| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice" |
| Date: |
19 Oct 2005 09:03:09 PM |
| Object: |
What would Jesus blog? |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051016/ap_on_hi_te/god_blogging
Pick a god, any god, whether it be a death centered Christian god,
or a life affirming Pagan god. Then blog it!
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
http://www.scienTOMogy.info - More Tom Cruise than HBO
.
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
19 Oct 2005 09:46:05 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 19 October 2005 10:03 pm
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051016/ap_on_hi_te/god_blogging
Pick a god, any god, whether it be a death centered Christian god,
or a life affirming Pagan god. Then blog it!
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
http://www.scienTOMogy.info - More Tom Cruise than HBO
If Jesus were actually real and not a fabrication, he would have blogged
nothing. He would have been illiterate.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "lkjahds7yu3q4" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
20 Oct 2005 12:23:55 AM |
|
|
"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:3roenhFkgcppU1@individual.net...
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 19 October 2005 10:03 pm
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051016/ap_on_hi_te/god_blogging
Pick a god, any god, whether it be a death centered Christian god,
or a life affirming Pagan god. Then blog it!
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
http://www.scienTOMogy.info - More Tom Cruise than HBO
If Jesus were actually real and not a fabrication, he would have blogged
nothing. He would have been illiterate.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
20 Oct 2005 07:26:43 AM |
|
|
Darrell Stec <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
If Jesus were actually real and not a fabrication, he would have blogged
nothing. He would have been illiterate.
I don't think that's necessarily the case. Certainly the majority of
people at the time were, but religious scholars and students would usually
be able to read and write, at least to some degree, just as monks and
theologians in medieval Britain would. If Jesus were real, he spent much
of his time arguing the toss with the religious community and I tend to
think he'd at least have had SOME level of literacy. I see no reason to
assume that there was not a real-life figure called Jesus and that he did
not spark some sort of controversy amongst the authorities at the time.
I see no reason to believe he performed miracles or was resurrected from
death or was God Incarnate, however.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
20 Oct 2005 08:29:39 AM |
|
|
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 19 October 2005 10:03 pm
FRice@SkepticTank.ORG wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051016/ap_on_hi_te/god_blogging
Pick a god, any god, whether it be a death centered Christian god,
or a life affirming Pagan god. Then blog it!
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
http://www.scienTOMogy.info - More Tom Cruise than HBO
If Jesus were actually real and not a fabrication, he would have blogged
nothing. He would have been illiterate.
Most likely not. Jesus seems to have been a part of the synagogue movement, a
movement where (mostly of the Pharisee party) would come together, read the
Torah and discuss the fine points. The people involved held scholarship in high
regard, and the ability to read and write was considered a necessary skill.
After the destruction of the Temple, this movement is what survived to become
modern Judaism. Since the Bible records that Jesus taught in synagogues and
discussed the Law, it is reasonable to conclude that he was associated with
that movement and thus literate in formal Hebrew and likely in Aramaic, the
day-to-day language of the region at that time.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
20 Oct 2005 10:49:49 AM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 20 October 2005 9:29 am
techbear@serv.net wrote:
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 19 October 2005 10:03
pm wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051016/ap_on_hi_te/god_blogging
Pick a god, any god, whether it be a death centered Christian god,
or a life affirming Pagan god. Then blog it!
---
http://www.ElmerFudd.US/ http://www.notserver.com/
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html
http://www.rightard.org/ http://www.thedarkwind.org/
http://www.scienTOMogy.info - More Tom Cruise than HBO
If Jesus were actually real and not a fabrication, he would have blogged
nothing. He would have been illiterate.
Most likely not. Jesus seems to have been a part of the synagogue
movement, a movement where (mostly of the Pharisee party) would come
together, read the Torah and discuss the fine points. The people involved
held scholarship in high regard, and the ability to read and write was
considered a necessary skill. After the destruction of the Temple, this
movement is what survived to become modern Judaism. Since the Bible
records that Jesus taught in synagogues and discussed the Law, it is
reasonable to conclude that he was associated with that movement and thus
literate in formal Hebrew and likely in Aramaic, the day-to-day language
of the region at that time. --
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
That might make sense except for one major roadblock -- there is absolutely
no evidence of synagogues in first century Galilee. They came later.
Besides Galilee being the epicenter of many cultures would have had Greek
as common language. You can't use the bible as evidence of the first
century customs anyway as it is too replete with anachronisms. Mid to late
second century is more like it. As a matter of fact there are not mentions
of any of the gospels by the Patristic Fathers until 170 CE, and none
citing all four until 190 CE.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
20 Oct 2005 08:54:14 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
Darrell Stec wrote:
If Jesus were actually real and not a fabrication, he would have blogged
nothing. He would have been illiterate.
Most likely not. Jesus seems to have been a part of the synagogue movement, a
movement where (mostly of the Pharisee party) would come together, read the
Torah and discuss the fine points. The people involved held scholarship in high
regard, and the ability to read and write was considered a necessary skill.
I've seen it presented that "carpenter", as used in the area
at that time, meant something closer to "civil engineer" than
"contract laborer". If this is so, then the Jesus presented
as a son of a carpenter would have been from a family with
a relatively high social class, at least as far as the local
society was concerned.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
20 Oct 2005 11:29:37 AM |
|
|
If Jesus were actually real and not a fabrication, he would have
blogged
nothing. He would have been illiterate
Pardon me, Where did you get that idea?
There is more then enought proof about, that people at that time were
able to read and write. Would people call somebody "Rabbi" if the man
wasn't able to read the scriptures?
Think about it
Peter van Velzen
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
20 Oct 2005 01:48:47 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Thursday 20 October 2005 12:29 pm
pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
If Jesus were actually real and not a fabrication, he would have
blogged
nothing. He would have been illiterate
Pardon me, Where did you get that idea?
There is more then enought proof about, that people at that time were
able to read and write. Would people call somebody "Rabbi" if the man
wasn't able to read the scriptures?
Think about it
Of course they could. It was after all the story as fabricated by the
authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. They could make him into anything
they wanted. There is evidence that the earliest of those stories were
created in the second century CE after 134.
According to the storyline, Jesus was a carpenter, the son of a carpenter
living in Galilee (Nazareth as later interpolated which didn't exist in the
first century CE either). Where did this education come from? Synagogues
in Galilee of the first century CE are anachronisms. Archaeologists have
found no remains from that time period of them.
Peter van Velzen
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
21 Oct 2005 06:37:59 AM |
|
|
According to the storyline, Jesus was a carpenter, the son of a
carpenter
living in Galilee (Nazareth as later interpolated which didn't exist in
the
first century CE either). Where did this education come from?
Synagogues
in Galilee of the first century CE are anachronisms. Archaeologists
have
found no remains from that time period of them.
According to the storyline his mother was a Virgen:)
But let's be serious, the absence of Synagoges wouldn't make the whole
population illiterate. Do you seriously believe the QUmran documents
are all fraud, because nobody could read and write?
By the way marc 1:21 actually mention him being at the synagoge and
teaching.
If the author was mistaken and there was no synagoge in Kapernau, then
surely he was supposing Jesus to be able to read.
In another place he lets Jesus say "Isn't it written"
Another hint that at least Marc thought he was litterate.
Him or his father being a carpenter doesn't indicate very much, as
little is known about the (il)literacy of jewish carpenters.
According to Luke his mother was aquanted with the wife of a temple
priest, so she problable came in circles were litteracy was not
uncommon.
And finally: An illiterate Jew claiming to be the Messiah?
Just think about it
Peter van Velzen
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
PS If he lived now he would not be illiterate
but he might actually spend so much time on the internet
that he wouldn't have time for finishing his eduction,
and was forced to go around like a beggar-monk:)
I have heard he IS actually posting on alt-atheism:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
21 Oct 2005 02:48:59 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 21 October 2005 7:37 am
pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
According to the storyline, Jesus was a carpenter, the son of a
carpenter
living in Galilee (Nazareth as later interpolated which didn't exist in
the
first century CE either). Where did this education come from?
Synagogues
in Galilee of the first century CE are anachronisms. Archaeologists
have
found no remains from that time period of them.
According to the storyline his mother was a Virgen:)
But let's be serious, the absence of Synagoges wouldn't make the whole
population illiterate. Do you seriously believe the QUmran documents
are all fraud, because nobody could read and write?
There certainly were scribes who could read and write but you are reading
far more into that then actually exists. You can't equate a special few
with extending to the population in general. Secondly while the scribes
might be somewhat literate and could form the letters it doesn't mean they
could actually read what they wrote. Nor does someone have to be able to
read an old manuscript to realize that it was precious and worthy of
saving. How many antiques collectors do you suppose collected rare
manuscripts but couldn't read them? Quite a few from my experience.
In addition when they copied the works it wasn't exactly as most people
picture, looking from one text to the other and forming the letters. And
using the Dead Sea Scrolls does nothing to bolster your case. The
overwhelming number of manuscripts and fragments are written in Hebrew with
very little in Aramaic or Greek. Some of those were already a century old
or two old by the time they were hidden.
Consider this, for centuries the Mass in the Catholic Church was performed
in Latin. I know for an absolute fact that the majority of people who
recited from their Missals didn't have the foggiest idea what they were
reciting. I know my mother and siblings didn't (my dad did as he studied
Latin), nor did my grandmother, nor 99.9999% of the other people in the
church (leaving aside all those who were praying the rosary instead of
paying attention to the Mass).
Chanting Hebrew did not make the average Jew (and that still applies today)
a scholar, nor did it mean he understood the sounds he was chanting. Do
you think those actors that play doctors or nuclear scientists understand
even the basics of medicine or physics, let alone what they are mimicing?
By the way marc 1:21 actually mention him being at the synagoge and
teaching.
If the author was mistaken and there was no synagoge in Kapernau, then
surely he was supposing Jesus to be able to read.
In another place he lets Jesus say "Isn't it written"
Another hint that at least Marc thought he was litterate.
Assuming for the moment that Mark didn't make up the whole story of Jesus
(there is ample evidence that he did) Mark demonstrates that he knew very
little of the geography or customs of the Palestinian region. Matthew
corrects Mark on numerous occasions.
Mark did not think he was literate. Mark decided that his hero character
would be literate, so he invented him that way.
Him or his father being a carpenter doesn't indicate very much, as
little is known about the (il)literacy of jewish carpenters.
There are a few books that covers the topic extensively. There is more
known about a carpenter or general laborer of the first century than you
might imagine. The bigger issue is what the Greek word 'tekton' which is
translated as carpenter meant. It's meaning went all over the map, from an
simple workworker at the bottom of the payscale to a skilled craftsman and
even to a major general contractor to ship building and cities which could
be quite wealthy indeed.
The Septuagint uses the word 'tekton' for the Hebrew word 'charash' which
indeed includes all those things. However in allowing Jesus to be a
literal 'tekton' then you must also conclude he may not have been a poor
itinerate wanderer, or at the very least came from wealth. Mark states
Jesus himself was a carpenter. Matthew makes his father a carpenter.
Clearly each saw their Jesus from a different perspective.
According to Luke his mother was aquanted with the wife of a temple
priest, so she problable came in circles were litteracy was not
uncommon.
Mark, Matthew and John apparently didn't know the story. Luke fleshed out
her story with a more elaborate fabrication.
And finally: An illiterate Jew claiming to be the Messiah?
Try reading Josephus and other historians of the few centuries straddling
the first century CE. There were a number of Messiahs who were illiterate,
and more than one named Jesus (though the one about Jesus of Nazareth was
an interpolation.
Please explain what you think the criterion of an annointed one would be
from the perspective of a first century CE Jew? Now tell us the
perspective of a second century CE Jew, the time period the main bulk of
the New Testament was written?
Just think about it
Peter van Velzen
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
PS If he lived now he would not be illiterate
but he might actually spend so much time on the internet
that he wouldn't have time for finishing his eduction,
and was forced to go around like a beggar-monk:)
Why not? Pastor Dave, Malcolm, and Pastor Frank are obviously ignorant of
the what the scriptures contain. They have simply memorized a few pet
phrases in English. Besides education today at least in the US is
compulsory. That was not the case in the first century CE Palestine. It
most certainly not the case even in the Middle Ages Europe where before the
Reformation even possessing your own copy of scripture could get the
average lay person burned at the stake.
I have heard he IS actually posting on alt-atheism:)
He certainly wouldn't be a Fundie. The Jesus of the bible was as liberal as
one could be.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
21 Oct 2005 03:32:30 PM |
|
|
Darrel:
Please explain what you think the criterion of an annointed one would
be
from the perspective of a first century CE Jew? arrell:
Peter:
There were two offices where one was annointed.
One was the office of King the other was the office of High-priest.
As he visited the temple more often that palaces,
I suspect he would claim to be the hight-priest.
I can't imagine a high-priest that can't read his holy scriptures.
But maybe I lack imagination.
The main reason though, I suspect the man to be literate,
was that he spoke with authority on the scriptures.
If he couldn't read them, how could he speak with authority?
(Yes I am supposing that
- although he spoke Aramaic he could read Hebrew)
========================================
Darell:
He certainly wouldn't be a Fundie. The Jesus of the bible was as
liberal as
one could be.
Peter:
I wouldn't dare second that:)
Mainly because liberal has different meanings. He was a humanist but
not a secular one!
Litterally he was a fundamentalist because unlike modern fundies, he
mainly sticked to the fundamentals (the 10 words), and didn't care a
lot about all those others laws the levites had come up with. I guess
that made him look liberal, but he was also a radical activist, who
promised a fearce battle where brother would fight against brother
even. Though he showed more sense than Al Quaida, and was carefull
about the Romans.
Well not carefull enough, for as it seems is was them who hung him.
But if he lived today he would be another man alltogether.
Probably not so hung up about the fact that his mother married a man
who was not his father.
=======================================================
Think about it
Peter van Velzen
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
21 Oct 2005 07:22:52 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Friday 21 October 2005 4:32 pm
pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
Darrel:
Please explain what you think the criterion of an annointed one would
be
from the perspective of a first century CE Jew? arrell:
Peter:
There were two offices where one was annointed.
If there were only two offices where one was anointed why were Elisha and
Isaiah anointed? Were they high priests? See:
veet yehu ven-nimshi timshakh lemelekh al-yisrael veet-elisha ben-shafat
meavel mekhola timshakh lenavi takhteikha
ruakh adonai yehevi alai yaan mashakh adonai oti levaser anavim
or the same passages in Greek:
kai ton hiou huion namessi chriseis eis basilea epi israel kai ton elisaie
huion saphat apo abelmaoula chriseis eis propheten anti soo
pneuma kuriou ep heme hou eineken echrisen me eyaggelisasthai ptochois
Why does Matthew (although that story was most likely invented in the second
centuruy CE) have Jesus telling the common man to anoint his head before
fasting:
su de nesteuon aleipsai soo ten kephelen kai to prosopon soo nipsai
And even worse for your case, why did the trees anoint the trees? See:
halokh halkhu haetsim limshoakh aleihem melekh vayomru lazayit malvkha
malkha aleinu
Or in the Septuagint:
poreuomena eporeuthesan ta xula tou chrisai heautois basilea kai eipon te
elaia basileuson eph hemon
In fact there are many other cases where common man and things like trees,
pillars, bread etc. in the Old and New Testaments are anointed. The point
I wish to make is that the word anoint was simply one to signify that a
person or object had some type of special relationship with one of the gods
or some group. The NT does of course, with the exception of two verses,
use words other than 'chriso' for anoint when not referring to Jesus. But
the Hebrew word is always a derivative of the same word used for Messiah
and which in turn is translated as Christ. That his shown in the
Septuagint where all those instances are translated into a form of 'chriso'
in every case.
One was the office of King the other was the office of High-priest.
As he visited the temple more often that palaces,
I suspect he would claim to be the hight-priest.
Then why all the emphasis on the Davidic line? The priests were from the
Levite families yet the genealogies are given through the Judah family.
[Although there is good reason to think that tribe is revisionist since the
much, much older fragments of memories contained in the Song of Deborah in
the book of Judges mention neither the tribes of Simeon and Judah whereas
the tribe of Machir is, yet that is not part of the Genealogy either.]
Besides what I was getting at was -- what criterion/qualifications do you
think the JEWS of the first century CE required the Messiah to possess? It
is obvious that Jesus did not fulfill them because he was not accepted
among his own, nor do the Jews accept him today. Both Jesus and Christ
(Christ meaning Messiah meaning the anointed one), at least as used in
Pauline literature were titles not names. The gospel writers made a name
from the titles for their fabricated hero.
Jesus was not the high priest of the temple. Historical records give a
rather good indication of that. Nor would the gospel writers make him one
as that would have a negative impact on their readers and the people they
were trying to entertain. Nor the high priest abdicate the duties of his
office and become an itinerate preacher.
I can't imagine a high-priest that can't read his holy scriptures.
But maybe I lack imagination.
There was only one high priest per year and he was exclusive to the Temple
in Jerusalem. You are introjecting much later customs back into those
times.
The main reason though, I suspect the man to be literate,
was that he spoke with authority on the scriptures.
If he couldn't read them, how could he speak with authority?
(Yes I am supposing that
- although he spoke Aramaic he could read Hebrew)
========================================
Darell:
He certainly wouldn't be a Fundie. The Jesus of the bible was as
liberal as
one could be.
Peter:
I wouldn't dare second that:)
Mainly because liberal has different meanings.
Only if you feel it is necessary to redefine words so there is no
contradiction.
He was a humanist but
not a secular one!
And if Revelation 3:17 was right, his own people did not think of him as
poor:
"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of
nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor,
and blind, and naked: "
Litterally he was a fundamentalist because unlike modern fundies, he
mainly sticked to the fundamentals (the 10 words), and didn't care a
lot about all those others laws the levites had come up with. I guess
that made him look liberal, but he was also a radical activist, who
promised a fearce battle where brother would fight against brother
even. Though he showed more sense than Al Quaida, and was carefull
about the Romans.
Well not carefull enough, for as it seems is was them who hung him.
Paul never mentions the Romans killing him. He does however have the evil
Archons, a relatively high ranking angelic group equal to the Powers
killing him.
But if he lived today he would be another man alltogether.
Probably not so hung up about the fact that his mother married a man
who was not his father.
According to Exodus, the Ten Commandments (which incidentally numbered more
than ten as they were compounded rules) were part of those "other laws the
levites had come up with". Further more they are NOT the same Ten
Commandments Christians want to display in court houses and schools.
And the injunction against divorce was as secular as they came. He objected
because divorce made prostitutes and homeless out of divorced women since
they were the property on no one, hence nobody to provide for them. And he
countermanded big daddy in the sky by telling his contemporaries not to
treat their former property that way, even though his daddy said it was ok.
Some of what he said was truly insipid such as walking a second mile.
[That would get the Roman soldier killed.] He definitely was passive
aggressive, but upset the norms of the day. That is what liberals do.
Conservatives want to preserve the past, not change the present.
=======================================================
Think about it
Peter van Velzen
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
22 Oct 2005 08:51:39 AM |
|
|
Darell:
If there were only two offices where one was anointed why were Elisha
and
Isaiah anointed?
Peter:
You can annoint anyone -even a common man - but I read somewhere that
both the King of Israel(Juda) and the hight priest of the temple in
Jerusalem needed to be annointed,
and that the term Messiah was therefore not only used for the man who
was to be king, but also for the man who was to be the high-priest.
===========================================================
Darell
(quoting something I can't read and therefore skip)
Peter:
Forgive me if I do not read any ancient languages.
Anyway we are getting far of topic.
I think Jesaja was clearly not illiterat. As for Elisha we can't be
sure.
So probably Jesaja would Blog and Elisha might not:)
==================================================
Darell:
Jesus was not the high priest of the temple
Peter:
And neither was he King.
Nevertheless he was call Messiah and convicted for striving to become
one.
Please stop mixing up (f)acts and ideas.
The whole thing about Jesus being the Messiah was based on ideas,
not so much on (f)acts.
The ideas about Jesus indicate that he would be able to read and write.
The facts show nothing.
This is quite common
When I was reading translations of Tacitus and Cassius Dio, I was
surprised
how much was written about things happening in Rome and how little was
written about what was happening in Judea. Even when Tacitus wrote
about the siege of Jerusalem he ended with "but let's get back to
Civilus" ,
as even Lower Germany ("The Netherlands") were considered more
important!
=========================================================
Darrell:
There was only one high priest per year and he was exclusive to the
Temple
in Jerusalem. You are introjecting much later customs back into those
times.
Sorry reading the scriptures was a much later custom?
How do you know that?
But I agree, a High Priest probably wouldn't blog:)
========================================
Darrel:
Paul never mentions the Romans killing him. He does however have the
evil
Archons, a relatively high ranking angelic group equal to the Powers
killing him.
Peter:
Maybe that's why some scholars think Paul is the "liar" mentioned in
the Habakuk comments (part of the dead-sea scrolls).
Crucifixion was a roman way of humiliating execution.
Neither Jews nor Angels are likely culprits
=======================================================.
According to Exodus, the Ten Commandments (which incidentally numbered
more
than ten as they were compounded rules) were part of those "other laws
the
levites had come up with". Further more they are NOT the same Ten
Commandments Christians want to display in court houses and schools
What is commonly named "ten commandments" - an ill translation of the
Greek
" decalogos" (meaning ten words or ten sentences) - and which according
to the Gospel was frequently quoted by Jesus is the test from Exodus
20.
Jesus seemed to care little about the lines that didn't concern ones
behaviour towards other people, started with "honour thy father and thy
mother",
and seemed to refrase the last one as either: "don't rob" or " love
thy fellow man as thou loves thyself", that is the main reason I
consider him to be a humanist.
This of course providing he was an actual existing person that was
correctly quoted by the gospel-writers.
The question whether this person would blog if he lived today can of
course not be answered, as he wouldn't be the same person if he lived
today.
My guess is John the Baptist would blog, and openly attack the mighty,
About Jesus I can't be sure, as the acts mentioned in the Gospels
mainly took place after John was already in the dungeon, and Jesus
might only be more carefull because he was aware of that.
Darrel:
And the injunction against divorce was as secular as they came. He
objected
because divorce made prostitutes and homeless out of divorced women
since
they were the property on no one, hence nobody to provide for them.
And he
countermanded big daddy in the sky by telling his contemporaries not to
treat their former property that way, even though his daddy said it was
ok.
Some of what he said was truly insipid such as walking a second mile.
[That would get the Roman soldier killed.] He definitely was passive
aggressive, but upset the norms of the day. That is what liberals do.
Conservatives want to preserve the past, not change the present.
Peter:
Altough this is the common way to talk about it I am of a different
opinion.
Conservatives want to preserve the existing powers.
Wether these existing powers preserve the past or change it
dramatically
doesn't interest them.
Conservatives do not conserve nature, because the existing powers
(international bussinesses) don't do so.
Liberals mainly want to give power to the individual person.
If the individual person uses this powes to conserve the past,
it is OK with the liberals.
I maintian what connects Jesus to the liberals is that both are
Humanists.
(do humanist ins general blog?)
Think about it
Peter van Velzen
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
PS
Also Jesus uses Exodus 20 heavily to support his own ideas.
And I have the feeling the other of those lines was also a humanist
We will never know for sure, until the arc of convenant is really
found.
(my guess is even then it will be a long battle between egyptologist as
I believe the stone tabel(s) to be in hieroglyps)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
22 Oct 2005 03:26:05 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Saturday 22 October 2005 9:51 am
pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
Darell:
If there were only two offices where one was anointed why were Elisha
and
Isaiah anointed?
Peter:
You can annoint anyone -even a common man - but I read somewhere that
both the King of Israel(Juda) and the hight priest of the temple in
Jerusalem needed to be annointed,
and that the term Messiah was therefore not only used for the man who
was to be king, but also for the man who was to be the high-priest.
And it was used for the blind man, and the tree, and the bread, and the
pillars and for Elisha and for Isaiah. Anointing wasn't a particularly
special thing. It simply indicated some type of dedication to god (or gods
because of the culture the Hebrews borrowed from).
That is why in authentic Pauline works the Messiah was a title simply
indicating an anointed one dedicated to god. And Jesus was another title
for the person who was Yahweh's salvation (savior). In all essence Paul
was not writing of a historical man but some indefinite namesless one where
events took place in the heavens. Since the main event happened in the 7th
heaven, the lowest of the heavenly realms, its effects could be manifested
on earth.
Some generations later, the gospel writers (and other epistle writers plus
the pseudoPauline writers) took Paul's heavenly hero, made him into a
specific person taking the titles and using them as a name. It worked
because the title 'savior' was also the most common name used in Judea.
They then invented earthly stories of the man.
===========================================================
Darell
(quoting something I can't read and therefore skip)
Peter:
Forgive me if I do not read any ancient languages.
That is a scary thought. You entrust your immortal soul (or so you believe)
on the basis that what someone else tells you is scripture is correct. I
would think an immortal soul if one believes in such a thing, would be so
important they would want to read the one book, the one roadmap to heaven
and salvation for themselves and not trust that some else is translating it
properly. Of course the real danger is that one might just find out that
the roadmap really goes nowhere and the wizard is behind the curtain.
The reason I quoted the original is that someone could not come back and say
their bible says something different. The words for anointed/messiah are
plainly displayed.
Anyway we are getting far of topic.
I think Jesaja was clearly not illiterat. As for Elisha we can't be
sure.
So probably Jesaja would Blog and Elisha might not:)
If Jesus were a poor carpenter, he was illiterate. If Jesus was very
wealthy as is indicated by the ease in which he mingled in the wealthy
people's palaces, as the word 'tecton' might indicate as a general
contractor rather than simple carpenter, and as Revelation states, then he
very well may have been educated.
But the storytellers couldn't keep their fables straight so they portray
Jesus one time as poor, praising poverty, and another time wealthy praising
wealth. He spoke often of wealth and seem familiar with it.
However the wealth part doesn't jive with his portrayal as a Cynic or Stoic
philosopher and itinerate preacher. If you maintain those
characterizations you have no basis for claiming he was literate.
And you do realize that every time Jesus quotes scripture the quotes come
directly from the Greek Septuagint, and not the Hebrew editions recovered
from the Dead Sea Scrolls, don't you? [The Masoretic Texts we now no were
horribly slaughtered as the DDS show.] And combining the evidence of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (showing that almost all scripture except the Pentateuch
was written in Hebrew) and the statements by Josephus that only the
Torah/Pentateuch had been translated into Greek by the end of the first
century CE, how was Jesus able to quote something not written in his
supposed lifetime?
The stories and words of Jesus were fabricated. Mark, the original
storyteller had no basis upon which to make his Jesus literate, except in
his imagination of making his Jesus a superhero battling the great (but
wrong) wits of his time. Mark knew neither the geography nor the customs
of early first century CE Palestine.
==================================================
Darell:
Jesus was not the high priest of the temple
Peter:
And neither was he King.
Nevertheless he was call Messiah and convicted for striving to become
one.
Please stop mixing up (f)acts and ideas.
The whole thing about Jesus being the Messiah was based on ideas,
not so much on (f)acts.
The ideas about Jesus indicate that he would be able to read and write.
The facts show nothing.
This is quite common
When I was reading translations of Tacitus and Cassius Dio, I was
surprised
how much was written about things happening in Rome and how little was
written about what was happening in Judea. Even when Tacitus wrote
about the siege of Jerusalem he ended with "but let's get back to
Civilus" ,
as even Lower Germany ("The Netherlands") were considered more
important!
As you say, you are not familiar with the ancient languages. There was much
written about the area. Reading Josephus alone might take you are few
weeks. However there was no mention in the contemporary records of Jesus.
And he was never crucified. The whole story was fabrication. Pilate would
have been more inclined to slaughter the mob than to give in to them, if
what the gospels tell us of repeating three times he found the man
innocent.
There were other problems with the story. Having the civil authorities
handle corporal punishment happened after 70 CE, which is an indication
that the gospels were late indeed, written many, many generations after the
time period in which they were said to have happened. Internal evidence in
the gospels themselves show the Judeans had the authority to carry out
punishment, as they tried to kill Jesus three time prior to the
crucifixion.
And blasphemy was not an executable crime for the Romans. Nor were the
Sanhedrin allowed to hold court at the hours the crucifixion story says
they did. Nor would Pilate consult with Herod. Nor was the event leading
up to the crucifixion real, the Temple incident was impossible, and at odds
with what the gospel of John says.
In fact the majority of the events depicting Jesus' live was a retelling of
the Old Testament stories substituting the name Jesus of Eliza, Elisha,
Nathaniel, etc. and embellished with anachronisms. At least for Mark the
story was a philosophical novel. Some generations later when the author of
Luke wrote her gospel, the story was fleshed out and even more was borrowed
from other religious cultured. The story was being more Hellenized and
Romanized. If they honestly believed that Jesus was a real story and they
were actually trying to convey an accurate account they would not have felt
as free to change their stories from one gospel to the next.
So they invented a more literate hero, one which could take on the despised
literate. The story went over well with the general, illiterate populas,
=========================================================
Darrell:
There was only one high priest per year and he was exclusive to the
Temple
in Jerusalem. You are introjecting much later customs back into those
times.
Sorry reading the scriptures was a much later custom?
I was referring to the anointing of high priestS (plural). There were
temple priests and only one high priest.
How do you know that?
But I agree, a High Priest probably wouldn't blog:)
You might be wrong. Blogging could well fall into the purview of the High
Priest. He was an administrator and in charge of ritual performance. But
the same could not be said for an itinerate preacher in far away Galilee
which had no synagogue. That portrayal of Jesus would have rendered him
illiterate.
========================================
Darrel:
Paul never mentions the Romans killing him. He does however have the
evil
Archons, a relatively high ranking angelic group equal to the Powers
killing him.
Peter:
Maybe that's why some scholars think Paul is the "liar" mentioned in
the Habakuk comments (part of the dead-sea scrolls).
Crucifixion was a roman way of humiliating execution.
Neither Jews nor Angels are likely culprits
Those were written long before Pauline letters. If Paul is to be believed,
his epistle writing started after the reign of Aretas IV and after Corinth
was rebuilt and a thriving metropolis again. That would put his letters
much later than tradition assigns them.
The crucifixion story was fabricated. The Romans would have executed him
for the events depicted in "Palm Sunday" and not waited a week later. His
escapade at the Temple whipping would have resulted in this death at that
instance. Read Josephus about how well the Temple was guarded especially
during feast days by Roman soldier (Jews primarily). They would not have
allowed the desecration of their Temple. Nor would the private bodyguards
of the bankers/money changers. Blasphemy was not an executable crime for
the Romans, but was for the Jews and they didn't need permission from the
Roman Prefect (not Procurator as the gospels call him which indicates a
quite late beginning for the story). All these errors point to a story
that was written generations after any events and in and for a culture far
removed from Palestine.
And YES they were angels. Paul invented the original story and he got to
write his story any way he chose. He chose angels and heaven for his
scenario. A few generations later, gospel writers borrowed Paul's hero and
reinvented him. Their stories are inconsistent with the reality of the
first century CE.
=======================================================.
According to Exodus, the Ten Commandments (which incidentally numbered
more
than ten as they were compounded rules) were part of those "other laws
the
levites had come up with". Further more they are NOT the same Ten
Commandments Christians want to display in court houses and schools
What is commonly named "ten commandments" - an ill translation of the
Greek
" decalogos" (meaning ten words or ten sentences) - and which according
to the Gospel was frequently quoted by Jesus is the test from Exodus
20.
Jesus seemed to care little about the lines that didn't concern ones
behaviour towards other people, started with "honour thy father and thy
mother",
and seemed to refrase the last one as either: "don't rob" or " love
thy fellow man as thou loves thyself", that is the main reason I
consider him to be a humanist.
This of course providing he was an actual existing person that was
correctly quoted by the gospel-writers.
The question whether this person would blog if he lived today can of
course not be answered, as he wouldn't be the same person if he lived
today.
My guess is John the Baptist would blog, and openly attack the mighty,
John would not blog. He would have preached the evil of the computer.
After all, he wasn't a televangelist whose main goal is to get rich.
About Jesus I can't be sure, as the acts mentioned in the Gospels
mainly took place after John was already in the dungeon, and Jesus
might only be more carefull because he was aware of that.
Darrel:
And the injunction against divorce was as secular as they came. He
objected
because divorce made prostitutes and homeless out of divorced women
since
they were the property on no one, hence nobody to provide for them.
And he
countermanded big daddy in the sky by telling his contemporaries not to
treat their former property that way, even though his daddy said it was
ok.
Some of what he said was truly insipid such as walking a second mile.
[That would get the Roman soldier killed.] He definitely was passive
aggressive, but upset the norms of the day. That is what liberals do.
Conservatives want to preserve the past, not change the present.
Peter:
Altough this is the common way to talk about it I am of a different
opinion.
Conservatives want to preserve the existing powers.
Wether these existing powers preserve the past or change it
dramatically
doesn't interest them.
Conservatives do not conserve nature, because the existing powers
(international bussinesses) don't do so.
Liberals mainly want to give power to the individual person.
If the individual person uses this powes to conserve the past,
it is OK with the liberals.
I maintian what connects Jesus to the liberals is that both are
Humanists.
(do humanist ins general blog?)
Think about it
Peter van Velzen
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
PS
Also Jesus uses Exodus 20 heavily to support his own ideas.
And I have the feeling the other of those lines was also a humanist
We will never know for sure, until the arc of convenant is really
found.
(my guess is even then it will be a long battle between egyptologist as
I believe the stone tabel(s) to be in hieroglyps)
Sorry but Exodus 20, and the counterpart in Deuteronomy are NOT the ten
commandments. According to scripture, he only original ten commandments
and referred to as the ones written on stone are found in Exodus 34. That
is why I said most Christians display the wrong set. Try reading this and
the rest of the chapter:
Exod 34:1 and Yahweh said unto Moses, hew thee two tables of stone like unto
the first: and I will write upon these tables THE WORDS THAT WERE IN THE
FIRST TABLES, which thou brakest.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
23 Oct 2005 01:40:57 PM |
|
|
Peter:
You can annoint anyone -even a common man - but I read somewhere that
both the King of Israel(Juda) and the hight priest of the temple in
Jerusalem needed to be annointed,
and that the term Messiah was therefore not only used for the man who
was to be king, but also for the man who was to be the high-priest.
Darrel:
And it was used for the blind man, and the tree, and the bread, and the
pillars and for Elisha and for Isaiah. Anointing wasn't a particularly
special thing. It simply indicated some type of dedication to god (or
gods
because of the culture the Hebrews borrowed from).
Messiah was used for the blind man and the tree and the bread?
Are you sure?
==============================================
Peter:
Forgive me if I do not read any ancient languages
Darrel:
That is a scary thought. You entrust your immortal soul (or so you
believe)
on the basis that what someone else tells you is scripture is correct
Peter:
That's what I get for forgetting my Atheist number)
=====================================
Darrell:
If Jesus were a poor carpenter, he was illiterate. If Jesus was very
wealthy as is indicated by the ease in which he mingled in the wealthy
people's palaces, as the word 'tecton' might indicate as a general
contractor rather than simple carpenter, and as Revelation states, then
he
very well may have been educated.
That what I was on about in the first place!:
Even though you speak as though you now a lot more about these things
the me,
you end up saying I might be rigght:)
==========================
Darrell:
As you say, you are not familiar with the ancient languages. There was
much
written about the area. Reading Josephus alone might take you are few
weeks. However there was no mention in the contemporary records of
Jesus
Peter:
If the dating of Jesus is correct, Josephus was of another generation,
Thus far I have not found any contemporary records at all,
then deal in lenght with the situation in Judea.
When in the bookshop I stumbled upon Casius Dio,
I was actually looking for Josephus,
I guess I go look once more.
=====================================================
Peter:
Maybe that's why some scholars think Paul is the "liar" mentioned in
the Habakuk comments (part of the dead-sea scrolls).
Crucifixion was a roman way of humiliating execution.
Neither Jews nor Angels are likely culprits
Darrell:
Those were written long before Pauline letters. If Paul is to be
believed,
his epistle writing started after the reign of Aretas IV and after
Corinth
was rebuilt and a thriving metropolis again. That would put his
letters
much later than tradition assigns them.
Peter:
According to my information, the dating of the Habbauk comment is
arguable.
and now you are saying the dating of Paulls letter is too.
That doesn't help very much does it:)
I wonder what Paul would Blog. . . .
Your postings are gettting to long.
Google won't show them whoel
Think about it
Peter van Velzen
Atheist#1107
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
23 Oct 2005 11:54:23 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Sunday 23 October 2005 2:40 pm
pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
Peter:
You can annoint anyone -even a common man - but I read somewhere that
both the King of Israel(Juda) and the hight priest of the temple in
Jerusalem needed to be annointed,
and that the term Messiah was therefore not only used for the man who
was to be king, but also for the man who was to be the high-priest.
Darrel:
And it was used for the blind man, and the tree, and the bread, and the
pillars and for Elisha and for Isaiah. Anointing wasn't a particularly
special thing. It simply indicated some type of dedication to god (or
gods
because of the culture the Hebrews borrowed from).
Messiah was used for the blind man and the tree and the bread?
Are you sure?
Of course I'm sure. That is why I quoted the Hebrew and Greek to illustrate
the point.
==============================================
Peter:
Forgive me if I do not read any ancient languages
Darrel:
That is a scary thought. You entrust your immortal soul (or so you
believe)
on the basis that what someone else tells you is scripture is correct
Peter:
That's what I get for forgetting my Atheist number)
You support the Fundamentalist POV frequently.
=====================================
Darrell:
If Jesus were a poor carpenter, he was illiterate. If Jesus was very
wealthy as is indicated by the ease in which he mingled in the wealthy
people's palaces, as the word 'tecton' might indicate as a general
contractor rather than simple carpenter, and as Revelation states, then
he
very well may have been educated.
That what I was on about in the first place!:
Even though you speak as though you now a lot more about these things
the me,
you end up saying I might be rigght:)
No, I said that the authors of the gospel say contradictory things in their
story. But since it is only a fabrication they can say what they want.
However that still doesn't get around the fact that their Jesus character
showed his "literacy" by quoting Greek scripture that hadn't been written
in the first century.
==========================
Darrell:
As you say, you are not familiar with the ancient languages. There was
much
written about the area. Reading Josephus alone might take you are few
weeks. However there was no mention in the contemporary records of
Jesus
Peter:
If the dating of Jesus is correct, Josephus was of another generation,
Thus far I have not found any contemporary records at all,
then deal in lenght with the situation in Judea.
When in the bookshop I stumbled upon Casius Dio,
I was actually looking for Josephus,
I guess I go look once more.
=====================================================
Peter:
Maybe that's why some scholars think Paul is the "liar" mentioned in
the Habakuk comments (part of the dead-sea scrolls).
Crucifixion was a roman way of humiliating execution.
Neither Jews nor Angels are likely culprits
Darrell:
Those were written long before Pauline letters. If Paul is to be
believed,
his epistle writing started after the reign of Aretas IV and after
Corinth
was rebuilt and a thriving metropolis again. That would put his
letters
much later than tradition assigns them.
Peter:
According to my information, the dating of the Habbauk comment is
arguable.
It is not arguable. It is argued. By apologists who must win the debate.
The paleographic and the carbon dating are in agreement. The discussion of
sampling is much to complicated for general readers.
and now you are saying the dating of Paulls letter is too.
That doesn't help very much does it:)
I wonder what Paul would Blog. . . .
Actually yes it does. The Habbauk is dated early, and Paul now late. Paul
therefore cannot be the LIAR written of.
Your postings are gettting to long.
Google won't show them whoel
Think about it
Peter van Velzen
Atheist#1107
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
29 Oct 2005 10:17:33 AM |
|
|
Peter:
Messiah was used for the blind man and the tree and the bread?
Are you sure?
Darrell:
Of course I'm sure. That is why I quoted the Hebrew and Greek to
illustrate
the point.
Peter: Which to me, proves nothing as I can't read either.
I would just have to rely on faith, wich I seldom do:)
So I stay at my point of view, deciding:
1. I don't have sufficient data to presume Jesus being illiterate or
not.
2. If blogging was available he probably (like most people to day)
would not be illiterate.
===============================================================
Darrell:
That is a scary thought. You entrust your immortal soul (or so you
believe)
on the basis that what someone else tells you is scripture is correct
Peter::
That's what I get for forgetting my Atheist number)
Darrell:
You support the Fundamentalist POV frequently.
Peter:
I do not think presuming Jesus might be literate, is exclusive to
fundamentalists.
What I do is simply treating the text presuming the author,
is not merely telling lies, but - like most people -
is telling what he thinks is the truth, unless he haas a good reason,
to present things differently.
So: (no it doesn't logically folow)
If a bible author claims miracles, I don't believe him.
If a bible author makes politival statement, I disbelieve him
If a bible author quotes his favorate holyman I suppose he generally
tries not to change the man's words.
If a bible author mentiones a fact, that doesn't seem to have any
purpose to him, I suppose he is probably telling the truth.
============================================================================
Darrell:
If Jesus were a poor carpenter, he was illiterate. If Jesus was very
wealthy as is indicated by the ease in which he mingled in the wealthy
people's palaces, as the word 'tecton' might indicate as a general
contractor rather than simple carpenter, and as Revelation states, then
he
very well may have been educated.
Peter:
That what I was on about in the first place!:
Even though you speak as though you now a lot more about these things
than me, you end up saying I might be rigght:)
Darell:
No, I said that the authors of the gospel say contradictory things in
their
story. But since it is only a fabrication they can say what they want.
However that still doesn't get around the fact that their Jesus
character
showed his "literacy" by quoting Greek scripture that hadn't been
written
in the first century.
Peter:
Again somthing escapes me, I read the gospels many a time,
but all the "scripture" he has been quoting was - as far as I know -
written in another language than Greek, and long before his time.
Some parts of the old testament, have been found in texts from Ugarit
and other places, dfating as far as 1100 BC or older.
The fact that the Gospels are written in Greek and that the quotes
are translated in order to match the Greek text doesn't mean
the authors were implying the man spoke Greek!
I am sure if I was to write a Gospel - which I have actually started to
do -
Jesus would be quoting the old testament in Dutch:)
In view of what I suspect about his political views,
he might not want to learn any Greek even if he could:)
=========================================
About Paul and "the liar" in the dead sea scrolls.
Peter:
According to my information, the dating of the Habbakuk comment is
arguable.
Darrel:
It is not arguable. It is argued. By apologists who must win the
debate.
The paleographic and the carbon dating are in agreement. The
discussion of
sampling is much to complicated for general readers.
Peter:
It actually doesn't matter: Fact is one party was saying Paul was
identical to "the liar"
mentioned in the scroll.
Whether that is true or not, I personally have little faith in what
Paul was writing,
as he certainly had an agenda that gave him reason to bend the truth.
Still even liars generally do not invent new facts,
but tend to present them in a way that supports there view.
Paul and his friend Luke were saying Jesus was killed by "The jews"
All other data points to the Romans.
Paul being a Roman citizen eand livng in Roman controlled teritory,
would have good reason to say it wasn't the Romans.
I still think it was the Romans, though some Jews may have
collaborated.
INRI
Think about it.
Peter van Velzen
Atheist#1107
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
23 Oct 2005 02:05:10 PM |
|
|
Picking up the rest of Darrels post.
Peter:
But I agree, a High Priest probably wouldn't blog:)
You might be wrong. Blogging could well fall into the purview of the
High
Priest. He was an administrator and in charge of ritual performance.
But
the same could not be said for an itinerate preacher in far away
Galilee
which had no synagogue. That portrayal of Jesus would have rendered
him
illiterate.
Peter:
Hm it seems whenever I agree with you,
you don't agree with yourself:)
I maintain though, that there is hardly anay data about Jesus,
wich alows us to decide wether he was litterate or not.
The little we have makes him an authority on the scriptures.
These days that would make him litterate.
Wether or not it would make im so in the past,
I can't tell.
============================================
Peter:
My guess is John the Baptist would blog, and openly attack the mighty,
Darekk
John would not blog. He would have preached the evil of the computer.
After all, he wasn't a televangelist whose main goal is to get rich.
Peter:
There you go again:)
There is no positive evidence that John was against modernisation
(nor that he favored it)
There was evidence he was against adultery,
and there was evidence he was against the ruling monarch . . . .
==============================================
Darrel:
Sorry but Exodus 20, and the counterpart in Deuteronomy are NOT the ten
commandments. According to scripture, he only original ten
commandments
and referred to as the ones written on stone are found in Exodus 34.
That
is why I said most Christians display the wrong set. Try reading this
and
the rest of the chapter:
Exod 34:1 and Yahweh said unto Moses, hew thee two tables of stone like
unto
the first: and I will write upon these tables THE WORDS THAT WERE IN
THE
FIRST TABLES, which thou brakest.
Peter:
I read it, and I read it again.
There are some words that are supposedly spoken by Yaweh at this
occasion,
but it seems finally he doesn't keep his promise, for it seems to be
Moses
who writes down the ten logos. There is no evidence thought,
that the spoken words are the same as the words written down.
As you previously menioned the spoken words count much more then ten,
so they are probably not the same.
Any way, My argument was that Jesus was frequently quoting Exodus 20
You have givin no reason to suppose he did anything else.
So I consider exodus 20 to be the center of Jesus's moral views,
not Exodus 34.
Mayby he was illeterate and didn't read the book,
and relied only on the words that were spoken so load
that the frightened crowd asked Moses to go talk with Yaweh on his own
(exodus 20-19 and 20-20)
It would have been those words that could have spread through oral
tradition only:)
Peter van Velzen
Atheist#1107
October 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Freeway Frolickers for Jesus" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
20 Oct 2005 04:40:41 AM |
|
|
Into alt.atheism shot (Fredric L. Rice) and
breathlessly exclaimed:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051016/ap_on_hi_te/god_blogging
"LA MIRADA, Calif. - What would Jesus blog? That and other pressing
questions drew 135 Christians to Southern California this weekend for
a national conference billed as the first-ever for "God bloggers," a
growing community of online writers who exchange information~ FATAL
ERROR: Incompatible data type al line 4, col 46. expected: *****.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: What would Jesus blog? |
20 Oct 2005 12:53:01 PM |
|
|
"Freeway Frolickers for Jesus" <yournamehere@martyrdon.com> wrote in message
news:j6pel1t7ebnbliid9h671crcjvk43hgdcp@4ax.com...
Into alt.atheism shot (Fredric L. Rice) and
breathlessly exclaimed:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051016/ap_on_hi_te/god_blogging
"LA MIRADA, Calif. - What would Jesus blog? That and other pressing
questions drew 135 Christians to Southern California this weekend for
a national conference billed as the first-ever for "God bloggers," a
growing community of online writers who exchange information~ FATAL
ERROR: Incompatible data type al line 4, col 46. expected: *****.
Which Jesus? The Jesus written about in the magic book, or NeoJesus?
Magic book Jesus - Turn the other cheek. Sell all you have and give to the
poor. That camel thru a needles eye, rich man enter the kingdom of heaven
deal.
NeoJesus - Hand me those electrodes. Let's torture this terrorist. Go ahead,
start a preemptive war and kill tens of thousands of my innocent children.
Accumulate all the personal wealth you can by any means and at any cost to
others. Lying for our side is just fine.
Rob Brown
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
