John W. strikes again. This time, he even has me convinced he is not
telling deliberate lies. He simply has not the first clue what he writes
about. You see, gentle readers, John W. is under the mistaken impression
that Latin became the language of the eastern Roman Empire.

common mistake, unfortunately, and yet another failure of the Americna
educational system. Any way, the best evidence is that Latin was never
widely used, or indeed much used at all, in any Roman province east of a
line drawn roughly through Dalmatia due south through Libya. Greek remained
the language of commerce, scholarship, and indeed of the evangelists and
Apostolic Fathers
in their writings.

I reproduce below the message of John W. wherein he first perpetuated this
nonsense and my reply. Naturally the message identification information is
included.

"John W" <john_weatherly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4d5jv89gs6a641qa08cod3pp3j3i6taio@4ax.com...

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:22:58 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

In alt.talk.creationism, John W <john_weatherly@yahoo.com> wrote in
<k4u4jvs3o9n8sg8in27tfjjbqbt79vv5l4@4ax.com>:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 15:58:29 GMT, "Daniel S. Vieira"
<dan@danielvieira.com> wrote:

Andrew wrote:

<snip for brevity>

I find your story is inconsistent. I have checked up on other posts
where you have claimed the church held roughly 100 people instead of
the 50 you claim here

(news:f4414vgkmicpuvdf81kjb0ec0elia85ajn@4ax.com).

Andrew, this is the same guy who is trying to convince us that he
was in a church building that was constructed by Paul in the 1st
century, which had a marking on the cornerstone that said "63 AD",

Don't exaggerate. So far, you have made two big mistakes. I never said
I went inside the church. I did not. It was mid-week, and it was
closed. I never said the date on the cornerstone, I said "63 AD" as an
example of a 1st C cornerstone.

Mr John W., virtually every time you post you make a mistake, and that is
placing a very charitable spin on your falsehoods and mistakes of fact. You
continue that trend in this thread.

It was closed? Really? My experience with every landmark church has been
that they are open and have people who cheerfully show you through the
building during the week, particularly in tourist areas.

(even though arabic numerals and the "anno domini" dating system
were centuries away from "63 AD",)

Supposedly. And then, perhaps, Paul a Roman citizen, started this
dating to honor Christ, and it took several hundred years for it to
catch on.

You have no evidence for that.

The cornerstones are all the evidence I need.

The problem, Sir, is that no such cornerstones exist. No such churches
exist, Mr John W.. These are figments of your fevered imagination or
perhaps a side effect of your prescriptions.

As far as I am aware, no one before you

has claimed that the AD dating system was invented by Paul.

I'm glad you said "as far as I am aware." Because I've heard this
concept SEVERAL times from my scholars.
One of them isn't even a degreed scholar. He just loves the bible and
Bible history. He is the one who explained to me why Latin, not Greek.
I had the same question. And I'm surprised and amused that such a
scholar as yourself would ASK. You should KNOW.

We do know, John W., that no such church exists, and that no such
cornerstone exists, and that no such Baptist Church in England exists, and
Latin was not used in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. To place
this in the most charitable terms, you are profoundly misinformed and
ignorant. No scholar worthy of the name would have told you or anyone that
Latin was used in the eastern empire. Or that Paul began the custom of
marking the cornerstones of buildings with Arabic numberals and the initials
"AD."

In Paul's day, was the universal language Greek, or was it Latin? the
Romans (Latin) had LONG since conquered Israel when Paul/Jesus walked
the sod.

You, Sir, are so full of doo-doo it is astounding. Virtually no one in the
eastern Roman Empire spoke Latin, and virtually every educated Roman
everywhere spoke, read, and wrote Greek, in much the same manner as Russian
royalty and nobility used French as their primary language from the reign of
Peter the Great through Nicholas II. John W., you publicly confirm your
ignorance
and fraudulent character with virtually every post. Why don't you spend
less time posting lies and more time reading books so you actually know
something about the topics you so liberally post?

Paul accomplished several things by using the Latin nomenclature. In
fact, he achieved numerous things. He honored His God by engraving
"after the birth of our Lord" on every building he built. In his time,
the cornerstone wasn't universal, so there were no "rules" for how it
was to be engraved.

Can you provide some evidence that Paul knew a single word of Latin? Ah,
Sir, imaginary cornerstones of nonexistent 1st and 6th century churches are
not evidence of anything except your imagination or dishonesty.

Since Rome had conquered Israel/the "Holy Land" by Paul's time, Latin
was the universal language as Rome imposed its mark on the world.

Not so, Sir. Another falsehood from ignorance. Or an outright lie. Roman
language was not exported to the east. In fact, Latin is sprinkled
liberally with borrowed Greek words. Rome adopted the Greek pantheon,
Greek philosophy, the Greek epics, Greek drama, Greek literature, Greek
history, and a good percentage of the Greek vocabulary. The original Roman
contributions were political, military, engineering, and public sanitation.
Rome also imposed an economic system on the empire. Every public bath,
monument, villa, palace, arena, temple, and amphitheater were financed by
the sweat of peasants throughout the empire through an efficient tax system.

Paul used the universal language of his day (the secular one) to
engrave the date.

You are half correct, for once Sir, that indeed "Paul used the universal
language of his day " You are utterly wrong in your uninformed or dishonest
declaration that Latin was the " universal language of his day." That
language was Greek, John W., not Latin. Are you really so uninformed and
dishonest that you do not know that? Or are you blatantly lying yet again?
Or are you trying to make a joke out of this?

What language did the Apostolic Fathers write in, Sir? Surely you have
heard of Eusebius' 4th
century history of the church, haven't you? What lanugage was that written
in? How about the writings of Polycap of Smyrna? Justin Martyr's corpus?
Clement of
Alexandria? Ireneous of Lyons? Why do you think all of the oldest New
Testament manuscripts are in Greek? Oops, sorry, obviously I presume too
much, so allow me to rephrase. Do you, Mr John W. know that all of the
oldest New Testament manuscripts are in Greek? If indeed Latin had been
"the universal language of his {Paul's]day" don't you think the evangelists
and apostles and Apostolic Father's might have written in Latin? Why would
people obeying the evangelical imperative to preach the gospel to all
nations write in a language no one knew?

What language did Marcus Aurelius write in? What language did Polybius
write in? What language did Plutarch write in? These men did not write in
Latin, and Marcus Aurelius was a Roman, indeed he was the Emperor of the
Roman Empire. Polybius and Plutarch both lived under Roman occupation and
they assuredly wrote in Greek, and not in Latin.

By using an inscription identified, NOT with Christ, a vagabond the
Romans had squashed, but with Rome herself, Paul guaranteed that if
there were going to be human protection for those buildings, Rome
herself would provide it. He was right. The buildings stand today.

Do you truly think the words "anno domini" faked out the Romans, John W?
You
don't think it might have occurred to some Roman official to inquire exactly
what lord they were referring to? You demonstrate yet again a profound
ignorance of Roman imperialist government. The Romans could not have cared
less what other deities were worshipped or what religions were practiced so
long as one acknowledged the deity of the emperor. The native Roman
religions had been overlaid by so many imported beliefs and practices by the
time Christianity came along that the native religions and gods were barely
discerible. Christians and Jews caused problems because they refused to pay
lip service and perform an act of worship to the deity of the emperor.

I could go on, but you aren't interested in answers; only with
throwing stones.

Please, Sir, silence yourself as your original lie is causing you to spew
more falsehoods and demonstrate once again your profound ignorance of the
ancient world. Mr John W., why can't you grasp that telling one big lie and
persisting in that lie despite the mountains of evidence against you, that
you must lie again and again and again.

But I have answers.

Yes, John W., you do have answers. Unfortunately, they are all lies and
falsehoods.

Those buildings give us a good idea of the precise time of Christ's
birth.

The nonexistent buildings you refer to give us nothing of the sort.

Those buildings dated 1st C prove that there was a religion called
Christianity, and likely it had a real, flesh and blood, leader. All
true. We know by those buildings dated 68 AD and 73 AD and 58 AD that
Paul lived, and that he was a ball of fire preacher.

Again, Sir, you are deluded.

If you have

evidence to enlighten me, please present it. By the way, how good was
Paul's Latin?

I'd think it was good. Paul was VERY educated.

Why would he have used Latin when he lived in an area that

was overwhelmingly familiar with Greek?

See above. He used it to placate the Romans, it was the universal
language of Paul's time, AND "politically correct", and he likely
wanted to have a way to safeguard the buildings. He therefore used a
Roman Latin inscription.

This is preposterous beyond measure.

that is bigger than the Athenian
Parthenon but somehow has been overlooked by archeologists, historians,
and antiquarians, and was the basilica of Ephesus even though he says
it is in the city of Izmir, which is modern day Smyrna, about 40 miles
north-west of Ephesus.

I also never said it was a "basilica." I've been there, and I know
two folks who live there. Smyrna is NOT Izmir. They;re roughly 60
miles apart. Izmir is Ephesus, Smyrna is elsewhere.

And we thank you for refraining from that falsehood.

I have now met two residents of Izmir. They both agree that Izmir is
modern day Ephesus, and that Smyrna is roughly a two day walk away.

I don't believe you, though you seem to have garbled your claim.

I don't care if you believe me, and I garbled nothing. I was there.

That makes YOU incorrect.

Your statements are unreliable. Can you provide any evidence that Izmir
was once Ephesus?

I have no need to prove anything.

Those lies are catching up with you, aren't they, Mr John W.?

John W

(John the Baptist)

10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy one is understanding.
Prov 9:10
NIV

Can you connect that with your falsehoods?

______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 -

http://www.uncensored-news.com

<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source

<><><><><><><><>

John W. strikes again. This time, he even has me convinced he is not
telling deliberate lies. He simply has not the first clue what he writes
about. You see, gentle readers, John W. is under the mistaken impression
that Latin became the language of the eastern Roman Empire. That is a
common mistake, unfortunately, and yet another failure of the Americna
educational system. Any way, the best evidence is that Latin was never
widely used, or indeed much used at all, in any Roman province east of a
line drawn roughly through Dalmatia due south through Libya. Greek remained
the language of commerce, scholarship, and indeed of the evangelists and
Apostolic Fathers
in their writings.

I reproduce below the message of John W. wherein he first perpetuated this
nonsense and my reply. Naturally the message identification information is
included.

"John W" <john_weatherly@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c4d5jv89gs6a641qa08cod3pp3j3i6taio@4ax.com...

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 14:22:58 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

In alt.talk.creationism, John W <john_weatherly@yahoo.com> wrote in
<k4u4jvs3o9n8sg8in27tfjjbqbt79vv5l4@4ax.com>:

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 15:58:29 GMT, "Daniel S. Vieira"
<dan@danielvieira.com> wrote:

Andrew wrote:

<snip for brevity>

I find your story is inconsistent. I have checked up on other posts
where you have claimed the church held roughly 100 people instead of
the 50 you claim here

(news:f4414vgkmicpuvdf81kjb0ec0elia85ajn@4ax.com).

Andrew, this is the same guy who is trying to convince us that he
was in a church building that was constructed by Paul in the 1st
century, which had a marking on the cornerstone that said "63 AD",

Don't exaggerate. So far, you have made two big mistakes. I never said
I went inside the church. I did not. It was mid-week, and it was
closed. I never said the date on the cornerstone, I said "63 AD" as an
example of a 1st C cornerstone.

Mr John W., virtually every time you post you make a mistake, and that is
placing a very charitable spin on your falsehoods and mistakes of fact. You
continue that trend in this thread.

It was closed? Really? My experience with every landmark church has been
that they are open and have people who cheerfully show you through the
building during the week, particularly in tourist areas.

(even though arabic numerals and the "anno domini" dating system
were centuries away from "63 AD",)

Supposedly. And then, perhaps, Paul a Roman citizen, started this
dating to honor Christ, and it took several hundred years for it to
catch on.

You have no evidence for that.

The cornerstones are all the evidence I need.

The problem, Sir, is that no such cornerstones exist. No such churches
exist, Mr John W.. These are figments of your fevered imagination or
perhaps a side effect of your prescriptions.

As far as I am aware, no one before you

has claimed that the AD dating system was invented by Paul.

I'm glad you said "as far as I am aware." Because I've heard this
concept SEVERAL times from my scholars.
One of them isn't even a degreed scholar. He just loves the bible and
Bible history. He is the one who explained to me why Latin, not Greek.
I had the same question. And I'm surprised and amused that such a
scholar as yourself would ASK. You should KNOW.

We do know, John W., that no such church exists, and that no such
cornerstone exists, and that no such Baptist Church in England exists, and
Latin was not used in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. To place
this in the most charitable terms, you are profoundly misinformed and
ignorant. No scholar worthy of the name would have told you or anyone that
Latin was used in the eastern empire. Or that Paul began the custom of
marking the cornerstones of buildings with Arabic numberals and the initials
"AD."

In Paul's day, was the universal language Greek, or was it Latin? the
Romans (Latin) had LONG since conquered Israel when Paul/Jesus walked
the sod.

You, Sir, are so full of doo-doo it is astounding. Virtually no one in the
eastern Roman Empire spoke Latin, and virtually every educated Roman
everywhere spoke, read, and wrote Greek, in much the same manner as Russian
royalty and nobility used French as their primary language from the reign of
Peter the Great through Nicholas II. John W., you publicly confirm your
ignorance
and fraudulent character with virtually every post. Why don't you spend
less time posting lies and more time reading books so you actually know
something about the topics you so liberally post?

Paul accomplished several things by using the Latin nomenclature. In
fact, he achieved numerous things. He honored His God by engraving
"after the birth of our Lord" on every building he built. In his time,
the cornerstone wasn't universal, so there were no "rules" for how it
was to be engraved.

Can you provide some evidence that Paul knew a single word of Latin? Ah,
Sir, imaginary cornerstones of nonexistent 1st and 6th century churches are
not evidence of anything except your imagination or dishonesty.

Since Rome had conquered Israel/the "Holy Land" by Paul's time, Latin
was the universal language as Rome imposed its mark on the world.

Not so, Sir. Another falsehood from ignorance. Or an outright lie. Roman
language was not exported to the east. In fact, Latin is sprinkled
liberally with borrowed Greek words. Rome adopted the Greek pantheon,
Greek philosophy, the Greek epics, Greek drama, Greek literature, Greek
history, and a good percentage of the Greek vocabulary. The original Roman
contributions were political, military, engineering, and public sanitation.
Rome also imposed an economic system on the empire. Every public bath,
monument, villa, palace, arena, temple, and amphitheater were financed by
the sweat of peasants throughout the empire through an efficient tax system.

Paul used the universal language of his day (the secular one) to
engrave the date.

You are half correct, for once Sir, that indeed "Paul used the universal
language of his day " You are utterly wrong in your uninformed or dishonest
declaration that Latin was the " universal language of his day." That
language was Greek, John W., not Latin. Are you really so uninformed and
dishonest that you do not know that? Or are you blatantly lying yet again?
Or are you trying to make a joke out of this?

What language did the Apostolic Fathers write in, Sir? Surely you have
heard of Eusebius' 4th
century history of the church, haven't you? What lanugage was that written
in? How about the writings of Polycap of Smyrna? Justin Martyr's corpus?
Clement of
Alexandria? Ireneous of Lyons? Why do you think all of the oldest New
Testament manuscripts are in Greek? Oops, sorry, obviously I presume too
much, so allow me to rephrase. Do you, Mr John W. know that all of the
oldest New Testament manuscripts are in Greek? If indeed Latin had been
"the universal language of his {Paul's]day" don't you think the evangelists
and apostles and Apostolic Father's might have written in Latin? Why would
people obeying the evangelical imperative to preach the gospel to all
nations write in a language no one knew?

What language did Marcus Aurelius write in? What language did Polybius
write in? What language did Plutarch write in? These men did not write in
Latin, and Marcus Aurelius was a Roman, indeed he was the Emperor of the
Roman Empire. Polybius and Plutarch both lived under Roman occupation and
they assuredly wrote in Greek, and not in Latin.

By using an inscription identified, NOT with Christ, a vagabond the
Romans had squashed, but with Rome herself, Paul guaranteed that if
there were going to be human protection for those buildings, Rome
herself would provide it. He was right. The buildings stand today.

Do you truly think the words "anno domini" faked out the Romans, John W?
You
don't think it might have occurred to some Roman official to inquire exactly
what lord they were referring to? You demonstrate yet again a profound
ignorance of Roman imperialist government. The Romans could not have cared
less what other deities were worshipped or what religions were practiced so
long as one acknowledged the deity of the emperor. The native Roman
religions had been overlaid by so many imported beliefs and practices by the
time Christianity came along that the native religions and gods were barely
discerible. Christians and Jews caused problems because they refused to pay
lip service and perform an act of worship to the deity of the emperor.

I could go on, but you aren't interested in answers; only with
throwing stones.

Please, Sir, silence yourself as your original lie is causing you to spew
more falsehoods and demonstrate once again your profound ignorance of the
ancient world. Mr John W., why can't you grasp that telling one big lie and
persisting in that lie despite the mountains of evidence against you, that
you must lie again and again and again.

But I have answers.

Yes, John W., you do have answers. Unfortunately, they are all lies and
falsehoods.

Those buildings give us a good idea of the precise time of Christ's
birth.

The nonexistent buildings you refer to give us nothing of the sort.

Those buildings dated 1st C prove that there was a religion called
Christianity, and likely it had a real, flesh and blood, leader. All
true. We know by those buildings dated 68 AD and 73 AD and 58 AD that
Paul lived, and that he was a ball of fire preacher.

Again, Sir, you are deluded.

If you have

evidence to enlighten me, please present it. By the way, how good was
Paul's Latin?

I'd think it was good. Paul was VERY educated.

Why would he have used Latin when he lived in an area that

was overwhelmingly familiar with Greek?

See above. He used it to placate the Romans, it was the universal
language of Paul's time, AND "politically correct", and he likely
wanted to have a way to safeguard the buildings. He therefore used a
Roman Latin inscription.

This is preposterous beyond measure.

that is bigger than the Athenian
Parthenon but somehow has been overlooked by archeologists, historians,
and antiquarians, and was the basilica of Ephesus even though he says
it is in the city of Izmir, which is modern day Smyrna, about 40 miles
north-west of Ephesus.

I also never said it was a "basilica." I've been there, and I know
two folks who live there. Smyrna is NOT Izmir. They;re roughly 60
miles apart. Izmir is Ephesus, Smyrna is elsewhere.

And we thank you for refraining from that falsehood.

I have now met two residents of Izmir. They both agree that Izmir is
modern day Ephesus, and that Smyrna is roughly a two day walk away.

I don't believe you, though you seem to have garbled your claim.

I don't care if you believe me, and I garbled nothing. I was there.

That makes YOU incorrect.

Your statements are unreliable. Can you provide any evidence that Izmir
was once Ephesus?

I have no need to prove anything.

Those lies are catching up with you, aren't they, Mr John W.?

John W

(John the Baptist)

10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and knowledge of the Holy one is understanding.
Prov 9:10
NIV

Can you connect that with your falsehoods?

______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 -

http://www.uncensored-news.com

<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source

<><><><><><><><>