Arcadia Discussion Zone

For the record, and off topic, redheads are known for their volatile temper, and hence, easily get into "blues" (arguments/fights).
Now, back to kindy you lot.
And while you're at it, consider some navel gazing, go back to Arcadia before you all arrived like a bunch of screaming seagulls, you may care to note the type of fora you espouse. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Thanks for the bluey tip doc, my daily advancement!
As to the rest thats way too obtuse for Dave, can you dumb it down about 5 or 6 knotches?

TD

While you've got your calculator out, why don't you run the numbers on how many of our "abusive" posts were replies to you, Jim and Hotspur? That would be interesting to see.

TCP

Oh the abuse is rife TCP, just have a look back over the past few years. You've excelled at it, infact you've probably earned a degree in it.
I'm not important to this discussion, i've only been here a few weeks. Take a look at the damage you've inflicted over the many years, you'll find it most interesting and so will Andrew Gough.
I honestly thought as human beings we were kind to each other if the opportunity presented itself - I was wrong.

This is coming from a guy that continually picks up on peoples spelling mistakes and then once you point out he made a spelling mistake tells you to 'fuck off'
Quality trolling TCP. I'd ban ur ass for the cheek of it.

Take a look at my signature buster, welcome to the real world.

The second half of the paper is interesting for sure.

I had pretty much come to the conclusion that there was no historic Jesus. The notion of the Nazorite Church is new to me, at least I've ignored it in the past. The question for me is now whether this Nazorite Church constitutes an organization with a religious mission. I'm still not convinced of this. To call it a church seems inappropriate. It seems to me, at it's least, it's more like a political/social movement, and at it's most, an organization designed to promote a hereditary kingly bloodline (which was wholly rejected by the Jewish authorities of the time it seems) which then opens up all the possibilities which you argue for in here. Whether there is a religious/mystical/spiritual/esoteric component, I can't see.

The other puzzling feature is Paul's role in this business. Where did he get the idea that Jesus is a sacrificed saviour god? Is it as Salibi argues (as outlined in the other Lockhart paper)? Or is it as I suggested in an earlier post, Paul's means by which he invests the Jesus story with soteriological trappings in order to make it palatable to a Graeco-Roman audience? Of course, in doing this he takes a giant leap from Jesus the man to Jesus the god. Why would an individual go to this trouble to promote such a god in the face of an entrenched Graeco-Roman pantheism? There seems to be evidence in the writings of the early Chrisitian fathers consonant with the Pauline line suggesting the Pauline Christology was pre 2nd century - unless these are also elaborate fakes perpetrated at a later time such as by Eusebius et al.

Whether the Nazorite or Pauline line is taken, why is there no apparent credible historical evidence to support the life of a 1st century Jesus in non Church literature? Is it all the artifact of the Piso grand plan?

What are your thoughts Bill?

Hotair wrote:



Back on page 50 of this thread jlockest wrote:



And Spartacus wrote:



Interestingly, I offered to debate these subjects (along with MM and John the Beloved) on a dedicated thread but no one took me up on the offer!

Btw Hotair, I know you said 'non Church' literature...read above again for what I wrote weeks back...

Regards,

Spartacus

SP,
Did you read the Eisenman reference that I posted? Didn't he also consider the 'fiction side'?:
....."Why think any historical or even representative of anything that really happened in Palestine in the First Century? Why not consider all Greco-Hellenistic romantic fiction or novelizing with an ax to grind – in the case of the "orthodox" anyhow (and to some extent the Gospel of Judas), incorporating the Pax Romana of the earlier great Roman Emperor Augustus, as other literature from this period had; and, of course, the Anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish legal attachments which were the outcome of the suppression of the Jewish War from 66-73 CE?"

"The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans were masters of such man/God fiction and the creation of such characters as Osiris, Dionysus, Asclepius, Hercules, Orpheus, and the like, as the works of Hesiod, Euripides, Virgil, Ovid, Petronius, Seneca, Apuleius, et. al. also vividly attest......"

The problem here with 'proof' is as you say, the media.
What do we actually 'know' from the 1st century? Do we know that Jesus existed? Do we know that books were destroyed? Do we know that ideas were persecuted and things that conveyed those ideas (whether human or material destroyed) or assumed and their 'symbolism' changed?

Would it not be acceptable to think that a group did point out that the whole thing was a fabrication, and that idea was 'persecuted' into oblivion? I know this takes it into fantasy realm, as you could then argue anything and use the same 'negative' argument of 'there's nothing to say it didn't happen that way'. But at what level do any two theories become as valid?

Think about this. A council was convened to discuss what the substance of Jesus was. This was discussed by the most eminent brains of the time. Because I don't think Jesus is 'G_d', does it then make all those people who discussed it stupid? They argued Jesus was man against Jesus was god against .... Only one of those was true. Does it matter what the council decided? - as the truth doesn't change, only the perception of that truth. BUT they then imposed their ideas on their known world. People died, die and will die because of that one event.

(And to me what's more scary is that that may have been caused by a book being written that equated Jesus with Melchizedek - and because the writer of that book then gave Melchizedek godlike status maybe because of a misunderstanding of Jewish tradition - or simply to appeal to a readership that had pre-conceived ideas about godhood).

At what point in history, do you get to the stage where it is all hypothetical, due to lack of supporting documentation, and it is just 'best (educated) guess'? Even with all the documentation, media etc today, can anyone even explain major events now? With the limited diocumentation available from then

AND when do you use selective reasoning and when not? Do we take the whole of the OT as gospel simply because we have loads of copies of 'old' books that prove that writing existed in 2BC? Simply because the books existed does it mean that the characters they depicted existed?

The whole thing is just a minefield.

The problem is that man only knows what man knows AT A POINT IN TIME. Knowledge is seen by some as immutable - in fact it should be completely the opposite, ever changing and evolving. What seems like an insane theory today, is tomorrows reality. Go to the middle ages and tell them about radio waves and TV - wait for the pythonesque cries of 'witch'. Did that 'Troy' exist before Schliemann - of course it did, we just didn't have the 'knowledge' - does the discovery of that 'Troy' mean Homer's tale is completely true? Who knows? Is what Schliemann discovered Troy?

Personally, I appreciate it when people offer arguments against what I say, as without that I'd end up in my own deluded little world. The only issue I would have is how those arguments are conducted. Not everyone is a genius but that doesn't (and shouldn't) stop them having ideas. Sometimes people are slow on the uptake - patience.

SP,

Can you briefly (or in detail if you wish) summarize the more telling historical evidence Eisenman references?

Does he have primary textual sources?

Thanks Eggie - I've seen the website - I was hoping SP would give me a headsup - at least direct me to the book that dalt with the matter the best.

hotspur, I really am beginning to appreciate your style.

Let's see now Sunny Jim, what can I get you to do? Any ideas?

Whatever it is it will have to wait. The sun is out, the water is warm, and the boat is full with gas. Adios amigos.

Wish I lived in Florida, its snowing here.---Bill

Our fearless leader, the owner of this forum, is American -

love it or leave it.

American forum eh?

Do we have to register our political proclivities?

What about you?

Republican?,Tea Party affiliations? (same thing as GOP anyway), Democrat?

Actually I thought it was a UK forum. fyi, though, the Tea Party is not GOP, nor the same views. Most Tea Party members are GOP but most GOP members are not Tea Party.---Bill

still friends Hotspur?

The GOP and TP share many of the same values from what I can see particularly about taxes - this is the nub of the American predicament. Maybe the difference is Wall St vs. Main St.?



Always Bill.

Could somebody elaborate on the viewpoint of the Tea Party about HONEYBEES :
and try to bee nice ok ? peace
anyway iam having great fun here on the forum ... lololol
obelix

The 'nemesis of disbelief' Dave 'my thread is bigger than your thread' Rorschach wrote:







Regards,

TOOT-CS

I thought he is Canadian, but I stand to be corrected.

Tea Party ? Ask "Scotland's answer to Tommy Steele" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWF3S9OgQho

This topic has gone seriously off thread, time for it to be bunged into miscellaneous ?

Andrew Gough is an American. Here in Arizona we have the Killer Bees now so that is an entirley different story.

The Tea Party?!! - the GOP seems to be a Confederate-based (southern) phenomenon, although it does extend northward.

Look at the map of red and blue states.