parables and poetry

[David Dalton]

On my Salmon on the Thorns mystic autobiography page
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html
I argue that I am similar to some past major pagan
and major non-pagan religious figures including
Taliesin (Gwion), The Turquoise Bee, and Jesus.

Thus those three figures should be similar to one another.
But the first two are known primarily for their poetry
whereas Jesus is known primarily for his spiritual
messages including some encoded in parables. So perhaps
the parable was Jesus's specialization that was
analogous to the poetry of the other two.

But is there any evidence that Jesus may have also
composed some poetry and/or song lyrics? That
might be more evident in the original languages
of the texts rather than in an English translation.

I expect to enter into a period of productive
creativity when I come out of my low years. Similarly
perhaps Jesus did become a poet and songwriter after
his "resurrection", but perhaps under another name
that might still be known today.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by David Dalton
On my Salmon on the Thorns mystic autobiography page
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html
I argue that I am similar to some past major pagan
and major non-pagan religious figures including
Taliesin (Gwion), The Turquoise Bee, and Jesus.
Thus those three figures should be similar to one another.
But the first two are known primarily for their poetry
whereas Jesus is known primarily for his spiritual
messages including some encoded in parables. So perhaps
the parable was Jesus's specialization that was
analogous to the poetry of the other two.

Problem is unless one has swallowed without criticism a huge dose of
"what it really means" there is no spiritual message at all. If you look
for one you can find one but the words themselves have none. (Life is
like a sewer. What you get out of it depends upon what you put into it.
So are parables.)

The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in fact we
can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know nothing of
the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles don't do much
better.

Post by David Dalton
But is there any evidence that Jesus may have also
composed some poetry and/or song lyrics? That
might be more evident in the original languages
of the texts rather than in an English translation.
I expect to enter into a period of productive
creativity when I come out of my low years. Similarly
perhaps Jesus did become a poet and songwriter after
his "resurrection", but perhaps under another name
that might still be known today.

For a fact only the most dyed in the wool old time believers still
credit the gospels as first hand accounts. If the question before the
court were Did Jesus exist I could call four witnesses, Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John and use each of their gospels to impeach the other three.
Where there is disagreement only one can be correct and the others are
lying. You can say mistaken but their testimony is worthless. Believers
however like to claim all the unimpeached parts are true and pick
whichever the four they happen to like for the impeached parts.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by David Dalton
On my Salmon on the Thorns mystic autobiography page
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html
I argue that I am similar to some past major pagan
and major non-pagan religious figures including
Taliesin (Gwion), The Turquoise Bee, and Jesus.
Thus those three figures should be similar to one another.
But the first two are known primarily for their poetry
whereas Jesus is known primarily for his spiritual
messages including some encoded in parables. So perhaps
the parable was Jesus's specialization that was
analogous to the poetry of the other two.

Problem is unless one has swallowed without criticism a huge dose
of "what it really means" there is no spiritual message at all. If you
look for one you can find one but the words themselves have none. (Life
is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends upon what you put into
it. So are parables.)
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in fact we
can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know nothing of
the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles don't do much
better.

Post by David Dalton
But is there any evidence that Jesus may have also
composed some poetry and/or song lyrics? That
might be more evident in the original languages
of the texts rather than in an English translation.
I expect to enter into a period of productive
creativity when I come out of my low years. Similarly
perhaps Jesus did become a poet and songwriter after
his "resurrection", but perhaps under another name
that might still be known today.

For a fact only the most dyed in the wool old time believers still
credit the gospels as first hand accounts. If the question before the
court were Did Jesus exist I could call four witnesses, Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John and use each of their gospels to impeach the other three.
Where there is disagreement only one can be correct and the others are
lying. You can say mistaken but their testimony is worthless. Believers
however like to claim all the unimpeached parts are true and pick
whichever the four they happen to like for the impeached parts.

Keep on doolin', Dalton.

[RVG]

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in
fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know
nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles
don't do much better.

He doesn't know his mother as well, no mention of her in his epistles.
His scribe Luke changed that a little but his gospel still shows a
complete lack of personal meeting and facts in his account of Jesus'
life as well as the life in the early apostolic community (Book of Acts).

[unknown]

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in
fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know
nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles
don't do much better.

Smile, if someone says "the president" does one need mention a name? Why
belabor the obvious and commonly understood?

To test your assertion I turned to the first epistle, Romans, of Paul in
the NT. Finding as the first statement:

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ

""He doesn't know his mother as well, no mention of her in his epistles.
His scribe Luke changed that a little but his gospel still shows a complete
lack of personal meeting and facts in his account of Jesus' life as well as
the life in the early apostolic community (Book of Acts)."

Smile, why should he mention her, and more importantly many figures in the
gospels are not mentioned either, so what? Why should he belabor the
obvious that would be held as common knowledge? He was not doing a life
and teachings,ie. gospel, of Christ.

Most of the people named by him are in places distant to the places where
Christ lived and the people who interacted with Him. But even then some
are in fact mentioned. Acts looked at in reverse, Paul is mentioned smack
in the middle of the action of the 1st century church and the people
thereof.

The "lack of personable meaning" etc. deserves no response.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in
fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know
nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles
don't do much better.

Smile, if someone says "the president" does one need mention a name? Why
belabor the obvious and commonly understood?

If anointed were an uncommon title perhaps but the emperors, high
ranking politicians and major donors to temples were anointed in
addition to temple priests. It was the same in Judea. It was the same in
all cities big enough to have temples.

Yes, anointed is meaningless in this context.

Post by unknown
To test your assertion I turned to the first epistle, Romans, of Paul in
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ

I must then apologize for the error. There is on mention of his name.
The problem is most of his discussions are about the 6th c. BC Greek
concept of Logos not this Jesus.

Post by unknown
""He doesn't know his mother as well, no mention of her in his epistles.
His scribe Luke changed that a little but his gospel still shows a complete
lack of personal meeting and facts in his account of Jesus' life as well as
the life in the early apostolic community (Book of Acts)."
Smile, why should he mention her, and more importantly many figures in the
gospels are not mentioned either, so what? Why should he belabor the
obvious that would be held as common knowledge? He was not doing a life
and teachings,ie. gospel, of Christ.
Most of the people named by him are in places distant to the places where
Christ lived and the people who interacted with Him. But even then some
are in fact mentioned. Acts looked at in reverse, Paul is mentioned smack
in the middle of the action of the 1st century church and the people
thereof.

One would be more comfortable if there had been mention of the
teachings of this Jesus, attribution, a few 'Jesus saids' prefacing his
claims. After the gospels appear preachers like Paul don't seem to be
able to write two sentences without mentioning his name three times.
Paul however speaks on his own authority about the Logos not about
Jesus. The Logos is clearly the Greek concept not a person. Unless of
course you are into the "what it really means" Sunday School stuff.

[David Dalton]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in
fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know
nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles
don't do much better.

Smile, if someone says "the president" does one need mention a name? Why
belabor the obvious and commonly understood?

If anointed were an uncommon title perhaps but the emperors, high
ranking politicians and major donors to temples were anointed in
addition to temple priests. It was the same in Judea. It was the same in
all cities big enough to have temples.
Yes, anointed is meaningless in this context.

But anointed one in terms of the words Messiah or Christ
means anointed by the Holy Spirit, not by any human.
I think the horn of oil represents waning crescent
inspiration, and that when the heavens opened and
wings descended on Jesus during his baptism he was
anointed by the Holy Spirit (or so a Christian would
say). I went through a similar experience in my
sun stare of 1991 so I claim to be an anointed one.

This is discussed on

http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/christian.html

and

http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/sunstare.html .

[Matt Giwer]

Post by David Dalton

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in
fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know
nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles
don't do much better.

Smile, if someone says "the president" does one need mention a name? Why
belabor the obvious and commonly understood?

If anointed were an uncommon title perhaps but the emperors, high
ranking politicians and major donors to temples were anointed in
addition to temple priests. It was the same in Judea. It was the same in
all cities big enough to have temples.
Yes, anointed is meaningless in this context.

But anointed one in terms of the words Messiah or Christ
means anointed by the Holy Spirit, not by any human.

I have no idea when that idea started but I would guess it was no
earlier than the 5th AD. It would have to be after the Trinity BS was
solidly gotten entirely different from the original Greek concept. In
any event you will have to show that idea explicitly in the gospels or
epistles else you are making it up. It meant no more than the plain
reading at the time in the context of the times.

Post by David Dalton
I think the horn of oil represents waning crescent
inspiration, and that when the heavens opened and
wings descended on Jesus during his baptism he was
anointed by the Holy Spirit (or so a Christian would
say). I went through a similar experience in my
sun stare of 1991 so I claim to be an anointed one.

Total gibberish with no relationship to the NT whatsoever.

Post by David Dalton
This is discussed on
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/christian.html
and
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/sunstare.html .

I don't chase URLs. If you have an argument to make here then make it
here.

[David Dalton]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by David Dalton

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in
fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know
nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles
don't do much better.

Smile, if someone says "the president" does one need mention a name? Why
belabor the obvious and commonly understood?

If anointed were an uncommon title perhaps but the emperors, high
ranking politicians and major donors to temples were anointed in
addition to temple priests. It was the same in Judea. It was the same in
all cities big enough to have temples.
Yes, anointed is meaningless in this context.

But anointed one in terms of the words Messiah or Christ
means anointed by the Holy Spirit, not by any human.

I have no idea when that idea started but I would guess it was no
earlier than the 5th AD. It would have to be after the Trinity BS was
solidly gotten entirely different from the original Greek concept. In
any event you will have to show that idea explicitly in the gospels or
epistles else you are making it up. It meant no more than the plain
reading at the time in the context of the times.

Post by David Dalton
I think the horn of oil represents waning crescent
inspiration, and that when the heavens opened and
wings descended on Jesus during his baptism he was
anointed by the Holy Spirit (or so a Christian would
say). I went through a similar experience in my
sun stare of 1991 so I claim to be an anointed one.

Total gibberish with no relationship to the NT whatsoever.

The horn of oil used by humans to anoint is shaped
like a waning crescent moon (like the waning butter
of Krishna or the waning crescent on Islamic mosques
and flags), and I think represents waning crescent
inspiration similar to what happened to me five
times between September 1991 and September 1994.
I believe that the terms Messiah and Christ, which
both mean anointed one, refer not to a common
anointing by a human but to this special waning
crescent inspiration. Also the descent of wings
on Jesus (and on me 2.5 days before new moon in
September 1991) can be taken as the descent of
a dove, which is at least now seen as a sign of
the Holy Spirit. Thus the incident can be said
to be an anointing by the Holy Spirit, or if
you don't accept that the term Holy Spirit goes
back that far, an anointing by God (though I
consider it an anointing by Sola the sun).

But no doubt you will have a knee jerk/denial
reaction and call that gibberish too, labeling
me as still insane since you fear what I write
is true, shaking your world.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by David Dalton

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by David Dalton

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in
fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know
nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles
don't do much better.

Smile, if someone says "the president" does one need mention a name? Why
belabor the obvious and commonly understood?

If anointed were an uncommon title perhaps but the emperors, high
ranking politicians and major donors to temples were anointed in
addition to temple priests. It was the same in Judea. It was the same in
all cities big enough to have temples.
Yes, anointed is meaningless in this context.

But anointed one in terms of the words Messiah or Christ
means anointed by the Holy Spirit, not by any human.

I have no idea when that idea started but I would guess it was no
earlier than the 5th AD. It would have to be after the Trinity BS was
solidly gotten entirely different from the original Greek concept. In
any event you will have to show that idea explicitly in the gospels or
epistles else you are making it up. It meant no more than the plain
reading at the time in the context of the times.

Post by David Dalton
I think the horn of oil represents waning crescent
inspiration, and that when the heavens opened and
wings descended on Jesus during his baptism he was
anointed by the Holy Spirit (or so a Christian would
say). I went through a similar experience in my
sun stare of 1991 so I claim to be an anointed one.

Total gibberish with no relationship to the NT whatsoever.

The horn of oil used by humans

I am unaware of any historical or archaeological evidence that any
particular type or shape container was used/required.

Please present such evidence before talking about it.

to anoint is shaped

Post by David Dalton
like a waning crescent moon (like the waning butter
of Krishna or the waning crescent on Islamic mosques
and flags), and I think represents waning crescent
inspiration similar to what happened to me five
times between September 1991 and September 1994.
I believe that the terms Messiah and Christ, which
both mean anointed one, refer not to a common
anointing by a human but to this special waning
crescent inspiration. Also the descent of wings
on Jesus (and on me 2.5 days before new moon in
September 1991) can be taken as the descent of
a dove, which is at least now seen as a sign of
the Holy Spirit. Thus the incident can be said
to be an anointing by the Holy Spirit, or if
you don't accept that the term Holy Spirit goes
back that far, an anointing by God (though I
consider it an anointing by Sola the sun).
But no doubt you will have a knee jerk/denial
reaction and call that gibberish too, labeling
me as still insane since you fear what I write
is true, shaking your world.

It is gibberish. You are rambling about crap without the least basis in
physical evidence. It is religious rambling. If you are not interesting
in discussing history or archaeology then please do not include s.h.a in
your posts.

[unknown]

Post by David Dalton
But anointed one in terms of the words Messiah or Christ
means anointed by the Holy Spirit, not by any human.

" I have no idea when that idea started but I would guess it was no earlier
than the 5th AD. It would have to be after the Trinity BS was solidly
gotten entirely different from the original Greek concept. In any event you
will have to show that idea explicitly in the gospels or epistles else you
are making it up. It meant no more than the plain reading at the time in
the context of the times."

From Acts:

how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit

What is the relevance of the reference to the 5th century, and of what date
marker the Trinity "bs"?

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown

Post by David Dalton
But anointed one in terms of the words Messiah or Christ
means anointed by the Holy Spirit, not by any human.

" I have no idea when that idea started but I would guess it was no earlier
than the 5th AD. It would have to be after the Trinity BS was solidly
gotten entirely different from the original Greek concept. In any event you
will have to show that idea explicitly in the gospels or epistles else you
are making it up. It meant no more than the plain reading at the time in
the context of the times."
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit

Please repeat your original claims and show point by point how each of
those claims is represented in the tonguing incident.

Post by unknown
What is the relevance of the reference to the 5th century, and of what date
marker the Trinity "bs"?

The ancient Greeks held that a person consisted of body, mind, soul and
spirit. If you claim your god has no body but is a person then it
consists of mind, soul and (holy) spirit. Trinity. QED If you should
ever learn history you will find most things have simple explanations.
If you continue to post to soc.history.ancient you are in danger of
learning real history.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
" I have no idea when that idea started but I would guess it was no earlier
than the 5th AD. It would have to be after the Trinity BS was solidly
gotten entirely different from the original Greek concept. In any event you
will have to show that idea explicitly in the gospels or epistles else you
are making it up. It meant no more than the plain reading at the time in
the context of the times."
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit

" Please repeat your original claims and show point by point how each of
those claims is represented in the tonguing incident."

By which one assumes it is "Tongue" of which you speak?

My only point is as above in response to your assertion and that finding
mention in scripture was required thereof. Of claims I know nothing,
perhaps you meant another poster?

Post by unknown
What is the relevance of the reference to the 5th century, and of what date
marker the Trinity "bs"?

" The ancient Greeks held that a person consisted of body, mind, soul and
spirit. If you claim your god has no body but is a person then it consists
of mind, soul and (holy) spirit. Trinity. QED If you should ever learn
history you will find most things have simple explanations. If you continue
to post to soc.history.ancient you are in danger of learning real history."

Hmmm, perhaps you are tired. Your response is not relevant to either the
5th century remark nor the Trinity "bs" as time marker.

Of course I made no claim regarding the nature of God.

As to ancient history and the greeks, the 5th century was long past
"ancient greece" as were the events regarding Trinity as "bs" as time
marker.

One thinks someone is posing and posturing as it might relate to knowledge
of the topic at hand.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown
" I have no idea when that idea started but I would guess it was no

earlier

Post by unknown
than the 5th AD. It would have to be after the Trinity BS was solidly
gotten entirely different from the original Greek concept. In any event

you

Post by unknown
will have to show that idea explicitly in the gospels or epistles else

you

Post by unknown
are making it up. It meant no more than the plain reading at the time in
the context of the times."
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit

" Please repeat your original claims and show point by point how each of
those claims is represented in the tonguing incident."
By which one assumes it is "Tongue" of which you speak?

By which one assumes it is the same god described as having fire coming
from its mouth and smoke from its nostrils and which has a very ugly butt.

Post by Matt Giwer
My only point is as above in response to your assertion and that finding
mention in scripture was required thereof. Of claims I know nothing,
perhaps you meant another poster?

I mean if it is not in writing in the source you refer to then it is
not there. Words mean no more than what they say.

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown
What is the relevance of the reference to the 5th century, and of what

date

Post by unknown
marker the Trinity "bs"?

" The ancient Greeks held that a person consisted of body, mind, soul and
spirit. If you claim your god has no body but is a person then it consists
of mind, soul and (holy) spirit. Trinity. QED If you should ever learn
history you will find most things have simple explanations. If you continue
to post to soc.history.ancient you are in danger of learning real history."
Hmmm, perhaps you are tired. Your response is not relevant to either the
5th century remark nor the Trinity "bs" as time marker.
Of course I made no claim regarding the nature of God.
As to ancient history and the greeks, the 5th century was long past
"ancient greece" as were the events regarding Trinity as "bs" as time
marker.
One thinks someone is posing and posturing as it might relate to knowledge
of the topic at hand.

You are talking religion. I am talking history. You are talking about
the ravings of lunatics. I am talking about the facts in evidence.

[unknown]

Post by unknown

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in
fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know
nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles
don't do much better.

Smile, if someone says "the president" does one need mention a name?

Why

Post by unknown
belabor the obvious and commonly understood?

If anointed were an uncommon title perhaps but the emperors, high
ranking politicians and major donors to temples were anointed in
addition to temple priests. It was the same in Judea. It was the same in
all cities big enough to have temples.

Yes, anointed is meaningless in this context.

Post by unknown
To test your assertion I turned to the first epistle, Romans, of Paul in
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ

" I must then apologize for the error. There is on mention of his name. The
problem is most of his discussions are about the 6th c. BC Greek concept of
Logos not this Jesus."

Sorry, in most of his letters evoking the name of Jesus Christ and of
writing by authority thereof is one of the first things he does.

Sorry again, it is not only about "logos". For example he writes that all
is in vain if Christ did not rise from the tomb. In any case logos,ie the
Word, is the standard reference for Christ as most often seen in John who
goes on and on about it. For example "the Word was God" and "the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us". Logos is not usually even found in an
english translation.

Post by unknown
""He doesn't know his mother as well, no mention of her in his epistles.
His scribe Luke changed that a little but his gospel still shows a complete
lack of personal meeting and facts in his account of Jesus' life as well as
the life in the early apostolic community (Book of Acts)."
Smile, why should he mention her, and more importantly many figures in the
gospels are not mentioned either, so what? Why should he belabor the
obvious that would be held as common knowledge? He was not doing a life
and teachings,ie. gospel, of Christ.
Most of the people named by him are in places distant to the places where
Christ lived and the people who interacted with Him. But even then some
are in fact mentioned. Acts looked at in reverse, Paul is mentioned smack
in the middle of the action of the 1st century church and the people
thereof.

"" One would be more comfortable if there had been mention of the teachings
of this Jesus, attribution, a few 'Jesus saids' prefacing his claims. After
the gospels appear preachers like Paul don't seem to be able to write two
sentences without mentioning his name three times. Paul however speaks on
his own authority about the Logos not about Jesus. The Logos is clearly the
Greek concept not a person. Unless of course you are into the "what it
really means" Sunday School stuff."

Then you need to read what Paul says exactly about that point.

All and all it would appear you are not as familiar with the bible as you
might want to let on given the errors of fact.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in
fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know
nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles
don't do much better.

Smile, if someone says "the president" does one need mention a name?

Why

Post by unknown
belabor the obvious and commonly understood?

If anointed were an uncommon title perhaps but the emperors, high
ranking politicians and major donors to temples were anointed in
addition to temple priests. It was the same in Judea. It was the same in
all cities big enough to have temples.
Yes, anointed is meaningless in this context.

Post by unknown
To test your assertion I turned to the first epistle, Romans, of Paul in
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ

" I must then apologize for the error. There is on mention of his name. The
problem is most of his discussions are about the 6th c. BC Greek concept of
Logos not this Jesus."
Sorry, in most of his letters evoking the name of Jesus Christ and of
writing by authority thereof is one of the first things he does.

I recall making the effort at one time and found only Christ.

Post by Matt Giwer
Sorry again, it is not only about "logos". For example he writes that all
is in vain if Christ did not rise from the tomb. In any case logos,ie the
Word, is the standard reference for Christ as most often seen in John who
goes on and on about it. For example "the Word was God" and "the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us". Logos is not usually even found in an
english translation.

Sorry but Logos is a much older Greek concept. When the Greek wrote the
old testament then put their Logos idea in the first few lines of
Genesis. It is not surprising the Christians used it. It is one of those
words like today people use "spiritual." You need only speak gibberish
around it and it sounds profound. Throw incarnate together with Logos
and sounds like it means something.

Truth is like a river. God is the mouth of that river. -- Citizen
G'Kar, 2262

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown
""He doesn't know his mother as well, no mention of her in his epistles.
His scribe Luke changed that a little but his gospel still shows a

complete

Post by unknown
lack of personal meeting and facts in his account of Jesus' life as well

as

Post by unknown
the life in the early apostolic community (Book of Acts)."
Smile, why should he mention her, and more importantly many figures in

the

Post by unknown
gospels are not mentioned either, so what? Why should he belabor the
obvious that would be held as common knowledge? He was not doing a life
and teachings,ie. gospel, of Christ.
Most of the people named by him are in places distant to the places where
Christ lived and the people who interacted with Him. But even then some
are in fact mentioned. Acts looked at in reverse, Paul is mentioned

smack

Post by unknown
in the middle of the action of the 1st century church and the people
thereof.

"" One would be more comfortable if there had been mention of the teachings
of this Jesus, attribution, a few 'Jesus saids' prefacing his claims. After
the gospels appear preachers like Paul don't seem to be able to write two
sentences without mentioning his name three times. Paul however speaks on
his own authority about the Logos not about Jesus. The Logos is clearly the
Greek concept not a person. Unless of course you are into the "what it
really means" Sunday School stuff."
Then you need to read what Paul says exactly about that point.
All and all it would appear you are not as familiar with the bible as you
might want to let on given the errors of fact.

One of us is not or perhaps one of us is exaggerating. I'll put a
review on my to do list if this discussion continues for a while.

[unknown]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
To test your assertion I turned to the first epistle, Romans, of Paul in
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ

" I must then apologize for the error. There is on mention of his name. The
problem is most of his discussions are about the 6th c. BC Greek concept of
Logos not this Jesus."
Sorry, in most of his letters evoking the name of Jesus Christ and of
writing by authority thereof is one of the first things he does.

" I recall making the effort at one time and found only Christ."

Then you recall in error, most are as above.

Post by unknown
Sorry again, it is not only about "logos". For example he writes that all
is in vain if Christ did not rise from the tomb. In any case logos,ie the
Word, is the standard reference for Christ as most often seen in John who
goes on and on about it. For example "the Word was God" and "the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us". Logos is not usually even found in an
english translation.

" Sorry but Logos is a much older Greek concept. When the Greek wrote the
old testament then put their Logos idea in the first few lines of Genesis.
It is not surprising the Christians used it. It is one of those words like
today people use "spiritual." You need only speak gibberish around it and
it sounds profound. Throw incarnate together with Logos and sounds like it
means something."

I mentioned english because to my knowledge the "logos" is always given as
"word" in translation. It is greek and it means "word. It is not to be
found in the first lines of Genesis even in the greek translation of the
hebrew thereof. In the John above "word" is in the greek a form of logos,
I just looked it up.

Post by unknown
All and all it would appear you are not as familiar with the bible as you
might want to let on given the errors of fact.

" One of us is not or perhaps one of us is exaggerating. I'll put a review
on my to do list if this discussion continues for a while."

One thinks rather someone is pretending to know more then actually is the
case. Whatever the sources of your ideas it is not scripture, and was
amply illustrated in the above.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
To test your assertion I turned to the first epistle, Romans, of Paul in
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ

" I must then apologize for the error. There is on mention of his name.

The

Post by unknown
problem is most of his discussions are about the 6th c. BC Greek concept

of

Post by unknown
Logos not this Jesus."
Sorry, in most of his letters evoking the name of Jesus Christ and of
writing by authority thereof is one of the first things he does.

" I recall making the effort at one time and found only Christ."
Then you recall in error, most are as above.

Post by unknown
Sorry again, it is not only about "logos". For example he writes that

all

Post by unknown
is in vain if Christ did not rise from the tomb. In any case logos,ie

the

Post by unknown
Word, is the standard reference for Christ as most often seen in John who
goes on and on about it. For example "the Word was God" and "the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us". Logos is not usually even found in an
english translation.

" Sorry but Logos is a much older Greek concept. When the Greek wrote the
old testament then put their Logos idea in the first few lines of Genesis.
It is not surprising the Christians used it. It is one of those words like
today people use "spiritual." You need only speak gibberish around it and
it sounds profound. Throw incarnate together with Logos and sounds like it
means something."
I mentioned english because to my knowledge the "logos" is always given as
"word" in translation. It is greek and it means "word. It is not to be
found in the first lines of Genesis even in the greek translation of the
hebrew thereof. In the John above "word" is in the greek a form of logos,
I just looked it up.

Dealing with the physical evidence only the Greek is the original. The
"hebrew" is the translation. Hebrew is a pidgin of Aramaic and Greek.
You may argue if you wish but you must first present the physical
evidence upon which you base your argument. I simply point to the
mentions of the Greek several centuries before there is a mention of any
Hebrew version and the oldest versions, the DSS, are a century after the
oldest mention of the Greek Septuagint.

Even if you were to argue for baseless, unprovenanced religious
tradition that the Greek is the translation the Greek is only a couple
centuries from the "return from Babylon" creation time that it certainly
has a translation incredibly closer to the original intent than
believers could possibly imagine 2500 years later. There is no recorded
jewish objection to the translation as Logos. In fact I only find
objections when it is pointed out to be a Greek concept.

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
All and all it would appear you are not as familiar with the bible as you
might want to let on given the errors of fact.

" One of us is not or perhaps one of us is exaggerating. I'll put a review
on my to do list if this discussion continues for a while."
One thinks rather someone is pretending to know more then actually is the
case. Whatever the sources of your ideas it is not scripture, and was
amply illustrated in the above.

Think what you will. Opinions can never be suppressed but discussions
of ancient history are based solely upon the physical evidence.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
I mentioned english because to my knowledge the "logos" is always given as
"word" in translation. It is greek and it means "word. It is not to be
found in the first lines of Genesis even in the greek translation of the
hebrew thereof. In the John above "word" is in the greek a form of logos,
I just looked it up.

"Dealing with the physical evidence only the Greek is the original.
The "hebrew" is the translation. Hebrew is a pidgin of Aramaic and Greek.
You may argue if you wish but you must first present the physical evidence
upon which you base your argument. I simply point to the mentions of the
Greek several centuries before there is a mention of any Hebrew version and
the oldest versions, the DSS, are a century after the oldest mention of the
Greek Septuagint."

The LXX was a translation into greek some 300 years before Christ so those
jews living in distant places and who no longer had command of hebrew could
have access to the jewish bible. Greek as the language common to the
eastern med sea was widely used by many ethnic groups who had various
languages.

The LXX is the primary source of mentions in the NT from the Ot. The
hebrew version we have today originates from a time after Christ.

Aramaic and hebrew and a few other semetic languages existing at that time
were sister languages deriving from a common source in the past. The latin
derived languages of europe being an example of same.

The common source that would in time divide to include greek and the
various semetic languages was even more distant in time. Greek was not in
a line that split into any sister languages that included the semetic
languages.

" Even if you were to argue for baseless, unprovenanced religious tradition
that the Greek is the translation the Greek is only a couple centuries from
the "return from Babylon" creation time that it certainly has a translation
incredibly closer to the original intent than believers could possibly
imagine 2500 years later. There is no recorded jewish objection to the
translation as Logos. In fact I only find objections when it is pointed out
to be a Greek concept."

No comment, see above.

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
All and all it would appear you are not as familiar with the bible as you
might want to let on given the errors of fact.

" One of us is not or perhaps one of us is exaggerating. I'll put a review
on my to do list if this discussion continues for a while."
One thinks rather someone is pretending to know more then actually is the
case. Whatever the sources of your ideas it is not scripture, and was
amply illustrated in the above.

" Think what you will. Opinions can never be suppressed but discussions of
ancient history are based solely upon the physical evidence."

Physical evidence is a place to start. Too often we must rely on what
others wrote as to the evidence which has long disappeared. For example we
don't have original LXX copies but do have discussion of its history in
later times.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
I mentioned english because to my knowledge the "logos" is always given

as

Post by unknown
"word" in translation. It is greek and it means "word. It is not to be
found in the first lines of Genesis even in the greek translation of the
hebrew thereof. In the John above "word" is in the greek a form of

logos,

Post by unknown
I just looked it up.

"Dealing with the physical evidence only the Greek is the original.
The "hebrew" is the translation. Hebrew is a pidgin of Aramaic and Greek.
You may argue if you wish but you must first present the physical evidence
upon which you base your argument. I simply point to the mentions of the
Greek several centuries before there is a mention of any Hebrew version and
the oldest versions, the DSS, are a century after the oldest mention of the
Greek Septuagint."
The LXX was a translation into greek some 300 years before Christ so those
jews living in distant places and who no longer had command of hebrew could
have access to the jewish bible. Greek as the language common to the
eastern med sea was widely used by many ethnic groups who had various
languages.

Yes that is the religious tradition. The only source for it is the hoax
letter of Aristeas which has been identified as a hoax, aka forgery,
when it first appeared in the early 1st c. AD. It has however been dated
to the mid 2nd. c. AD although claiming to a 100 years older.

Sorry it is a hoax and your religious beliefs.

Do you know what physical evidence means?

I know the religious beliefs. If you have physical evidence for your
claims please post it. If you do not have physical evidence you don't
have jack.

Post by unknown
The LXX is the primary source of mentions in the NT from the Ot. The
hebrew version we have today originates from a time after Christ.

And the "hebrew" version is first mentioned in the Hexapla. Even
Josephus does not mention any "hebrew" version or "hebrew language" either.

Post by unknown
Aramaic and hebrew and a few other semetic languages existing at that time
were sister languages deriving from a common source in the past. The latin
derived languages of europe being an example of same.

There is no evidence Hebrew was ever a spoken language. When the
Judeans appear in history they are speaking Aramaic. There is no mention
of any other language.

If you cannot post physical evidence for your claims you are wasting
everyone's time.

Post by unknown
The common source that would in time divide to include greek and the
various semetic languages was even more distant in time. Greek was not in
a line that split into any sister languages that included the semetic
languages.

But still no Hebrew language. Physical evidence please.

Post by unknown
" Even if you were to argue for baseless, unprovenanced religious tradition
that the Greek is the translation the Greek is only a couple centuries from
the "return from Babylon" creation time that it certainly has a translation
incredibly closer to the original intent than believers could possibly
imagine 2500 years later. There is no recorded jewish objection to the
translation as Logos. In fact I only find objections when it is pointed out
to be a Greek concept."
No comment, see above.

All you did was recite the unprovenanced religious tradition. When you
have physical evidence post it.

Post by unknown

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
All and all it would appear you are not as familiar with the bible as

you

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
might want to let on given the errors of fact.

" One of us is not or perhaps one of us is exaggerating. I'll put a

review

Post by unknown
on my to do list if this discussion continues for a while."
One thinks rather someone is pretending to know more then actually is the
case. Whatever the sources of your ideas it is not scripture, and was
amply illustrated in the above.

" Think what you will. Opinions can never be suppressed but discussions of
ancient history are based solely upon the physical evidence."
Physical evidence is a place to start. Too often we must rely on what
others wrote as to the evidence which has long disappeared. For example we
don't have original LXX copies but do have discussion of its history in
later times.

Physical evidence is the ONLY place to start. There is nothing else.

What people wrote is also physical evidence but only of what they
wrote. No one in ancient times did other than cite the hoax to claim the
Greek was the translation.

Physical evidence NO religious beliefs or please remove
soc.history.ancient.

[unknown]

Regarding the nature and validity of ancient information sources and the
LXX:

""Physical evidence is the ONLY place to start. There is nothing else."

You bet, including mention in ancient documents of other documents and
information therein.


"What people wrote is also physical evidence but only of what they wrote.

No one in ancient times did other than cite the hoax to claim the Greek was
the translation."

The physical evidence of this please. We have only discussion of the greek
and copies of copies of copies with no originals.

You mention that hebrew is known only in written form. You jump to the
silly conclusion it was not a spoken language. So too is the ancient
greek, no? The crude attempt to say the ancient hebrews only used aramaic
is also know only in written form. In fact what example of any ancient
language is known otherwise?

" Physical evidence NO religious beliefs or please remove
soc.history.ancient.""

No religious belief to be seen. A perfect topic for that ng one thinks.

I think there is a backstory about your hobby horse about hebrew and greek
etc. please spare us unless you have something more convincing.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown
Regarding the nature and validity of ancient information sources and the
""Physical evidence is the ONLY place to start. There is nothing else."
You bet, including mention in ancient documents of other documents and
information therein.
"What people wrote is also physical evidence but only of what they wrote.
No one in ancient times did other than cite the hoax to claim the Greek was
the translation."
The physical evidence of this please. We have only discussion of the greek
and copies of copies of copies with no originals.
You mention that hebrew is known only in written form. You jump to the
silly conclusion it was not a spoken language. So too is the ancient
greek, no? The crude attempt to say the ancient hebrews only used aramaic
is also know only in written form. In fact what example of any ancient
language is known otherwise?
" Physical evidence NO religious beliefs or please remove
soc.history.ancient.""
No religious belief to be seen. A perfect topic for that ng one thinks.
I think there is a backstory about your hobby horse about hebrew and greek
etc. please spare us unless you have something more convincing.

I wrote what I wrote not your mis-statement of what I wrote.

BTW: There is no archaeological evidence of any Hebrews EVER at any
time. It has nothing do with with "ancient" Hebrews. All Hebrews are
like Munchkins found only in fantastic tales of magic and witches and
heroes and kings and satyrs and dragons and unicorns.

Again, this is history not religion. Please have the common courtesy to
post only on the topic of the newsgroup.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
""Physical evidence is the ONLY place to start. There is nothing else."
You bet, including mention in ancient documents of other documents and
information therein.
"What people wrote is also physical evidence but only of what they wrote.
No one in ancient times did other than cite the hoax to claim the Greek was
the translation."
The physical evidence of this please. We have only discussion of the greek
and copies of copies of copies with no originals.
You mention that hebrew is known only in written form. You jump to the
silly conclusion it was not a spoken language. So too is the ancient
greek, no? The crude attempt to say the ancient hebrews only used aramaic
is also know only in written form. In fact what example of any ancient
language is known otherwise?
" Physical evidence NO religious beliefs or please remove
soc.history.ancient.""
No religious belief to be seen. A perfect topic for that ng one thinks.
I think there is a backstory about your hobby horse about hebrew and greek
etc. please spare us unless you have something more convincing.

" I wrote what I wrote not your mis-statement of what I wrote.

BTW: There is no archaeological evidence of any Hebrews EVER at any
time. It has nothing do with with "ancient" Hebrews. All Hebrews are like
Munchkins found only in fantastic tales of magic and witches and heroes and
kings and satyrs and dragons and unicorns.


Again, this is history not religion. Please have the common
courtesy to post only on the topic of the newsgroup."

Smile, thank you for confirming my observation about a backstory, and your
religious beliefs thereof. As religious beliefs should you be posting
them?

Now what about most of the people of the golden age of greece some 500 or
so years before Christ? Take socrates for example, what archaeological
evidence for him if you please?

If we accept Christ as a historical person then in all charity we must
accept alexander too. We are waiting to see if this applies to socrates
too.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown
Smile, thank you for confirming my observation about a backstory, and your
religious beliefs thereof. As religious beliefs should you be posting
them?

If you wish to continue this exchange and read replies to other of your
posts please join me on soc.history.ancient.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
Smile, thank you for confirming my observation about a backstory, and your
religious beliefs thereof. As religious beliefs should you be posting
them?

" If you wish to continue this exchange and read replies to other of your
posts please join me on soc.history.ancient."

Thank you for the invitation, I will give it consideration. But being a
history ng are your religious views appropriate there?

If we accept Christ as historical we must in all charity accept alexander
also.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by unknown
In any case logos,ie the
Word, is the standard reference for Christ as most often seen in John who
goes on and on about it. For example "the Word was God" and "the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us".

No, those are the only occurrences.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
In any case logos,ie the
Word, is the standard reference for Christ as most often seen in John who
goes on and on about it. For example "the Word was God" and "the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us".

"No, those are the only occurrences."

His gospel is full of the english "word" as a direct translation of some
form of the greek "logos". It is a straight forward use of the word. In
the John above the first phrase establishes the metaphore that is completed
in the second. We know it refers to Christ because of the "became flesh
and dwelt among us"; and from which he goes on to discuss Christ otherwise.

So there are many many uses of "logos" simply meaning "word" in english
translation.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
In any case logos,ie the
Word, is the standard reference for Christ as most often seen in John who
goes on and on about it. For example "the Word was God" and "the Word
became flesh and dwelt among us".

"No, those are the only occurrences."
His gospel is full of the english "word" as a direct translation of some
form of the greek "logos". It is a straight forward use of the word. In
the John above the first phrase establishes the metaphore that is completed
in the second. We know it refers to Christ because of the "became flesh
and dwelt among us"; and from which he goes on to discuss Christ otherwise.
So there are many many uses of "logos" simply meaning "word" in english
translation.

You have confused two things. The Word as Jesus comes only at the
beginning, no doubt logos in its quotidian meaning occurs all over the
Bible and any other book.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by RVG

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in
fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know
nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles
don't do much better.

He doesn't know his mother as well, no mention of her in his epistles.
His scribe Luke changed that a little but his gospel still shows a
complete lack of personal meeting and facts in his account of Jesus'
life as well as the life in the early apostolic community (Book of Acts).

It should be obvious the Paul of the epistles and the Paul of Acts are
not the same person.

[RVG]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by RVG

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to
believe there was a living person upon whom the gospels are
based. So in fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice
Paul seems to know nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his
name. The other epistles don't do much better.

He doesn't know his mother as well, no mention of her in his
epistles. His scribe Luke changed that a little but his gospel
still shows a complete lack of personal meeting and facts in his
account of Jesus' life as well as the life in the early apostolic
community (Book of Acts).

It should be obvious the Paul of the epistles and the Paul of Acts
are not the same person.

The problem is, both versions had a scribe named Luke.
It seems that Luke, after writing his Gospel following more or less Mark
(the shortest and earliest account) tried in the Book of Acts to tie the
gaps between what he wrote in his Gospel (that followed Mark with the
addition of healing miracles and the elision of "in spirit" from the
Beatitudes: "Blessed be the poor", period) and what Paul said of himself
and his so-called experience with the apostolic communities.

[unknown]

Post by Matt Giwer
It should be obvious the Paul of the epistles and the Paul of Acts
are not the same person.

"The problem is, both versions had a scribe named Luke. It seems that Luke,
after writing his Gospel following more or less Mark (the shortest and
earliest account) tried in the Book of Acts to tie the gaps between what he
wrote in his Gospel (that followed Mark with the addition of healing
miracles and the elision of "in spirit" from the Beatitudes: "Blessed be
the poor", period) and what Paul said of himself and his so-called
experience with the apostolic communities."

Really, what do they smoke over there in france?

The gospel of Luke and Acts are one work sent to the same person. They are
split by convention.

Paul was a very educated person and could easily write for himself. There
is some reason to think he had poor eyesight and that some of his letters
were recorded by scribes, they did not originate from them.

We know of Paul from his own writings and likewise those of Luke especially
in Acts. They differ as the perspective of the author changes obviously.
Paul uses first person reference and Luke second person. Luke also had the
prspective of others who knew Paul in addition to his own experience.

Luke clearly says he went about to those who had known Christ directly to
write Luke-Acts. If there are differences in content in his gospel it is
attributable to having additional sources.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown

Post by Matt Giwer
It should be obvious the Paul of the epistles and the Paul of Acts
are not the same person.

"The problem is, both versions had a scribe named Luke. It seems that Luke,
after writing his Gospel following more or less Mark (the shortest and
earliest account) tried in the Book of Acts to tie the gaps between what he
wrote in his Gospel (that followed Mark with the addition of healing
miracles and the elision of "in spirit" from the Beatitudes: "Blessed be
the poor", period) and what Paul said of himself and his so-called
experience with the apostolic communities."
Really, what do they smoke over there in france?
The gospel of Luke and Acts are one work sent to the same person. They are
split by convention.
Paul was a very educated person and could easily write for himself. There
is some reason to think he had poor eyesight and that some of his letters
were recorded by scribes, they did not originate from them.

A believer myth is that people used scribes. It was a rare thing. There
was no one taking dictation. As for eyesight, have you ever seen ancient
writing life size? Near sighted people get close to the paper to write
and when they do they write smaller.

When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something.

Post by unknown
We know of Paul from his own writings and likewise those of Luke especially
in Acts. They differ as the perspective of the author changes obviously.
Paul uses first person reference and Luke second person. Luke also had the
prspective of others who knew Paul in addition to his own experience.
Luke clearly says he went about to those who had known Christ directly to
write Luke-Acts. If there are differences in content in his gospel it is
attributable to having additional sources.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
The gospel of Luke and Acts are one work sent to the same person. They are
split by convention.
Paul was a very educated person and could easily write for himself.

There

Post by unknown
is some reason to think he had poor eyesight and that some of his letters
were recorded by scribes, they did not originate from them.

" A believer myth is that people used scribes. It was a rare thing. There
was no one taking dictation. As for eyesight, have you ever seen ancient
writing life size? Near sighted people get close to the paper to write and
when they do they write smaller."

How do you know this about scribes as used in palistine of that time? As
for eyesight, indeed and the reference of same in a letter of Paul
suggesting exactly that.

" When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something."

Huh, and this is relevant to what? It is good you were apparently able to
read the letters of Paul in the original copy.

Post by unknown
We know of Paul from his own writings and likewise those of Luke especially
in Acts. They differ as the perspective of the author changes obviously.
Paul uses first person reference and Luke second person. Luke also had the
prspective of others who knew Paul in addition to his own experience.
Luke clearly says he went about to those who had known Christ directly to
write Luke-Acts. If there are differences in content in his gospel it is
attributable to having additional sources.

"Like the Iraq war over its nuclear weapons program Israel and Jews are not
behind the Iran war either."

Gosh, you mean Luke and Paul were in on that too? Will wonders never
cease?

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
The gospel of Luke and Acts are one work sent to the same person. They

are

Post by unknown
split by convention.
Paul was a very educated person and could easily write for himself.

There

Post by unknown
is some reason to think he had poor eyesight and that some of his letters
were recorded by scribes, they did not originate from them.

" A believer myth is that people used scribes. It was a rare thing. There
was no one taking dictation. As for eyesight, have you ever seen ancient
writing life size? Near sighted people get close to the paper to write and
when they do they write smaller."
How do you know this about scribes as used in palistine of that time? As
for eyesight, indeed and the reference of same in a letter of Paul
suggesting exactly that.
" When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something."
Huh, and this is relevant to what? It is good you were apparently able to
read the letters of Paul in the original copy.

It means you cannot explain away problems by invoking
scribes/secretaries taking dictation.

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
We know of Paul from his own writings and likewise those of Luke

especially

Post by unknown
in Acts. They differ as the perspective of the author changes obviously.
Paul uses first person reference and Luke second person. Luke also had

the

Post by unknown
prspective of others who knew Paul in addition to his own experience.
Luke clearly says he went about to those who had known Christ directly to
write Luke-Acts. If there are differences in content in his gospel it is
attributable to having additional sources.

"Like the Iraq war over its nuclear weapons program Israel and Jews are not
behind the Iran war either."
Gosh, you mean Luke and Paul were in on that too? Will wonders never
cease?

Sigs are sigs. Learn that some day.

[unknown]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
The gospel of Luke and Acts are one work sent to the same person. They

are

Post by unknown
split by convention.
Paul was a very educated person and could easily write for himself.

There

Post by unknown
is some reason to think he had poor eyesight and that some of his letters
were recorded by scribes, they did not originate from them.

" A believer myth is that people used scribes. It was a rare thing. There
was no one taking dictation. As for eyesight, have you ever seen ancient
writing life size? Near sighted people get close to the paper to write and
when they do they write smaller."
How do you know this about scribes as used in palistine of that time? As
for eyesight, indeed and the reference of same in a letter of Paul
suggesting exactly that.
" When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something."
Huh, and this is relevant to what? It is good you were apparently able to
read the letters of Paul in the original copy.

" It means you cannot explain away problems by invoking scribes/secretaries
taking dictation."

What problems and who was saying so in the first place. The example of
Paul possibly using a scribe and eyesight is from his letters.

Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I refer.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
The gospel of Luke and Acts are one work sent to the same person. They

are

Post by unknown
split by convention.
Paul was a very educated person and could easily write for himself.

There

Post by unknown
is some reason to think he had poor eyesight and that some of his

letters

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
were recorded by scribes, they did not originate from them.

" A believer myth is that people used scribes. It was a rare thing. There
was no one taking dictation. As for eyesight, have you ever seen ancient
writing life size? Near sighted people get close to the paper to write

and

Post by unknown
when they do they write smaller."
How do you know this about scribes as used in palistine of that time? As
for eyesight, indeed and the reference of same in a letter of Paul
suggesting exactly that.
" When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something."
Huh, and this is relevant to what? It is good you were apparently able

to

Post by unknown
read the letters of Paul in the original copy.

" It means you cannot explain away problems by invoking scribes/secretaries
taking dictation."
What problems and who was saying so in the first place. The example of
Paul possibly using a scribe and eyesight is from his letters.
Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I refer.

As I pointed out poor eyesight explains exactly nothing. It only
demonstrates the people who invoke it are not very bright.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
The gospel of Luke and Acts are one work sent to the same person. They

are

Post by unknown
split by convention.
Paul was a very educated person and could easily write for himself.

There

Post by unknown
is some reason to think he had poor eyesight and that some of his

letters

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
were recorded by scribes, they did not originate from them.

" A believer myth is that people used scribes. It was a rare thing. There
was no one taking dictation. As for eyesight, have you ever seen ancient
writing life size? Near sighted people get close to the paper to write

and

Post by unknown
when they do they write smaller."
How do you know this about scribes as used in palistine of that time? As
for eyesight, indeed and the reference of same in a letter of Paul
suggesting exactly that.
" When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something."
Huh, and this is relevant to what? It is good you were apparently able

to

Post by unknown
read the letters of Paul in the original copy.

" It means you cannot explain away problems by invoking
scribes/secretaries
taking dictation."
What problems and who was saying so in the first place. The example of
Paul possibly using a scribe and eyesight is from his letters.
Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I refer.

As I pointed out poor eyesight explains exactly nothing. It only
demonstrates the people who invoke it are not very bright.

He has a point. There is a sentence where Paul writes that he is
writing it himself. Believers do this kind of thing selectively. They
never mention his allusions to his connections in the Herodian family
and the Imperial court.

[unknown]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown
Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I refer.

As I pointed out poor eyesight explains exactly nothing. It only
demonstrates the people who invoke it are not very bright.

"He has a point. There is a sentence where Paul writes that he is writing
it himself. Believers do this kind of thing selectively. They never
mention his allusions to his connections in the Herodian family and the
Imperial court."

To which "he" do you refer?

This is the Paul in question as to possible eyesight issues:

See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.

I don't understand what allusions to which you allude?

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown
Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I refer.

As I pointed out poor eyesight explains exactly nothing. It only
demonstrates the people who invoke it are not very bright.

"He has a point. There is a sentence where Paul writes that he is writing
it himself. Believers do this kind of thing selectively. They never
mention his allusions to his connections in the Herodian family and the
Imperial court."
To which "he" do you refer?
See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.
I don't understand what allusions to which you allude?

Writing in large letters has nothing to do with eyesight. With poor
eyesight one simply gets closer to the page to read and write. In fact
writing in large letters is the opposite of the normal adaptation to
poor eyesight.

You would think people making up these dumb "explanations" would test
their "idea" by taking off their glasses and writing something. Perhaps
it is the equivalent of rocket surgery for them.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.
I don't understand what allusions to which you allude?

" Writing in large letters has nothing to do with eyesight. With poor
eyesight one simply gets closer to the page to read and write. In fact
writing in large letters is the opposite of the normal adaptation to poor
eyesight.

You would think people making up these dumb "explanations" would
test their "idea" by taking off their glasses and writing something.
Perhaps it is the equivalent of rocket surgery for them.
"

Smile, speak of "dumb" explanations.

If we accept Christ as a historical person we must in all charity accept
poor alexander too.

[Maybe]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.
I don't understand what allusions to which you allude?

" Writing in large letters has nothing to do with eyesight. With poor
eyesight one simply gets closer to the page to read and write. In fact
writing in large letters is the opposite of the normal adaptation to poor
eyesight.
You would think people making up these dumb "explanations" would
test their "idea" by taking off their glasses and writing something.
Perhaps it is the equivalent of rocket surgery for them.
"
Smile, speak of "dumb" explanations.
If we accept Christ as a historical person we must in all charity accept
poor alexander too.

Anyone operating a computer knows that taking off the glasses
when viewing the monitor to increase the size of the text so that
they can read it without strain. When nearsighted.

Yes, you gave a truly dumb explanation.

Even small children write large to compensate for limited vision.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by unknown
To which "he" do you refer?

To whom does a pronoun usually refer when it comes two words after a
proper name?

[Martin Edwards]

Post by unknown

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown
Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I refer.

As I pointed out poor eyesight explains exactly nothing. It only
demonstrates the people who invoke it are not very bright.

"He has a point. There is a sentence where Paul writes that he is writing
it himself. Believers do this kind of thing selectively. They never
mention his allusions to his connections in the Herodian family and the
Imperial court."
To which "he" do you refer?
See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.
I don't understand what allusions to which you allude?

You may well be ignorant of them: you won't have learned about them in
Sunday school.

[unknown]

They never

Post by unknown
mention his allusions to his connections in the Herodian family and the
Imperial court."
I don't understand what allusions to which you allude?

You may well be ignorant of them: you won't have learned about them in
Sunday school."

No, not there, but I am aware of the various discussions of Paul's standing
in the community of the pharisees, his education and roman citizenship. Is
that to which you allude?

This for example:

'Robert Eisenman: "Paul as Herodian'

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

THERE
are materials in the New Testament, early Church literature,
Rabbinic literature, and Josephus which point to some connection
between Paul and so-called "Herodians." These materials provide
valuable insight into problems related to Paul's origins, his Roman
citizenship, the power he conspicuously wields in Jerusalem when
still a young man, and the "Herodian" thrust of his doctrines (and
as a consequence those of the New Testament) envisioning a community
in which both Greeks and Jews would enjoy equal promises and
privileges.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by unknown
They never

Post by unknown
mention his allusions to his connections in the Herodian family and the
Imperial court."
I don't understand what allusions to which you allude?

You may well be ignorant of them: you won't have learned about them in
Sunday school."
No, not there, but I am aware of the various discussions of Paul's standing
in the community of the pharisees, his education and roman citizenship. Is
that to which you allude?
'Robert Eisenman: "Paul as Herodian'
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html
THERE
are materials in the New Testament, early Church literature,
Rabbinic literature, and Josephus which point to some connection
between Paul and so-called "Herodians." These materials provide
valuable insight into problems related to Paul's origins, his Roman
citizenship, the power he conspicuously wields in Jerusalem when
still a young man, and the "Herodian" thrust of his doctrines (and
as a consequence those of the New Testament) envisioning a community
in which both Greeks and Jews would enjoy equal promises and
privileges.

Yes.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
They never

Post by unknown
mention his allusions to his connections in the Herodian family and the
Imperial court."
I don't understand what allusions to which you allude?

You may well be ignorant of them: you won't have learned about them in
Sunday school."
No, not there, but I am aware of the various discussions of Paul's standing
in the community of the pharisees, his education and roman citizenship.

Is

Post by unknown
that to which you allude?
'Robert Eisenman: "Paul as Herodian'
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html
THERE
are materials in the New Testament, early Church literature,
Rabbinic literature, and Josephus which point to some connection
between Paul and so-called "Herodians." These materials provide
valuable insight into problems related to Paul's origins, his Roman
citizenship, the power he conspicuously wields in Jerusalem when
still a young man, and the "Herodian" thrust of his doctrines (and
as a consequence those of the New Testament) envisioning a community
in which both Greeks and Jews would enjoy equal promises and
privileges.

"Yes."

So perhaps "allusions" is not the right word when other sources seem to
confirm his place in those times? And given the mentions he makes of his
background and actions prior to his conversion he likely did have a high
place in the social order? And does it make a difference except for
providing background to the core of his experiences?

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
The gospel of Luke and Acts are one work sent to the same person.
They

are

Post by unknown
split by convention.
Paul was a very educated person and could easily write for himself.

There

Post by unknown
is some reason to think he had poor eyesight and that some of his

letters

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
were recorded by scribes, they did not originate from them.

" A believer myth is that people used scribes. It was a rare thing. There
was no one taking dictation. As for eyesight, have you ever seen ancient
writing life size? Near sighted people get close to the paper to write

and

Post by unknown
when they do they write smaller."
How do you know this about scribes as used in palistine of that time? As
for eyesight, indeed and the reference of same in a letter of Paul
suggesting exactly that.
" When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something."
Huh, and this is relevant to what? It is good you were apparently able

to

Post by unknown
read the letters of Paul in the original copy.

" It means you cannot explain away problems by invoking
scribes/secretaries
taking dictation."
What problems and who was saying so in the first place. The example of
Paul possibly using a scribe and eyesight is from his letters.
Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I refer.

As I pointed out poor eyesight explains exactly nothing. It only
demonstrates the people who invoke it are not very bright.

He has a point. There is a sentence where Paul writes that he is
writing it himself. Believers do this kind of thing selectively. They
never mention his allusions to his connections in the Herodian family
and the Imperial court.

I assume you have been blessed with the malevolently designed eyes, aka
intelligent design, as everyone else.

Have you never tried writing with them off? The worse they are the
closer you will get to the paper. And the closer you get the smaller you
will write. Next compare that size to your writing in a life size image
of some surviving scrap of ancient writing.

Some church, I think in Egypt, claims to have a fragment of an original
letter from Paul described as the size of a postage stamp. There are
fragments of several lines. That is one huge stamp.

As to the comment on writing it himself, as that was what everyone did,
I suggest the reason for the remark is very unlikely to be an issue of
eyesight. Not only was it the norm but also eyesight being most always
nearsightedness does not affect either the ability to read or write.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
The gospel of Luke and Acts are one work sent to the same person.
They

are

Post by unknown
split by convention.
Paul was a very educated person and could easily write for himself.

There

Post by unknown
is some reason to think he had poor eyesight and that some of his

letters

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
were recorded by scribes, they did not originate from them.

" A believer myth is that people used scribes. It was a rare thing. There
was no one taking dictation. As for eyesight, have you ever seen ancient
writing life size? Near sighted people get close to the paper to write

and

Post by unknown
when they do they write smaller."
How do you know this about scribes as used in palistine of that time? As
for eyesight, indeed and the reference of same in a letter of Paul
suggesting exactly that.
" When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something."
Huh, and this is relevant to what? It is good you were apparently able

to

Post by unknown
read the letters of Paul in the original copy.

" It means you cannot explain away problems by invoking
scribes/secretaries
taking dictation."
What problems and who was saying so in the first place. The example of
Paul possibly using a scribe and eyesight is from his letters.
Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I refer.

As I pointed out poor eyesight explains exactly nothing. It only
demonstrates the people who invoke it are not very bright.

He has a point. There is a sentence where Paul writes that he is
writing it himself. Believers do this kind of thing selectively. They
never mention his allusions to his connections in the Herodian family
and the Imperial court.

I assume you have been blessed with the malevolently designed eyes,
aka intelligent design, as everyone else.
Have you never tried writing with them off? The worse they are the
closer you will get to the paper. And the closer you get the smaller you
will write. Next compare that size to your writing in a life size image
of some surviving scrap of ancient writing.
Some church, I think in Egypt, claims to have a fragment of an
original letter from Paul described as the size of a postage stamp.
There are fragments of several lines. That is one huge stamp.
As to the comment on writing it himself, as that was what everyone
did, I suggest the reason for the remark is very unlikely to be an issue
of eyesight. Not only was it the norm but also eyesight being most
always nearsightedness does not affect either the ability to read or write.

You really have this wrong. Most of the document will have been written
by a scribe, that is why he stresses the fact that he wrote that sentence.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
The gospel of Luke and Acts are one work sent to the same person.
They

are

Post by unknown
split by convention.
Paul was a very educated person and could easily write for himself.

There

Post by unknown
is some reason to think he had poor eyesight and that some of his

letters

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
were recorded by scribes, they did not originate from them.

" A believer myth is that people used scribes. It was a rare thing. There
was no one taking dictation. As for eyesight, have you ever seen ancient
writing life size? Near sighted people get close to the paper to write

and

Post by unknown
when they do they write smaller."
How do you know this about scribes as used in palistine of that time? As
for eyesight, indeed and the reference of same in a letter of Paul
suggesting exactly that.
" When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something."
Huh, and this is relevant to what? It is good you were apparently able

to

Post by unknown
read the letters of Paul in the original copy.

" It means you cannot explain away problems by invoking
scribes/secretaries
taking dictation."
What problems and who was saying so in the first place. The example of
Paul possibly using a scribe and eyesight is from his letters.
Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I refer.

As I pointed out poor eyesight explains exactly nothing. It only
demonstrates the people who invoke it are not very bright.

He has a point. There is a sentence where Paul writes that he is
writing it himself. Believers do this kind of thing selectively. They
never mention his allusions to his connections in the Herodian family
and the Imperial court.

I assume you have been blessed with the malevolently designed eyes,
aka intelligent design, as everyone else.
Have you never tried writing with them off? The worse they are the
closer you will get to the paper. And the closer you get the smaller you
will write. Next compare that size to your writing in a life size image
of some surviving scrap of ancient writing.
Some church, I think in Egypt, claims to have a fragment of an
original letter from Paul described as the size of a postage stamp.
There are fragments of several lines. That is one huge stamp.
As to the comment on writing it himself, as that was what everyone
did, I suggest the reason for the remark is very unlikely to be an issue
of eyesight. Not only was it the norm but also eyesight being most
always nearsightedness does not affect either the ability to read or write.

You really have this wrong. Most of the document will have been written
by a scribe, that is why he stresses the fact that he wrote that sentence.

Lets try it from the evidence. Cicero mentions using them and clearly
he could afford them, perhaps even getting the government to assigned
them to him for free. Otherwise they were moonlighting from their day
jobs. It is not clear that an itinerant preacher could afford them. When
people talk about them in ancient times they seem to think
"stenographer" instead of court reporter or notary.

It is unclear why a person who could write would go to the added
trouble and expense of hiring someone to do what he could do himself.
Would you hire someone to type in your responses here? Did you ever hire
anyone to write anything for you? Other than perhaps formal invitations
using calligraphers perhaps.

But enough argumentation.

One would expect were this a common practice there would be mention of
it. There is plenty of direct and indirect material on what they did do.
They did official and semi-official work making certified copies and
such. They also hired out to make copies of books for people who did not
have time to make their own copies. I know of no mention of writing
personal letters much less from dictation.

I have come across several mentions of kings and such in the Dark Ages
having to rely upon scribes to read and write for them because they
could not. That is hardly noteworthy if it were always done that way.

There are lots of problems with ancient texts. Those problems are
explained in a variety of ways. So are as I am aware only when the
"author" is an infallible religious figure is this idea of a scribe as
personal secretary invoked as an explanation.

Please tell me what facts you know that I have not invoked.
--
unicorns: Job 39:9-10, Psalm 22:21, Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Psalm
92:10,
Deut 33:17, Isaiah 34:7

dragons: Isaiah 34:13, Psalm 91:13, Psalm 74:13, Deut 32:33, Micah 1:8

cockatrice: Isaiah 11:8

satyr: Isaiah 13:21

witches: Exodus 22:18, 1 Samuel 15:23, 2 Kings 21:6, Leviticus 19:31

-- The Iron Webmaster, 4434 http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Sun, Oct 06, 2013 3:24:58 PM

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
The gospel of Luke and Acts are one work sent to the same person.
They

are

Post by unknown
split by convention.
Paul was a very educated person and could easily write for himself.

There

Post by unknown
is some reason to think he had poor eyesight and that some of his

letters

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
were recorded by scribes, they did not originate from them.

" A believer myth is that people used scribes. It was a rare thing. There
was no one taking dictation. As for eyesight, have you ever seen ancient
writing life size? Near sighted people get close to the paper to write

and

Post by unknown
when they do they write smaller."
How do you know this about scribes as used in palistine of that time? As
for eyesight, indeed and the reference of same in a letter of Paul
suggesting exactly that.
" When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something."
Huh, and this is relevant to what? It is good you were apparently able

to

Post by unknown
read the letters of Paul in the original copy.

" It means you cannot explain away problems by invoking
scribes/secretaries
taking dictation."
What problems and who was saying so in the first place. The example of
Paul possibly using a scribe and eyesight is from his letters.
Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I refer.

As I pointed out poor eyesight explains exactly nothing. It only
demonstrates the people who invoke it are not very bright.

He has a point. There is a sentence where Paul writes that he is
writing it himself. Believers do this kind of thing selectively. They
never mention his allusions to his connections in the Herodian family
and the Imperial court.

I assume you have been blessed with the malevolently designed eyes,
aka intelligent design, as everyone else.
Have you never tried writing with them off? The worse they are the
closer you will get to the paper. And the closer you get the smaller you
will write. Next compare that size to your writing in a life size image
of some surviving scrap of ancient writing.
Some church, I think in Egypt, claims to have a fragment of an
original letter from Paul described as the size of a postage stamp.
There are fragments of several lines. That is one huge stamp.
As to the comment on writing it himself, as that was what everyone
did, I suggest the reason for the remark is very unlikely to be an issue
of eyesight. Not only was it the norm but also eyesight being most
always nearsightedness does not affect either the ability to read or write.

You really have this wrong. Most of the document will have been written
by a scribe, that is why he stresses the fact that he wrote that sentence.

Lets try it from the evidence. Cicero mentions using them and
clearly he could afford them, perhaps even getting the government to
assigned them to him for free. Otherwise they were moonlighting from
their day jobs. It is not clear that an itinerant preacher could afford
them. When people talk about them in ancient times they seem to think
"stenographer" instead of court reporter or notary.
It is unclear why a person who could write would go to the added
trouble and expense of hiring someone to do what he could do himself.
Would you hire someone to type in your responses here? Did you ever hire
anyone to write anything for you? Other than perhaps formal invitations
using calligraphers perhaps.
But enough argumentation.
One would expect were this a common practice there would be mention
of it. There is plenty of direct and indirect material on what they did
do. They did official and semi-official work making certified copies and
such. They also hired out to make copies of books for people who did not
have time to make their own copies. I know of no mention of writing
personal letters much less from dictation.
I have come across several mentions of kings and such in the Dark
Ages having to rely upon scribes to read and write for them because they
could not. That is hardly noteworthy if it were always done that way.
There are lots of problems with ancient texts. Those problems are
explained in a variety of ways. So are as I am aware only when the
"author" is an infallible religious figure is this idea of a scribe as
personal secretary invoked as an explanation.
Please tell me what facts you know that I have not invoked.

Okay, hands up, but why is the sentence saying he wrote it himself there?

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
The gospel of Luke and Acts are one work sent to the same person.
They

are

Post by unknown
split by convention.
Paul was a very educated person and could easily write for himself.

There

Post by unknown
is some reason to think he had poor eyesight and that some of his

letters

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
were recorded by scribes, they did not originate from them.

" A believer myth is that people used scribes. It was a rare thing. There
was no one taking dictation. As for eyesight, have you ever seen ancient
writing life size? Near sighted people get close to the paper to write

and

Post by unknown
when they do they write smaller."
How do you know this about scribes as used in palistine of that time? As
for eyesight, indeed and the reference of same in a letter of Paul
suggesting exactly that.
" When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something."
Huh, and this is relevant to what? It is good you were apparently able

to

Post by unknown
read the letters of Paul in the original copy.

" It means you cannot explain away problems by invoking
scribes/secretaries
taking dictation."
What problems and who was saying so in the first place. The example of
Paul possibly using a scribe and eyesight is from his letters.
Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I refer.

As I pointed out poor eyesight explains exactly nothing. It only
demonstrates the people who invoke it are not very bright.

He has a point. There is a sentence where Paul writes that he is
writing it himself. Believers do this kind of thing selectively.
They
never mention his allusions to his connections in the Herodian family
and the Imperial court.

I assume you have been blessed with the malevolently designed eyes,
aka intelligent design, as everyone else.
Have you never tried writing with them off? The worse they are the
closer you will get to the paper. And the closer you get the smaller you
will write. Next compare that size to your writing in a life size image
of some surviving scrap of ancient writing.
Some church, I think in Egypt, claims to have a fragment of an
original letter from Paul described as the size of a postage stamp.
There are fragments of several lines. That is one huge stamp.
As to the comment on writing it himself, as that was what everyone
did, I suggest the reason for the remark is very unlikely to be an issue
of eyesight. Not only was it the norm but also eyesight being most
always nearsightedness does not affect either the ability to read or write.

You really have this wrong. Most of the document will have been written
by a scribe, that is why he stresses the fact that he wrote that sentence.

Lets try it from the evidence. Cicero mentions using them and
clearly he could afford them, perhaps even getting the government to
assigned them to him for free. Otherwise they were moonlighting from
their day jobs. It is not clear that an itinerant preacher could afford
them. When people talk about them in ancient times they seem to think
"stenographer" instead of court reporter or notary.
It is unclear why a person who could write would go to the added
trouble and expense of hiring someone to do what he could do himself.
Would you hire someone to type in your responses here? Did you ever hire
anyone to write anything for you? Other than perhaps formal invitations
using calligraphers perhaps.
But enough argumentation.
One would expect were this a common practice there would be mention
of it. There is plenty of direct and indirect material on what they did
do. They did official and semi-official work making certified copies and
such. They also hired out to make copies of books for people who did not
have time to make their own copies. I know of no mention of writing
personal letters much less from dictation.
I have come across several mentions of kings and such in the Dark
Ages having to rely upon scribes to read and write for them because they
could not. That is hardly noteworthy if it were always done that way.
There are lots of problems with ancient texts. Those problems are
explained in a variety of ways. So are as I am aware only when the
"author" is an infallible religious figure is this idea of a scribe as
personal secretary invoked as an explanation.
Please tell me what facts you know that I have not invoked.

Okay, hands up, but why is the sentence saying he wrote it himself there?

Damned if I know, perhaps just for emphasis. It isn't like they had
exclamation points. The size being the emphasis not the I. I have
sarcastically written, Am I typing slow enough for you (to understand)?
Does that mean I really typed slowly? Does it mean anyone could tell if
I did or not? Of course it would be a great help to find other uses of
large lettering meaning something.

The point is, if it does mean something it does not mean everything
else was dictation.

Perhaps the belief guides the translation. An "I myself" construction
is implied.

[unknown]

You suggested that if I wanted to continue in this thread that it be taken
to ancient history ng. Perhaps you should follow your own advice, no"?

[unknown]

Regarding the role of a scribe in ancient times:

" There are lots of problems with ancient texts. Those problems are
explained in a variety of ways. So are as I am aware only when the "author"
is an infallible religious figure is this idea of a scribe as personal
secretary invoked as an explanation."

Sources on the web if you please

In ancient times the vast majority of people were not literate. Scribes
both wrote and read written material. That Paul and others in the NT might
have made use of them at various times is wholly unremarkable.

In the case of Paul when he speaks of his large handwriting done in his own
hand suggests at other times scribes would have been used and why he should
take the trouble in this case to remark on exactly who the person writing
was. The implied issue of eyesight would have been known to the people
getting his various letters and he wanted them to know what relationship
his authorship and large letters had to their prior knowledge of him.

Please tell me what facts you know that I have not invoked.

The better question is what facts you ever evoked in support of your
confusion about scribes and why it should matter?

Btw, the dragon and unicorn etc. are not "facts" relevant in any way to the
question at hand.

[unknown]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
" When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something."
Huh, and this is relevant to what? It is good you were apparently able

to

Post by unknown
read the letters of Paul in the original copy.

" It means you cannot explain away problems by invoking

scribes/secretaries

Post by unknown
taking dictation."
What problems and who was saying so in the first place. The example of
Paul possibly using a scribe and eyesight is from his letters.
Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I refer.

" As I pointed out poor eyesight explains exactly nothing. It only
demonstrates the people who invoke it are not very bright."

Huh? If you knew the letters of Paul this irrelevant assertion would never
pass your fingertips. Your lack of knowledge regarding scripture is now
illustrated regardless of your pretensions otherwise.

You are begining to convince me, regardless of how hard I try to the
contrary, you are one of those crank ng people who have a dearly held
fringe hobby horse to ride contrary to all fact. And it is ofteninvented
to serve an agenda which becomes known in time.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
" When a person wrote his own letters a signature would have been
superfluous. It is when a document is in another handwriting that a
signature means something."
Huh, and this is relevant to what? It is good you were apparently able

to

Post by unknown
read the letters of Paul in the original copy.

" It means you cannot explain away problems by invoking

scribes/secretaries

Post by unknown
taking dictation."
What problems and who was saying so in the first place. The example of
Paul possibly using a scribe and eyesight is from his letters.
Had you a real command of scripture you would know exactly to what I

refer.
" As I pointed out poor eyesight explains exactly nothing. It only
demonstrates the people who invoke it are not very bright."
Huh? If you knew the letters of Paul this irrelevant assertion would never
pass your fingertips. Your lack of knowledge regarding scripture is now
illustrated regardless of your pretensions otherwise.
You are begining to convince me, regardless of how hard I try to the
contrary, you are one of those crank ng people who have a dearly held
fringe hobby horse to ride contrary to all fact. And it is ofteninvented
to serve an agenda which becomes known in time.

If you are leading up to anti-Semitism, I would need to meet the guy to
form a judgement. It is true that he is labouring under some woeful
misconceptions, but it is also true that he has an uncanny instinct for
crap detection. People find him outrageous because they have been
taught Judeo-Christian mythology as fact since childhood and have lost
the capacity for drawing distinctions.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
Huh? If you knew the letters of Paul this irrelevant assertion would never
pass your fingertips. Your lack of knowledge regarding scripture is now
illustrated regardless of your pretensions otherwise.
You are begining to convince me, regardless of how hard I try to the
contrary, you are one of those crank ng people who have a dearly held
fringe hobby horse to ride contrary to all fact. And it is ofteninvented
to serve an agenda which becomes known in time.

"If you are leading up to anti-Semitism, I would need to meet the guy to
form a judgement. It is true that he is labouring under some woeful
misconceptions, but it is also true that he has an uncanny instinct for
crap detection. People find him outrageous because they have been taught
Judeo-Christian mythology as fact since childhood and have lost the
capacity for drawing distinctions."

Antisemetic perhaps, his "detection" ability does not extend to his
pretension of knowing scripture enough to have an informed discussion. It
was on a point of scripture on which this thread started. He claimed to
another poster that Paul didn't even know the name of Christ, a silly
assertion really easily refuted.

He, and prhaps you, want to make this an don't bother me with religious
discussion. Into which we have not entered in the least. This thread has
gone exactly where his claims have led it. My religious views are
irrelevant to the facts under consideration.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by RVG

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by RVG

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to
believe there was a living person upon whom the gospels are
based. So in fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice
Paul seems to know nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his
name. The other epistles don't do much better.

He doesn't know his mother as well, no mention of her in his
epistles. His scribe Luke changed that a little but his gospel
still shows a complete lack of personal meeting and facts in his
account of Jesus' life as well as the life in the early apostolic
community (Book of Acts).

It should be obvious the Paul of the epistles and the Paul of Acts
are not the same person.

The problem is, both versions had a scribe named Luke.
It seems that Luke, after writing his Gospel following more or less Mark
(the shortest and earliest account) tried in the Book of Acts to tie the
gaps between what he wrote in his Gospel (that followed Mark with the
addition of healing miracles and the elision of "in spirit" from the
Beatitudes: "Blessed be the poor", period) and what Paul said of himself
and his so-called experience with the apostolic communities.

Paul convinced Cephias to eat with gentiles by his own argument. In
Acts there was a miracle about unclean food. The Paul of Acts says he
learned everything there was to learn.

The excuse of the Lukes is interesting but one has to assume things can
be reconciled before one bothers to try. One can as easily assume Pauls.

You throw in all kinds of believer nonsense when the rational person
must be convinced from the ground up based solely upon the physical
evidence. As the only evidence is written one judges it like any other
claim such as of Apollonius and Mithras and the other Judean Messiahs Of
The Month Club nominees.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by RVG

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by RVG

Post by Matt Giwer
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to
believe there was a living person upon whom the gospels are
based. So in fact we can't really draw any conclusions. Notice
Paul seems to know nothing of the gospel Jesus, not even his
name. The other epistles don't do much better.

He doesn't know his mother as well, no mention of her in his
epistles. His scribe Luke changed that a little but his gospel
still shows a complete lack of personal meeting and facts in his
account of Jesus' life as well as the life in the early apostolic
community (Book of Acts).

It should be obvious the Paul of the epistles and the Paul of Acts
are not the same person.

The problem is, both versions had a scribe named Luke.
It seems that Luke, after writing his Gospel following more or less Mark
(the shortest and earliest account) tried in the Book of Acts to tie the
gaps between what he wrote in his Gospel (that followed Mark with the
addition of healing miracles and the elision of "in spirit" from the
Beatitudes: "Blessed be the poor", period) and what Paul said of himself
and his so-called experience with the apostolic communities.

Crap. On textual evidence it is likely that Luke and Acts had the same
author. His name is unknown.

[unknown]

"For a fact only the most dyed in the wool old time believers still
he gospels as first hand accounts. If the question before the
re Did Jesus exist I could call four witnesses, Matthew, Mark,
John and use each of their gospels to impeach the other three. ere is
disagreement only one can be correct and the others are ou can say mistaken
but their testimony is worthless. Believers like to claim all the
unimpeached parts are true and pick r the four they happen to like for the
impeached parts."

Good you should bring this up. One point some have made is that as
witnesses their accounts have minor differences we can know they were not
rehersed or edited later.

In a court it would be expected that witness accounts for the same event
would change as each saw or experienced it accordingly. If all details
were exactly the same the court would think collusion was afoot.

What would an "impeached part" be for example?

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown
"For a fact only the most dyed in the wool old time believers still
he gospels as first hand accounts. If the question before the
re Did Jesus exist I could call four witnesses, Matthew, Mark,
John and use each of their gospels to impeach the other three. ere is
disagreement only one can be correct and the others are ou can say mistaken
but their testimony is worthless. Believers like to claim all the
unimpeached parts are true and pick r the four they happen to like for the
impeached parts."
Good you should bring this up. One point some have made is that as
witnesses their accounts have minor differences we can know they were not
rehersed or edited later.
In a court it would be expected that witness accounts for the same event
would change as each saw or experienced it accordingly. If all details
were exactly the same the court would think collusion was afoot.
What would an "impeached part" be for example?

I will grant it is not important which gospel is lying about what was
said at the sermon on the plain/mount.

You may read the descriptions of the discovery of the empty tomb and
decide which of the three are lying for yourself. If the case were a
simple bank robbery and the testimony as to who did it was this varied I
doubt the case would ever be brought to court. There would be different
robbers, a different number of robbers, a different sequence of events,
different third party witnesses (aka angels) who did different things
including a giant angel. Try getting a giant angel testimony admitted in
court.

Far from minor the resurrection is the lynchpin for all of Christianity
and to discover at least three "authoritative sources" are liars gives
the lie to the entire story. If three are lying, why not all four? Given
at least three people are lying about this resurrection thing the
simplest explanation is that all four are lying.

I guess technically Mark isn't lying because he is silent on a
resurrection so we have the later addition to Mark and more fluid
additions to the other gospels meaning we can dismiss the entire
resurrection thing as a lie told by three liars.

Of course you can say they were written decades later and memory is
fallible but then every word of every gospels can be written off as
senility and Alzheimer's. You can't make up ad hoc excuses for
everything. Every explanation has to apply to everything else one might
get the idea one is impervious to facts.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown
"For a fact only the most dyed in the wool old time believers still
he gospels as first hand accounts. If the question before the
re Did Jesus exist I could call four witnesses, Matthew, Mark,
John and use each of their gospels to impeach the other three. ere is
disagreement only one can be correct and the others are ou can say mistaken
but their testimony is worthless. Believers like to claim all the
unimpeached parts are true and pick r the four they happen to like for the
impeached parts."
Good you should bring this up. One point some have made is that as
witnesses their accounts have minor differences we can know they were not
rehersed or edited later.
In a court it would be expected that witness accounts for the same event
would change as each saw or experienced it accordingly. If all details
were exactly the same the court would think collusion was afoot.
What would an "impeached part" be for example?

I will grant it is not important which gospel is lying about what
was said at the sermon on the plain/mount.
You may read the descriptions of the discovery of the empty tomb
and decide which of the three are lying for yourself. If the case were a
simple bank robbery and the testimony as to who did it was this varied I
doubt the case would ever be brought to court. There would be different
robbers, a different number of robbers, a different sequence of events,
different third party witnesses (aka angels) who did different things
including a giant angel. Try getting a giant angel testimony admitted in
court.
Far from minor the resurrection is the lynchpin for all of
Christianity and to discover at least three "authoritative sources" are
liars gives the lie to the entire story. If three are lying, why not all
four? Given at least three people are lying about this resurrection
thing the simplest explanation is that all four are lying.
I guess technically Mark isn't lying because he is silent on a
resurrection so we have the later addition to Mark and more fluid
additions to the other gospels meaning we can dismiss the entire
resurrection thing as a lie told by three liars.
Of course you can say they were written decades later and memory is
fallible but then every word of every gospels can be written off as
senility and Alzheimer's. You can't make up ad hoc excuses for
everything. Every explanation has to apply to everything else one might
get the idea one is impervious to facts.

One writer suggests in all seriousness that John refers to several
visits to Jerusalem and the Synoptics only to one, because he was
talking about different visits that the Synoptics do not mention. Okay,
that's that one out of the way, then again the cleansing of the Temple
took place on the first visit, the dove does not descend at his baptism,
but John the Baptist recalls it happening on a previous occasion...........

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown
"For a fact only the most dyed in the wool old time believers still
he gospels as first hand accounts. If the question before the
re Did Jesus exist I could call four witnesses, Matthew, Mark,
John and use each of their gospels to impeach the other three. ere is
disagreement only one can be correct and the others are ou can say mistaken
but their testimony is worthless. Believers like to claim all the
unimpeached parts are true and pick r the four they happen to like for the
impeached parts."
Good you should bring this up. One point some have made is that as
witnesses their accounts have minor differences we can know they were not
rehersed or edited later.
In a court it would be expected that witness accounts for the same event
would change as each saw or experienced it accordingly. If all details
were exactly the same the court would think collusion was afoot.
What would an "impeached part" be for example?

I will grant it is not important which gospel is lying about what
was said at the sermon on the plain/mount.
You may read the descriptions of the discovery of the empty tomb
and decide which of the three are lying for yourself. If the case were a
simple bank robbery and the testimony as to who did it was this varied I
doubt the case would ever be brought to court. There would be different
robbers, a different number of robbers, a different sequence of events,
different third party witnesses (aka angels) who did different things
including a giant angel. Try getting a giant angel testimony admitted in
court.
Far from minor the resurrection is the lynchpin for all of
Christianity and to discover at least three "authoritative sources" are
liars gives the lie to the entire story. If three are lying, why not all
four? Given at least three people are lying about this resurrection
thing the simplest explanation is that all four are lying.
I guess technically Mark isn't lying because he is silent on a
resurrection so we have the later addition to Mark and more fluid
additions to the other gospels meaning we can dismiss the entire
resurrection thing as a lie told by three liars.
Of course you can say they were written decades later and memory is
fallible but then every word of every gospels can be written off as
senility and Alzheimer's. You can't make up ad hoc excuses for
everything. Every explanation has to apply to everything else one might
get the idea one is impervious to facts.

One writer suggests in all seriousness that John refers to several
visits to Jerusalem and the Synoptics only to one, because he was
talking about different visits that the Synoptics do not mention. Okay,
that's that one out of the way, then again the cleansing of the Temple
took place on the first visit, the dove does not descend at his baptism,
but John the Baptist recalls it happening on a previous occasion...........

IF we assume the gospels are infallible THEN any explanation appears
credible to believers.

If we do not bring that assumption then they are obvious nonsense in
need of no explanation.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
Good you should bring this up. One point some have made is that as
witnesses their accounts have minor differences we can know they were not
rehersed or edited later.
In a court it would be expected that witness accounts for the same event
would change as each saw or experienced it accordingly. If all details
were exactly the same the court would think collusion was afoot.
What would an "impeached part" be for example?

" I will grant it is not important which gospel is lying about what was
said at the sermon on the plain/mount.:

When do different recollections become a lie? 4 different witnesses can
have as many accounts about the same event. Variation does not mean a lie
nor that the event did not occur.

" You may read the descriptions of the discovery of the empty tomb and
decide which of the three are lying for yourself. If the case were a simple
bank robbery and the testimony as to who did it was this varied I doubt the
case would ever be brought to court. There would be different robbers, a
different number of robbers, a different sequence of events, different
third party witnesses (aka angels) who did different things including a
giant angel. Try getting a giant angel testimony admitted in court."

You make my point. When collected the recollections of who was there and
who said what to whom varied. All point to it having happened, the tomb
was empty.

But it is not a court but history. Even modern history with documentation
still suffers from the same problem of different recollections. The angel
bit is irrelevant and points more to motivation then wanting to understand
the nature of the gospel accounts.

" Far from minor the resurrection is the lynchpin for all of Christianity
and to discover at least three "authoritative sources" are liars gives the
lie to the entire story. If three are lying, why not all four? Given at
least three people are lying about this resurrection thing the simplest
explanation is that all four are lying."

Now the silly season is upon us. It was the event having happened not the
variation in the recollections of it. It is a common example used in law
school to stage a fake crime event then ask for accounts from those
present. Almost without fail they will vary even when collected just after
it happened. Were they lying and the event did not occur therefore?

" I guess technically Mark isn't lying because he is silent on a
resurrection so we have the later addition to Mark and more fluid additions
to the other gospels meaning we can dismiss the entire resurrection thing
as a lie told by three liars.

Of course you can say they were written decades later and memory is
fallible but then every word of every gospels can be written off as
senility and Alzheimer's. You can't make up ad hoc excuses for everything.
Every explanation has to apply to everything else one might get the idea
one is impervious to facts."

It seems you are making up the ad hoc excuses to declare each a "lie"
because there is consistantly variation in recollections.

What if we were to do the same for say alexander the great? If we use the
same grounds you propose, all accounts were "lies" because the variation
and problems of sources of the accounts is greater by far and in spades.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
Good you should bring this up. One point some have made is that as
witnesses their accounts have minor differences we can know they were not
rehersed or edited later.
In a court it would be expected that witness accounts for the same event
would change as each saw or experienced it accordingly. If all details
were exactly the same the court would think collusion was afoot.
What would an "impeached part" be for example?

" I will grant it is not important which gospel is lying about what was
When do different recollections become a lie? 4 different witnesses can
have as many accounts about the same event. Variation does not mean a lie
nor that the event did not occur.

There can be only one truth. If you claim different memories then you
are at my last conjecture the contents of all of them are due to
senility and Alzheimer's. Once memories are faulty nothing said is
trustworthy. When I was a kid the joke was the boy asking, What did you
do in the war, Daddy. It is amazing how many won it single handedly. Of
course people were polite and those were not called lies either.

The absence of substantive agreement is not variation.

To be honest you have to approach the gospels as though you never heard
of them or the religion and thus have no expectations or presumptions.
They have to sell themselves. And you, having no other knowledge, do not
make excuses or explain away obvious problems. Without preconceptions
you would not want to believe.

Post by unknown
" You may read the descriptions of the discovery of the empty tomb and
decide which of the three are lying for yourself. If the case were a simple
bank robbery and the testimony as to who did it was this varied I doubt the
case would ever be brought to court. There would be different robbers, a
different number of robbers, a different sequence of events, different
third party witnesses (aka angels) who did different things including a
giant angel. Try getting a giant angel testimony admitted in court."
You make my point. When collected the recollections of who was there and
who said what to whom varied. All point to it having happened, the tomb
was empty.

As I noted, Mark does not. Resurrection was obviously added by someone
else. Mark remembers no resurrection. That makes Mark the only credible
narrator and makes the other three liars no matter how you look at it.
One cannot misremember what never happened.

Post by unknown
But it is not a court but history. Even modern history with documentation
still suffers from the same problem of different recollections. The angel
bit is irrelevant and points more to motivation then wanting to understand
the nature of the gospel accounts.

Angels are relevant. If no angels than liars. If trying to sell the
product like used car salesmen then also liars.

As to court, I was asked about impeaching then gospels. I did so. Court
testimony is about facts in evidence.

Post by unknown
" Far from minor the resurrection is the lynchpin for all of Christianity
and to discover at least three "authoritative sources" are liars gives the
lie to the entire story. If three are lying, why not all four? Given at
least three people are lying about this resurrection thing the simplest
explanation is that all four are lying."
Now the silly season is upon us. It was the event having happened not the
variation in the recollections of it. It is a common example used in law
school to stage a fake crime event then ask for accounts from those
present. Almost without fail they will vary even when collected just after
it happened. Were they lying and the event did not occur therefore?

You want to believe. You start from the assumption there really was a
resurrection and then explain away the problems. Yet if you had no
preconceptions then these stories would be the only thing you had to
judge whether or not it was a real event.

You have Mark who testifies there was forgery in his name and knows of
nothing worth mentioning after burial. You have three others who can't
get their story straight. You call witnesses from the city and ask if
they saw dead prophets walking around town. You ask if they saw a giant
angel.

You as an unbiased, unprejudiced party would clearly reject the claim
of resurrection as multiple fantasies or multiple perjurers.

Post by unknown
" I guess technically Mark isn't lying because he is silent on a
resurrection so we have the later addition to Mark and more fluid additions
to the other gospels meaning we can dismiss the entire resurrection thing
as a lie told by three liars.
Of course you can say they were written decades later and memory is
fallible but then every word of every gospels can be written off as
senility and Alzheimer's. You can't make up ad hoc excuses for everything.
Every explanation has to apply to everything else one might get the idea
one is impervious to facts."
It seems you are making up the ad hoc excuses to declare each a "lie"
because there is consistantly variation in recollections.
What if we were to do the same for say alexander the great? If we use the
same grounds you propose, all accounts were "lies" because the variation
and problems of sources of the accounts is greater by far and in spades.

Please do the same to Alexander and show me how it is any different. I
know of no one making any extraordinary claim for him like walking on
water or rising from the dead or healing the sick. If there are any I
have no problem declaring them liars.

You can't play the game of trivial versus significant. There can be
lots of disagreement on trivial things but if on says says he conquered
Egypt and another says he did not then the latter is lying, not
mistaken, not suffering a failing memory, no excuse at all.

[unknown]

Post by Matt Giwer
Of course you can say they were written decades later and memory is
fallible but then every word of every gospels can be written off as
senility and Alzheimer's. You can't make up ad hoc excuses for

everything.

Post by Matt Giwer
Every explanation has to apply to everything else one might get the idea
one is impervious to facts."
It seems you are making up the ad hoc excuses to declare each a "lie"
because there is consistantly variation in recollections.
What if we were to do the same for say alexander the great? If we use the
same grounds you propose, all accounts were "lies" because the variation
and problems of sources of the accounts is greater by far and in spades.

" Please do the same to Alexander and show me how it is any different. I
know of no one making any extraordinary claim for him like walking on water
or rising from the dead or healing the sick. If there are any I have no
problem declaring them liars."

Alexander proclaimed himself a god and supernatural acts were attributed to
him.

But the more important point is that the sources we use for him are a
terrible mess. The original 4 sources are lost and known only by
attribution by 4 later sources. Those in turn are also lost and known only
by attribution by authors most of whom were after the time of Christ. So
we have a mess as to alexander.

But in all charity, if we accept Christ we should also accept alexander.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by Matt Giwer
Of course you can say they were written decades later and memory

is

Post by Matt Giwer
fallible but then every word of every gospels can be written off as
senility and Alzheimer's. You can't make up ad hoc excuses for

everything.

Post by Matt Giwer
Every explanation has to apply to everything else one might get the idea
one is impervious to facts."
It seems you are making up the ad hoc excuses to declare each a "lie"
because there is consistantly variation in recollections.
What if we were to do the same for say alexander the great? If we use

the

Post by Matt Giwer
same grounds you propose, all accounts were "lies" because the variation
and problems of sources of the accounts is greater by far and in spades.

" Please do the same to Alexander and show me how it is any different. I
know of no one making any extraordinary claim for him like walking on water
or rising from the dead or healing the sick. If there are any I have no
problem declaring them liars."
Alexander proclaimed himself a god and supernatural acts were attributed to
him.

And of course his chroniclers were lying. How hard is that? Same with
that Jesus character. In fact one can ask why the chroniclers of Jesus
thought they could tell the same lie and get away with it.

Post by Matt Giwer
But the more important point is that the sources we use for him are a
terrible mess. The original 4 sources are lost and known only by
attribution by 4 later sources. Those in turn are also lost and known only
by attribution by authors most of whom were after the time of Christ. So
we have a mess as to alexander.
But in all charity, if we accept Christ we should also accept alexander.

In all charity you are arguing religion and believers are very stupid,
gullible people. If you wish to argue religion please have the common
courtesy to remove soc.history.ancient from the distribution list.

In all charity your logical fallacy, arguing to a conclusion, was
identified as a fallacy some 2600 years ago by the Greeks in writing. It
has certainly been known as a fallacy long before the first surviving
description of it.

[unknown]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
It seems you are making up the ad hoc excuses to declare each a "lie"
because there is consistantly variation in recollections.
What if we were to do the same for say alexander the great? If we use

the

Post by unknown
same grounds you propose, all accounts were "lies" because the variation
and problems of sources of the accounts is greater by far and in spades.

" Please do the same to Alexander and show me how it is any different. I
know of no one making any extraordinary claim for him like walking on water
or rising from the dead or healing the sick. If there are any I have no
problem declaring them liars."
Alexander proclaimed himself a god and supernatural acts were attributed to
him.

And of course his chroniclers were lying. How hard is that? Same
with
that Jesus character. In fact one can ask why the chroniclers of Jesus
thought they could tell the same lie and get away with it.

Post by unknown
But the more important point is that the sources we use for him are a
terrible mess. The original 4 sources are lost and known only by
attribution by 4 later sources. Those in turn are also lost and known only
by attribution by authors most of whom were after the time of Christ. So
we have a mess as to alexander.
But in all charity, if we accept Christ we should also accept alexander.

" In all charity you are arguing religion and believers are very stupid,
gullible people. If you wish to argue religion please have the common
courtesy to remove soc.history.ancient from the distribution list."

No my dear sir, we here are speaking of ancient sources and on what factors
to place confidence in them given the nature of their documentary history.

We too are happy to see in what you are a believer, welcome to the human
race.

We speak of that ancient history with regard to Christ and alexander. This
a perfect topic for the ng mentioned one thinks.

" In all charity your logical fallacy, arguing to a conclusion, was
identified as a fallacy some 2600 years ago by the Greeks in writing. It
has certainly been known as a fallacy long before the first surviving
description of it."

In all charity, some people just don't know when their noses are being
tweeked and not argument made.

So in conclusion, if we accept the documentation for Christ, we must in all
charity accept that for alexander even though the latter is in a great
mess.

[Matt Giwer]

On 10/4/2013 6:01 PM, Argue-- wrote:
...

Post by unknown
" In all charity you are arguing religion and believers are very stupid,
gullible people. If you wish to argue religion please have the common
courtesy to remove soc.history.ancient from the distribution list."
No my dear sir, we here are speaking of ancient sources and on what factors
to place confidence in them given the nature of their documentary history.

Sir when an ancient source is filled with tales of magic then adults
dismiss them immediately. The gospels are filled with magical tales.
They are replete with magic. They may be ancient but as sources of
history they are even more magical than the tales of Apollonius of Tyana.

Again, as a gullible believer in magic you want to talk religion. The
subject here is history.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
" In all charity you are arguing religion and believers are very stupid,
gullible people. If you wish to argue religion please have the common
courtesy to remove soc.history.ancient from the distribution list."
No my dear sir, we here are speaking of ancient sources and on what factors
to place confidence in them given the nature of their documentary history.

" Sir when an ancient source is filled with tales of magic then adults
dismiss them immediately. The gospels are filled with magical tales. They
are replete with magic. They may be ancient but as sources of history they
are even more magical than the tales of Apollonius of Tyana.

Again, as a gullible believer in magic you want to talk religion.
The subject here is history."

Smile, then there goes alexander, poof. He claimed to be a god and others
said as much also, and supernatural acts were attributed to him.

Poor alexander, he cann't get no respect, poor fella just a person of myth.

If we accept Christ as historical then in all charity we must accept poor
alexander too.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
" In all charity you are arguing religion and believers are very stupid,
gullible people. If you wish to argue religion please have the common
courtesy to remove soc.history.ancient from the distribution list."
No my dear sir, we here are speaking of ancient sources and on what

factors

Post by unknown
to place confidence in them given the nature of their documentary

history.
" Sir when an ancient source is filled with tales of magic then adults
dismiss them immediately. The gospels are filled with magical tales. They
are replete with magic. They may be ancient but as sources of history they
are even more magical than the tales of Apollonius of Tyana.
Again, as a gullible believer in magic you want to talk religion.
The subject here is history."
Smile, then there goes alexander, poof. He claimed to be a god and others
said as much also, and supernatural acts were attributed to him.
Poor alexander, he cann't get no respect, poor fella just a person of myth.
If we accept Christ as historical then in all charity we must accept poor
alexander too.

You are either ignorant of historical sources or a deliberately lying
about them. Either way, take it some place else.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
" Sir when an ancient source is filled with tales of magic then adults
dismiss them immediately. The gospels are filled with magical tales. They
are replete with magic. They may be ancient but as sources of history they
are even more magical than the tales of Apollonius of Tyana.
Again, as a gullible believer in magic you want to talk religion.
The subject here is history."
Smile, then there goes alexander, poof. He claimed to be a god and others
said as much also, and supernatural acts were attributed to him.
Poor alexander, he cann't get no respect, poor fella just a person of myth.
If we accept Christ as historical then in all charity we must accept poor
alexander too.

" You are either ignorant of historical sources or a deliberately lying
about them. Either way, take it some place else."

It is because I am aware of history, in this case alexander, that I know
what an absolute mess is his written record.

It includes those mentions of his claim of being a god and others agreeing
and of having performed supernatural acts. You mean you didn't know this?

This would seem to be the perfect place for a discussion of the sources of
ancient history.

If we accept Christ as historical we must in all charity accept alexander
too. This even though the latter has divinity tied to him and the written
record a mess.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by unknown
It includes those mentions of his claim of being a god and others agreeing
and of having performed supernatural acts. You mean you didn't know this?

Rulers clamed to be gods all the time. As to supernatural acts, do you
have any cites?

[Martin Edwards]

Post by unknown
Smile, then there goes alexander, poof. He claimed to be a god and others
said as much also, and supernatural acts were attributed to him.

I don't recall any. Could you elaborate?

[unknown]

Post by unknown
Smile, then there goes alexander, poof. He claimed to be a god and others
said as much also, and supernatural acts were attributed to him.

"I don't recall any. Could you elaborate?"

My observation is really unremarkable and not my own. Reading about him
some time ago his divine label was common place when just about any source
spoke of what was written about him.


'Alexander the god'

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z3.html

'pothos.org - Divinity'

http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=divinity

It was a view standard among the pagans about some heroic figures which
alexander found useful for his purposes and perhaps even came to believe
about himself. He was the son of a god was a standard view which he came
to repeat. I recall there were coins with his image and the symbols of
divinity included for example.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown
Smile, then there goes alexander, poof. He claimed to be a god and

others

Post by unknown
said as much also, and supernatural acts were attributed to him.

"I don't recall any. Could you elaborate?"
My observation is really unremarkable and not my own. Reading about him
some time ago his divine label was common place when just about any source
spoke of what was written about him.
'Alexander the god'
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z3.html
'pothos.org - Divinity'
http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=divinity
It was a view standard among the pagans about some heroic figures which
alexander found useful for his purposes and perhaps even came to believe
about himself. He was the son of a god was a standard view which he came
to repeat. I recall there were coins with his image and the symbols of
divinity included for example.

I don't gainsay any of that. My question was about supernatural acts.

[unknown]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by unknown
Smile, then there goes alexander, poof. He claimed to be a god and

others

Post by unknown
said as much also, and supernatural acts were attributed to him.

It was a view standard among the pagans about some heroic figures which
alexander found useful for his purposes and perhaps even came to believe
about himself. He was the son of a god was a standard view which he came
to repeat. I recall there were coins with his image and the symbols of
divinity included for example.

"I don't gainsay any of that. My question was about supernatural acts."

'Egypt: Alexander the Great in Egypt'

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/alexanderthegreat.htm

disaster was once again averted when two black ravens miraculously
appeared, Alexander exhorting his colleagues to follow them as they
must have been sent by the gods to guide them. Callisthenes records
that the ravens limited their flight to accommodate the party, even
cawing loudly if their charges deviated from the correct path. Ptolemy
says that their guides took the form of two snakes, and whilst unsure
which, Arrian confesses that "I have no doubt whatever that he had
divine assistance of some kind".

And so the myth of Alexander had begun, and gained momentum as tales
spread of his supernatural powers which could summon divine guardians
at will. It was also becoming increasingly plausible to those around
him that he might even be that he claimed to be, the son of god
himself. His divinity would be confirmed once and for all by consulting
the Oracle, his need for self-validation explaining the risks he had
taken on the perilous desert march.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by unknown
"For a fact only the most dyed in the wool old time believers still
he gospels as first hand accounts. If the question before the
re Did Jesus exist I could call four witnesses, Matthew, Mark,
John and use each of their gospels to impeach the other three. ere is
disagreement only one can be correct and the others are ou can say mistaken
but their testimony is worthless. Believers like to claim all the
unimpeached parts are true and pick r the four they happen to like for the
impeached parts."
Good you should bring this up. One point some have made is that as
witnesses their accounts have minor differences we can know they were not
rehersed or edited later.
In a court it would be expected that witness accounts for the same event
would change as each saw or experienced it accordingly. If all details
were exactly the same the court would think collusion was afoot.
What would an "impeached part" be for example?

Jack: So you are saying, Mr Luke, that the the Persian magi to whom Mr
Matthew refers, were in fact shepherds who only came from a few miles
out of town?

Witness: I know what I saw, sir. I am pretty sure magi do not dress
like that and they spoke with local accents.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
Good you should bring this up. One point some have made is that as
witnesses their accounts have minor differences we can know they were not
rehersed or edited later.
In a court it would be expected that witness accounts for the same event
would change as each saw or experienced it accordingly. If all details
were exactly the same the court would think collusion was afoot.
What would an "impeached part" be for example?

"Jack: So you are saying, Mr Luke, that the the Persian magi to whom Mr
Matthew refers, were in fact shepherds who only came from a few miles out
of town?

Witness: I know what I saw, sir. I am pretty sure magi do not dress like
that and they spoke with local accents."

Huh? One hardly knows what you are on about. Perhaps that some accounts
are in one gospel and not in another. Therefore...?

[Martin Edwards]

Post by unknown
Huh? One hardly knows what you are on about.

Some do, some not.

[pyotr filipivich]

Town-- on 03 Oct 2013 13:59:19 GMT typed in

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
Good you should bring this up. One point some have made is that as
witnesses their accounts have minor differences we can know they were not
rehersed or edited later.
In a court it would be expected that witness accounts for the same event
would change as each saw or experienced it accordingly. If all details
were exactly the same the court would think collusion was afoot.
What would an "impeached part" be for example?

"Jack: So you are saying, Mr Luke, that the the Persian magi to whom Mr
Matthew refers, were in fact shepherds who only came from a few miles out
of town?
Witness: I know what I saw, sir. I am pretty sure magi do not dress like
that and they spoke with local accents."
Huh? One hardly knows what you are on about. Perhaps that some accounts
are in one gospel and not in another. Therefore...?

The original poster seem to apparently believe that two
recollections of a birthday party, football game or trip, which do not
mention the same things, must be descriptions of two separate events.
Illustration of the point: a picture of a living room, with a deer
head mounted on the wall. To one side, a number of men gathered
around the homeowner, who is describing how he stalked and shot the
deer. In the other corner, his wife is telling the ladies how he hit
the deer with the car.
--
pyotr
After the war two Army Chaplains were mustering out. The one said to
the other "Chaplain, it has been a real pleasure serving God with you.
You in your way, and I in His."

[Matt Giwer]

Post by pyotr filipivich
Town-- on 03 Oct 2013 13:59:19 GMT typed in

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
Good you should bring this up. One point some have made is that as
witnesses their accounts have minor differences we can know they were not
rehersed or edited later.
In a court it would be expected that witness accounts for the same event
would change as each saw or experienced it accordingly. If all details
were exactly the same the court would think collusion was afoot.
What would an "impeached part" be for example?

"Jack: So you are saying, Mr Luke, that the the Persian magi to whom Mr
Matthew refers, were in fact shepherds who only came from a few miles out
of town?
Witness: I know what I saw, sir. I am pretty sure magi do not dress like
that and they spoke with local accents."
Huh? One hardly knows what you are on about. Perhaps that some accounts
are in one gospel and not in another. Therefore...?

The original poster seem to apparently believe that two
recollections of a birthday party, football game or trip,

The original poster assumes there is one true event divined centuries
later and is explaining away the differences from the one, true event as
divined.

[unknown]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by unknown
"Jack: So you are saying, Mr Luke, that the the Persian magi to whom Mr
Matthew refers, were in fact shepherds who only came from a few miles out
of town?
Witness: I know what I saw, sir. I am pretty sure magi do not dress like
that and they spoke with local accents."
Huh? One hardly knows what you are on about. Perhaps that some accounts
are in one gospel and not in another. Therefore...?

The original poster seem to apparently believe that two
recollections of a birthday party, football game or trip,

" The original poster assumes there is one true event divined centuries
later and is explaining away the differences from the one, true event as
divined."

Now let's see if we get this. In different writings of the same event if
details mentioned in one source are not in another the event did not
happen?

Got ya. But poof goes the events of much of written history among
different sources where such is as common as dirt. Good now we have been
set straight on their validity. It's all that divine mucking about most of
such history does don't ya know?

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by unknown
"Jack: So you are saying, Mr Luke, that the the Persian magi to whom Mr
Matthew refers, were in fact shepherds who only came from a few miles

out

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by unknown
of town?
Witness: I know what I saw, sir. I am pretty sure magi do not dress

like

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by unknown
that and they spoke with local accents."
Huh? One hardly knows what you are on about. Perhaps that some

accounts

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by unknown
are in one gospel and not in another. Therefore...?

The original poster seem to apparently believe that two
recollections of a birthday party, football game or trip,

" The original poster assumes there is one true event divined centuries
later and is explaining away the differences from the one, true event as
divined."
Now let's see if we get this. In different writings of the same event if
details mentioned in one source are not in another the event did not
happen?
Got ya. But poof goes the events of much of written history among
different sources where such is as common as dirt. Good now we have been
set straight on their validity. It's all that divine mucking about most of
such history does don't ya know?

It is assuming anything at all of interest happened. It is assuming the
stories about Apollonius of Tyana really happened and explaining away
the problems with the story.

It is fallacy of assuming the conclusion which was identified more than
2500 years ago by the Greeks.

But you know that.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
" The original poster assumes there is one true event divined centuries
later and is explaining away the differences from the one, true event as
divined."
Now let's see if we get this. In different writings of the same event if
details mentioned in one source are not in another the event did not
happen?
Got ya. But poof goes the events of much of written history among
different sources where such is as common as dirt. Good now we have been
set straight on their validity. It's all that divine mucking about most of
such history does don't ya know?

"It is assuming anything at all of interest happened. It is assuming the
stories about Apollonius of Tyana really happened and explaining away the
problems with the story."

Irrelevant as to how one understands written language. Accounts of
alexander all don't have the same details, therefore alexender did not
exist' don't ya know.

If we accept Christ as a historical person then we in all charity must
accept alexander too.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
" The original poster assumes there is one true event divined centuries
later and is explaining away the differences from the one, true event as
divined."
Now let's see if we get this. In different writings of the same event if
details mentioned in one source are not in another the event did not
happen?
Got ya. But poof goes the events of much of written history among
different sources where such is as common as dirt. Good now we have been
set straight on their validity. It's all that divine mucking about most

of

Post by unknown
such history does don't ya know?

"It is assuming anything at all of interest happened. It is assuming the
stories about Apollonius of Tyana really happened and explaining away the
problems with the story."
Irrelevant as to how one understands written language. Accounts of
alexander all don't have the same details, therefore alexender did not
exist' don't ya know.
If we accept Christ as a historical person then we in all charity must
accept alexander too.

Magic does not happen. Therefore all reports of magic even if you
dismiss them as variations are lies pure and simple. No one can observe
what does not exist.

[unknown]

Post by unknown
Irrelevant as to how one understands written language. Accounts of
alexander all don't have the same details, therefore alexender did not
exist' don't ya know.
If we accept Christ as a historical person then we in all charity must
accept alexander too.

" Magic does not happen. Therefore all reports of magic even if you dismiss
them as variations are lies pure and simple. No one can observe what does
not exist."

Oh dear, you do insist in driving another nail in the coffin of did
alexander exist. He is said to have done supernatural acts as a divinity.

If we accept Christ as a historical person then we in all charity must
accept alexander too.

[RVG]

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/178ez0/is_there_a_possibility_alexander_the_great_didnt/

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by unknown
"Jack: So you are saying, Mr Luke, that the the Persian magi to whom Mr
Matthew refers, were in fact shepherds who only came from a few miles

out

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by unknown
of town?
Witness: I know what I saw, sir. I am pretty sure magi do not dress

like

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by unknown
that and they spoke with local accents."
Huh? One hardly knows what you are on about. Perhaps that some

accounts

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by unknown
are in one gospel and not in another. Therefore...?

The original poster seem to apparently believe that two
recollections of a birthday party, football game or trip,

" The original poster assumes there is one true event divined centuries
later and is explaining away the differences from the one, true event as
divined."
Now let's see if we get this. In different writings of the same event if
details mentioned in one source are not in another the event did not
happen?
Got ya. But poof goes the events of much of written history among
different sources where such is as common as dirt. Good now we have been
set straight on their validity. It's all that divine mucking about most of
such history does don't ya know?

I wondered what had happened to Divine.

[David Dalton]

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by David Dalton
On my Salmon on the Thorns mystic autobiography page
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html
I argue that I am similar to some past major pagan
and major non-pagan religious figures including
Taliesin (Gwion), The Turquoise Bee, and Jesus.
Thus those three figures should be similar to one another.
But the first two are known primarily for their poetry
whereas Jesus is known primarily for his spiritual
messages including some encoded in parables. So perhaps
the parable was Jesus's specialization that was
analogous to the poetry of the other two.

Problem is unless one has swallowed without criticism a huge dose of
"what it really means" there is no spiritual message at all. If you look
for one you can find one but the words themselves have none. (Life is
like a sewer. What you get out of it depends upon what you put into it.
So are parables.)
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in fact we
can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know nothing of
the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles don't do much
better.

Well, someone must have composed the parables, and thus it
should be OK to define Jesus as that person. I also
think that person composed the messages of the sermon
on the mount.

Similarly many poems are attributed to Taliesin, but
I think the original Taliesin, Gwion Bach, was the
one who composed the poems I reference in
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/celtic.html .

[Martin Edwards]

Post by David Dalton
Well, someone must have composed the parables, and thus it
should be OK to define Jesus as that person. I also
think that person composed the messages of the sermon
on the mount.

Stipulating that for the sake of argument, his briefer sayings come from
the cynics and a man of, at least, "Luke"'s education would have known that.

[Matt Giwer]

Post by David Dalton

Post by Matt Giwer

Post by David Dalton
On my Salmon on the Thorns mystic autobiography page
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html
I argue that I am similar to some past major pagan
and major non-pagan religious figures including
Taliesin (Gwion), The Turquoise Bee, and Jesus.
Thus those three figures should be similar to one another.
But the first two are known primarily for their poetry
whereas Jesus is known primarily for his spiritual
messages including some encoded in parables. So perhaps
the parable was Jesus's specialization that was
analogous to the poetry of the other two.

Problem is unless one has swallowed without criticism a huge dose of
"what it really means" there is no spiritual message at all. If you look
for one you can find one but the words themselves have none. (Life is
like a sewer. What you get out of it depends upon what you put into it.
So are parables.)
The other major problem is there is no particular reason to believe
there was a living person upon whom the gospels are based. So in fact we
can't really draw any conclusions. Notice Paul seems to know nothing of
the gospel Jesus, not even his name. The other epistles don't do much
better.

Well, someone must have composed the parables, and thus it
should be OK to define Jesus as that person. I also
think that person composed the messages of the sermon
on the mount.

That would be like declaring Wagner the creator of the Ring mythology.

To remind you of Christian doctrine the meaning of the parables was not
known until after the Holy Spirit some time after his death. So you must
therefore believe that for all anyone knew at the time of their telling
he was speaking pure gibberish.

But for a fact no one knows where the gospels came from or who wrote
them or when. The first mention of more than one is late mid 2nd c. The
first mention of gospel is in the singular. And then of course there is
the issue of changes to them as we see in the last lines of Mark.

More than that there are the 42 other gospels which were discarded for
no known reason any more than there is a known reason for picking just
four except for the idiot argument that there are four winds and such.
Without specific selection/rejection criteria believers just make up
reasons as they go along.

Post by David Dalton
Similarly many poems are attributed to Taliesin, but
I think the original Taliesin, Gwion Bach, was the
one who composed the poems I reference in
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/celtic.html .

I am presently rewatching the series Babylon 5. There is character
named Marcus. In one episode the character Ivanova calls him Lucas. In
this case it is a fan trivia question. Were it the bible there would be
sermons on why his name was both Marcus and Lucas.

The bible is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends upon what you
put into it.

http://www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

Made in Alexandria
The Origin of the Yahweh Cult

[David Dalton]

Note that an identical crosspost by me to
talk.religion.misc,alt.messianic,alt.religion,alt.religion.christian,alt.
religion.christian.roman-catholic
produced no followups.