative credibility over the others. That’s why early Christians forged epistles, redacted gospels, and interpolated other historical documents. That’s why Eusebius needed to come up with an authoritative church history, by quoting the hearsay of someone he thought was stupid from 200 years in the past. That’s why once an orthodox Christianity was in power, it destroyed all the documents that criticized it, and persecuted those of any competing “unorthodox” Christian traditions. These are all typical things done by any powerful bureaucracy that needs to cover-up for their lies and keep sheep in line…and you need to swear to defend it all…because that’s how you make a living…how amusing…begging money to defend some anonymous works of fiction from 2000 years ago…I guess it beats collecting overdue book fines from prisoners. rofl Quote: "I'm going to go out and look for some wooden clothespins!" "Oh yeah? How?" "I'll take my metal detector!" duh The absolute inanity of using physical means to find an extra-physical entity evidently escapes these brilliant minds. Typical wretched analogy from a shallow thinker...I use my EYES to see clothespins...you intellectual defect... Again, why not tell us what you use instead of a “metal detector” to detect an “extra-physical entity” twitch I’m waiting….:whistle: …oh yeah…you use something cut and pasted from Glen Miller ‘Garsh, Glen read some stuff from Plato and some udder smart philosophers and they all believed in ghosts and goblins and evil spirits…it must be TRUE!”… Hey, why not have me over the next time you and Glen have a séance with Christopher Reeves…I’ll bring my “baloney detector” and a video camera… rofl Quote: So if someone now claims Tacitus' Annals is God's inerrant Word, all of the evidence I cited goes out the window, fwip, just like that? It reduces in value at once? Sayit again, guy. How stupid. Be more stupider. rofl Show us your red herrings. Is anyone worshiping the words of Tacitus as the inerrant word of god? If so, I guess that makes them just as deluded as you are…(although I don’t really think you “worship” anything other than your own needy ego…) You’re the one that brought up the red herring of Tacitus. It is a red herring, I’m just playing along. It has no bearing on the authorship or veracity of the gospel of Mark. And if Eusebius’ hearsay, of Papias’ hearsay, of vague references to documents and people he didn’t know, is all you’ve got…well then I guess I’d be trying to distract people with this Tacitus BS, and tired, lame insults, instead of just admitting that the biography of “mark” is clearly in dispute among most “certified” scholars. Sorry librarian…you’re exposed…and it sure ain’t purty… eww Quote: Take your pick -- I have 1500+ articles for you to choose from; take up to 5 as options if you dare. Sorry, my spam blocker prevents me from accessing your little web wasteland. Please don’t flatter yourself librarian, there is nothing you’ve written that remotely interests me. I’ve figured out what the JPHOCD sufferers haven’t….You’re just not that important or interesting…I’d rather read something by Betty Bowers or Josh McDowell… troll Quote: But not the historicity of Jesus himself, little one. I’ve already conceded that there could very well have been a “historical Jesus”. So what? There could also have been a historical King Arthur and Lancelot…the problem is, you will never know their true biographies, all you have is some hazy myth and contradicting hagiographies… That’s why you’re so frustrated little librarian, that’s why you’re so angry, that’s why you’re so caught up in your little honor/shame name calling games…because you’ve chosen the bizarre profession of trying to prove something that can’t be proven, something that can only be believed by suspending critical thinking, and substituting it with credulous faith….good luck with that. In the meantime, please continue to amuse me with your Credentialed Certified Christian Scholarship Obsessive Compulsive Disorder – CCCSOCD… twitch jpholding April 6th 2005 02:44 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LoonyGuy flipping burgers -- what could be more appropos? Quote: Originally posted by LoonyGoofyGuy There are few things more simultaneously amusing and hideous than watching a pudgy, ugly, grumpy librarian flailing about in a tight pink tutu. :eww: Well, stop taking photos of Charles Darwin and pay attention to what's happening here; then you won't make such a rich embarrassment of yourself in front of millions, trying to do your impression of someone who actually reads scholarly literature and uses it for more than just the thickness when you need a seat at the dinner table. Quote: You’re exposed librarian. There is no such thing as CERTIFIED Christian scholarship or apologetics. Oh dear, Loser is stumped by the dictionary once more in his quest to win an argument after 785634 straight losses. Last time it was, "Ha, I'll bet there is no such word as 'jodhpur' " and when he lost that one he had to stand butt naked at the burger grill for a week. It wouldn't have been so bad except he wasn't even allowed to wear an apron, and the hot grease got on even those most particular areas of danger. Like his scalp. He's only 3 foot 4 you see. Quote: Any frustrated, unemployed, halfwit librarian can pick up the bible and some commentary and do it. Too bad any boot-shaking, underemployed, quarterwit grease jockey can't pick up a dictionary and so something else. Besides sit on it of course. Quote: So spare me your constant hilarious appeals to the chosen authorities that you’ve decided to worship. They’re all in the same boat, torturing the same ancient literature, and coming to vastly different conclusions. Witness: The plea of the hapless, gutless, plaid-covered ignoramus without anything of the sort of intellectual equipment needed to address any one of the names he soils with his keyboard, waving the white flag in unerring desperation, pleading, "Don't throw me in that briarpatch!" lmbo Quote: I don’t need to defend ANY position librarian, that’s your chosen profession for milking your twinkie money from those who want the puerile, obsessed, Reader Digest version of “certified” scholarship. lol Witness: He is unable to defend any position, for his intellectual equipment consists of a rusted wheel and a dead squirrel. Quote: [And unlike you, I pay federal and state income taxes… Poor ignorant sap. I pay federal taxes -- Florida has no state income taxes, as it happens -- it is my 501c3 that does not; but if you have a problem with that, I am sure Danny Boy Barker and Reginald Finley will be glad to forsake their tax exempt status. But why I am I saying this? You think a 501c3 is the dress size you'll wear to the prom, if you can get a date. Quote: heck, I paid more in tips last year than you paid in taxes… We always figured you to be a rancid little cheapskate. Next time spare yourself embarrassment and keep the 32 cents next time you go to McDonald's for your wedding anniversary. And stop picking the chewing gum off the bottom of the tables, your tightwad. And stop wrapping it up as a gift for your kid when you get home! :lmbo: Quote: I’ve read enough “certified scholarship” to know that there is NO high ground in Christian scholarship. This vague message of public service has been brought to you by Glaxo SmithKline, maker of hallucinogenic drugs, specially formulated for those like LoserGoofMan with delusions of grandeur about their own competence. thumb Quote: I also understand enough history to know that without the Roman sword and patronage, that there was NO original Christian orthodoxy either, Paul was constantly battling opposing views to his cult, and now without that sword and patronage, Spong’s claims to orthodox scholarship are just as valid as Jack Chick’s… Ah, nothing like hillbilly commentary to liven up the hills. We'll put those lines to juice harp and play them at the next meeting of Morons Anonymous we see having a conclave in the middle of the interstate. It's the waving of white flag by one without the critical capacity to tell Jack Chick from Spong -- finding both of them equally, intellectually inaccessible to his addled little mind. teeth Quote: Freedom from being burned at the stake has finally allowed this sacred collection of myths and fairytales to be dissected by scholarship without an “orthodox” confessional bent. Is that Acharya S on the line suing for plagiarism? rofl Or is it someone else trying to sell LGM paranoia meds? Quote: Scholars and historians have evidence that early Christianity was a schizophrenic diverse patchwork of movements from Paul’s cosmic "savior" cult, to the wisdom teaching of reforming communities of Q/Gospel of Thomas sayings, to the gnostics and mystics. This evidence is located exactly 3 miles down Main, 2 blocks to the right, and between LGM's butt cheeks. :thumb: In reality, early Christianity was a generally unified whole, with no significant difference between what was taught in Paul and the so-called mythic Q community (which is actually Jerusalem Christianity; being that Q is a fantasy document with zero literary, epigraphic, or archaeological evidence, let alone evidence of an actual "community"), and with the likes of GThom emerging 150 years too late to be given serious consideration as an original. I'd offer a debate on any of these issues, but our resident coward has already left the room at Wile E Coyote speed. Quote: That’s why fictions like Acts were written, to give one tradition some authoritative credibility over the others. That’s why early Christians forged epistles, redacted gospels, and interpolated other historical documents. And the proof of ahistoricity of Acts and of forgery of any single document is where, exactly? Pick one: a) LoonyMan's deluded imagination orbiting Betelgeuse c) on Blueberry Hill d) all of the above rofl Quote: That’s why Eusebius needed to come up with an authoritative church history, by quoting the hearsay of someone he thought was stupid from 200 years in the past. And the problem with accepting hearsay is what now, other than that Thomas Paine the God doesn't like it? rofl Quote: That’s why once an orthodox Christianity was in power, it destroyed all the documents that criticized it, and persecuted those of any competing “unorthodox” Christian traditions. Yep, that's definitely Acharya on the line, and she wants to know who stole her Screwball Award from the mantle. Quote: Typical wretched analogy from a shallow thinker...I use my EYES to see clothespins...you intellectual defect... You use your eyes to find BURIED clothespins? Is that why your face is so dirty all the time? I thought all of that came from the books you read from Steamshovel Press. rofl Quote: Again, why not tell us what you use instead of a “metal detector” to detect an “extra-physical entity” twitch Uh, philosophical argumentation -- just like the bulk of great minds throughout history who have rejected materialism and epiphenomenalism...not that this keeps LoserBoy from proclaiming himself superior from his armchair to the world's greatest philosophers...or getting out of that armchair to answer Miller in detail.... Quote: I’ll bring my “baloney detector” and a video camera… Detection of baloney is a piece of cake. Can you give us a DNA sample? Quote: Is anyone worshiping the words of Tacitus as the inerrant word of god? If so, I guess that makes them just as deluded as you are…(although I don’t really think you “worship” anything other than your own needy ego…) You’re the one that brought up the red herring of Tacitus. It is a red herring, I’m just playing along. IOW LoonyBoy can't defend his ridiculous argument that nature of the work and what is claimed of it has some bearing on authorship evidence. Quote: And if Eusebius’ hearsay, of Papias’ hearsay, of vague references to documents and people he didn’t know, is all you’ve got…well then I guess I’d be trying to distract people with this Tacitus BS, and tired, lame insults, instead of just admitting that the biography of “mark” is clearly in dispute among most “certified” scholars. IOW, he hasn't the intellectual cajones to even begin making a critical argument. Sorry, LoonyBoy, exposed -- and standing in front of hot grease. eek And it sure could be purtier... Quote: Please don’t flatter yourself librarian, there is nothing you’ve written that remotely interests me. So indeed says the one would couldn't refute even the simplest article thereon, not from any corner he hides in. thumb Quote: I’ve figured out what the JPHOCD sufferers haven’t….You’re just not that important or interesting…I’d rather read something by Betty Bowers or Josh McDowell… troll Gosh, yet I'm so unimportant that he spends 3 hours a day responding to me. rofl Denial while in process: classic JPHOCD. Quote: the problem is, you will never know their true biographies, all you have is some hazy myth and contradicting hagiographies… :whistle: (waiting 47 days for LoonyGuy to provide an actual argument that proves any of this, or shows a problem) So it runs to this: Still no answer to any actual argument, other than greasy red herrings which LoonyBoy quietly dropped in his embarrassment, a more embarassing drop than the one he had to do when he lost the bet about pants. Tch tch. Stay tuned tomorrow for another drubbing of the incompetent inept into ennui. thumb jimbo April 6th 2005 06:59 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) YEC Boy, "certified" lmbo So if a "certified" theologian disagreed with you about a theological matter, would he/she still be "certified"? Guess what-the reason your can't support your beliefs about the existence of the "soul" is that there is no such thing. You can't explain what such a thing is or provide actual evidence that it exists. Here is something else to consider, from your good buddy "Ebon": "But just because a belief makes our existence more pleasant does not mean it is true. It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to be able to set it aside and face life as it really is. Heaven is just such a belief. Comforting though the idea may be, a rational examination shows that it suffers from intractable logical problems. Therefore, we should face up to the fact that it is fiction, and find within ourselves the wisdom and the honesty to go on without it." "To those who have never known the freedom of a life without dogma, losing the safety net of belief in a pleasant afterlife may seem frightening and traumatic at first. But like so many other doctrines of theism, the discarding of it ultimately turns out to be not a loss, but a gain. The idea of "eternal life" makes our lives comparatively fleeting and worthless - after all, why bother trying to make yourself a better person now when you'll have eons to do it later? Why bother trying to ease the suffering of your fellow beings when all their tears will eventually be wiped away? This concept devalues our achievements, debases our very humanity. Far better, far more commendable, is the atheist who does not fear death, though he accepts that when you're gone, you're gone, and strives to make the best use of the gifts of life and consciousness in the short time span available." "Tragically, the means that theists have adopted in an attempt to escape the end are instead depriving them of the only chance they will ever have. Using such precious time to pray and abase yourself and follow superstitious rituals, all in the hope of winning the favor of some fictitious supernatural being, is a terrible waste. Life is too short to spend it on your knees. Instead of preparing for another existence that will never come, we should make the best use of the life we do have. To learn wisdom, to appreciate beauty, to stand up for what you believe in, and to love - these are far better uses of the all too brief time allotted to each of us." Jimbo John Powell April 6th 2005 10:40 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- to JPHolding Quote: HOLDING: Witness: The plea of the hapless, gutless, plaid-covered ignoramus without anything of the sort of intellectual equipment needed to address any one of the names he soils with his keyboard, waving the white flag in unerring desperation, pleading, "Don't throw me in that briarpatch!" POWELL: I don't understand this. Despite his pleas to the contrary, Brer Rabbit actually wanted to be thrown into the briarpatch to escape Brer Fox who had prepared the tar baby to get Brer Rabbit stuck. John Powelll jpholding April 7th 2005 11:23 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jimbo YEC Boy, "certified" lmbo So if a "certified" theologian disagreed with you about a theological matter, would he/she still be "certified"? lol Yep. Next question, Baldy Boy? :thumb: I'll wait for you to get your foot out of your mouth. Quote: Guess what-the reason your can't support your beliefs about the existence of the "soul" is that there is no such thing. You can't explain what such a thing is or provide actual evidence that it exists. Only 654 times to you in the other thread. Guess you need a dictionary too huh. By the way, when you sold tektonics.com, was it willingly, or did that engineering firm threaten to sic ICANN on you for a clear rules violation? Quote: Here is something else to consider, from your good buddy "Ebon": Ebon Bon the non-answerer? I'll answer it when you answer Miller, and when he answers all the outstanding material I have on him. Good luck. John Powell: True about Brer Rabbit. Fits in with the whole JPHOCD proposition, though.... John Powell April 7th 2005 01:17 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- to JPHolding Quote: JPHOLDING: John Powell: True about Brer Rabbit. Fits in with the whole JPHOCD proposition, though.... POWELL: Ok. I think I understand now. As you were. :fencing: I think LGM is winning on the wit category, but readers should recognize my bias in his favor. John Powell jimbo April 7th 2005 02:08 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) YEC Boy, So "certified" Christians think you are wrong. Isn't it fun using meaningless words in a desperate effort and make your claims seem more impressive? Quote: Only 654 times to you in the other thread. Guess you need a dictionary too huh. Nope, you need to realize that you are wasting your entire life promoting the idiotic delusions of ancient people. That is precisely why you have such trouble explaining your beliefs and supporting them. They're false and absolutely ridiculous. You are living in a fantasy world sport. Quote: By the way, when you sold tektonics.com, was it willingly, or did that engineering firm threaten to sic ICANN on you for a clear rules violation? I don't know what you are babbling about now, YEC boy. What ICANN violations are you ranting about? Inquiring minds want to know. Your insanity is sad but strangely entertaining! Keep up the great work! Jimbo Johnny EC April 7th 2005 02:20 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jimbo I don't know what you are babbling about now, YEC boy. What ICANN violations are you ranting about? Inquiring minds want to know. Didn't someone once post links to a pornographic website in your old guestbook? (oddly enough, that post remained.) LakeGeorgeMan April 7th 2005 02:44 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For JP Amusing... Sigh…I’m so disappointed in the quality, and even the coherence of your insulting wit, JP. I had such high expectations for you...alas you've let me down...I'd rather trade barbs with Richbee... Perhaps I’ve pushed your buttons so hard, that now you are irreparably damaged, and are just flailing about in that tight pink tutu, making these incredibly wretched incoherent attempts at puerile invective.… Perhaps if you breath more deeply while making your next post, more oxygen will reach that small portion of your brain that controls your wit? Quote: Originally posted by jpholding Well, stop taking photos of Charles Darwin and pay attention to what's happening here; {*note to self: Holding thinks Darwin was a librarian...*twitch} Quote: then you won't make such a rich embarrassment of yourself in front of millions, trying to do your impression of someone who actually reads scholarly literature and uses it for more than just the thickness when you need a seat at the dinner table. {*note to self, Holding thinks “millions” are reading this, and that this is a witty retort*twitch} Quote: Oh dear, Loser is stumped by the dictionary once more in his quest to win an argument after 785634 straight losses. Last time it was, "Ha, I'll bet there is no such word as 'jodhpur' " and when he lost that one he had to stand butt naked at the burger grill for a week. It wouldn't have been so bad except he wasn't even allowed to wear an apron, and the hot grease got on even those most particular areas of danger. Like his scalp. He's only 3 foot 4 you see. Sigh…What can I say to the above? You’re incoherently babbling now JP. I imagine your neurons and synapses misfiring, the vein pounding in your neck, and the spittle spraying your screen and keyboard as you write this….deep breaths JP...in and out...slowly... Quote: Too bad any boot-shaking, underemployed, quarterwit grease jockey can't pick up a dictionary and so something else. Besides sit on it of course. Sigh…more incoherent material that could be used to have you officially “certified”. Perhaps Lazy A will e-mail this all to Hank Hanegraff and the Florida Dept of Mental Health? Best not to answer the doorbell for the next few days… Quote: Witness: The plea of the hapless, gutless, plaid-covered ignoramus without anything of the sort of intellectual equipment needed to address any one of the names he soils with his keyboard, waving the white flag in unerring desperation, pleading, "Don't throw me in that briarpatch!" lmbo Ouch…”plaid-covered”…that really hurt…now I’m an out of fashion skeptic. troll Quote: Witness: He is unable to defend any position, for his intellectual equipment consists of a rusted wheel and a dead squirrel. Well this tired, cliché visual is at least coherent, but this certainly will not get you on American Puerile Idol. Quote: Poor ignorant sap. I pay federal taxes -- Florida has no state income taxes, as it happens -- it is my 501c3 that does not; but if you have a problem with that, I am sure Danny Boy Barker and Reginald Finley will be glad to forsake their tax exempt status. But why I am I saying this? I would be happy to support any law that abolishes 501c3 scams whether they be yours, Barker’s or Finley’s. I’m tired of taxpayers supporting everyone’s tripe. Get a real job. Quote: You think a 501c3 is the dress size you'll wear to the prom, if you can get a date. …teehee…Do you realize what you sound like to others Holding? Did you just stop maturing in 7th grade? Quote: We always figured you to be a rancid little cheapskate. Next time spare yourself embarrassment and keep the 32 cents next time you go to McDonald's for your wedding anniversary. And stop picking the chewing gum off the bottom of the tables, your tightwad. And stop wrapping it up as a gift for your kid when you get home! :lmbo: …sigh… I’m confused Holding, are you saying I’m cheap because I tip people MORE than you pay in taxes? Was the word MORE that confused you? If 32 cents is all you paid in taxes, then let me make it clear… I tip MUCH MORE than you pay in taxes… Quote: This vague message of public service has been brought to you by Glaxo SmithKline, maker of hallucinogenic drugs, specially formulated for those like LoserGoofMan with delusions of grandeur about their own competence. thumb “LoserGoofMan”…teehee…good one JP…you’ve really got me reeling now… Quote: We'll put those lines to juice harp and play them at the next meeting of Morons Anonymous… I’m confused again, why are you speaking in the first person plural? Does this attempted insult make the claim that you and others play the “juice harp” at meetings of “Moron Anonymous”? I would expect a librarian to be able to express himself in clear grammatically coherent sentences, yet you seem to be struggling. Is there a reason? Breathe deeply JP…let the woozy feeling pass before you start typing again… I’m also somewhat mystified why you would attempt to claim that I can’t tell the difference between Spong and Chick, when I used them deliberately as diametrically opposed examples to demonstrate the huge divergence in Christian thought and/or “scholarship”. Again, I’m sorry you’re struggling with these simple concepts. Quote: Is that Acharya S on the line suing for plagiarism? rofl Or is it someone else trying to sell LGM paranoia meds? I’m sorry if you are not familiar with the religious persecution of countless people suffered at the hands of Christians throughout the theocracies of Europe, and even in our own country, that you despise. I would have thought that someone who prides himself on being a Christian scholar and historian would be more familiar with that history. But perhaps this is just more evidence of the depths of your psychotic delusion, denial and apologetic technique? Alas, I don’t have the time nor desire to educate you, and besides you’re much more amusing in your current ignorant, delusional state. Quote: This evidence is located exactly 3 miles down Main, 2 blocks to the right, and between LGM's butt cheeks. …teehee…JP said ”butt cheeks”…he’s so naughty… …careful now…you wouldn’t want Fred Phelps hearing you say that to another man… Quote: In reality, early Christianity was a generally unified whole, with no significant difference between what was taught in Paul and the so-called mythic Q community (which is actually Jerusalem Christianity; being that Q is a fantasy document with zero literary, epigraphic, or archaeological evidence, let alone evidence of an actual "community"), and with the likes of GThom emerging 150 years too late to be given serious consideration as an original. I'd offer a debate on any of these issues, but our resident coward has already left the room at Wile E Coyote speed. “Unified Whole” :rofl: Oh My! Thanks for once again demonstrating the depths of your arrogant, ignorant delusional apologetic mind virus Holding…You really do this for a living? Hrmmm…Lets see what the Harold W. Attridge: The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School has to say…I wonder…Is he more “certified” than you? Harold W. Attridge The Christian movement probably began not from a single center but from many different centers where different groups of disciples of Jesus gathered and tried to make sense of what they had experienced with him and what had happened to him at the end of his public ministry. Each of those groups probably had a very different take on what the significance of Jesus was. Some of them understanding his death and the resurrection experience, if they focused on it, in terms of exaltation. Others understanding it in terms of a resuscitation of the corpse of Jesus, others not worrying very much at all about the resurrection of Jesus, but concentrating on his teaching and trying to propagate that. We can see, even in the canonical text, in the Book of Acts, that there were different groups that were in competition with one another. Those who insisted more strongly on observance of Jewish laws in the Torah competed with those who were more open to admission of gentiles without imposing the burden of the Torah on them. There were others who we meet again in the Book of Acts, who apparently stood in continuity with the activity of John the Baptist and did not know the baptism that the Pauline Christians, at least, knew. So there was much more diversity in the early stages of the Christian movement than the Book of Acts suggest.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © source where applicable Lets see what many other "certified" scholars had to say about the diversity of early christianities: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../diversity.html Oh my…the prison librarian apologist is exposed as hapless and ignorant again. When will it end? When can I stop smirking at your intellectual bankruptcy Holding? You’re making a fool of yourself. Please…do continue… Quote: And the proof of ahistoricity of Acts and of forgery of any single document is where, exactly? Pick one: a) LoonyMan's deluded imagination orbiting Betelgeuse c) on Blueberry Hill d) all of the above rofl Oh MY! Take Two! Are you really this naïve of NT criticism? I can’t believe it…you simply can’t be this woefully ignorant. This has to be a gift from god to amuse me. Let’s see what some other scholars say about just just the pastoral epistles: Eddy Although purported to have been written by Paul, the relatively complex church organization reflected by the Pastorals did not exist until many years after Paul’s death. Mack The Pastorals were undoubtedly written during the first half of the 2nd century. They were not included in Marcion’s list of Paul’s letters (ca.140). Quotations from them first appear in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies (180) and their content fits nicely into the situation and thought of the church in the mid-second century. Their attribution to Paul is a forgery for their language and thought are clearly unPauline. Also, references to particular occasions in the lives of Titus, Timothy, and Paul do not fit with reconstructions of that history taken from the authentic letters.” The New Oxford Annotated Bible The vocabulary and style of these letters differ widely from the acknowledged letters of Paul; some of his leading theological themes are entirely absent (the union of the believer with Christ, the power and witness of the Spirit, freedom from the law), and some of the expressions bear a different meaning from that in his customary usage ("the faith" as a synonym for the Christian religion rather than the believer’s relationship to Christ).” Oxford Companion to the Bible Second Timothy, although attributed to Paul, is found by many scholars to be so unPauline in vocabulary, style, theological concepts, church order, emphasis on tradition and in contrast with the chronology of his career as given in Acts and Romans, that it is widely considered to be a forgery. Remsberg That the Pastorals are forgeries is now conceded by all critics. According to German critics they belong to the second century. They were certainly composed after the death of Paul. Robertson As to the Pastorals, most scholars now agree that they are second-century forgeries because they deal almost exclusively with second-century situations. These documents were not written by Paul.. Wells It is widely agreed that the Pastorals are mostly forgeries although Titus and 2 Timothy may contain some genuine notes from Paul. Sigh…imagine…most scholars agree that the pastorals are clearly forged documents in your sacred canon. But you are completely unaware of this?!? Yet I’m supposed to believe your claim of Eusebius’ hearsay of Papias’ hearsay of something he heard from some other unnamed source, that there was a guy named mark who might have known a guy named Peter, who knew Jesus, and mark wrote down stuff Peter told him that Jesus said… ...uh huh….and this whole thing was inspired by god…sigh…sorry…I just can’t seem to bring myself anywhere near your level of gullibility… Perhaps John Powell will explain ECREE to you in a subsequent post. Quote: And the problem with accepting hearsay is what now, other than that Thomas Paine the God doesn't like it? :rofl: Oh look…I just saw a flying saucer out my window…quick go tell everyone to run for their lives… rofl Quote: You use your eyes to find BURIED clothespins? Is that why your face is so dirty all the time? I thought all of that came from the books you read from Steamshovel Press. rofl I’m sorry…have you since buried the clothespins? Now that I exposed your wretched analogy? Here’s how you described them originally… Quote: Originally posted by JP “now I’ve buried my clothespins” Holding” "I'm going to go out and look for some wooden clothespins!" "Oh yeah? How?" "I'll take my metal detector!" More hilarious dancing by the intellectually and apparently reading impaired librarian. Do you ever get embarrassed Holding? Do you ever read your tripe here and realize how pathetic you look?. Have you no SHAME? lol I thought you were all about your “honor” Holding? I wonder…what would a real ANE man do in your incredibly embarrassing situation here? I would think he would shave his head, put on some sack cloth, and wander the desert…you should try it…or feel free to continue to amuse me a while longer… Quote: Uh, philosophical argumentation -- just like the bulk of great minds throughout history who have rejected materialism and epiphenomenalism...not that this keeps LoserBoy from proclaiming himself superior from his armchair to the world's greatest philosophers... By “philosophical argumentation” I take it you mean ignorant, ancient men who had no clue about the brain, or modern cognitive neuroscience, but instead enjoyed pulling introspective answers about consciousness out of their rectums like you and Miller do? What part of the body do you think Aristotle thought was the seat of consciousness Holding? What did Rene Descartes think was the purpose of the pineal gland in the brain? You’re hilarious and exposed librarian. You and Miller are both ignorant little theologian/philosopher wannabes. It’s just that he isn’t the puerile, immature socially retarded prig that you are. You don’t have a real job, you’ve never done any real work in any field that requires any scientific or intellectual discipline…you’re a woefully ignorant, frustrated pseudo-intellectual admired only by other Christian dolts who can’t think for themselves. And sigh…I suppose there’s a 501c3 living in that for you… It’s clear you’ve never read or studied any science Holding. It frightens you. You were scared to even take a position on the foolishness of YEC because you claimed such woeful ignorance about science. You have no clue about any of the modern discoveries of neuroscience, and in this post it’s clear you don’t even understand the one subject you’ve devoted your entire obsessive life to. I find you tragically amusing, it’s like you’re some kind of macabre Shakespearean character completely unaware of what a despicably ugly and flawed person you are. But please…continue to prance about with more of your marvelously witty references to “butt cheeks” and “LakeGoofyMan” and claims that I am “plaid covered” and hilarious claims that Christianity started from a “unified whole” and that the authenticity of all the epistles and Acts is unassailable. I'll just continue to be amused. Page 7. More will come tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Typical. The Moderator prohibits Rameus from posting on that thread (because he's a participant in the actual debate this one refers to), but says nothing about the subsequent dozen or so posts Turkel (a.k.a. Holding) makes. Rameus February 7th 2005 10:28 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding] The fact remains, J.P. Holding will lose in the first round. He has no formal education in the subject matter whatsoever (which is demonstrated in his essays) and as such he has no business writing in this field. This will be painfully clear to everyone who isn’t suffering from a fundamentalist concussion when my essay is complete in a few weeks. Rameus Moderator Notice: post moderated by: Xavier As a point of protocol, participants of a debate cannot post here once the debate is started. This is an FYI. ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.*** Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Locker Room unless told otherwise. Yet Turkel continues to make post after post... This debate is supposed to be about the "evidence" in the writings of Josephus and Tacitus regarding Jesus of the gospels. But neither of those men were even alive when Gospel Jesus lived, so what evidence can they provide other than hearsay decades after the "fact"?? Here are a couple of Till-Turkel debates, just for some background on Turkel. From the Skeptical Review Online: Yahweh's Failed Land Promise From Infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2002/5: The Humpty Dumpty of Biblical Apologetics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonlong Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Typical. The Moderator prohibits Rameus from posting on that thread (because he's a participant in the actual debate this one refers to), but says nothing about the subsequent dozen or so posts Turkel (a.k.a. Holding) makes. Yet Turkel continues to make post after post... I believe the debate was cancelled by that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 I believe the debate was cancelled by that point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not quite true... The debate was cancelled April 1st. JP was posting there well before that date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonlong Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Not quite true... The debate was cancelled April 1st. JP was posting there well before that date. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay. I was just going from memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 5, 2005 Author Share Posted May 5, 2005 jpholding April 8th 2005 12:06 PM Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by dumbo So "certified" Christians think you are wrong. Yep. They also think I'm right. Isn't it fun to avoid engaging in specifics while running away, little one? wink Ooo oo! Let me do this one: "You need to realize that you are wasting your entire life promoting the idiotic delusions of modern people. That is precisely why you have such trouble explaining your beliefs and supporting them. They're false and absolutely ridiculous. You are living in a fantasy world sport." There! Did you just vanish in a puff of smoke? tongue Quote: I don't know what you are babbling about now, YEC boy. What ICANN violations are you ranting about? Inquiring minds want to know. You'll have to explain to all of us where you FOUND a mind to inquire with... :rofl: No, I'll just let you stew in the mystery. Just be happy I wasn't interested in wasting $1500 on pinning your hide to the wall. Your insanity is sad but strangely entertaining! Keep up the great work! jpholding April 8th 2005 01:08 PM Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Dear Cheetoh Breath, Ah, so you spend another six hours desperately struggling to type yet another 6 pages of mindless drivel…all the while not suffering at all from JPHOCD…and this was what occupied you for two days? Isn’t it a good idea to go and shave, shower, brush your teeth, and apply some deodorant? Your breath is so bad by now that people on the phone are going to hang up. Quote: Sigh…I’m so disappointed in the quality, and even the coherence of your insulting wit, JP. Can I help it if words of more than 6 letters are beyond your vocabulary? This is the price I pay for dealing with someone so ignorant, he has to ask for a price check at a dollar store. Quote: I had such high expectations for you...alas you've let me down...I'd rather trade barbs with Richbee... Now indeed we know the truth: LoonyGuy deals in little plastic dolls with bad fashion taste. Quote: Perhaps I’ve pushed your buttons so hard, that now you are irreparably damaged, How is that possible? When you last emerged from your cave, the lever was just emerging from the R and D section of Pharaoh Rootintootin’s intelligence agency. You Quote: Perhaps if you breath more deeply while making your next post, more oxygen will reach that small portion of your brain that controls your wit? Perhaps if you drew away from the keyboard, there would be more oxygen available for others and far less carbon monoxide. Quote: {*note to self: Holding thinks Darwin was a librarian...* } Not at all. I think you thought he was, given that your eyeballs are tattooed with what you think wrongly to be Dewey Decimals. Quote: {*note to self, Holding thinks “millions” are reading this, and that this is a witty retort*} Return memo: Please install deflector shields so as not to be distracted by LoonyGuy’s irregular spinning and gyration. Quote: Sigh…What can I say to the above? You’re incoherently babbling now JP. The signature spells “defeat” and the tears flowing signify it further. If he ever actually did speak his mind, he’s be completely speechless. Quote: Sigh…more incoherent material that could be used to have you officially “certified”. Perhaps Lazy A will e-mail this all to Hank Hanegraff and the Florida Dept of Mental Health? Not likely; he’s too scared to enter the post office for fear of being recognized from the posters on the wall. Quote: Best not to answer the doorbell for the next few days… What for? Are you a JW now? Quote: I would be happy to support any law that abolishes 501c3 scams whether they be yours, Barker’s or Finley’s. I’m tired of taxpayers supporting everyone’s tripe. Get a real job. You heard it here. Cheapskate MacDruggles wants to ban the Salvation Army so he can have an extra 2 cents in his pocket to go out and spend on tartar removal gear. I’ll take up a collection with them and send you your two cents; don’t spend it all in one place, and whatever you do, don’t make Lincoln cry this time. Quote: …teehee…Do you realize what you sound like to others Holding? Did you just stop maturing in 7th grade? I should grow up then and start referring to tutus instead? twitch Quote: I’m confused Holding, This is never hard to accomplish in any event. Quote: are you saying I’m cheap because I tip people MORE than you pay in taxes? LoserGoofyGuy implied I paid ZERO in taxes, in his ignorance of what being a 501c3 actually constituted, so I leave it to all others to contemplate the conclusion that LoserGoofyGuy does not know of any numbers greater than zero. glare Quote: “LoserGoofMan”…teehee…good one JP…you’ve really got me reeling now… With the red herring on the hook at all times, that’s to be expected. Quote: I’m confused again For the convenience of others, it would take far less time if you would simply advise us of those much rarer occassions when you are NOT confused, thank you. :thumb: Quote: why are you speaking in the first person plural? Because we find that it offers you the singular chance to exploit trivia and boost your self-esteem, and this is necessary as the ASPCA has insisted upon it. Quote: I would expect a librarian to be able to express himself in clear grammatically coherent sentences, There’s not much that can be made “clear” to those whose education ended in the principal’s office. tongue Quote: I’m also somewhat mystified why you would attempt to claim that I can’t tell the difference between Spong and Chick, It’s clear indeed – you actually regard both as representative of “scholarship”. Even in quotes this is a ludicrous application and only highlights your rampant, uneducable gullibility. Quote: I’m sorry if you are not familiar with the religious persecution of countless people suffered at the hands of Christians throughout the theocracies of Europe, Oh, I’m very familiar with the vastly overplayed showcases of ingrates and ignoramuses like you who turn a mere handful of people into “countless” victims, to the point of making the Spanish Inquisition execute more people than lived in the entire nation of Spain. It is precisely because I consult real historians and scholars that I know better, while you resort to sources like “Christian Crimeline” for your intellectual nourishment. Quote: Alas, I don’t have the time nor desire to educate you, and besides you’re much more amusing in your current ignorant, delusional state. The translation is, he has no education to offer and is going to run away and hide, just as usual. Quote: …careful now…you wouldn’t want Fred Phelps hearing you say that to another man… Why not? You and Phelps doing something tonight? Quote: Oh My! Thanks for once again demonstrating the depths of your arrogant, ignorant delusional apologetic mind virus Holding…You really do this for a living? Yep. Which is why I recognize your sound bites from Attridge, et al as non-answers or as proof you don’t do any homework, or else don’t have even the most primitive grasp on what you read. Let’s take this one by one: [quote name= HaroldW. Attridge The Christian movement probably began not from a single center but from many different centers where different groups of disciples of Jesus gathered and tried to make sense of what they had experienced with him and what had happened to him at the end of his public ministry. “Probably”? What’s his evidence for this? And what “different centers”? Rome? Jerusalem? Galilee? And at what time periods? Do you just swallow this gullibly because you like what it says? Quote: Each of those groups probably had a very different take on what the significance of Jesus was. Some of them understanding his death and the resurrection experience' date=' if they focused on it, in terms of exaltation. Others understanding it in terms of a resuscitation of the corpse of Jesus, others not worrying very much at all about the resurrection of Jesus, but concentrating on his teaching and trying to propagate that. So where is this alleged “others” group that understood a “resuscitation” and “concentrated” on teachings? There is no evidence for such a group at all; Attridge merely invents such groups out of whole cloth, or based on an imagined parsing of a Q document without a shred of physical evidence behind it, and the assumption that what was in this delusional Q was ALL that was taught by this group he also imagines. This is why you’re scared stiff to debate me – you know you can’t defend your precious soundbites with data and justification. Quote: We can see, even in the canonical text, in the Book of Acts, that there were different groups that were in competition with one another. Those who insisted more strongly on observance of Jewish laws in the Torah competed with those who were more open to admission of gentiles without imposing the burden of the Torah on them. Well WHOOPY doo, an actual specific! And according to Acts – which Attridge here takes as fully reliable – whose position was granted credence by the apostolic circle? The latter! The former? It went on to become the Ebionites. There is no argument as to which group represented the authentic core message of the early Christian movement. Cut and dried, it was those who rejected imposition of the Torah on Gentiles. Quote: There were others who we meet again in the Book of Acts, who apparently stood in continuity with the activity of John the Baptist and did not know the baptism that the Pauline Christians, at least, knew. Say WHAT! These very people he refers to went on to learn more and accept the Christian message. How in the world can a group in need of more information, that went on to CONVERT and accept further revelation, be regarded as proof of a “different take” on the original message!? Quote: So there was much more diversity in the early stages of the Christian movement than the Book of Acts suggest.... Fudd! He GETS all this info from Acts, so how in the world can he say that it doesn’t “suggest” any more diversity! Plus his only examples (by you) are of 1) a group that was weighed in the balance and found wanting; 2) a group that needed more information, and changed their views when informed! No wonder you race behind your corner when confronted. Quote: Are you really this naïve of NT criticism Nope! I’ve seen all your little friends and their silly arguments. Old news, little one. Take this crap: Quote: Eddy Although purported to have been written by Paul, the relatively complex church organization reflected by the Pastorals did not exist until many years after Paul’s death. PLEASE! This argument is so old that it could have been told by waitresses at the Last Supper. Asked and answered: Many critics say that the church organizational structure depicted in the Pastorals is too advanced, indicating a date beyond Paul's death. Kummel and many others use this one [scot.PE, xxi; Barc.TTP, 5; Hould.PE, 16], with Bassler [bass.12TT, 18] rather exaggeratedly describing the organizational scheme depicted as "far beyond" what is found in Paul's other letters. Nevertheless, the entire "church order" objection is strictly an arbitrary one, and against the evidence: i) It is simply presumed that churches could not have developed so far in Paul's time. Grant observes that "...we should beware of assuming that all churches 'developed' in the same way at the same time." [Gran.HNT, 212] Paul was certainly a man of genius, quite capable of organizing a church and its functions. Furthermore, the idea of "slow development" is simply left over from the Tubingen and history-of-religions notion of how things evolve: Change can also be quite rapid, especially when there is a need for it! As Ellis points out [Ellis.PP, 46], the transformation of Germany between 1989 and 1990 would have to be dismissed as ahistorical on the sort of grounds required by critics! This alone is grounds for dismissing this objection; but there is more: ii) There are indications both of such development in other NT churches, and that the development is not as far along as some claim. Church offices referred to in the Pastorals are also found in Phillipians 1:1 (elders and deacons) and in Acts 14:23 and 20:17 (elders). The letter to Titus regards bishops and elders as the same, which is NOT a reflection of the second century monarchial episcopacy, which is where most skeptics of Pauline authorship find a parallel. (It may also be added that such qualifications as delineated by Paul would have been well-known in the second century, when critics claim that the Pastorals were written!) Finally, separate studies by Burke [burk.ME] and by Meier [Meie.PrPE] have shown that the level of administration depicted in the Pastorals is "still a long way off" from the organizational level found in Ignatius or Polycarp at the beginning of the second century. iii) The organization depicted find parallels outside Christianity. For example, Scott [scot.PE, 30] observes that the word used for "bishop" (episkopos) was "used in the pagan world to denote a governing man in any civic or religious organization." There was also a similar office found among the Qumranites. [CarMoo.Int, 364n] Therefore, there is no reason to assume a late date for the Pastorals on this basis. Finally, let us add that if the Pastorals are as advanced in their organization as is supposed, then it is rather odd the three churches as diverse in their structures as the Roman Catholics, Plymouth Brethren, and Presbyterians cite the Pastorals as their manual for organization! [Fee.RCO, 142] Quote: Mack The Pastorals were undoubtedly written during the first half of the 2nd century. They were not included in Marcion’s list of Paul’s letters (ca.140). Snoooooreeee….. As for Marcion, Tertullian noted that he rejected the Pastorals; and Oden adds that Marcion "was prone to cut what he did not like. The absence of the Pastorals from his skewed canon cannot be significantly weighted as a reflection of consensual, primitive Christianity." [Oden.12TT, 11] We can discern, for example, that Marcion would have had a hard time swallowing 1 Timothy 1:8, 4:1-5, and 6:20, and 2 Tim. 3:16! [Town.12TT, 31; Moss.12TT, 14] There were also a few other things in the Pastorals that Marcion would also frown at: The regulations regarding women (Marcion's church allowed women to hold church offices, in line with his view on gender differences); the marked distinction between the laity and the officeholders (again, not typical of Marcionism), and the recommendation that Timothy take wine for his stomach (the Marcionites used WATER for the Eucharist!). By the time he cut out all of this, there would not be much left in the Pastorals for Marcion to use! (In fact, there is so much in the Pastorals that Marcion would dislike that some scholars have suggested that they were a polemic designed to "reclaim" Paul from Marcion's influence!) Quote: Quotations from them first appear in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies (180) Oh great! Mack just dated Tacitus’ Annals to the third century then. rofl Quote: and their content fits nicely into the situation and thought of the church in the mid-second century. How? I just love these detailed non-explanations, just the thing for gullible no-accounts like LoonyGuy. Quote: Their attribution to Paul is a forgery for their language and thought are clearly unPauline. Snoooooreeeee….I don’t have room to post all of the needed response to this, so: http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/pastorals.html#style Quote: Also, references to particular occasions in the lives of Titus, Timothy, and Paul do not fit with reconstructions of that history taken from the authentic letters.” Duh, what??? How so? Maybe it didn’t occur to Mack the Knife that the Pastorals were written between 62-64 AD, AFTER what is recorded in the other letters. Quote: The New Oxford Annotated Bible Oooh, I’m trembling… Quote: The vocabulary and style of these letters differ widely from the acknowledged letters of Paul; some of his leading theological themes are entirely absent (the union of the believer with Christ, the power and witness of the Spirit, freedom from the law), Same as Mack on style. As for the other, maybe the Oxy people would like to explain what reason Paul had for mentioning things like “the union of the believer with Christ” and why it wouldn’t be gratuitous in context. No, dips like you swallow this sort of reasoning left over from the 19th century and don’t bother to question the assumptions behind it. Quote: and some of the expressions bear a different meaning from that in his customary usage ("the faith" as a synonym for the Christian religion rather than the believer’s relationship to Christ).” Someone at Oxyland apparently missed passages like Romans 1:5 and Galatians 1:23 where Paul uses the word “faith” in exactly that way. Been here, done that: Throughout the Pastorals, Paul refers to "the faith" in the sense of a creed or a tradition, which is said to contradict Paul's usual way of referring to faith only in a personal way (Barc.TTP, 6). However, Paul refers to "the faith" in a creedal way in other places (Rom. 4:12, 4:16; 1 Cor. 16:13, 2 Cor. 13:5, Gal. 1:23; 3:23, 6:10; Phil. 1:25, 27; Col. 2:7). It was therefore not a foreign usage to him; he simply uses it that way more often in the Pastorals, as we would expect if he were writing to church leaders whose job it was to safeguard creeds and traditions - and considering that he was near the end of his life, this would not be a bad idea [Town.PTPT, 312]! Quote: Oxford Companion to the Bible Same junk here. Quote: Remsberg REMSBERG! This guy was a school teacher who worked in Lincoln’s day, who the heck are you trying to fool! Quote: Robertson , I have a hint for you: Next time, instead of copying and pasting from Louis Cable’s website, get your rear end out and do some real research in REAL authorities, like the ones I used for my article on the Pastorals: • Allen.EPEP Allen, Stuart. The Early and Pastoral Epistles of Paul. London: Berean Publishing Trust, 1977. • Barc.TTP Barclay, William. The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956, • Barr.PE Barrett, C. K. The Pastoral Epistles. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. • Bass.12TT Bassler, Jouette M. 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. • Blackman, E. C. Marcion and His Influence. London: SPCK, 1948. • Burk.ME Burke, Patrick. "The Monarchial Episcopate at the End of the First Century." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 7, 1970, pp. 499-518. • CarMoo.Int Carson, D.A., Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. • Dibel.PE Dibelus, Martin and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. • Donel.PEPE Donelson, Lewis R. Pseudepigraphy and Ethical Argument in the Pastoral Epistles. Tubingen: Mohr, 1986. • Ellis.PP Ellis, E. Earle. "The Pastorals and Paul." Expository Times, November 1992, 45-7. • Fair.PE Fairbairn, Patrick. Pastoral Epistles. Minneapolis: James and Kloch, 1976. (Published 1874.) • Fee.12TT Fee, Gordon. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984. • Fee.RCO Fee, Gordon. "Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further Reflection on the Hermeneutics of ad hoc Documents." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28, June 1985, pp. 141-51. • Fior.PExPE - Fiore, Benjamin. The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. • Gamb.NTC Gamble, Harry Y. The New Testament Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. • Gran.HNT Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963. • Guth.PE Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles. London: Tyndale, 1957. • Hans.PE Hanson, A. T. The Pastoral Letters. Cambridge: The University Press, 1966. • Heib.Int Heibert, D. Edmond. An Introduction to the New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1975. • Hould.PE Houlden, J. L. The Pastoral Epistles. Penguin Books: 1976. • Kell.PE Kelly, J.N.D. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963. • Knig.PE Knight, George W. The Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. • Kumm.Int Kummel, Wener G. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. • LeaGr.12TT Lea, Thomas and P. Griffin, Jr. 1, 2 Timothy Titus. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. • Mahl.CyEp Malherbe, Abraham J. The Cynic Epistles. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. • Mars.PE Marshall, I. Howard A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1999. • Meie.PrPE Meier, John P. "Presbyteros in the Pastroal Epistles." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35, 1973, pp. 323-45. • Moss.12TT Moss, C. Michael. 1, 2 Timothy and Titus. Joplin: College Press, 1994 • Oden.12TT Oden, Thomas. First and Second Timothy. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989. • Perr.NTI Perrin, Norman. The New Testament: An Introduction. New York: HBJ, 1974. • Quin.LTi Quinn, Jerome. The Letter to Titus. New York: Doubleday, 1990. • Scot.PE Scott, E. F. The Pastoral Epistles. London: Hudder and Stoughton, 1936. • TT.RMex Thatcher, Tom. "The Relational Matrix of the Pastoral Epistles." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 March 1995, pp. 41-5. • Town.12TT Towner, Philip. 1-2 Timothy and Titus. Downers Grove: IVP, 1994. • Town.PTPT Towner, Philip. "Pauline Theology or Pauline Tradition in the Pastoral Epistles: The Question of Method." Tyndale Bulletin, 46.2, Nov. 1995, pp. 287-314. • WilsS.LkPE - Wilson, Stephen G. Luke and the Pastoral Epistles. London: SPCK, 1979. Quote: Sigh…imagine…most scholars agree that the pastorals are clearly forged documents in your sacred canon. But you are completely unaware of this?!? Sorry, you’re out of date. The consensus is swinging back to some form of authenticity – usually to the idea that Luke was the scribe he did ‘em. Time to get out of your La Z Boy and learn!- Quote: Yet I’m supposed to believe your claim of Eusebius’ hearsay of Papias’ hearsay Still waiting for some explanation of why “hearsay” is unacceptable as testimony. Quote: of something he heard from some other unnamed source, The apostles? Yep, definitely an unknown group. ahem Quote: that there was a guy named mark who might have known a guy named Peter, who knew Jesus, and mark wrote down stuff Peter told him that Jesus said… You’ll get all the explanation you need once you explain why we should accept all the “hearsay” from “unnamed sources” that Tacitus authored the Annals…and once you advance past the kindergarten argumentation of posturing in bewilderment as a form of “argument”. There’s nothing “ECREEABLE” about a man named Mark writing a document, though given your limited imagination, perhaps literacy is indeed a foreign notion. Quote: Oh look…I just saw a flying saucer out my window…quick go tell everyone to run for their lives… And this has what, now, to do with the evidential quality of hearsay merely BECAUSE it is hearsay…? I told you to back off from the aquarium and put the herrings down, chuckles…time to call the Fish Police… Quote: I’m sorry…have you since buried the clothespins? Nope. The contextual marker of the metal detector ought to have informed even your limited imagination that the searcher had in mind buried objects. Of course you assume that when someone says, “I will be flying to New York” that they intend to flap their arms and do so, unless a plane is specifically mentioned…that’s all right, we understand how it is when your brain is stultified into inactivity and simple matters of contextual information escape you… Quote: I thought you were all about your “honor” Holding? I wonder…what would a real ANE man do in your incredibly embarrassing situation here? Celebrate! ale The Wicked Witch is dead. Quote: By “philosophical argumentation” I take it you mean ignorant, ancient men who had no clue about the brain Oh dear, so Alvin Plantinga is ignorant and ancient. Do tell. By LoserBoy’s accounting, there are no non-materialist philosophers today. We do beg pardon for exposing him to a life beyond the grease trap… lmbo Quote: What part of the body do you think Aristotle thought was the seat of consciousness Holding? Too bad you don’t know the seat from the one sitting in it, LoserBoy. Quote: You’re hilarious and exposed librarian. You and Miller are both ignorant little theologian/philosopher wannabes So ignorant that we can’t even be directly answered, apparently. whistle But we’ll see LoonyGuy in two more days, after he has worked out all his frustrations, banged his skull against the concrete to clear his alleged mind, and found yet more literature he can hypocritically copy and paste from as a way to avoid offering direct answers. jimbo April 8th 2005 01:22 PM Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) YEC Boy, Quote: No, I'll just let you stew in the mystery. Just be happy I wasn't interested in wasting $1500 on pinning your hide to the wall. Pinning my "hide to the wall" for what? Oh, that's right-like usual you are just making stuff up. Keep believing in and promoting Christianity because that is absolutely the most important thing you can do with your life. When you die you will get the big prize you have been hoping for. Really! Keep your eyes on the prize! lol All the best, Jimbo Page 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 5, 2005 Author Share Posted May 5, 2005 Mad_Gerbil April 8th 2005 01:43 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Com'on guys, even the pope got buried after 9 days. jpholding April 8th 2005 01:44 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Dear Jimbo Ants in the Pants, Suit yourself. I'm sure you think ICANN is the International Corporation Allowing Nude Nepotism. :lmbo: Keep believing in and promoting atheism because that is absolutely the most important thing you can do with your life. When you die you will get the big zero you have been deserving. Really! Keep your eyes on the dirt! Pope Leo X says hi. All the least, JPH jpholding April 8th 2005 01:45 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil Com'on guys, even the pope got buried after 9 days. I'm sorry, but I just keep rising from the "dead"....... :rofl: Maybe you can track down Rameus and get him in here, MG? LakeGeorgeMan April 8th 2005 01:50 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by JP Holding Dear Cheetoh Breath, Ah, so you spend another six hours desperately struggling to type yet another 6 pages of mindless drivel…all the while not suffering at all from JPHOCD…and this was what occupied you for two days? Oh my!…the perfect irony… An hour or more of your life wasted on 6 pages of tripe I won’t even bother to read…what a shame…another blow to your imagined "honor" and bloated, pudgy ego? As I said librarian…you’re just not that important, interesting or witty… But you are exposed… LGM …I’ve demonstrated the cure for JPHOCD…now go take a few deep breaths and wipe the spittle off your monitor…see you next time… Mad_Gerbil April 8th 2005 02:19 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jpholding I'm sorry, but I just keep rising from the "dead"....... :rofl: Maybe you can track down Rameus and get him in here, MG? Am I my infidel's keeper? I dunno where he ran off to, he doesn't even post at exchristian.net anymore. jpholding April 8th 2005 03:00 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by LakeGeorgeMan An hour or more of your life wasted on 6 pages of tripe I won’t even bother to read… Dream on, ChoirBoy. That took me a mere 15 minutes. :tongue: But glad you found a cure for your latest disorder...now that you see you can't answer the arguments.. Quote: Originally posted by Mad Gerbil Am I my infidel's keeper? Nah, but as one who interacted with him in the past I figured you might (if anyone here) have some insight. You told me enough though just by noting that he 's not even on exchristian.net now. Mad_Gerbil April 8th 2005 03:49 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jpholding Nah, but as one who interacted with him in the past I figured you might (if anyone here) have some insight. You told me enough though just by noting that he 's not even on exchristian.net now. Well, since Rameus isn't here I'll step up to the plate and play the role of a Christ-Myther just so this debate can go on. I'll start. First off, I'll assert that Christ never existed: 1. Existing is something Jesus never did. 2. Jesus didn't ever exist. 3. You are an idiot. :fencing: While you are reeling from that salvo I'll destroy your source, The Holy Bible: 1. The Bible was written by believers. 2. Only non-believers are unbaised. 3. Therefore, the Bible is a poor translation of an ancient Egyptian comic strip. :fight: I hate doing this, because your shallow faith is probably waning right now - however, I must deliever the knock out punch. 1. The gospels were written by known fishermen. 2. All fishermen exaggerate. 3. Therefore, the Bible is a gross fish story made up by homosexuals. Sorry to do that to you JP. Just be thankful I'm on your side. Perhaps the mods should delete this post before these arguments go mainstream. ... ..opps... too late. LakeGeorgeMan April 8th 2005 03:58 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jpholding Dream on, ChoirBoy. A Cheetoh eating choirboy...I like that visual…I see him smearing cheese stains on his pristine white gown, distracting others in the choir, teeth covered with a caked orange residue, as he strives to hit a high note, but fails miserably…I think that is your best creative invective of the match...even if I had to give it the lovely narrative... I’m sending you a pearl to encourage you… Quote: That took me a mere 15 minutes. :tongue: Oh...was it just another cut and paste job from Glen Miller? I'm glad I didn't waste any time reading it then... …or perhaps the commandment not to bear false witness was recently suspended for librarians? :hrm: Quote: But glad you found a cure for your latest disorder... My latest disorder seems to be exposing librarians...I admit it is sinful...will you pray for me? Or at least get yourself a robe? Quote: now that you see you can't answer the arguments.. Sorry...I only answer the arguments of credentialed, peer reviewed, published by the snootiest publishers, Grade A, FDAA inspected, Eusebius approved, 100% "CERTIFIED", Christian scholars... ...you let me know when one shows up in this thread...so far all I see are unemployed prison librarians... jimbo April 8th 2005 04:16 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Diabolical Mimicry Why is it that the earliest Christian apologists had to rationalize Jesus' similarlity to the godmen in earlier religions? Why did they see such close parallels to earlier religions that they claimed that Satan had engaged in "diabolical mimicry" in creating the earlier religions? http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm "Various early church writers, such as Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons; circa 120 CE to ?) Justin Martyr (Christian apologist; 100 to 165), Tertullian (Christian theologian; circa 160 to 220 +) concluded that the Pagan/Christian similarities were a Satanic attempt at "diabolical mimicry." Satan was said to have use "plagiarism by anticipation." That is, the Devil made a pre-emptive strike against the gospel stories centuries before Jesus was born. The reason was to confuse the public into thinking that Jesus was merely a copy of previous god-men. The goal was to demolish the credibility of Christianity in the people's eyes." Why in the world would early Christian apologists have to say something like this unless people back then thought Christianity was a Johnny-come-lately copy of their religions? Jimbo Mark_S April 8th 2005 04:25 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) And the winner of the great debate is......... MAD GERBIL Quote: Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil Com'on guys, even the pope got buried after 9 days. :hehe: That was the funniest (and most intelligent) thing in this thread so far LakeGeorgeMan April 8th 2005 04:29 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Diabolical Mimicry Quote: Originally posted by jimbo Why is it that the earliest Christian apologists had to rationalize Jesus' similarlity to the godmen in earlier religions? Why did they see such close parallels to earlier religions that they claimed that Satan had engaged in "diabolical mimicry" in creating the earlier religions? Jimbo, Clearly Satan is using his magic powers to deceive you from recognizing the clear and simple truth being spoken by his two most recently chosen prophets… …a puerile prison librarian and a Mad Gerbil… LGM ...I will pray for you to see through his deception... LakeGeorgeMan April 8th 2005 04:32 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Mark_S And the winner of the great debate is......... That was the funniest (and most intelligent) thing in this thread so far Mark, If you really read through this whole "debate" to come to that conclusion... ...that's the funniest and most tragic thing I've read so far... LGM :wink: Mark_S April 8th 2005 04:50 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by LakeGeorgeMan Mark, If you really read through this whole "debate" to come to that conclusion... ...that's the funniest and most tragic thing I've read so far... LGM :wink: Okay I admit it. I stopped reading each post when I hit the "I'm not the poopy head, you are" statement. I hope there wasn't more, 'cause then I failed to get to it. If you want to recap, feel free to do it in the Rec Room, at least then you'll get spam points for you effort. :wink: LakeGeorgeMan April 8th 2005 05:14 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Mad_Gerbil Well, since Rameus isn't here I'll step up to the plate and play the role of a Christ-Myther just so this debate can go on. Well since there are no peer reviewed, credentialed, Eusebius approved, “CERTIFIED” Christian scholars here…I may as well respond… Quote: I'll start. First off, I'll assert that Christ never existed: 1. Existing is something Jesus never did. 2. Jesus didn't ever exist. 3. You are an idiot. First, I’ll simply state the obvious 1. Jesus is god 2. You really know this in your mind, even though you won’t admit it. 3. And for not admitting it, you’re in deep doo doo with him. Quote: While you are reeling from that salvo I'll destroy your source, The Holy Bible: 1. The Bible was written by believers. 2. Only non-believers are unbaised. 3. Therefore, the Bible is a poor translation of an ancient Egyptian comic strip. While you’re contemplating your eternal torment, I’ll whip out my only evidence. 1. Everything in the bible is the inerrant word of god. 2. My Sunday school teacher told me this. 3. Why would she lie? It must be true. Quote: I hate doing this, because your shallow faith is probably waning right now - however, I must deliever the knock out punch. 1. The gospels were written by known fishermen. 2. All fishermen exaggerate. 3. Therefore, the Bible is a gross fish story made up by homosexuals. Still not a believer?…well here is the proof! 1. The gospels were all written by eyewitnesses who had copious notes, video recordings, perfect oral traditions, and divine inspiration to help when they did forget stuff. 2. They were all slowly tortured to death, while each fact was being checked with a lie detector by the Romans. 3. This is why Constantine chose to franchise Christianity instead of Mithrasism. Quote: Sorry to do that to you JP. Just be thankful I'm on your side. Sorry to do that to you Rameus…just be thankful I’m not a mad gerbil! jimbo April 8th 2005 05:17 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) In the Middle Ages Protestants made the point that Catholic rituals were copied from pagan rituals (quotes from web page in bold): As long ago as the 1400s protestants wrote about the Pagan origins of Catholic ritual and belief. They called Catholicism "pagano-papism." They thought that was very clever. Ever since, some sad protestants have built themselves up by tearing Catholics down; and ever since they've written books showing how after the apostles (as they see it), Christianity adopted Pagan rituals, ideas and Greek philosophy. For example: Melanchthon, Aplologia Confessionis Augustanae, 1530 AD, detailing Catholic rituals copied from Paganism H. Bullinger, De originie erroris libris duo, 1539, detailing Catholic "cultic errors" copied from the Heathens Isaac Casaubon, De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticus exercitationes 1614, about how the apostle Paul's use of terminology and ideas from the pagan mystery religions Conyers Middleton, A Letter from Rome Shewing an Exact Conformity between Popery and Paganism, 1729 That's a few examples from a long list. Again, the usual purpose was to point up the Pagan origins of Catholicism, to prove Protestantism was better. From http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/s...ng_started.html Of course Catholicism was the original "official" form of Christianity, and Protestanism grew out of it. So when Protestants attacked Catholicism as a copycat religion, they were really attacking their own religion. A study of ancient history reveals that for hundreds of years prior to Christianity there were religions which had: personal Gods who care about people and help or punish them a single supreme God who made and controls the universe Gods who ascend and descend from their home up in heaven a soul that survives death eternal life after death, with torment for sinners; reward for the worthy the Logos, which early Christians explicitly identify as the Holy Spirit Gods who are Sons of the supreme God, often born of a mortal woman prophecy -- made and fulfilled miracles -- stuff like raising the dead, healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, turning water into wine from http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/b...ng_started.html I have found that Christians who deny parallels between their religion and earlier religions usually try to magnify tiny, miniscule differences between, say, the specific point-by-point storyline of one godman's resurrection with the specific point-by-point storyline about Jesus' resurrection. So if a particular pre-Christian godmen descends down to the underworld to judge and rule over the dead, this godman is claimed by Christians to be in no way whatsoever similar to Jesus who is said to have shot upwards into the sky like a Saturn V rocket and judges and rules over people from heaven. The rationalizations, the denials of any connection whatsoever between earlier religions and Christianity actually get this desperate. Jimbo LakeGeorgeMan April 8th 2005 05:33 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jimbo ...this godman is in no way whatsoever similar to Jesus who is said to have shot upwards into the sky like a Saturn V rocket Jimbo, You idiot...It was like a Polaris rocket... Page 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 5, 2005 Author Share Posted May 5, 2005 GakuseiDon April 8th 2005 05:43 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: Diabolical Mimicry Quote: Originally posted by jimbo Why is it that the earliest Christian apologists had to rationalize Jesus' similarlity to the godmen in earlier religions? Why did they see such close parallels to earlier religions that they claimed that Satan had engaged in "diabolical mimicry" in creating the earlier religions? http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm "Various early church writers, such as Irenaeus (Bishop of Lyons; circa 120 CE to ?) Justin Martyr (Christian apologist; 100 to 165), Tertullian (Christian theologian; circa 160 to 220 +) concluded that the Pagan/Christian similarities were a Satanic attempt at "diabolical mimicry." Satan was said to have use "plagiarism by anticipation." That is, the Devil made a pre-emptive strike against the gospel stories centuries before Jesus was born. The reason was to confuse the public into thinking that Jesus was merely a copy of previous god-men. The goal was to demolish the credibility of Christianity in the people's eyes." Why in the world would early Christian apologists have to say something like this unless people back then thought Christianity was a Johnny-come-lately copy of their religions? Jimbo Jimbo, it was the pagans who couldn't see the similarities. They were accusing Christians of believing in something completely different to "proper beliefs". Justin Martyr was trying to defend Christianity by saying that the pagans actually had the same ideas as Christians. You can see the same defense being mounted in a number of apologetic letters written in the second half of the 2nd C CE. The charge that "Christianity was a new religion" was one that the apologists of that period took seriously, and spent time trying to refute. Justin's solution was that Christianity was a continuation of Judaism; and that, because pagan religions copied from Judaism (not Christianity!), therefore Christianity (via Judaism) was the older religion. You can see that he was using the same argument as Christ Mythers today. He was, in fact, a "Pagan Myther". Jimbo, if those similarities Justin brought up predated the pagan religions, can we then assume that the Greeks copied from Judaism? jimbo April 8th 2005 06:57 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Don, Yeah, you are right Don, Justin Martyr also tried to point out the similarities of Christianity to earlier religions in case some pagan believers somehow couldn't see what was screamingly obvious. I guess that different approaches had to be tried to determine which was the best way to gain converts. Of course this problem of how to get more converts was solved when Christianity became the official religion of Rome and the other religions were persecuted and destroyed. Here is Justin Martyr pointing out some of the similarities of Christianity to earlier religions: Christian father Justin Martyr (c. 100-165): "ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?" (snip) "As to the objection of our Jesus’s being crucified, I say, that suffering was common to all the aforementioned sons of Jove [Jupiter] . . . As to his being born of a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that. As to his curing the lame, and the paralytic, and such as were cripples from birth, this is little more than what you say of your Aesculapius." Quote: Justin's solution was that Christianity was a continuation of Judaism; and that, because pagan religions copied from Judaism (not Christianity!), therefore Christianity (via Judaism) was the older religion. So you acknowledge that the similarities between Christianity and earlier religions was recognized. Thank you. Quote: Jimbo, if those similarities Justin brought up predated the pagan religions, can we then assume that the Greeks copied from Judaism? Personally, I don't see much similarity between the Jewish religion found in the OT and the Christian religion found in the NT. There are different ideas and different rituals and different laws. There is no miracle working, wisdom spouting, resurrected godman in the OT, as far as I know. Today, of course, many Christians try to disassociate their religion from the misogyny, brutality, cruelty and violence found in the OT. The only reason that the OT is found together with the NT is because (from what I understand) the early Christians had to somehow make the paltry collection of writings they had look more respectable so they simply grafted their few writings onto the Jewish Holy Book and presented it as an integrated whole. In other words, Christians did not just copy Judiasm, THEY STOLE IT. The truth is, the OT and the NT really don't go together and I suspect that eventually the OT will be discarded altogether, or it will be so thoroughly edited, massaged and sanitized that it will be unrecognizable. So I don't see a real connection between Christianity-which is represented by the NT, and Judiasm-which is represented by the OT. The OT does not center around a miracle-working, advice-giving, resurrecting godman who rockets up into space. Christianity, which is centered around the the story of a redeeming, miracle-working, resurrected godman, was not original when it first appeared. Jimbo By the way, this is a great site: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html GakuseiDon April 8th 2005 10:21 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jimbo Yeah, you are right Don, Justin Martyr also tried to point out the similarities of Christianity to earlier religions in case some pagan believers somehow couldn't see what was screamingly obvious. Yep. So why, in your view, was Justin trying so hard to convince them of the similarities to Christianity? Quote: So you acknowledge that the similarities between Christianity and earlier religions was recognized. Thank you. You're welcome. Of course, Justin actually believes those similarities existed between pagan religions and an earlier Judaism. Do you acknowledge this? Quote: So I don't see a real connection between Christianity-which is represented by the NT, and Judiasm-which is represented by the OT. The OT does not center around a miracle-working, advice-giving, resurrecting godman who rockets up into space. Christianity, which is centered around the the story of a redeeming, miracle-working, resurrected godman, was not original when it first appeared. That's right. According to Justin, the OT prophets predicted all this. Then the pagans copied from the OT prophets. That's where the similarities come from. Since Justin is able to show those similarities between pagan ideas and the OT prophets, I guess that is "case closed", unless you want to argue against the validity of Justin's similarities, of course. But that would require actually trying to find evidence for influence, otherwise you fall foul of the post hoc fallacy. Quote: By the way, this is a great site: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html No, actually, it isn't. Finding similarities is a subjective game, and says more about the person than it does the similarity. Justin is stretching to try to create similarities, in the same way as Christ Mythers do today. Here is one: http://www.earlychristianwritings.c...rstapology.html And when they (devils and pagans) knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, "Strong as a giant to run his course," they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth Hardly a convincing similarity, I'm sure you would agree. Here is what the excellent snope's site says on nature of finding similarities in general, on their webpage of the similarities between Kennedy and Lincoln (my emphasis): http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm So what are we to make of all this? How do we account for all these coincidences, no matter how superficial they may be, and why do so many people find this list so compelling? The coincidences are easily explained as the simple product of mere chance. It's not difficult to find patterns and similarities between any two marginally-related sets of data, and coincidences similar in number and kind can be (and have been) found between many different pairs of Presidents. Our tendency to seek out patterns wherever we can stems from our desire to make sense of our world; to maintain a feeling that our universe is orderly and can be understood. jimbo April 9th 2005 06:01 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Don, Quote: JIMBO: Yeah, you are right Don, Justin Martyr also tried to point out the similarities of Christianity to earlier religions in case some pagan believers somehow couldn't see what was screamingly obvious. DON:Yep. So why, in your view, was Justin trying so hard to convince them of the similarities to Christianity? He was probably trying to convince them that Satan had inspired the "pagan" religions: "It having reached the Devil’s ears that the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ, the Son of God, he set the heathen Poets to bring forward a great many who should be called the sons of Jove. The Devil laying his scheme in this, to get men to imagine that the true history of Christ was of the same characters the prodigious fables related of the sons of Jove." Justin Martyr Do you think Justin Martyr's theory is correct? Quote: JIMBO: So you acknowledge that the similarities between Christianity and earlier religions was recognized. Thank you. DON: You're welcome. Of course, Justin actually believes those similarities existed between pagan religions and an earlier Judaism. Do you acknowledge this? This is what Justin said: "It having reached the Devil’s ears that the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ,..." It would appear that Justin Martyr believed that Satan created the pagan religions based on the prophecies of Jewish prophets. That is an interesting theory. Do you believe it? In any case, we do both agree that there are clear similarities between the so-called pagan religions and Christianity, correct? Quote: JIMBO: So I don't see a real connection between Christianity-which is represented by the NT, and Judiasm-which is represented by the OT. The OT does not center around a miracle-working, advice-giving, resurrecting godman who rockets up into space. Christianity, which is centered around the the story of a redeeming, miracle-working, resurrected godman, was not original when it first appeared. DON: That's right. According to Justin, the OT prophets predicted all this. Do you believe that Justin's theory is correct, that pagan religions were based on the claims of Old Testament prophets? Something to consider: Jews certainly don't believe that Jewish prophets prophesized Jesus. Are the Jews wrong? Quote: Then the pagans copied from the OT prophets. With Satan's help-here is that quote again: "It having reached the Devil’s ears that the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ, the Son of God, he set the heathen Poets to bring forward a great many who should be called the sons of Jove. The Devil laying his scheme in this, to get men to imagine that the true history of Christ was of the same characters the prodigious fables related of the sons of Jove." Do you think that Justin's theory of the Satanic origin of the pagan religions is correct? Quote: That's where the similarities come from. Since Justin is able to show those similarities between pagan ideas and the OT prophets, I guess that is "case closed", What do you mean, "case closed"? The way I see it, the similarities Justin Martyr points to relate to specific details about Jesus' life which I don't think are found in the the prophecies of OT Jewish prophets. Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong about this however. Here, again, is what Justin Martyr said regarding the similarities of Jesus to the earlier godmen: "ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?" (snip) "As to the objection of our Jesus’s being crucified, I say, that suffering was common to all the aforementioned sons of Jove [Jupiter] . . . As to his being born of a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that. As to his curing the lame, and the paralytic, and such as were cripples from birth, this is little more than what you say of your Aesculapius." Quote: unless you want to argue against the validity of Justin's similarities, of course. But that would require actually trying to find evidence for influence, otherwise you fall foul of the post hoc fallacy. The similarities relate to Christian claims, not Jewish claims as far as I can tell. As I noted before, Justin Martyr asserted that Satan had created the pagan religions in anticipation of Christianity-I don't think that is a theory that holds much water though. Do you? Quote: Finding similarities is a subjective game, and says more about the person than it does the similarity. Justin is stretching to try to create similarities, in the same way as Christ Mythers do today. Don, you can't have it both ways: If you want to acknowledge the similarities between Christianity and the earlier religions-which you had done earlier-you can't then backtrack and deny that they really are similarities. If the similarities are not really similarities, then we can simply discard Justin Martyr's theory that pagan religions copied their storylines from the claims of Jewish prophets since these similarities don't really exist, according to you. Please pick one explanation or another but don't try to use both because they end up cancelling one another out. As I noted before-and as you agreed with to a greater or lesser extent-the similarities do exist. A study of ancient history reveals that for hundreds of years prior to Christianity there were religions which had: personal Gods who care about people and help or punish them a single supreme God who made and controls the universe Gods who ascend and descend from their home up in heaven a soul that survives death eternal life after death, with torment for sinners; reward for the worthy the Logos, which early Christians explicitly identify as the Holy Spirit Gods who are Sons of the supreme God, often born of a mortal woman prophecy -- made and fulfilled miracles -- stuff like raising the dead, healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, turning water into wine And the similarities get even more specific. Around the Mediterranean for a thousand years before Christ, the sacred Pagan mysteries: worshipped Gods who died and came back to life were personal religions entered into voluntarily via initiation ceremonies that involved purification by water baptism that reenacted the God's death and rebirth taught that initiation gave believers rebirth and salvation celebrated with ceremonies of food and drink that reenacted a holy meal established by the God had teachings that brought the faithful closer to God worshiped Gods with the miraculous power to heal illness Christianity had all these things, but Paganism had 'em first. In all these things, Christianity was not new, Christianity was not unique, Christianity was not discontinuous with mainstream Paganism. If you look at history, you see that Christianity was just another pagan religion. The main reason-perhaps the only reason-Christianity still exists today and these other pagan religions do not is because Christianity became the official religions of Rome and the government of Rome persecuted other competing religions out of existence. If Constantine had chosen Mithraism rather than Christianity, we would probably be arguing right now about Mithraism and Christianity would be a big mystery to you, a footnote in a history book. Cheers, Jimbo GakuseiDon April 9th 2005 10:17 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jimbo He was probably trying to convince them that Satan had inspired the "pagan" religions: "It having reached the Devil’s ears that the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ, the Son of God, he set the heathen Poets to bring forward a great many who should be called the sons of Jove. The Devil laying his scheme in this, to get men to imagine that the true history of Christ was of the same characters the prodigious fables related of the sons of Jove." Justin Martyr Do you think Justin Martyr's theory is correct? No. But you will note that Justin is claiming that the pagan similarities relate to the Jewish prophets, not directly to Christianity. Remember, I'm answering your question: "Why is it that the earliest Christian apologists had to rationalize Jesus' similarlity to the godmen in earlier religions?" In fact, you have misread their position entirely. Your question should be: "Why is it that the earliest Christian apologists worked so hard to find similarities between Jesus and the godmen in earlier religions?" Read your quotes from Justin again, with my emphasis: And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter... As to the objection of our Jesus’s being crucified, I say, that suffering was common to all the aforementioned sons of Jove [Jupiter] . . . As to his curing the lame, and the paralytic, and such as were cripples from birth, this is little more than what you say of your Aesculapius Can we agree that Justin is trying to convince the pagans that there were similarities? Quote: This is what Justin said: "It having reached the Devil’s ears that the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ,..." It would appear that Justin Martyr believed that Satan created the pagan religions based on the prophecies of Jewish prophets. That is an interesting theory. Do you believe it? The Satan part, no. But since the Jewish prophets were earlier, how can you rule out that pagan religions were influenced by the Jewish prophets? Quote: In any case, we do both agree that there are clear similarities between the so-called pagan religions and Christianity, correct? Yes, sure, no doubt about it. See my quotes from the snopes thread. Quote: Do you believe that Justin's theory is correct, that pagan religions were based on the claims of Old Testament prophets? How else can you explain the similarities that Justin brings up? Do you agree there are similarities there or not? Or are you saying that the similarities are mere coincidence? How do you determine which? It would be nice to see your method of determining which similarity is coincidence or meaningless, and which suggests influence. What is your method? Quote: Something to consider: Jews certainly don't believe that Jewish prophets prophesized Jesus. Are the Jews wrong? Wrong about Jesus? Sure. Quote: What do you mean, "case closed"? The way I see it, the similarities Justin Martyr points to relate to specific details about Jesus' life which I don't think are found in the the prophecies of OT Jewish prophets. Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong about this however. Justin is claiming that the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions exist because they both come from a common source - the Jewish prophets. If he is wrong about the similarities, then there is no case to answer. If he is correct, then case closed. Since we both agree that there are those similarities, then "case closed", AFAICS. Quote: Don, you can't have it both ways: If you want to acknowledge the similarities between Christianity and the earlier religions-which you had done earlier-you can't then backtrack and deny that they really are similarities. If the similarities are not really similarities, then we can simply discard Justin Martyr's theory that pagan religions copied their storylines from the claims of Jewish prophets since these similarities don't really exist, according to you. Please pick one explanation or another but don't try to use both because they end up cancelling one another out. Of course there are similarities. See my quotes from the snopes thread. You want to use Justin to show similarities between Christianity and pagan religions, while ignoring Justin's actual argument: that the parallels were between pagan religions and Judaism. I suggest it is YOU who are trying to have it both ways. If the similarities are not really similarities, then we can simply discard Justin Martyr's theory that pagan religions copied their storylines from the claims of Jewish prophets. But if they ARE similarities, then the similarities are between the pagan religions and the claims of the Jewish prophets. Since Christianity came from Judaism, then it is of course not surprising that Christianity has those similarities as well. Please pick one explanation or another but don't try to use both because they end up cancelling one another out. Is Justin correct or not? jimbo April 9th 2005 02:59 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Don, Quote: Please pick one explanation or another but don't try to use both because they end up cancelling one another out. Is Justin correct or not? I believe that he is correct that there are similarities between Jesus and the godmen of the so-called pagan religions, but I DON't think these specific similarities are found in OT Jewish prophesizing. That's the distinction. I don't actually believe that Jewish prophets prophesized Jesus (neither do Jews). However, feel free to make the connection for me. Tell me where the following similarities are found in OT Jewish prophesizing: "ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?" (snip) "As to the objection of our Jesus’s being crucified, I say, that suffering was common to all the aforementioned sons of Jove [Jupiter] . . . As to his being born of a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that. As to his curing the lame, and the paralytic, and such as were cripples from birth, this is little more than what you say of your Aesculapius." Quote: JIMBO: In any case, we do both agree that there are clear similarities between the so-called pagan religions and Christianity, correct? DON: Yes, sure, no doubt about it. See my quotes from the snopes thread. (snip) DON: Finding similarities is a subjective game, and says more about the person than it does the similarity. Justin is stretching to try to create similarities, in the same way as Christ Mythers do today. (NOTE: emphasis added) I am confused, Don. Do you actually believe there are similarities or do you believe that Justin is "stretching to try to create similarities"? Which is it? One or the other? Quote: JIMBO: It would appear that Justin Martyr believed that Satan created the pagan religions based on the prophecies of Jewish prophets. That is an interesting theory. Do you believe it? DON: The Satan part, no. So Justin Martyr was wrong about Satan creating the pagan religions, according to you. He was mistaken, he was in error. Of course that is a big part of this theory. You do believe, though, that the pagan religions were based on the claims of Jewish prophets to a greater or lesser degree. Could you point out the specific aspects of Jewish prophesizing that were borrowed? Quote: DON: But since the Jewish prophets were earlier, how can you rule out that pagan religions were influenced by the Jewish prophets? I have not entirely ruled it out, but I don't see the specific aspects of OT prophesizing that pagans supposedly borrowed. Again, feel free to point these things out. In any case, it looks to me as though Christians did not just borrow from Judaism but actually stole Judaism and built their religion on it. Jews certainly don't believe that OT Jewish prophesizing was about Jesus. Are the Jews wrong about their own Holy writings? Quote: JIMBO: By the way, this is a great site: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/index.html DON: No, actually, it isn't. Finding similarities is a subjective game, and says more about the person than it does the similarity. Justin is stretching to try to create similarities, in the same way as Christ Mythers do today. Here is one: http://www.earlychristianwritings.c...rstapology.html And when they (devils and pagans) knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, "Strong as a giant to run his course," they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth Hardly a convincing similarity, I'm sure you would agree. I agree. But is that something that is cited as a similarity on the site I mentioned? If not, then why in the world are you referring to it? As I noted before and as is found on the site I referred to: A study of ancient history reveals that for hundreds of years prior to Christianity there were religions which had: personal Gods who care about people and help or punish them a single supreme God who made and controls the universe Gods who ascend and descend from their home up in heaven a soul that survives death eternal life after death, with torment for sinners; reward for the worthy the Logos, which early Christians explicitly identify as the Holy Spirit Gods who are Sons of the supreme God, often born of a mortal woman prophecy -- made and fulfilled miracles -- stuff like raising the dead, healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, turning water into wine And the similarities get even more specific. Around the Mediterranean for a thousand years before Christ, the sacred Pagan mysteries: worshipped Gods who died and came back to life were personal religions entered into voluntarily via initiation ceremonies that involved purification by water baptism that reenacted the God's death and rebirth taught that initiation gave believers rebirth and salvation celebrated with ceremonies of food and drink that reenacted a holy meal established by the God had teachings that brought the faithful closer to God worshiped Gods with the miraculous power to heal illness Christianity had all these things, but Paganism had 'em first. In all these things, Christianity was not new, Christianity was not unique, Christianity was not discontinuous with mainstream Paganism. taken from here: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/b...ng_started.html Is this information false, Don? Cheers, Jimbo GakuseiDon April 9th 2005 06:25 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Jimbo, before continuing, can I ask you to address my first question from my previous post? I think it is an important point, since I believe you are mischaracterising Justin's argument. I'll then go back to your questions from the last post. Thank you. _______________________________________ You will note that Justin is claiming that the pagan similarities relate to the Jewish prophets, not directly to Christianity. Remember, I'm answering your question: "Why is it that the earliest Christian apologists had to rationalize Jesus' similarlity to the godmen in earlier religions?" In fact, you have misread their position entirely. Your question should be: "Why is it that the earliest Christian apologists worked so hard to find similarities between Jesus and the godmen in earlier religions?" Read your quotes from Justin again, with my emphasis: And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter... As to the objection of our Jesus’s being crucified, I say, that suffering was common to all the aforementioned sons of Jove [Jupiter] . . . As to his curing the lame, and the paralytic, and such as were cripples from birth, this is little more than what you say of your Aesculapius Can we agree that Justin is trying to convince the pagans that there were similarities? jimbo April 9th 2005 06:59 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Don, Quote: Can we agree that Justin is trying to convince the pagans that there were similarities? That appears to be the case. Jimbo GakuseiDon April 10th 2005 04:02 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jimbo Quote: Originally posted by GakuseiDon Can we agree that Justin is trying to convince the pagans that there were similarities? That appears to be the case. Thank you. Earlier you asked: "Why in the world would early Christian apologists have to say something like this unless people back then thought Christianity was a Johnny-come-lately copy of their religions?" Can we then say that, at least for Justin Martyr, as Justin is trying to convince the pagans that there are similarities, the internal evidence suggests that in all probability the pagans DIDN'T think that Christianity was a Johnny-come-lately copy of their religions? Quote: Originally posted by jimbo I believe that he is correct that there are similarities between Jesus and the godmen of the so-called pagan religions, but I DON't think these specific similarities are found in OT Jewish prophesizing. That's the distinction. I don't actually believe that Jewish prophets prophesized Jesus (neither do Jews). However, feel free to make the connection for me. Tell me where the following similarities are found in OT Jewish prophesizing: Justin only gives a few specific examples, so we can't really know for most. But, Justin certainly felt that there were similarities, and that the similarities tied back to Judaism. Quote: I am confused, Don. Do you actually believe there are similarities or do you believe that Justin is "stretching to try to create similarities"? Which is it? One or the other? I believe that Justin is stretching to try to create similarities. I'll let you use any terminology you like. Here is one of Justin's similarities: And when they (devils and pagans) knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, "Strong as a giant to run his course," they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth. You can see that this is obviously a similarity. Is Justin stretching to create the similarity, or not? How would you describe what Justin is doing, in your own words? Quote: So Justin Martyr was wrong about Satan creating the pagan religions, according to you. He was mistaken, he was in error. Of course that is a big part of this theory. You do believe, though, that the pagan religions were based on the claims of Jewish prophets to a greater or lesser degree. Could you point out the specific aspects of Jewish prophesizing that were borrowed? No, I don't believe it. But Justin certainly believed that the similarities were between pagan religions and Judaism. In my view, he is doing exactly what Christ Mythers are doing today - stretching (or whatever terminology you want to use) to create the similarity. It doesn't mean that the similarity isn't there, just that it is all but meaningless without any further analysis to back it up. See my quotes from snopes above. Quote: In any case, it looks to me as though Christians did not just borrow from Judaism but actually stole Judaism and built their religion on it. Jews certainly don't believe that OT Jewish prophesizing was about Jesus. Are the Jews wrong about their own Holy writings? In some situations, sure. Quote: I agree. But is that something that is cited as a similarity on the site I mentioned? If not, then why in the world are you referring to it? That last statement wasn't related to that site, just on similarities in general. Sorry for the confusion. But back to the site: I believe that site is cr*p on general grounds. Like you do below, it gives a heap of similarities without any real analysis, e.g. the "Orpheus on the cross" amulet. Have a look on the front page. There is a sculpture with Jesus carrying a lamb on his shoulders (dated 4 C CE), and another with a Greek god carrying a lamb on his shoulders (dated 5 C BCE). Obviously a similarity. But what is the implication for the Pagan Origins of Christianity? The POCM site offers none. Can you explain how a 4th C CE sculpture of Jesus indicates ANYTHING about the origins of Christianity? Quote: As I noted before and as is found on the site I referred to: A study of ancient history reveals that for hundreds of years prior to Christianity there were religions which had: personal Gods who care about people and help or punish them a single supreme God who made and controls the universe Gods who ascend and descend from their home up in heaven a soul that survives death eternal life after death, with torment for sinners; reward for the worthy the Logos, which early Christians explicitly identify as the Holy Spirit Gods who are Sons of the supreme God, often born of a mortal woman prophecy -- made and fulfilled miracles -- stuff like raising the dead, healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, turning water into wine And the similarities get even more specific. Around the Mediterranean for a thousand years before Christ, the sacred Pagan mysteries: worshipped Gods who died and came back to life were personal religions entered into voluntarily via initiation ceremonies that involved purification by water baptism that reenacted the God's death and rebirth taught that initiation gave believers rebirth and salvation celebrated with ceremonies of food and drink that reenacted a holy meal established by the God had teachings that brought the faithful closer to God worshiped Gods with the miraculous power to heal illness Christianity had all these things, but Paganism had 'em first. In all these things, Christianity was not new, Christianity was not unique, Christianity was not discontinuous with mainstream Paganism. taken from here: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/b...ng_started.html Is this information false, Don? Some of it is, certainly. Who performed the miracle of water to wine, and what is the primary source? As for the rest: some are stretches, some are traceable to Judaism, some are developments within Christianity well after Christ. Let's start going through your list, Jimbo, and tell me what the similarities mean. I'll start with an obvious one. (If there are any on the list that you believe didn't affect Christianity directly, but only via Judaism, or only well after Christianity itself was established, let me know, and I'll remove them from the list. I don't doubt that these things occurred, so it isn't unexpected) a single supreme God who made and controls the universe I would say that Christianity got this from Judaism. Please give me the similarities to pagan religions and show me the evidence that it affected the origins of Christianity. jimbo April 11th 2005 02:25 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Don, Quote: Can we then say that, at least for Justin Martyr, as Justin is trying to convince the pagans that there are similarities, the internal evidence suggests that in all probability the pagans DIDN'T think that Christianity was a Johnny-come-lately copy of their religions? Frankly, I don't know the exact reason why Justin Martyr is pointing out the similarities. I don't know the precise audience he is addressing or the specific argument he is trying to make by pointing out the similarities. Do you? In one commentary on this quote it is claimed that Justin was trying to show the pagans that Christianity was not any more absurd than the pagan religions-and that this is why he was emphasizing the similarities. In any case, I don't think the fact that Christianity had similarities to the pagan religions was some great revelation to the pagans. I think that Justin Martyr was pointing to the (obvious) similarities to make some kind of argument, but I am not sure what his argument actually was. If you know more about this, however, please let me know. Quote: JIMBO: I believe that he is correct that there are similarities between Jesus and the godmen of the so-called pagan religions, but I DON't think these specific similarities are found in OT Jewish prophesizing. That's the distinction. I don't actually believe that Jewish prophets prophesized Jesus (neither do Jews). However, feel free to make the connection for me. Tell me where the following similarities are found in OT Jewish prophesizing: DON: Justin only gives a few specific examples, so we can't really know for most. But, Justin certainly felt that there were similarities, and that the similarities tied back to Judaism. But since you accept Justin's theory that Jewish prophesizing was copied by the pagans (minus the part of his theory where Satan instigates the copying) surely you know of some specific elements of Jewish prophesizing that the pagans copied? Otherwise how can you know that Justin's theory-or at least part of it-is valid? So can you cite a few specific examples of Jewish prophesizing that you believe were copied by the pagans? Quote: DON: I believe that Justin is stretching to try to create similarities. I'll let you use any terminology you like. Here is one of Justin's similarities: And when they (devils and pagans) knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, "Strong as a giant to run his course," they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth. You can see that this is obviously a similarity. Is Justin stretching to create the similarity, or not? How would you describe what Justin is doing, in your own words? I would describe this particular example as a stretch. In the other cases, I think the similarities are fairly clear. Do you agree that many of the examples that Justin cites as similarities between Chrsistianity and the earlier pagan religions can be justly described as similarites? Yes or no? Quote: JIMBO: So Justin Martyr was wrong about Satan creating the pagan religions, according to you. He was mistaken, he was in error. Of course that is a big part of this theory. You do believe, though, that the pagan religions were based on the claims of Jewish prophets to a greater or lesser degree. Could you point out the specific aspects of Jewish prophesizing that were borrowed? DON: No, I don't believe it. But Justin certainly believed that the similarities were between pagan religions and Judaism. In my view, he is doing exactly what Christ Mythers are doing today - stretching (or whatever terminology you want to use) to create the similarity. It doesn't mean that the similarity isn't there, just that it is all but meaningless without any further analysis to back it up. See my quotes from snopes above. I think what you mean by "further analysis" is the type of nitpicking and magnifying of tiny differences that Christians will engage in to try to dismiss any similarities as non-similarities. Of course I recognize that some people have gone in the other direction and have made connections when there really aren't any. However, I think that the evidence is overwhelming that Christianity does bear many similarities to religions that predated it and that these similarities are not the result of some wacky coincidence but do, in fact, represent borrowing. You think these similarities came originally from elements of Jewish prophesizing that were copied into pagan religions (without Satan's assistence, of course). Perhaps that did happen to some degree. It really wouldn't surprise me because that is obviously how religions develop-by copying from earlier religions and evolving. Of course it has also been argued and argued quite persuasively that elements of Egyptian and Babylonian religions were copied by the Jews. As I noted before, I think that the Christians did not just copy Judaism but that they essentially stole it-- hijacking the Hebrew Bible, grafting the paltry collection of Christian writings they had onto it and presenting this Frankensteinian monstrosity to the world as the "Word of God." Really, the two parts of the Bible don't go together and many Christians today try as best as they can to disassociate their Christianity from the misogyny, hate, cruelty and violence that pack the pages of the Old Testament. But I digress... I think it is clear that there are many specific rituals and story elements found in Christianity that are not found in Jewish prophesizing but which do form the structure of several pagan religions that preceded Christianity. They can be found at this site, and elsewhere on various web pages and in books that are listed on those web pages. I understand why Christians don't want to accept that these similarities exist because the implications of this seem too horrible for them to accept. I understand that you do reject the part of Justin Martyr's theory that involves Satan inspiring, instigating or creating the pagan religions to confuse Christians in the future and make them doubt Christianity. However, you do accept Justin's idea that parts of the pagan religions are based on the prophesizing of Jewish prophets. Can you point out the specific aspects of Jewish prophesizing that the pagans borrowed? Quote: JIMBO: Are the Jews wrong about their own Holy writings? DON: In some situations, sure. Here is a specific situation: When the Jews say that their prophets DID NOT prophesize Jesus, do you believe that the Jews are wrong about what their own prophet were prophesizing? Quote: JIMBO: I agree. But is that something that is cited as a similarity on the site I mentioned? If not, then why in the world are you referring to it? DON: That last statement wasn't related to that site, just on similarities in general. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks. Quote: But back to the site: I believe that site is cr*p on general grounds. Like you do below, it gives a heap of similarities without any real analysis, e.g. the "Orpheus on the cross" amulet. I think you are referring to this picture, shown below. According to the caption on the image, it is Dionysus, not Orpheus: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/h...right_r1_c1.jpg That picture is also on another page on the site, but without a caption. Here is where the captioned picture is found: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/g...arted_pocm.html If you are referring to some other picture on the site, please let me know. Quote: Have a look on the front page. There is a sculpture with Jesus carrying a lamb on his shoulders (dated 4 C CE), and another with a Greek god carrying a lamb on his shoulders (dated 5 C BCE). Obviously a similarity. But what is the implication for the Pagan Origins of Christianity? The POCM site offers none. It would be nice if the person who created the site provided more information about the second picture, but I don't think that the site is "cr*p" because the webmaster didn't do this. I am guessing that the Greek god that is pictured is Dionysus. Dionysus was somehow associated with a lamb. Jesus, of course, was called the Lamb of God. Quote: JIMBO: As I noted before and as is found on the site I referred to: A study of ancient history reveals that for hundreds of years prior to Christianity there were religions which had: personal Gods who care about people and help or punish them a single supreme God who made and controls the universe Gods who ascend and descend from their home up in heaven a soul that survives death eternal life after death, with torment for sinners; reward for the worthy the Logos, which early Christians explicitly identify as the Holy Spirit Gods who are Sons of the supreme God, often born of a mortal woman prophecy -- made and fulfilled miracles -- stuff like raising the dead, healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, turning water into wine And the similarities get even more specific. Around the Mediterranean for a thousand years before Christ, the sacred Pagan mysteries: worshipped Gods who died and came back to life were personal religions entered into voluntarily via initiation ceremonies that involved purification by water baptism that reenacted the God's death and rebirth taught that initiation gave believers rebirth and salvation celebrated with ceremonies of food and drink that reenacted a holy meal established by the God had teachings that brought the faithful closer to God worshiped Gods with the miraculous power to heal illness Christianity had all these things, but Paganism had 'em first. In all these things, Christianity was not new, Christianity was not unique, Christianity was not discontinuous with mainstream Paganism. taken from here: http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/b...ng_started.html Is this information false, Don? DON: Some of it is, certainly. Who performed the miracle of water to wine, and what is the primary source? Dionysis, the God of wine, as is noted here, on the site that you are critisizing: "Were miracles an important part of pre-Christian religion? Personally I can listen to modern writers grinding their axes on one side or the other, and not be sure. But when I read the ancients themselves, and over and over, hundreds and hundreds of times, they write about Asclepius healing the sick, Apollo prophesying, and Dionysus turning water into wine, then I don't have any doubt. Pagan's believed in miracles. Pagans believed in lots of miracles. Pagans believed in lots of miracles generations before Jesus." Quote: DON:...what is the primary source? The primary source(s) are the writings of the people who lived at the time, as the web author notes. Do you deny that Dionysus, the god of wine, was believed by the ancients to have turned water into wine and that they wrote about this? Here is some more information on Dionysus: http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacke...s_Dionysos.html "Greece Dionysus is mentioned in Linear B tablets from roughly 1,200 BC . Herodotus' describes initiation into the mysteries of Dionysus in the fifth century BC . [Herodotus Histories book 4, 78 - 80], Euripides' play about him, the Bacchae , was first performed about 400 BC." http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacke...s_Dionysos.html "Dionysus was identified with the lamb, and called 'King of Kings,' 'Only Begotten Son,' 'Savior,' 'Redeemer,' 'Sin bearer,' 'Anointed One,' the 'Alpha and Omega.'" Quote: Let's start going through your list, Jimbo, and tell me what the similarities mean. I'll start with an obvious one. (If there are any on the list that you believe didn't affect Christianity directly, but only via Judaism, or only well after Christianity itself was established, let me know, and I'll remove them from the list. I don't doubt that these things occurred, so it isn't unexpected) a single supreme God who made and controls the universe I would say that Christianity got this from Judaism. Please give me the similarities to pagan religions and show me the evidence that it affected the origins of Christianity. Actually, it has been shown that Judaism originally had many gods but that this multitude of gods was pared down to just one over time. In Genesis, of course, the word that is used for God is ELOHIM, which means GODS, plural: http://www.ryansutter.net/religion/...esis-11-23.html "Another subtlety lost in the translation is that GOD is actually a rendering of the word ELOHIM, which technically means "GODS". It's a plural. Now, later monotheistic traditions in Judaism have decided to say that the plural was just a way to denote majesty, but archeaology and logic give a different picture. If the Isrealites were originally believers in multiple gods, it is only logical that when they used the word for "Gods" they meant just that, Gods." On the other hand, Christians claim that their God is a trinity. The idea of a trinity is not original to Christianity: http://www.anzwers.org/free/jesuschrist/trinity.html "Hinduism embraced the triune godhead of Brahma, the god of creation ; Vishnu the god of maintenance and Siva the god of destruction. One of Egypt's many trinities was Horus, Isis and Osiris." Regardless of these two things, I would agree with you to a point and say that the idea of one supreme god could have come originally from the later montheistic form of Judaism (which, of course, I think was stolen by the Christians from the Jews). It is kind of hard to tell who was borrowing from who and I would not rank this similarity as a particularly powerful similarity. Cheers, Jimbo PS Just so you know, I don't expect to have a great deal of time to respond to this thread this week. jpholding April 11th 2005 10:06 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Pfft, Oh boy. Dimbo is parading the "pagan copycat" thesis again...I'll let you have this meal, GDon, other than a couple of comments -- 1) I tore that "medmal" site to pieces ages ago... http://www.tektonics.org/pocemon/pikachumyth.htm 2) Dimbo wins himself an April Screwball of the Month Award with this one: Quote: Originally posted by jimbo I think you are referring to this picture, shown below. According to the caption on the image, it is Dionysus, not Orpheus: Pfft -- two boos in one bit here: 1) The letters on the gem say "Orpheus Bacchus". 2) Poor Dimbo hasn't heard -- the item in the picture is a forgery. As James Hannam (Bede) reported of late: *********** Freke and Gandy do not supply a reference for the picture in their book but kindly let me know by email. The first they supplied was R Eisler, Orpheus the Fisher (Kessinger Publishing reprints), first published in 1920 and where the fourth century date for the amulet is given and it is illustrated. Interestingly it is dated to the fourth century simply by virtue of its representation of a crucifixion so could, in theory be older or more recent. The second reference was WKC Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion Princeton University Press, 1952. This is the second edition and discusses the amulet at some length on page 265. He mentions the views of Eisler and Otto Kern who was a very distinguished German expert on Orpheus. At the time, both considered the gem to be an ancient Orphic artifact and Eisler suggested their was a tradition of a crucified Orpheus. Pointing to the evidence of Justin Martyr, who denies there ever was a crucified pagan, Guthrie rightly rejects this interpretation. ...But there is a final kicker to this story that Freke failed to mention. I found an endnote to the 1952 edition of Guthrie's work (page 278) states: "In his review of this book [Orpheus and Greek Religion] in Gnomon (1935, p 476), [Otto] Kern [unfeasibly esteemed German expert on Orpheus] recants and expresses himself convinced by the expert opinion of Reil and Zahn [more distinguished Germans] that the gem is a forgery." I looked up the review in Gnomon but it is in German so I can't make anything of it. Still, the gem has been branded a forgery by noted experts. Luckily for Freke and Gandy that they don't think the gem important to their thesis, but you still have to ask what it was doing on the front cover of their book. And one can also have suspicions as to why they didn't give a reference to where the picture came from. ********* I'll bet Dimbo will have even less time to reply now... :rofl: jpholding April 11th 2005 10:11 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by LakeGeorgeMan A Cheetoh eating choirboy...I like that visual… You probably need to see the same psychologist Michael Jackson now sees...hurry, before you get taken to court... :rofl: Quote: Oh...was it just another cut and paste job from Glen Miller? I'm glad I didn't waste any time reading it then... Needless to say this speaks for itself. LoserBoy never actually reads opposing arguments. :lmbo: It's far too frightening. Quote: Sorry...I only answer the arguments of credentialed, peer reviewed, published by the snootiest publishers, Grade A, FDAA inspected, Eusebius approved, 100% "CERTIFIED", Christian scholars... Luckily, he can come up with enough qualifications to prevent himself ever getting out of his hole and answering ANYTHING. :erm: Quote: ...you let me know when one shows up in this thread...so far all I see are unemployed prison librarians... Is that due to spending so much time yourself in the unemployment LINE, grease jockey? :lmbo: jimbo April 11th 2005 01:02 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) "Holding," Quote: 1) The letters on the gem say "Orpheus Bacchus". There was a Greek god named "Orpheus" and there was a Roman god named "Bacchus." They are two different gods. "Bacchus" is the Roman name for Dionysus. I just wanted to make sure that this distinction was clear, since Don referred to the figu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 5, 2005 Author Share Posted May 5, 2005 specific explaining where, exactly, the amulet is believed to have actually come from. Keep the faith, Jimbo jpholding April 11th 2005 01:10 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jimbo There was a Greek god named "Orpheus" and there was a Roman god named "Bacchus." They are two different gods. "Bacchus" is the Roman name for Dionysus. I just wanted to make sure that this distinction was clear, since Don referred to the figure as "Orpheus on the cross." Yeah, yeah, just keep it up with the tortured rationalizations, Pope Leo X Boy. :lmbo: I don't blame you for being confused; half of your atheist dum dum cohorts don't know whether it's Orpheus or Dionysus either. Maybe it's because Freke and Gandu think "Orpheus Bacchus" is a pseudonym for Osiris-Dionysus. That's what you get for relying on academically decrepit sources. :tongue: Quote: This is very general and fragmentary information. It would be nice to see something more specific explaining where, exactly, the amulet is believed to have actually come from. Pfft. It's very specific and complete, Pope Leo X Boy. Sorry, running and hiding behind your favorite tortured terminology games (calling stuff "vague" or "general" or "fragmentary" that's completely clear), or pulling a red herring out of the water ("Where did it come from?"), won't save you from a blindingly obvious goofup of the uncritical sort I have shown you to be guilty of time and time and time and time again -- or the Screwball Award you got for it. Congratulations! :thumb: Keep the change, JPH jimbo April 11th 2005 02:57 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) YEC Boy, As I said, I would like to see more information about that amulet since the information you present in regard to it being a forgery is pretty sketchy. Then again, it is not as though it is a huge deal anyway. By the way, are you still supporting the notion that the so-called "James Ossuary" is genuine or have you finally figured out-as most people did from virtually the time the ossuary became a news item-that the name on it was forged? Keep your faith strong! Jimbo jpholding April 11th 2005 03:28 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jimbo As I said, I would like to see more information about that amulet since the information you present in regard to it being a forgery is pretty sketchy. Then again, it is not as though it is a huge deal anyway. Yeah, sure, Dimbo. That's why you linked to the turkey at Medmal who only appealed to it as evidence 765,873 times... :lmbo: Sketchy, my foot. :tongue: Spin on, little one. Quote: By the way, are you still supporting the notion that the so-called "James Ossuary" is genuine Nope, I'm still supporting the idea that critics have yet to meet the burden showing it isn't. But I keep checking Biblical Archaeology Review every issue to see if any of the critics have done something besides run their mouths, you know, like issued reports or refutations. So far no go and the weight is still behind authenticity. Maybe you ought to write one for BAR and see if it passes peer review. Quote Leo X on the subject. Keep your breath strong! JPH :lmbo: Page 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted May 5, 2005 Author Share Posted May 5, 2005 GakuseiDon April 11th 2005 09:21 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jimbo Frankly, I don't know the exact reason why Justin Martyr is pointing out the similarities. I don't know the precise audience he is addressing or the specific argument he is trying to make by pointing out the similarities. Do you? Yes, it was to pagan critics who, from the time of Paul, dismissed early Christianity as "foolishness", "pernicious", "barbaric superstition". But no pagan ever said "Christianity is foolishness, pernicious and barbaric superstition - just like ours". Justin was trying to show the pagans that Christianity wasn't so dissimilar after all. Quote: I would describe this particular example as a stretch. In the other cases, I think the similarities are fairly clear. Do you agree that many of the examples that Justin cites as similarities between Chrsistianity and the earlier pagan religions can be justly described as similarites? Yes or no? Yes. But as I've repeatedly said, similarities don't really prove anything. See the snopes quotes I gave earlier. If you can describe a similarity "as a stretch", then how much meaning can you get from it? Obviously, very little. You need to have evidence of influence. A similarity is primary facie proof of nothing more than a similarity. Quote: I think that the evidence is overwhelming that Christianity does bear many similarities to religions that predated it and that these similarities are not the result of some wacky coincidence but do, in fact, represent borrowing. That's better. Overwhelming evidence is good! What is your evidence for borrowing? Choose a topic and present me with your evidence. Quote: I understand why Christians don't want to accept that these similarities exist because the implications of this seem too horrible for them to accept. Why? Why should I care if there are similarities or not? Is there some Christian dogma on this, or does the Bible say "there shalt be no similarities"? Quote: I understand that you do reject the part of Justin Martyr's theory that involves Satan inspiring, instigating or creating the pagan religions to confuse Christians in the future and make them doubt Christianity. However, you do accept Justin's idea that parts of the pagan religions are based on the prophesizing of Jewish prophets. Can you point out the specific aspects of Jewish prophesizing that the pagans borrowed? No, I don't accept it. Justin is doing the very thing that Christ Mythers do - stretching to make similarities. It is as invalid for him to do this as it is for you or for POCM. Quote: It would be nice if the person who created the site provided more information about the second picture, but I don't think that the site is "cr*p" because the webmaster didn't do this. I do. No evidence, no case. A similarity is primary facie proof of nothing more than a similarity. You understood that about Justin's similarities of pagan myths to the Jewish prophets. Why can't you understand this? Quote: The primary source(s) are the writings of the people who lived at the time, as the web author notes. Do you deny that Dionysus, the god of wine, was believed by the ancients to have turned water into wine and that they wrote about this? Yes, I do deny this. Where is your evidence that he turned water into wine? None of the info you gave showed that. So why use "water into wine"? Quote: Regardless of these two things, I would agree with you to a point and say that the idea of one supreme god could have come originally from the later montheistic form of Judaism (which, of course, I think was stolen by the Christians from the Jews). It is kind of hard to tell who was borrowing from who and I would not rank this similarity as a particularly powerful similarity. Please reread your last sentence: I would not rank this similarity as a particularly powerful similarity. Now we start getting to the heart of it. Obviously some similarities are powerful, and some are not. How do you determine what is a powerful similarity, and what isn't? GakuseiDon April 12th 2005 03:55 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by jimbo There was a Greek god named "Orpheus" and there was a Roman god named "Bacchus." They are two different gods. "Bacchus" is the Roman name for Dionysus. I just wanted to make sure that this distinction was clear, since Don referred to the figure as "Orpheus on the cross." This is very general and fragmentary information. It would be nice to see something more specific explaining where, exactly, the amulet is believed to have actually come from. It's on the POCM website. (You already know my opinion of that website and its lack of analysis) What do they say about it? Where does the amulet come from? Peter Kirby April 13th 2005 01:50 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Maybe I've come to the thread too late. But given the nature of Rameus' words when he made his challenge to Holding, his default should be an embarassment to the 'Jesus Myth cause' but, even more, to Rameus personally. What has Rameus to say for himself? When will he publish his argument on Josephus and Tacitus? best, Peter Kirby John Powell April 13th 2005 02:35 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Peter Kirby Maybe I've come to the thread too late. But given the nature of Rameus' words when he made his challenge to Holding, his default should be an embarassment to the 'Jesus Myth cause' but, even more, to Rameus personally. What has Rameus to say for himself? When will he publish his argument on Josephus and Tacitus? best, Peter Kirby POWELL: Ok, we Jesus Mythers are embarrassed! Jee wizz. Rameus is going to lose all voting privileges at the next "Jesus is a Myth - Vader is a Sith" conference. Could you Jesus Historicists stop beating us while we're down? John Powell Didn't I close this thread already? I thought that apple near my name meant I could do stuff like that. Rameus April 16th 2005 09:31 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Amazing Rando Due to Rameus' failure to deliver his opening statement by the end of March as promised, and to jpholding's desire to move on to other ventures and debates, this debate is hereby closed. My apologies for not responding soon, an email from an online acquaintance prompted me to take a moment to go over to the debate thread to post an update on my progress (or lack thereof) and I saw that Rando officially closed the debate. Things have been more hectic this semester than I could have anticipated, and frankly this is the first moment I've had to give this issue even a few minutes of thought. JP Holding and Rando have been very patient with this debate, and I'd like to thank them for that consideration. Unfortunately for the spectators graduate school is my major priority at the moment, and all of my unpublished, online activities have fallen by the wayside. My apologies to everyone who has followed this debate and feels some level of disappointment or embarrassment as Mr. Kirby seems to feel is the proper reaction to such things. It was my genuine intention to begin this debate in a timely manner, however with my priorities and my course load it simply didn’t pan out. My schedule will begin to clear up considerably next month when this semester is finished, particularly because I will not be spending as much time abroad as I had anticipated. I hope to delve back into this issue over the summer. With any luck, I'll be able to produce something relatively lengthy for Mr. Holding to dissect and we can reinitiate the debate at some point in the near future; assuming that he is willing. Rameus Ray Fletcher April 16th 2005 10:40 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Rameus My apologies for not responding soon, an email from an online acquaintance prompted me to take a moment to go over to the debate thread to post an update on my progress (or lack thereof) and I saw that Rando officially closed the debate. Things have been more hectic this semester than I could have anticipated, and frankly this is the first moment I've had to give this issue even a few minutes of thought. JP Holding and Rando have been very patient with this debate, and I'd like to thank them for that consideration. Unfortunately for the spectators graduate school is my major priority at the moment, and all of my unpublished, online activities have fallen by the wayside. My apologies to everyone who has followed this debate and feels some level of disappointment or embarrassment as Mr. Kirby seems to feel is the proper reaction to such things. It was my genuine intention to begin this debate in a timely manner, however with my priorities and my course load it simply didn’t pan out. My schedule will begin to clear up considerably next month when this semester is finished, particularly because I will not be spending as much time abroad as I had anticipated. I hope to delve back into this issue over the summer. With any luck, I'll be able to produce something relatively lengthy for Mr. Holding to dissect and we can reinitiate the debate at some point in the near future; assuming that he is willing. Rameus Well Rameus, I know that you've been busy and all, but here on TWEB, the logic goes: Rameus never submitted his arguments, therefore Jesus was a historical figure! Because you have failed in providing any arguments, those who doubt the historical existence of the biblical Jesus are utterly ashamed and are now obliged to repent in sackcloth and ashes and accept that Jesus really did exist! Thanks alot Rameus! GakuseiDon April 16th 2005 05:02 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) For what it's worth, someone has posted an earlier essay by Rameus on Josephus and the TF on the ex-Xian website here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=191 I've culled what I consider representative quotes (apologies if I've missed anything). Cuts are represented by 3 periods, i.e. "...": Quote: -Rameus on the Testimonium Flavianum- The brief account of Josephus referring to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is at best a highly interpolated account, and at worst an absolute forgery. Many scholars today, Christian and otherwise formally support the veracity of this assertion. Indeed for many centuries, this was the prevailing view among the academic community. It was not until the discovery of a 10th century Arabic Christian version of the Josephus account that the fires of debate were rekindled, so to speak... [W]ith the discovery of the Arabic manuscript, the fundamentalists have decided to jam their toe back in the door, and reopen the discussion. They now propose that the Arabic account is the least mangled of all the copies, and that they all draw from a common, authentic source. This cute little thesis of theirs does little more than appeal to their favorite line of final defense: “It’s possible, and you can’t prove otherwise!” However as I intend to show, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Arabic, Greek, and Latin copies of this text didn’t all come from the same forged manuscript(s) that Bishop Eusebius used (or produced) in the 4th century... As I have already stated, the original manuscripts of Josephus do not exist. More importantly, we do not have a single extant copy that was not written by Christian scribes many centuries later. The importance of this point should not be underestimated. If the history of Christian Europe shows us anything it is that the Christian church was willing to do just about anything to promote the prosperity and growth of their religion. People were murdered, books were burned, temples were sacked, and manuscripts were forged. These are the historical facts, and they are indisputable. What does this mean? First, it means that the Christians had ample opportunity to commit the forgery; all of the existing copies of Josephus were written by Christian scribes. Second, it means that the Christian church had a very clear motive to commit such forgery; the movement lacked a solid foundation in the historical record that could be used to rebut arguments presented against it by the many detractors of the day. Forging an account and attributing it to Josephus, the major Jewish historian for that time period, would lend enough credibility to the historicity of Jesus Christ to transform Christianity from a movement into a full blown religious phenomenon. Last and perhaps most important, the historical record shows us that the Christians were engaged in forgery and the suppression of rival literature during this time period. So it is certainly not unreasonable to assume that they might very well have utilized these same tactics to create the now famous Testimonium Flavianum. Motive, opportunity, and a prior record; now all we need is to find Christian fingerprints on the Testimonium Flavianum... It seems absurd to think that a Jewish Pharisee could be responsible for such remarks. But let us pretend for a moment that he did write them. If Jesus was the Messiah, if he was a doer of wonderful works, if he had truly risen from the grave on the third day, and if his religion was the truth as Josephus describes, why in the Hell did he remain an orthodox Jew? It simply doesn’t make sense. The language is entirely Christian; the most fitting explanation is that the account was written or interpolated by a Christian... Another issue is that the Testimonium Flavianum does not fit in context with the passages preceding or following it... The next problem with the Testimonium Flavianum is that NONE of the early Christian apologists quote from it. They quote from Josephus' other works regarding Jewish history, but not from the Testimonium Flavianum. Origin in particular should have quoted from this account were it available during his lifetime... Why would Origen, who was desperate to prove the historicity of Jesus Christ to potential converts and to the detractors of the Christian religion, quote this extremely minor account that makes only a passing reference to Jesus and not quote the Testimonium Flavianum? ... The first person to quote the Testimonium Flavianum was the Christian Bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius in the 4th century. Eusebius is considered by some academics, Catholic and otherwise, as the father of "pious fraud"... Peter Kirby April 16th 2005 05:57 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Ray Fletcher, What I had in mind were the strong words of Rameus, which were posted at IIDB on Feb 5: Quote: I wanted to drop in, introduce myself, and inform you of my debate with J.P. Holding. I'm sure many of you have seen this topic debated four hundred thousand times, in forty thousand different ways. For those of you who are familiar with the notorious apologist J.P. Hominid then you probably realize that attempting to debate this man is akin to picking a lock with a rotten banana. However, I have watched this library scientist parade around as an expert for too long and I simply cannot remain silent any longer. My approach to debating is twofold; I fence with a hammer, and I take a multidisciplinary approach (graduate work in Near Eastern archaeology, anthropology, and ancient history). J.P. Hominid has been embarrassed and eviscerated on many occasions, by many great minds; this is certainly nothing new. I merely intend to add another scar to that degenerates anthology of pain. If any of you are bored (or twisted) enough to enjoy such a spectacle, it is taking place at Holding's exclusive debating forum of choice; FundeologyWeb. ... I would appreciate it if people would refrain from posting remarks supporting my position, as I'd like Holding's cult following to have something of a shock (as much as is possible with fundamentalist Christians) when I hand him his #@$ in round one. I am completing this essay in what little free time I have and I should have it posted (thus officially starting the debate) sometime in February. (Mods, please do me a favor and edit as little as possible from the quote.) So far, much sound and fury, signifying nothing. (Including that it doesn't signify that Jesus was a historical figure. No kidding.) Rameus, As a busy student myself, I can empathize with the kinds of pressures of time that you have. As indicated above, I take exception to the way that you made a commitment to debate and the strong language used, only to delay an opening statement for several months. However, if and when you do make an opening statement, or some other form of polished argument on the subject, then I will read it with interest. thanks, Peter Kirby jpholding April 18th 2005 01:01 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Josephus and Tacitus (Rameus vs. jpholding) Quote: Originally posted by Rameus My schedule will begin to clear up considerably next month when this semester is finished, particularly because I will not be spending as much time abroad as I had anticipated. How many entries in your datebook say, "Mouth off at X forum about how I will beat the crap out of X apologist on X issue"? :ahem: John Powell April 18th 2005 01:20 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- to JPHolding Quote: JPHOLDING (to Rameus): How many entries in your datebook say, "Mouth off at X forum about how I will beat the crap out of X apologist on X issue"? :ahem: POWELL: I think you should change the variables to something like X, Y, Z. Otherwise the result is weird. For example, if X = JPHolding: "Mouth off at JPHolding forum about how I will beat the crap out of JPHolding apologist on JPHolding issue" Our side is reduced to quibbling. How embarrasing. John Powell This sure is a long peanut gallery thread, considering the debate never happened. jpholding April 18th 2005 02:49 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: to JPHolding Quote: Originally posted by John Powell POWELL: I think you should change the variables to something like X, Y, Z. Otherwise the result is weird. For example, if X = JPHolding: "Mouth off at JPHolding forum about how I will beat the crap out of JPHolding apologist on JPHolding issue" Forget it, John Powell! I'm wise to that trick. Back in algebra class they were always telling me the first day how X equalled 4. I believed it, but then next day they came along and said, X equals 7! Then the next day, they said X equalled 8! Then 4! Then 56! And on and on and on and on. Ridiculous! I have to conclude that X means whatever you want it to mean. So there. :tongue: Johnny EC April 18th 2005 03:14 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: to JPHolding Quote: Originally posted by jpholding Forget it, John Powell! I'm wise to that trick. Back in algebra class they were always telling me the first day how X equalled 4. I believed it, but then next day they came along and said, X equals 7! Then the next day, they said X equalled 8! Then 4! Then 56! And on and on and on and on. Ridiculous! I have to conclude that X means whatever you want it to mean. So there. :tongue: Your quote-baiting Jimbo again, aren't you. I dare you to say "Pee Poo Bum Fart" just to see if it will turn up on his "quotes" page. jpholding April 18th 2005 03:19 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: to JPHolding Quote: Originally posted by Johnny EC Your quote-baiting Jimbo again, aren't you. Shhhhh! John Powell April 18th 2005 03:25 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- to JPHolding Quote: JPHolding: Forget it, John Powell! I'm wise to that trick. Back in algebra class they were always telling me the first day how X equalled 4. I believed it, but then next day they came along and said, X equals 7! Then the next day, they said X equalled 8! Then 4! Then 56! And on and on and on and on. Ridiculous! I have to conclude that X means whatever you want it to mean. So there. :tongue: POWELL: :hehe: In that case, I want it to mean you're wrong. So there. :rasberry: John Powell The Last page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts