astronomy-chat.net Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main Date: 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 From: Klaudio Zic Subject: Crucifixion Eclipse Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of the eclipse includes biblical comments. http://www.lulu.com/astrology   Date: 17 Aug 2007 11:49:52 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 17, 12:47 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:19:18 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >I rather doubt that the email address you are posting is actually > >yours, so I assume you did not receive the email I sent. > > >May I suggest that you consider posting a non-routable email > >address, like f...@example.com or b...@test.com? I'm sure > >the folks who own the domain nowhere.com would appreciate > >it. > > No such URL. > URL's are for HTTP, not SMTP. domain: nowhere.com status: LOCK owner-c: LULU-9514376 admin-c: LULU-9514376 tech-c: LULU-9209088 zone-c: LULU-9209088 nserver: ns1.auth.onlyns.net nserver: ns2.auth.onlyns.net created: 2007-01-13 06:18:47 expire: 2008-01-13 06:18:47 (registry time) changed: 2007-01-20 00:01:16 [owner-c] handle: 9514376 [owner-c] type: PERSON [owner-c] title: [owner-c] fname: Joerg [owner-c] lname: Sigmund [owner-c] org: Burda Wireless GmbH [owner-c] address: Arabellastrasse 23 [owner-c] city: Muenchen [owner-c] pcode: 81925 [owner-c] country: DE [owner-c] state: DE Many years ago some spamware vendor distributed some ratware that used nobody(atsign)nowhere.com as the default return address. The bounces crashed the nowhere.com server. Had the idiot who wrote the ratware used one of the email addresses explicitly reserved for that purpose like example or test, then obviously that would not have happened. But of course spammers don't care about costing someone thousands fo dollars and driving his fledgling business into bankruptcy. The point being that someone owns the domain nowhere.com and so it should not be used without his permission. At the very least, it is a simple matter of courtesy. On that note, as you will recall, you offered to show me how to "have the original languages and definitions at your fingertips". I'd like to take you up on that offer, and if you'd rather not post the information, my email address works. Then I could stop bothering you. :-) -- FF     Date: 19 Aug 2007 09:53:14 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 19, 9:24 am, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7 > wrote: > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:35:34 -0700, in alt.astrology, Fred the Red > > > > Shirt <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >On Aug 18, 9:05 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:28:55 -0700, in alt.astrology, Fred the Red > > >> Shirt <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >> >On Aug 18, 4:42 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:19:43 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > >> >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > > >> >> Top post: You might want to try reading what I write, > >> >> instead of what you wish I wrote, so that you can > >> >> impress yourself with it. > > >> >Can you tell me why you should use a false email > >> >address using the domain name nowhere.com without > >> >the permission of the registered owner of the domain > >> >name 'nowhere.com'? > > >> To interject a point, Fred. Have you taken up mind reading? How do > >> you know the owner of the domain did not give him permission? > > >It is merely a presumption. Do you suppose it to be a > >reasonable one? > > Not one you should worry about. Regardless, do you think is it a presumption that is likely to be true? > it is the size of the mote in Dave's > eye and the beam in your own. If you are not the owner of the domain, > then don't sweat the small stuff. > I disagree. > > > >> >Meanwhile, did you understand what I wrote about > >> >the full moon, apogee, and solar eclipses? > > >> Hammy. maybe he did and maybe he didn't. I am more curious about your > >> attempt of Net-Koppery... > > >Well, I got a little bit peeved when I tried to send him email. > > Where did you get the idea posting to usenet was an invitation for > e-mail? I got that idea from the presence of the author's ostensible email address in the headers and the ubiquitous presence of "reply to author by email" feature in newsreaders. Obviously I would not send email outside of the context of the discussion. Nor would it be appropriate to send bulk email to addresses harvested from Usenet, even if 'targetted' to the subject matter of the thread. You are also no doubt aware of Emily Postnews and other guides to nettiquette that address the issue. I am also sure that you are aware that it was once commonplace to send an email reply to the previous author AND to post the article, indeed some newsreaders could be configured to do this automatically. So please do not pretend it is a sort of abuse. Clearly if the author does not want to receive email in reply to their Usenet articles they can post with an address like example@example.com--once somebody has informed them of that technique. > Did you know e-mail address and access is *not* a requirement > for full usenet participation. [Fact of the matter usenet is an > independent system that could survive without usenet. I actually > operated a BBS which had usenet access via UUPC. ] So, do you agree that typing "www.nowhere.com" is not a valid way to check to see if the domain is owned by someone, or in use other than for a webserver? > > >I am also rather sensitive to his particular choice as I had > >some personal correspondence with the then-owner of the > >domain name shortly after it became popular to deflect > >bounces to it. > > Then allow the domain owner to handle their problem, unless you are > an authorized agent of the domain's owner. Obviously you do not believe that, else you would not have posted your remarks. > > >In the course of discussing false email addresses over on > >new.admin.net-abuse I was educated on the subject by the > >sys-admins over there. > > IT is an issue between the domain owner and the person you suspect of > abuse. Do not get involved, unless you are the owner of the domain. > Obviously you do not believe that, else you would not have posted your remarks. > >Note that an address like exam...@example.com would > >accomplish EXACTLY what Mr Dave wants, without the > >additional waste of bandwidth and loss of utility of the > >domain name 'nowhere.com' that his present choice > >causes. > > I suspect you painted yourself as the abuser in this case. A post to > usenet is not an invitation for e-mail. I disagree. See above. > > Unless you are an actual admin, or owner of the abused domain, or an > appointed agent of the domain owner, stop trying to play one. > > Fairly simple isn't it. > Obviously you do do believe what you wrote, else you would not have posted. See also: http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.email/msg/8b528766385c283b?dmode=source http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.email/msg/798dcc2682b0ee0d?dmode=source -- FF     Date: 17 Aug 2007 15:41:56 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:49:52 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > wrote: >On Aug 17, 12:47 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:19:18 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> >I rather doubt that the email address you are posting is actually >> >yours, so I assume you did not receive the email I sent. >> >> >May I suggest that you consider posting a non-routable email >> >address, like f...@example.com or b...@test.com? I'm sure >> >the folks who own the domain nowhere.com would appreciate >> >it. >> >> No such URL. > >URL's are for HTTP, not SMTP. Your point? They tie to URL's. And "domain names" are tied to them. And you said, "domain". For example, I have a RoadRunner account. Now type www.rr.com In fact, type in: www.tampoabay.rr.com which is what would be at the end of my email address with them. I have a GMail account. Now type www.gmail.com I have a Yahoo account. Now type in www.yahoo.com Any others you want to try? Tell you what... try www.nowhere.com What's that? Didn't work? :) Now is it possible that somewhere, there's an email account that doesn't directly tie to a URL? Maybe. But what's the odds? Now if there's something you wish to express, then have at it. But being a tech for over 25 years, I think I understand just a tad about it. Now a domain can be just a group of computers, but it is the name by which a computer, or group of computers is tied to the Internet. Strictly speaking, it can be localized, but that is not common and would have nothing to do with our conversation anyway, so it would be fruitless to try to use that as a way to appear knowledgable. And therefore, to have a proper "domain", one must register it. And by doing so, one is normally assigned a "www" link and whether or not one ever designs a web page is irrelevant. One can still type in the URL and not get a "domain not found" message. And of course, email addresses can be tied to it and strictly speaking, it isn't just SMTP, although that is how it's referred to. But also strictly speaking, SMTP is an outgoing format. You do want something coming in, don't you? :) After all, there are other email formats (IMAP, etc.). Now I'm not really into technical discussions through usenet. I do from time to time, offer an education about a specific subject, when someone seems to have it wrong, so I can offer them the benefit of the proper facts, but other than that, I don't do it and I don't get into lengthy discussion about it. And no, I am not trying to offend you, nor insult you. And FYI, you asked why i was offended in our last discussion. I said in my last message that I wasn't. -- A liberal is someone who will give away everything except his/her own possessions.   Date: 16 Aug 2007 20:19:18 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse I rather doubt that the email address you are posting is actually yours, so I assume you did not receive the email I sent. May I suggest that you consider posting a non-routable email address, like foo@example.com or bar@test.com? I'm sure the folks who own the domain nowhere.com would appreciate it. On Aug 15, 5:43 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > You know, if you're interested, you can put this stuff > at your fingertips. I can tell you how. It won't make > you an language expert or anything, of course, but > you would have the original languages and definitions > at your fingertips and you wouldn't have to be on line > to use it either. ... > It was quite a large area, since reports were written that > said it was seen quite far away from Jerusalem. In fact, > in other countries. ... > The 14th of Nissan > is a date in which the Moon is always fully illuminated > and is at its farthest point in its orbit. Here you have confused two different phenomenon. The Full Moon occurs at opposition, when the Moon is 12 hours from the Sun in right ascension (on the side of the Earth opposite the Sun). Apogee is the point at which the Moon is farthest from the Earth. The two phenomenon are indepedent so that, on average, only one in 29 Full Moons fall on the same day as that on which the Moon is at apogee. I am still interested in those other sources, and also in what mentioned about putting the linguistic information at one's fingertips. -- FF     Date: 18 Aug 2007 22:35:34 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 18, 9:05 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7 > wrote: > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:28:55 -0700, in alt.astrology, Fred the Red > > Shirt <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >On Aug 18, 4:42 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:19:43 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > > >> Top post: You might want to try reading what I write, > >> instead of what you wish I wrote, so that you can > >> impress yourself with it. > > >Can you tell me why you should use a false email > >address using the domain name nowhere.com without > >the permission of the registered owner of the domain > >name 'nowhere.com'? > > To interject a point, Fred. Have you taken up mind reading? How do > you know the owner of the domain did not give him permission? It is merely a presumption. Do you suppose it to be a reasonable one? > > >Meanwhile, did you understand what I wrote about > >the full moon, apogee, and solar eclipses? > > Hammy. maybe he did and maybe he didn't. I am more curious about your > attempt of Net-Koppery... > Well, I got a little bit peeved when I tried to send him email. I am also rather sensitive to his particular choice as I had some personal correspondence with the then-owner of the domain name shortly after it became popular to deflect bounces to it. In the course of discussing false email addresses over on new.admin.net-abuse I was educated on the subject by the sys-admins over there. Note that an address like example@example.com would accomplish EXACTLY what Mr Dave wants, without the additional waste of bandwidth and loss of utility of the domain name 'nowhere.com' that his present choice causes. -- FF       Date: 19 Aug 2007 02:24:00 From: Bob Officer Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:35:34 -0700, in alt.astrology, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > wrote: >On Aug 18, 9:05 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:28:55 -0700, in alt.astrology, Fred the Red >> >> Shirt <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> >On Aug 18, 4:42 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:19:43 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt >> >> >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> >> >> Top post: You might want to try reading what I write, >> >> instead of what you wish I wrote, so that you can >> >> impress yourself with it. >> >> >Can you tell me why you should use a false email >> >address using the domain name nowhere.com without >> >the permission of the registered owner of the domain >> >name 'nowhere.com'? >> >> To interject a point, Fred. Have you taken up mind reading? How do >> you know the owner of the domain did not give him permission? > >It is merely a presumption. Do you suppose it to be a >reasonable one? Not one you should worry about. it is the size of the mote in Dave's eye and the beam in your own. If you are not the owner of the domain, then don't sweat the small stuff. >> >> >Meanwhile, did you understand what I wrote about >> >the full moon, apogee, and solar eclipses? >> >> Hammy. maybe he did and maybe he didn't. I am more curious about your >> attempt of Net-Koppery... >> > >Well, I got a little bit peeved when I tried to send him email. Where did you get the idea posting to usenet was an invitation for e-mail? Did you know e-mail address and access is *not* a requirement for full usenet participation. [Fact of the matter usenet is an independent system that could survive without usenet. I actually operated a BBS which had usenet access via UUPC. ] >I am also rather sensitive to his particular choice as I had >some personal correspondence with the then-owner of the >domain name shortly after it became popular to deflect >bounces to it. Then allow the domain owner to handle their problem, unless you are an authorized agent of the domain's owner. >In the course of discussing false email addresses over on >new.admin.net-abuse I was educated on the subject by the >sys-admins over there. IT is an issue between the domain owner and the person you suspect of abuse. Do not get involved, unless you are the owner of the domain. >Note that an address like example@example.com would >accomplish EXACTLY what Mr Dave wants, without the >additional waste of bandwidth and loss of utility of the >domain name 'nowhere.com' that his present choice >causes. I suspect you painted yourself as the abuser in this case. A post to usenet is not an invitation for e-mail. Unless you are an actual admin, or owner of the abused domain, or an appointed agent of the domain owner, stop trying to play one. Fairly simple isn't it. -- Ak'toh'di     Date: 18 Aug 2007 22:25:31 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 18, 7:08 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:28:55 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >Can you tell me why you should use a false email > >address using the domain name nowhere.com without > >the permission of the registered owner of the domain > >name 'nowhere.com'? > > Are you under the impression that if you restate your > original claim, that I will suddenly accept it as valid > and believe that it is what you claim it is? No, I asked the question again, as you had not addressed it. The question was predicated on certain claims, specifically, the claim that you used a false email address without the permission of the registered owner of the domain name "nowhere.com". Was that premise not correct? ... > > >Meanwhile, did you understand what I wrote about > >the full moon, apogee, and solar eclipses? > > I didn't read it. However... > > 1) Why would you assume that I am not very familiar > with the various sciences involved? I did not assume it. I observed if from the factually incorrect statements you made about eclipses. I corrected those errors. I was just trying to be helpful. > > 2) Did you forget that I was the one educating you > about the times and seasons of this event in history? I didn't forget that you were telling me things about them. > > 3) Why would you assume that anything you can say > would change the fact that it wasn't an eclipse, if > in fact that is where you're trying to go? If not, > then "Question 3" is irrelevant and voided. > I make no such assumption. Further, I have made it clear that I have found virtually no evidence that there was an eclipse coincident with the crucifixion. Yet you seem to be hell-bent on concluding that I claim there was an eclipse coincident with the eclipse. Why? -- FF     Date: 17 Aug 2007 08:47:31 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:19:18 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > wrote: >I rather doubt that the email address you are posting is actually >yours, so I assume you did not receive the email I sent. > >May I suggest that you consider posting a non-routable email >address, like foo@example.com or bar@test.com? I'm sure >the folks who own the domain nowhere.com would appreciate >it. No such URL. -- A liberal is someone who will give away everything except his/her own possessions.   Date: 16 Aug 2007 13:41:58 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 16, 9:19 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:09:42 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >> >I took a quick look through various versons online > >> >and found none that used the wordeclipse. > > >> Okay. That was your claim though, not mine, > >> just in case you forgot. :) > > >Yes, and I remain confident that there is such a version. > > I did check a bunch of versions and did not see "eclipse", > but who knows. :) > ... > > You said that you remember it being read in Mass > about 30 -40 years ago. I did some research and > I only found one "Catholic Bible" that was used, > that used the word "eclipse". It was first published > in 1970, so that is within the time frame that > you quoted. > > "It was now about noon and darkness came over > the whole land until three in the afternoon because > of aneclipseof the Sun. Then the veil of the temple > was torn down the middle." - Luke 23:44-45 [NAB] I have found that in the New American Bible. Oh! That's what you meant by (NAB). Now, I wonder how it got into that version. I have also found references to Julius Africanus (c AD 221) discounting Thallus's (circa AD 50) statement that a solar eclipse was simultaneous with the crucifixion, so the controversy is not new! -- FF     Date: 16 Aug 2007 17:23:33 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:41:58 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > wrote: >On Aug 16, 9:19 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:09:42 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt >> >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> >> >I took a quick look through various versons online >> >> >and found none that used the wordeclipse. >> >> >> Okay. That was your claim though, not mine, >> >> just in case you forgot. :) >> >> >Yes, and I remain confident that there is such a version. >> >> I did check a bunch of versions and did not see "eclipse", >> but who knows. :) >> ... >> >> You said that you remember it being read in Mass >> about 30 -40 years ago. I did some research and >> I only found one "Catholic Bible" that was used, >> that used the word "eclipse". It was first published >> in 1970, so that is within the time frame that >> you quoted. >> >> "It was now about noon and darkness came over >> the whole land until three in the afternoon because >> of aneclipseof the Sun. Then the veil of the temple >> was torn down the middle." - Luke 23:44-45 [NAB] > > >I have found that in the New American Bible. Oh! That's >what you meant by (NAB). Now, I wonder how it got >into that version. > >I have also found references to Julius Africanus (c AD 221) >discounting Thallus's (circa AD 50) statement that a >solar eclipse was simultaneous with the crucifixion, >so the controversy is not new! You're getting there. :) -- A liberal is someone who will give away everything except his/her own possessions.   Date: 16 Aug 2007 11:10:24 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 16, 1:19 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:09:42 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >> >I took a quick look through various versons online > >> >and found none that used the word eclipse. > > >> Okay. That was your claim though, not mine, > >> just in case you forgot. :) > > >Yes, and I remain confident that there is such a version. > > I did check a bunch of versions and did not see "eclipse", > but who knows. :) > > >> >I remember the word 'eclipse' being used in a passage read > >> >aloud at Mass between about thirty and forty years ago, > > >> An honest mistake to think you had read it in a Bible > >> version, after all that time. :) > > >Well it would have been had I made such a mistake > >but so far I have not. > > You said that you remember it being read in Mass > about 30 -40 years ago. Yes. I did not say that I had read it myself--that was the point. > I did some research and > I only found one "Catholic Bible" that was used, > that used the word "eclipse". It was first published > in 1970, so that is within the time frame that > you quoted. Thanks! Which version? ... > > >Your discussion of the meaning of 'ge' makes it > >clear that Luke's choice of that word is consistent > >with either an eclipse, or an allegorical statement, > >though by no means proof of either. > > Or, it is neither, but it became dark and it is not > allegory. Yes of course, that is clear from the "by no means proof of either" clause, right? > No one took it as an allegory Are you saying that I am no one? :-) > and it > wouldn't fit as an allegory anyway. I don't understand why you keep saying that. I suppose it might (note, not is but might be) allegory precisely because it does fit. > Furthermore, > the time of the event prevents it from being an > eclipse. The timing of the event means there was not an eclipse of the sun coincident with the crucifixion. That does not preclude the two events being confabulated by writers some years later. Consider that today people confuse the prestigious Tuskegee Airmen with the infamous Tuskegee experiment, two entirely different programs related only by geography and era. > > And this is where we must part. I'm not trying to > be rude. It's just that this is the point where you > try to explain it away and I believe it. :) > I'm not trying to explain it away, I'm trying to explain it (the passage) period. > > > >> >Of course--if one assumes the accuracy of other information. > >> >But the question is not what could it have been, but what > >> >did Luke say it was. > > >> I am saying this to show that Luke would not have > >> claimed an eclipse. There wouldn't have been any > >> at that time and even if someone were seeking to > >> make up a story, it would be foolish to claim it was > >> something that could so easily be checked and > >> known to be a lie. > > >Who said anything about lying? > > >http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SE0029Nov24T.3.gif > > >The centerline of the total eclipse of November 24, AD 29 passed > >through Palestine near Jerusalem. Now consider that the Gospel > >according to Luke is generally accepted as having been written > > no earlier than AD 60 - 70, thirty plus years after both the eclipse > >and the crucifixion. The possibility that the two events were > >confabulated by Luke's source(s) should not be discounted. > > No, it is not "generally accepted". Not any more. > Those late dates are old thinking and the liberal > people who call themselves scholars are not > running the show any more. What is the basis which suggests an earlier date? > > Furthermore, it was not November when this event > happened. I told you when it was and it would > have been at the time of a Full Moon. It is not that > event, period. Yes, you keep saying that. But for some reason, you don't consider what I am saying. It's not that you simply disagree, you don't even seem to understand the literal meaning of my words. Even eyewitnesses to the same event often disagree on various aspects of it. An author writing about an event he himself did not witness can readily confabulate unrelated events. Again the confabulation of the Tuskegee Airmen with the Tuskegee Experiment is a modern example of this sort of editorial error. Matthew places the crucifixion one day earlier than the other Gospels. Debating which is right is not a challenge to faith. > > Now you can believe whatever you wish to believe. > That is up to you. But I know what I know and > I know that the typical attempts to explain it away > don't work. I have examined them. They fail and > they fail miserably. > > But anyway, it's been fun! Have a nice day. :) > Why are you offended? -- FF   Date: 16 Aug 2007 01:09:42 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 15, 12:43 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:02:24 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >> >> >Luke didn't write in English. Some English versions use > >> >> >the word eclipse. > > >I took a quick look through various versons online and found none > >that used the word eclipse. > > Okay. That was your claim though, not mine, > just in case you forgot. :) Yes, and I remain confident that there is such a version. > > >I remember the word 'eclipse' being used in a passage read > >aloud at Mass between about thirty and forty years ago, > > An honest mistake to think you had read it in a Bible > version, after all that time. :) Well it would have been had I made such a mistake but so far I have not. ... > > >If Luke did NOT use the correct terms for an eclipse one > >could therefor logically assume he did not mean that there > >was an eclipse. > > I agree. > > >That is what I was asking about. > > I did answer that, as you saw below. :) No, you did not. Your discussion of the meaning of 'ge' makes it clear that Luke's choice of that word is consistent with either an eclipse, or an allegorical statement, though by no means proof of either. Had Luke chosen 'cosmos' we might be able to rule out an eclipse but only if we also assume Luke understood quite a bit more about solar eclipses than seems reasonable. > > >> >Well, I generally determine the relevant definition from > >> >the context. However, is this not a digression from > >> >the present discussion regarding an eclipse or a > >> >darkening of the sun > > >> According to the timing, it could not have been an eclipse. > > >Of course--if one assumes the accuracy of other information. > >But the question is not what could it have been, but what > >did Luke say it was. > > I am saying this to show that Luke would not have > claimed an eclipse. There wouldn't have been any > at that time and even if someone were seeking to > make up a story, it would be foolish to claim it was > something that could so easily be checked and > known to be a lie. Who said anything about lying? http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SE0029Nov24T.3.gif The centerline of the total eclipse of November 24, AD 29 passed through Palestine near Jerusalem. Now consider that the Gospel according to Luke is generally accepted as having been written no earlier than AD 60 - 70, thirty plus years after both the eclipse and the crucifixion. The possibility that the two events were confabulated by Luke's source(s) should not be discounted. Interestingly, there are a number of historical references to eclipses for which specific eclipses have not been identified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse#Historical_eclipses So this is not a problem unique to the Gospels. Perhaps those other historical references were also confabulations by historians writing many decades after the events, or may they have been allegorical statements? > >Understood. The question at hand is not whether Luke > >wrote that the darkness was local, regional, or global, > > It was a question raised by you, when you mentioned > an eclipse. That would have made it at least semi-global. No. A total eclipse of the sun is only visible from a narrow path, between the blue line on the map referenced above. To either side of that path of totality there would be a partial eclipse. However the human eye adapts well to slow changes in brightness so that a partial eclipse in which the sun is not more than 95% occulted would not be noticed by anyone not looking AT the sun, which folks seldom do. SO the path withing which an eclipse would be noticed in a clear sky is maybe three or four times as wide as the path of totality on that map. Were the sky cloudy, an eclipse would be perceived as just exceptionally dark clouds. So the 'region' thus affected would be a long, narrow, strip. > > >rather it is to what phenomenon he attributed the darkness. > >The proper interpretation of the word he used for 'darkness' > >is far more important I should think. > > Darkness is a proper translation. Literally, it means, > "shadiness", with the idea of "obscurity". Darkness > is what it is translated into, because when you couple > shadiness with obscurity, you are saying that it was > really, really shady out, dude! <laugh> In other words, > it was so shady, that everything became obscure and so, > it was quite dark! :) Well one could describe an eclipse as the sun being obscured by the moon. To be precise, what we call an eclipse of the sun is an occultation of the Sun by the Moon, it is the Earth that is eclipsed. > > You know, if you're interested, you can put this stuff > at your fingertips. I can tell you how. It won't make > you an language expert or anything, of course, but > you would have the original languages and definitions > at your fingertips and you wouldn't have to be on line > to use it either. Cool! How? Use a library? > > >> >Are you saying that Luke uses the word 'ge' in > >> >the passage we are discussion? If so, what > >> >does he say ABOUT it? > > >> Yes, I am. He said that a darkness fell over that region. > > >OK. Does he use any words to suggest why it got dark? > >As in the sun got dim or it got cloudy or ??? > > Luke 23:44-45 > > 44) And it was about the sixth hour, and there was > a DARKNESS over all the earth until the ninth hour. > 45) And the sun was DARKENED, and the veil of > the temple was rent in the midst. > > Literally, the words involved are as follows... > > Darkness = skotos - shadiness, that is, obscurity. > > Darkened = skotizo - to obscure. > > Now when we're talking about light being obscured > (and the Sun is certainly a light), then we are > talking about it becoming dark. And therefore, > it is proper to say that darkness fell over the region. OK and as noted above, that is consistent with both a solar eclipse and an allegorical statement so I do not see how the literal wording rules either out. > > >I _think_ you would agree that the Luke's choice of > >words do not imply an eclipse, but you haven't said > >so in as many words.of your own. > > I know it wasn't an eclipse. But what you or I know today is not at issue! > But could someone read > his words that way? Absolutely! Tell someone that > it became dark in the middle of the day and what will > their first response be? > > "Oh, there was an eclipse? I was inside and missed it!" Well, yes, that was my supposition for how this whole business got started. > > Did Luke say, "eclipse"? No. In fact, the Greek word > for "eclipse" actually means, "disappearance". I believe > the Greek word is "eklipontos" and that isn't the word > used in Luke 23:44-45. Good! That is what I wanted to know. If there was a specific word in Greek for a solar eclipse, and Luke did NOT use that word, that pretty well shows that Luke did not mean an eclipse. Your other argument are not at all persuasive, but that argument nails it. Uh, unless he understood that what we call an eclipse of the sun was, to be precise, and obscuration of the sun by the moon... > > >> It was quite a large area, since reports were written that > >> said it was seen quite far away from Jerusalem. In fact, > >> in other countries. > > >I'm not clear on what you refer to. Other contemporaries > >wouldn't know about the crucifixion, and so would have > >no reason to think the two event were simultaneous. So > >how could anyone know they all were refeRring to the same > >darkening event as Luke? > > On that day, they wouldn't. But the darkness would have > been noted and it would have been quite strange. Later, > as the word of the event spread as being tied to the > crucifixion, we would see reports tying both together. Indeed, even if they weren't on the same day.... > > >In particular, we know there was a total or near total solar > >eclipse visible from the Eastern Mediterranean in AD 29. > >Is it clear those other reports do NOT refer to that event? > > Yes. Jesus was crucified at the time of the Passover > and the Jews' calendar is based on the lunar cycle. > The Moon has to be between the Sun and the Earth, > in order for their to be an eclipse. The 14th of Nissan > is a date in which the Moon is always fully illuminated > and is at its farthest point in its orbit. No, I was asking about those other reports of regional darkness, not the Gospels. How do we know those other reports are of an event that was simultaneous with the crucifixion? And where can we find those other reports, anything besides Thalus? ... > >> >Why not? Was allegory not used at that time? > > >> Yes, it was, but there would be indicators in the text. > > >What would those other indicators be? > > I think that's a long discussion. :) But you really > shouldn't act as if the Bible is somehow completely > different from any other text, as far as people > speaking, meaning, you would know when someone > is giving you an allegory in person and when you're > reading any other book, so let's not try to act as if > there is a completely different set of rules here. :) I'm not. I'm acting as if the rules are exactly the same. When writers refer to the Dark Ages they do not mean a time when the sun was not as bright as it is now. I am considering that Luke may have done the same as other writers. Actually, Matthew and Mark also describe the darkness. It is not clear which of the three was written first, but the wording describing the darkness in all three is very similar (in English). So unless Luke wrote his first, his choice of words may have been dictated by his source material. > > >> Plus, Luke was a Gentile and was simply reporting > >> events. He was not trying to tell a story with in depth > >> meanings to figure out, etc.. Matthew is like that, > >> but Luke's (who you must remember was not an > >> Apostle) whole purpose is stated right at the beginning. > >> He was actually writing a report to someone who was > >> questioning whether or not these events actually did > >> happen. This person was probably like you (no insult > >> intended) > > >I chose Thomas for my confirmation name... > > Okay. :) BTW, it is not at all clear that he was writing to a specific person. Theophilus means literally, 'friend of God'. Luke may have been addressing his intended readers as such, rather than addressing an individual. Now you do raise an interesting point, contrasting the style of Matthew, with that of Luke. Suppose Matthew was written first, using the darkness as allegory and Luke (and Mark) took it to be a literal statement. I'm sure you have heard of contemporary cases of an allegorical or idiomatic statement being misinterpreted as literal. For example, the phrase "The Truth is Out There" appearing at the beginning of X-files episodes has been interpreted by otherwise intelligent and educated persons as a statement by the producers that the X-files stories were based on true stories. No, I'm not making that up! > > >> and didn't know what actually happened and > >> what was story telling. So Luke opened his Gospel by > >> saying the following... > > >> Luke 1:1-4 > > >> 1) Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth > >> in order a declaration of those things which are most > >> surely believed among us, > >> 2) Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the > >> beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; > >> 3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect > >> understanding of all things from the very first, to > >> write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, > >> 4) That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, > >> wherein thou hast been instructed. > > >> Note: "That you might know THE CERTAINTY of those things..." > > >> That was like saying, "I wrote this down, so that you can > >> know for sure that what you're about to read did happen.". > > >Respectfully, that indicates only that Luke was telling > >the reader those things were true. It does not prove his > >honesty, let alone accuracy. But even if we assume Luke > >to have been honest and accurate it does not prove that he > >was not merely saying that the death of Jesus was a sad > >event, by using an allegorical statement that darkness > >fell over the land (ge). > > Actually, it does. Again, Luke was not trying to be > a drama writer. He was reporting events to an official > who would probably not appreciated having to wade > through text, to figure out what is a report and what > is colorful story telling. Again, it is not established that he was writing to a specific person. Further, it is quite clear that Luke was writing justification for Christian belief, "a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us". It really does read as if he was writing for posterity, not a contemporary official. > > We also know that the other writers said the same thing. > Did they all just happen to choose the same allegory? The generally supposition is that Matthew and Mark say the same thing as Luke because two of the three used the the other as a primary source. Alternatively all three used a fourth, no longer extant source. Quite possibly all used Thomas, perhaps in addition to another source. > > And that wouldn't really be an allegory anyway. :) Is not "darkness fell" an allegory for "bummer!' > > As for Luke's honesty and accuracy, to send a false > report to an official could mean death. Surely you jest! Addressing honesty first, if your argument is valid then no one of that era ever sent a false report to any official, or committed any other serious offense. If you allow as some did, then fear of possible punishment is no reason to suppose the Luke might not also have done so. Now, as to accuracy, you yourself pointed out that Luke was not an Apostle, he never saw Jesus in the flesh and so he personally witnessed nothing that he wrote in the Gospel. At best Luke's accuracy was no better than his sources whom, I'll point out, were not reporting to any official when they reported to Luke. Besides, as noted above, it is not clear that he was writing to a specific person. Regardless, I have no reason to doubt his honesty, and since it is pretty clear he didn't use the word for 'eclipse', I've no reason to doubt his accuracy either. > And it is > really disingenuous the way that unbelievers try to > brush that off, because they don't want it to be true > and refuse to acknowledge the way things were then > and act as if people just didn't care if they were > tortured and/or killed. (: Well then no one back them committed any crime, right? > > Besides this, in the science of textual criticism, it > is assumed that the text is accurate, until proved > otherwise. Really? Because I thought it was pretty well accepted that there were no Gorgons, Titans, Cyclopses, Centaurs, or Nymphs. Is there a different standard for classical Greek texts than for later works? > And the claim of "extra-ordinary claims > require extra-ordinary proof" doesn't wash either, > considering that for some Caesars, all we have is > one piece of textual evidence for them, written > centuries later and Caesars have claimed to be, > "God above all gods" and yet, the unbeliever > refuses to apply the same rule to them! That is all completely irrelevant. We are not considering the existence of Ceasars, we are considering a passage from three (3) of the Gospels. ... > > >> Does this help? > > >It does if you confirm that neither the word 'eclipse' > >nor an interpretation to that effect is justified by > >Luke's own choice of words, to the extent that the > >original wording is known. > > >I am also interested in those other reports of darkness, > >the only reference to such I have found is Thalus, and > >even then, it is other authors referring to Thalus, not, > >IIUC any extent works of his own authorship. I'm still interested in those other report of darkness. -- FF     Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:19:14 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:09:42 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > wrote: >> >I took a quick look through various versons online >> >and found none that used the word eclipse. >> >> Okay. That was your claim though, not mine, >> just in case you forgot. :) > >Yes, and I remain confident that there is such a version. I did check a bunch of versions and did not see "eclipse", but who knows. :) >> >I remember the word 'eclipse' being used in a passage read >> >aloud at Mass between about thirty and forty years ago, >> >> An honest mistake to think you had read it in a Bible >> version, after all that time. :) > >Well it would have been had I made such a mistake >but so far I have not. You said that you remember it being read in Mass about 30 -40 years ago. I did some research and I only found one "Catholic Bible" that was used, that used the word "eclipse". It was first published in 1970, so that is within the time frame that you quoted. "It was now about noon and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon because of an eclipse of the Sun. Then the veil of the temple was torn down the middle." - Luke 23:44-45 [NAB] All other Catholic versions say "darkness". The DRB, the JB, the NJB, the RSV and the NRSV. >> >If Luke did NOT use the correct terms for >> >an eclipse one could therefor logically assume >> >he did not mean that there was an eclipse. >> >> I agree. >> >> >That is what I was asking about. >> >> I did answer that, as you saw below. :) > >No, you did not. > >Your discussion of the meaning of 'ge' makes it >clear that Luke's choice of that word is consistent >with either an eclipse, or an allegorical statement, >though by no means proof of either. Or, it is neither, but it became dark and it is not allegory. No one took it as an allegory and it wouldn't fit as an allegory anyway. Furthermore, the time of the event prevents it from being an eclipse. And this is where we must part. I'm not trying to be rude. It's just that this is the point where you try to explain it away and I believe it. :) >> >Of course--if one assumes the accuracy of other information. >> >But the question is not what could it have been, but what >> >did Luke say it was. >> >> I am saying this to show that Luke would not have >> claimed an eclipse. There wouldn't have been any >> at that time and even if someone were seeking to >> make up a story, it would be foolish to claim it was >> something that could so easily be checked and >> known to be a lie. > >Who said anything about lying? > >http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SE0029Nov24T.3.gif > >The centerline of the total eclipse of November 24, AD 29 passed >through Palestine near Jerusalem. Now consider that the Gospel >according to Luke is generally accepted as having been written > no earlier than AD 60 - 70, thirty plus years after both the eclipse >and the crucifixion. The possibility that the two events were >confabulated by Luke's source(s) should not be discounted. No, it is not "generally accepted". Not any more. Those late dates are old thinking and the liberal people who call themselves scholars are not running the show any more. Furthermore, it was not November when this event happened. I told you when it was and it would have been at the time of a Full Moon. It is not that event, period. Now you can believe whatever you wish to believe. That is up to you. But I know what I know and I know that the typical attempts to explain it away don't work. I have examined them. They fail and they fail miserably. But anyway, it's been fun! Have a nice day. :) -- A liberal is someone who will give away everything except his/her own possessions.   Date: 14 Aug 2007 17:02:24 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 14, 7:47 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:50:50 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > > > <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >On Aug 14, 5:46 pm, Pastor Dave > ><no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:55:45 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >> >On Jul 23, 1:25 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic > >> >> <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: > > >> >> >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We > >> >> >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the > >> >> >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion > >> >> >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of > >> >> >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology > > >> >> Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that > >> >> the Sun was darkened. > > >> >Luke didn't write in English. Some English versions use > >> >the word eclipse. I took a quick look through various versons online and found none that used the word eclipse. I remember the word 'eclipse' being used in a passage read aloud at Mass between about thirty and forty years ago, and was startled by it in a way I would not have been by the phrase "darkness came over the region" or anything similar to that. I would have thought it would be found in the Douay bible, but that is not what I found online. I wonder if there are multiple versions of 'the' Douay? > > >> I know what Luke wrote in. The New Testament was written > >> in Koine Greek (the common street Greek). Luke however, > >> did approach Classical Greek, being an educated man. He > >> obviously tried to keep it "street" for the common man, > >> but probably couldn't help himself, being from an educated > >> class of folk and it just came through. :) > > >Excellent. What did he write? > > What did he write? I said I know what he wrote *IN*, > as in "which language he wrote the Gospel of Luke in". What I was interested in is his choice of words for the event. The basic causes of eclipses of the sun and the moon were understood at the time, one supposes that there were words or phrases in the Greek specific to those events. If Luke did NOT use the correct terms for an eclipse one could therefor logically assume he did not mean that there was an eclipse. That is what I was asking about. > > >Well, I generally determine the relevant definition from > >the context. However, is this not a digression from > >the present discussion regarding an eclipse or a > >darkening of the sun > > According to the timing, it could not have been an eclipse. Of course--if one assumes the accuracy of other information. But the question is not what could it have been, but what did Luke say it was. >... > I was simply explaining the Greek to you, in case you > were not aware. I was simply trying to be helpful. :) Understood. The question at hand is not whether Luke wrote that the darkness was local, regional, or global, rather it is to what phenomenon he attributed the darkness. The proper interpretation of the word he used for 'darkness' is far more important I should think. ... > > >Are you saying that Luke uses the word 'ge' in > >the passage we are discussion? If so, what > >does he say ABOUT it? > > Yes, I am. He said that a darkness fell over that region. OK. Does he use any words to suggest why it got dark? As in the sun got dim or it got cloudy or ??? I _think_ you would agree that the Luke's choice of words do not imply an eclipse, but you haven't said so in as many words.of your own. > It was quite a large area, since reports were written that > said it was seen quite far away from Jerusalem. In fact, > in other countries. I'm not clear on what you refer to. Other contemporaries wouldn't know about the crucifixion, and so would have no reason to think the two event were simultaneous. So how could anyone know they all were refeRring to the same darkening event as Luke? In particular, we know there was a total or near total solar eclipse visible from the Eastern Mediterranean in AD 29. Is it clear those other reports do NOT refer to that event? > > >> So thank you for your comments, but no, it is not > >> an allegory and there is nothing in the text to imply > >> that it is. > > >Why not? Was allegory not used at that time? > > Yes, it was, but there would be indicators in the text. What would those other indicators be? > Plus, Luke was a Gentile and was simply reporting > events. He was not trying to tell a story with in depth > meanings to figure out, etc.. Matthew is like that, > but Luke's (who you must remember was not an > Apostle) whole purpose is stated right at the beginning. > He was actually writing a report to someone who was > questioning whether or not these events actually did > happen. This person was probably like you (no insult > intended) I chose Thomas for my confirmation name... > and didn't know what actually happened and > what was story telling. So Luke opened his Gospel by > saying the following... > > Luke 1:1-4 > > 1) Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth > in order a declaration of those things which are most > surely believed among us, > 2) Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the > beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; > 3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect > understanding of all things from the very first, to > write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, > 4) That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, > wherein thou hast been instructed. > > Note: "That you might know THE CERTAINTY of those things..." > > That was like saying, "I wrote this down, so that you can > know for sure that what you're about to read did happen.". > Respectfully, that indicates only that Luke was telling the reader those things were true. It does not prove his honesty, let alone accuracy. But even if we assume Luke to have been honest and accurate it does not prove that he was not merely saying that the death of Jesus was a sad event, by using an allegorical statement that darkness fell over the land (ge). > > > There was no other reason for him to say that. He was not, > like someone today might, saying, "Okay, read it and see > what you think.". No! Luke's mission was to report what > had actually happened! Luke was telling Theophilus... > > "Most excellent Theophilus, you can be certain that this is > what happened." > > To correlate to the wording, he was telling Theophilus... > > "Yes, it is certain and you can know that it is certain > that these things happened." > > Does this help? It does if you confirm that neither the word 'eclipse' nor an interpretation to that effect is not justified by Luke's own choice of words, to the extent that the original wording is known. I am also interested in those other reports of darkness, the only reference to such I have found is Thalus, and even then, it is other authors referring to Thalus, not, IIUC any extent works of his own authorship. -- FF     Date: 18 Aug 2007 11:28:55 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 18, 4:42 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:19:43 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > > Top post: You might want to try reading what I write, > instead of what you wish I wrote, so that you can > impress yourself with it. > Can you tell me why you should use a false email address using the domain name nowhere.com without the permission of the registered owner of the domain name 'nowhere.com'? Meanwhile, did you understand what I wrote about the full moon, apogee, and solar eclipses? -- FF       Date: 18 Aug 2007 19:05:11 From: Bob Officer Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:28:55 -0700, in alt.astrology, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > wrote: >On Aug 18, 4:42 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:19:43 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt >> >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> >> Top post: You might want to try reading what I write, >> instead of what you wish I wrote, so that you can >> impress yourself with it. >> > >Can you tell me why you should use a false email >address using the domain name nowhere.com without >the permission of the registered owner of the domain >name 'nowhere.com'? To interject a point, Fred. Have you taken up mind reading? How do you know the owner of the domain did not give him permission? >Meanwhile, did you understand what I wrote about >the full moon, apogee, and solar eclipses? Hammy. maybe he did and maybe he didn't. I am more curious about your attempt of Net-Koppery... -- Ak'toh'di       Date: 18 Aug 2007 20:08:03 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:28:55 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > wrote: >Can you tell me why you should use a false email >address using the domain name nowhere.com without >the permission of the registered owner of the domain >name 'nowhere.com'? Are you under the impression that if you restate your original claim, that I will suddenly accept it as valid and believe that it is what you claim it is? Apparently, you think I'm stupid enough to fall for that. Now remember this insult of yours, when you try to tell me that I'm insulting you and doing so without any cause. Now if you have a problem with what I put in my reader for an email address, you are free to complain to whomever you deem appropriate. But your continuing to try to argue this point, only succeeds in showing a lack of maturity on your part. >Meanwhile, did you understand what I wrote about >the full moon, apogee, and solar eclipses? I didn't read it. However... 1) Why would you assume that I am not very familiar with the various sciences involved? 2) Did you forget that I was the one educating you about the times and seasons of this event in history? 3) Why would you assume that anything you can say would change the fact that it wasn't an eclipse, if in fact that is where you're trying to go? If not, then "Question 3" is irrelevant and voided. -- A liberal is someone who will give away everything except his/her own possessions.     Date: 15 Aug 2007 13:43:24 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:02:24 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > wrote: >> >> >Luke didn't write in English. Some English versions use >> >> >the word eclipse. > >I took a quick look through various versons online and found none >that used the word eclipse. Okay. That was your claim though, not mine, just in case you forgot. :) >I remember the word 'eclipse' being used in a passage read >aloud at Mass between about thirty and forty years ago, An honest mistake to think you had read it in a Bible version, after all that time. :) >and was startled by it in a way I would not have been by >the phrase "darkness came over the region" or anything >similar to that. Understandable. >I would have thought it would be found in >the Douay bible, but that is not what I found >online. I wonder if there are multiple versions >of 'the' Douay? I think there were revisions, but I may be wrong. I don't really read it and have only skimmed it a few times. >> >> I know what Luke wrote in. The New Testament was written >> >> in Koine Greek (the common street Greek). Luke however, >> >> did approach Classical Greek, being an educated man. He >> >> obviously tried to keep it "street" for the common man, >> >> but probably couldn't help himself, being from an educated >> >> class of folk and it just came through. :) >> >> >Excellent. What did he write? >> >> What did he write? I said I know what he wrote *IN*, >> as in "which language he wrote the Gospel of Luke in". > >What I was interested in is his choice of words for the event. >The basic causes of eclipses of the sun and the moon were >understood at the time, one supposes that there were >words or phrases in the Greek specific to those events. >If Luke did NOT use the correct terms for an eclipse one >could therefor logically assume he did not mean that there >was an eclipse. I agree. >That is what I was asking about. I did answer that, as you saw below. :) >> >Well, I generally determine the relevant definition from >> >the context. However, is this not a digression from >> >the present discussion regarding an eclipse or a >> >darkening of the sun >> >> According to the timing, it could not have been an eclipse. > >Of course--if one assumes the accuracy of other information. >But the question is not what could it have been, but what >did Luke say it was. I am saying this to show that Luke would not have claimed an eclipse. There wouldn't have been any at that time and even if someone were seeking to make up a story, it would be foolish to claim it was something that could so easily be checked and known to be a lie. >> I was simply explaining the Greek to you, in case you >> were not aware. I was simply trying to be helpful. :) > >Understood. The question at hand is not whether Luke >wrote that the darkness was local, regional, or global, It was a question raised by you, when you mentioned an eclipse. That would have made it at least semi-global. >rather it is to what phenomenon he attributed the darkness. >The proper interpretation of the word he used for 'darkness' >is far more important I should think. Darkness is a proper translation. Literally, it means, "shadiness", with the idea of "obscurity". Darkness is what it is translated into, because when you couple shadiness with obscurity, you are saying that it was really, really shady out, dude! <laugh > In other words, it was so shady, that everything became obscure and so, it was quite dark! :) You know, if you're interested, you can put this stuff at your fingertips. I can tell you how. It won't make you an language expert or anything, of course, but you would have the original languages and definitions at your fingertips and you wouldn't have to be on line to use it either. >> >Are you saying that Luke uses the word 'ge' in >> >the passage we are discussion? If so, what >> >does he say ABOUT it? >> >> Yes, I am. He said that a darkness fell over that region. > >OK. Does he use any words to suggest why it got dark? >As in the sun got dim or it got cloudy or ??? Luke 23:44-45 44) And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a DARKNESS over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45) And the sun was DARKENED, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. Literally, the words involved are as follows... Darkness = skotos - shadiness, that is, obscurity. Darkened = skotizo - to obscure. Now when we're talking about light being obscured (and the Sun is certainly a light), then we are talking about it becoming dark. And therefore, it is proper to say that darkness fell over the region. >I _think_ you would agree that the Luke's choice of >words do not imply an eclipse, but you haven't said >so in as many words.of your own. I know it wasn't an eclipse. But could someone read his words that way? Absolutely! Tell someone that it became dark in the middle of the day and what will their first response be? "Oh, there was an eclipse? I was inside and missed it!" Did Luke say, "eclipse"? No. In fact, the Greek word for "eclipse" actually means, "disappearance". I believe the Greek word is "eklipontos" and that isn't the word used in Luke 23:44-45. >> It was quite a large area, since reports were written that >> said it was seen quite far away from Jerusalem. In fact, >> in other countries. > >I'm not clear on what you refer to. Other contemporaries >wouldn't know about the crucifixion, and so would have >no reason to think the two event were simultaneous. So >how could anyone know they all were refeRring to the same >darkening event as Luke? On that day, they wouldn't. But the darkness would have been noted and it would have been quite strange. Later, as the word of the event spread as being tied to the crucifixion, we would see reports tying both together. >In particular, we know there was a total or near total solar >eclipse visible from the Eastern Mediterranean in AD 29. >Is it clear those other reports do NOT refer to that event? Yes. Jesus was crucified at the time of the Passover and the Jews' calendar is based on the lunar cycle. The Moon has to be between the Sun and the Earth, in order for their to be an eclipse. The 14th of Nissan is a date in which the Moon is always fully illuminated and is at its farthest point in its orbit. >> >> So thank you for your comments, but no, it is not >> >> an allegory and there is nothing in the text to imply >> >> that it is. >> >> >Why not? Was allegory not used at that time? >> >> Yes, it was, but there would be indicators in the text. > >What would those other indicators be? I think that's a long discussion. :) But you really shouldn't act as if the Bible is somehow completely different from any other text, as far as people speaking, meaning, you would know when someone is giving you an allegory in person and when you're reading any other book, so let's not try to act as if there is a completely different set of rules here. :) >> Plus, Luke was a Gentile and was simply reporting >> events. He was not trying to tell a story with in depth >> meanings to figure out, etc.. Matthew is like that, >> but Luke's (who you must remember was not an >> Apostle) whole purpose is stated right at the beginning. >> He was actually writing a report to someone who was >> questioning whether or not these events actually did >> happen. This person was probably like you (no insult >> intended) > >I chose Thomas for my confirmation name... Okay. :) >> and didn't know what actually happened and >> what was story telling. So Luke opened his Gospel by >> saying the following... >> >> Luke 1:1-4 >> >> 1) Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth >> in order a declaration of those things which are most >> surely believed among us, >> 2) Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the >> beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; >> 3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect >> understanding of all things from the very first, to >> write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, >> 4) That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, >> wherein thou hast been instructed. >> >> Note: "That you might know THE CERTAINTY of those things..." >> >> That was like saying, "I wrote this down, so that you can >> know for sure that what you're about to read did happen.". > >Respectfully, that indicates only that Luke was telling >the reader those things were true. It does not prove his >honesty, let alone accuracy. But even if we assume Luke >to have been honest and accurate it does not prove that he >was not merely saying that the death of Jesus was a sad >event, by using an allegorical statement that darkness >fell over the land (ge). Actually, it does. Again, Luke was not trying to be a drama writer. He was reporting events to an official who would probably not appreciated having to wade through text, to figure out what is a report and what is colorful story telling. We also know that the other writers said the same thing. Did they all just happen to choose the same allegory? And that wouldn't really be an allegory anyway. :) As for Luke's honesty and accuracy, to send a false report to an official could mean death. And it is really disingenuous the way that unbelievers try to brush that off, because they don't want it to be true and refuse to acknowledge the way things were then and act as if people just didn't care if they were tortured and/or killed. (: Besides this, in the science of textual criticism, it is assumed that the text is accurate, until proved otherwise. And the claim of "extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof" doesn't wash either, considering that for some Caesars, all we have is one piece of textual evidence for them, written centuries later and Caesars have claimed to be, "God above all gods" and yet, the unbeliever refuses to apply the same rule to them! >> There was no other reason for him to say that. He was not, >> like someone today might, saying, "Okay, read it and see >> what you think.". No! Luke's mission was to report what >> had actually happened! Luke was telling Theophilus... >> >> "Most excellent Theophilus, you can be certain that this is >> what happened." >> >> To correlate to the wording, he was telling Theophilus... >> >> "Yes, it is certain and you can know that it is certain >> that these things happened." >> >> Does this help? > >It does if you confirm that neither the word 'eclipse' >nor an interpretation to that effect is not justified by >Luke's own choice of words, to the extent that the >original wording is known. > >I am also interested in those other reports of darkness, >the only reference to such I have found is Thalus, and >even then, it is other authors referring to Thalus, not, >IIUC any extent works of his own authorship.   Date: 14 Aug 2007 11:50:50 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 14, 5:46 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:55:45 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > > > <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >On Jul 23, 1:25 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic > >> <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: > > >> >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We > >> >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the > >> >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion > >> >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of > >> >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology > > >> Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that > >> the Sun was darkened. > > >Luke didn't write in English. Some English versions use > >the word eclipse. > > I know what Luke wrote in. The New Testament was written > in Koine Greek (the common street Greek). Luke however, > did approach Classical Greek, being an educated man. He > obviously tried to keep it "street" for the common man, > but probably couldn't help himself, being from an educated > class of folk and it just came through. :) Excellent. What did he write? > > >I have supposed that this may be a mistranslation > > They probably used that word, to make it easy for people > to understand it, but it is still wrong to mistranslate a > text like that. > > >of an allegorical statement that might have been better translated > >as "darkness fell over the land" rather than a literal description. > > No allegory about it. In fact, there are ancient reports > about it happening. But I do not claim that it covered > the whole planet, nor does the text. Nor does anybody else, as far as I know. > > Referring back to your "English" comment, almost all > people mistakenly read the word "earth" in Scripture, > as if it meant "the planet" and they forget that even > today, we say things like, "I planted a tree into the > earth" and we don't mean that the tree takes up > the whole planet. :) Well, I generally determine the relevant definition from the context. However, is this not a digression from the present discussion regarding an eclipse or a darkening of the sun > > The truth is, there were three different Greek words > that were translated into either the word "earth", or > the word "world" and only one of them meant the > whole planet. OK, but again, is this not a digression? > > The first was "ge", which meant "soil", or "a region". > This could mean as large as the Roman Empire, > but is not always used that way. And as I said, > it can also just mean "soil", like, "I planted a tree > into the earth/ge". > The root of geoid, geography, geology, and so on I would assume. > The second was "oikoumene", which meant either > a large region and specifically the Roman Empire > and so, could also be stated as, "the known world". > > The third was "kosmos", which does mean the whole > planet. This word I doubt is ever translated into "earth". I would hope not. > > In Luke, the word there is "ge" and so, means simply > a region. Given the ancient report that I saw (I can > try to find it if you'd like, but a simple Google search > should work for you), it was a rather large region, > possibly as large as the Roman Empire. Are you saying that Luke uses the word 'ge' in the passage we are discussion? If so, what doe she say ABOUT it? > > So thank you for your comments, but no, it is not > an allegory and there is nothing in the text to imply > that it is. Why not? Was allegory not used at that time? -- FF     Date: 17 Aug 2007 19:19:43 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 17, 4:51 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:27:52 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > > > <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >On Aug 17, 7:41 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:49:52 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >> >On Aug 17, 12:47 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:19:18 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > >> >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >> >> >I rather doubt that the email address you are posting is actually > >> >> >yours, so I assume you did not receive the email I sent. > > >> >> >May I suggest that you consider posting a non-routable email > >> >> >address, like f...@example.com or b...@test.com? I'm sure > >> >> >the folks who own the domain nowhere.com would appreciate > >> >> >it. > > >> >> No such URL. > > >> >URL's are for HTTP, not SMTP. > > >> Your point? > > >My point is that a computer that does not have > >a webserver does not have an URL associated > >with it. > > As I said, while a domain can be a localized computer, > or group of computers, it is not likely and would not > have any bearing on our discussion, since if it is a > registered domain, then it is tied to the Internet. That menas only that it has been assigned an IP address. If it is not on the web, it does not have a URL. > > And let it be noted that you would not have objected > at all, if this domain was not tied to the Internet. > And if a domain is tied to the Internet, then it is > assigned a URL. False. Clearly you are confusing Universal Resource Locater (URL) with Internet Protocol (IP) address. > > >> They tie to URL's. > > >No, they do not. > > Yes, they do. No, they are assigned an IP address. URL has no defined meaning outside of the context of the World Wide Web. URL is defined as the address of a webpage. > > Now you can argue with yourself beyond this. > I have no interest in going any further, since > it is futile to argue with someone denying > simple truths, because their ego is their main > concern. > > >Do a whois for nowhere.com, what do you find? > > I didn't say a word about a "webserver". I didn't ask you anything about a webserver. I asked you to do a whois on nowhere.com. Why didn't you do a whois on nowhere.com? Why do you ignore the whois information I posted for you? > A webserver > serves web pages, or some form of documents. To be precise it sends or receives information using HTTP. > One > does not have to do that, to have a domain tied to > the Internet, that has a URL. > > You assume that "being tied to the Internet" means > that one can view a web page, when one types in > the domain name. That assumption is due to your > own ignorance. No, clearly I have not. It is precisely my point and what you consistently deny, that neither a computer on the internet nor any registered domain on the internet is required to send or receive HTTP and therefor does not necessarily have a URL, though all will have one or more IP address. Your insistence that every domain on the internet has a URL IS a defacto statement that every domain has a webserver because URL is not defined outside of the World Wide Web. This is also evidenced by your invalid 'test' typing www.nowhere.com into your browsers URL window. That your 'test' finds nothing only shows that there is no webserver for www.nowhere.com. URL is defined as the address of a webpage. > > But you go ahead and try to purchase an email only > server, that does not have a domain that is assigned > a URL. And that doesn't mean one tied to a server > that does have a URL assigned to it. In other words, > you can't tell me how you get email accounts from > someone, when you know that someone is serving > you from their own domain, that has a URL. > > Tell me how far you get. Tell me why you should use a false email address using the domain name nowhere.com without the permission of the registered owner of the domain name 'nowhere.com'? -- FF       Date: 18 Aug 2007 00:42:21 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:19:43 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > wrote: Top post: You might want to try reading what I write, instead of what you wish I wrote, so that you can impress yourself with it. >On Aug 17, 4:51 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:27:52 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt >> >> >> >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> >On Aug 17, 7:41 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:49:52 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt >> >> >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> >> >On Aug 17, 12:47 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:19:18 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt >> >> >> >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> >> >> >I rather doubt that the email address you are posting is actually >> >> >> >yours, so I assume you did not receive the email I sent. >> >> >> >> >May I suggest that you consider posting a non-routable email >> >> >> >address, like f...@example.com or b...@test.com? I'm sure >> >> >> >the folks who own the domain nowhere.com would appreciate >> >> >> >it. >> >> >> >> No such URL. >> >> >> >URL's are for HTTP, not SMTP. >> >> >> Your point? >> >> >My point is that a computer that does not have >> >a webserver does not have an URL associated >> >with it. >> >> As I said, while a domain can be a localized computer, >> or group of computers, it is not likely and would not >> have any bearing on our discussion, since if it is a >> registered domain, then it is tied to the Internet. > >That menas only that it has been assigned an >IP address. If it is not on the web, it does not >have a URL. > >> >> And let it be noted that you would not have objected >> at all, if this domain was not tied to the Internet. >> And if a domain is tied to the Internet, then it is >> assigned a URL. > >False. > >Clearly you are confusing Universal Resource Locater >(URL) with Internet Protocol (IP) address. > >> >> >> They tie to URL's. >> >> >No, they do not. >> >> Yes, they do. > >No, they are assigned an IP address. >URL has no defined meaning outside of the context of >the World Wide Web. > >URL is defined as the address of a webpage. > >> >> Now you can argue with yourself beyond this. >> I have no interest in going any further, since >> it is futile to argue with someone denying >> simple truths, because their ego is their main >> concern. >> >> >Do a whois for nowhere.com, what do you find? >> >> I didn't say a word about a "webserver". > >I didn't ask you anything about a webserver. >I asked you to do a whois on nowhere.com. >Why didn't you do a whois on nowhere.com? >Why do you ignore the whois information I >posted for you? > >> A webserver >> serves web pages, or some form of documents. > >To be precise it sends or receives information >using HTTP. > >> One >> does not have to do that, to have a domain tied to >> the Internet, that has a URL. >> >> You assume that "being tied to the Internet" means >> that one can view a web page, when one types in >> the domain name. That assumption is due to your >> own ignorance. > >No, clearly I have not. It is precisely my point >and what you consistently deny, that neither a >computer on the internet nor any registered domain >on the internet is required to send or receive HTTP >and therefor does not necessarily have a URL, though >all will have one or more IP address. > >Your insistence that every domain on the >internet has a URL IS a defacto statement that >every domain has a webserver because URL >is not defined outside of the World Wide Web. > >This is also evidenced by your invalid 'test' >typing www.nowhere.com into your browsers >URL window. That your 'test' finds nothing only >shows that there is no webserver for www.nowhere.com. > >URL is defined as the address of a webpage. > >> >> But you go ahead and try to purchase an email only >> server, that does not have a domain that is assigned >> a URL. And that doesn't mean one tied to a server >> that does have a URL assigned to it. In other words, >> you can't tell me how you get email accounts from >> someone, when you know that someone is serving >> you from their own domain, that has a URL. >> >> Tell me how far you get. > >Tell me why you should use a false email address >using the domain name nowhere.com without the >permission of the registered owner of the domain >name 'nowhere.com'? -- A liberal is someone who will give away everything except his/her own possessions.     Date: 14 Aug 2007 15:47:30 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:50:50 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > wrote: >On Aug 14, 5:46 pm, Pastor Dave ><no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:55:45 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt >> >> >> >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> >On Jul 23, 1:25 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic >> >> <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: >> >> >> >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We >> >> >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the >> >> >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion >> >> >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of >> >> >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology >> >> >> Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that >> >> the Sun was darkened. >> >> >Luke didn't write in English. Some English versions use >> >the word eclipse. >> >> I know what Luke wrote in. The New Testament was written >> in Koine Greek (the common street Greek). Luke however, >> did approach Classical Greek, being an educated man. He >> obviously tried to keep it "street" for the common man, >> but probably couldn't help himself, being from an educated >> class of folk and it just came through. :) > >Excellent. What did he write? What did he write? I said I know what he wrote *IN*, as in "which language he wrote the Gospel of Luke in". As for what he wrote, all I know of is Luke and Acts. >> >I have supposed that this may be a mistranslation >> >> They probably used that word, to make it easy for people >> to understand it, but it is still wrong to mistranslate a >> text like that. >> >> >of an allegorical statement that might have been better translated >> >as "darkness fell over the land" rather than a literal description. >> >> No allegory about it. In fact, there are ancient reports >> about it happening. But I do not claim that it covered >> the whole planet, nor does the text. > >Nor does anybody else, as far as I know. You'd be surprised at what I have seen. :) >> Referring back to your "English" comment, almost all >> people mistakenly read the word "earth" in Scripture, >> as if it meant "the planet" and they forget that even >> today, we say things like, "I planted a tree into the >> earth" and we don't mean that the tree takes up >> the whole planet. :) > >Well, I generally determine the relevant definition from >the context. However, is this not a digression from >the present discussion regarding an eclipse or a >darkening of the sun According to the timing, it could not have been an eclipse. >> The truth is, there were three different Greek words >> that were translated into either the word "earth", or >> the word "world" and only one of them meant the >> whole planet. > >OK, but again, is this not a digression? I was simply explaining the Greek to you, in case you were not aware. I was simply trying to be helpful. :) >> The first was "ge", which meant "soil", or "a region". >> This could mean as large as the Roman Empire, >> but is not always used that way. And as I said, >> it can also just mean "soil", like, "I planted a tree >> into the earth/ge". >> > >The root of geoid, geography, geology, and so on I would >assume. Possibly. It isn't worth the time to look into. :) >> The second was "oikoumene", which meant either >> a large region and specifically the Roman Empire >> and so, could also be stated as, "the known world". >> >> The third was "kosmos", which does mean the whole >> planet. This word I doubt is ever translated into "earth". > >I would hope not. It may be in one or two places, but as far as I know, the word "world" is always used, at least in the KJV. I think others as well. And no, in case you're curious, I'm not a "KJV Only" guy. I do love it, but there are some serious word translation errors in it. And just as a side note, a number of times when you see the word "world" in the KJV, the Greek word behind it is actually "aeon", which means "age", as in "an age". This is true in Matthew 24:3, for example, which certainly changes the view of the Discourse, no? :) >> In Luke, the word there is "ge" and so, means simply >> a region. Given the ancient report that I saw (I can >> try to find it if you'd like, but a simple Google search >> should work for you), it was a rather large region, >> possibly as large as the Roman Empire. > >Are you saying that Luke uses the word 'ge' in >the passage we are discussion? If so, what >does he say ABOUT it? Yes, I am. He said that a darkness fell over that region. It was quite a large area, since reports were written that said it was seen quite far away from Jerusalem. In fact, in other countries. >> So thank you for your comments, but no, it is not >> an allegory and there is nothing in the text to imply >> that it is. > >Why not? Was allegory not used at that time? Yes, it was, but there would be indicators in the text. Plus, Luke was a Gentile and was simply reporting events. He was not trying to tell a story with in depth meanings to figure out, etc.. Matthew is like that, but Luke's (who you must remember was not an Apostle) whole purpose is stated right at the beginning. He was actually writing a report to someone who was questioning whether or not these events actually did happen. This person was probably like you (no insult intended) and didn't know what actually happened and what was story telling. So Luke opened his Gospel by saying the following... Luke 1:1-4 1) Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2) Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4) That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Note: "That you might know THE CERTAINTY of those things..." That was like saying, "I wrote this down, so that you can know for sure that what you're about to read did happen.". There was no other reason for him to say that. He was not, like someone today might, saying, "Okay, read it and see what you think.". No! Luke's mission was to report what had actually happened! Luke was telling Theophilus... "Most excellent Theophilus, you can be certain that this is what happened." To correlate to the wording, he was telling Theophilus... "Yes, it is certain and you can know that it is certain that these things happened." Does this help?   Date: 13 Aug 2007 22:55:45 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 23, 1:25 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic > <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: > > >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We > >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the > >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion > >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of > >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology > > Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that > the Sun was darkened. Luke didn't write in English. Some English versions use the word eclipse. I have supposed that this may be a mistranslation of an allegorical statement that might have been better translated as "darkness fell over the land" rather than a literal description. -- FF     Date: 19 Aug 2007 10:05:57 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 17, 7:41 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:49:52 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > > > <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >On Aug 17, 12:47 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:19:18 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >> >I rather doubt that the email address you are posting is actually > >> >yours, so I assume you did not receive the email I sent. > > >> >May I suggest that you consider posting a non-routable email > >> >address, like f...@example.com or b...@test.com? I'm sure > >> >the folks who own the domain nowhere.com would appreciate > >> >it. > > >> No such URL. > > >URL's are for HTTP, not SMTP. > > Your point? They tie to URL's. And "domain names" > are tied to them. And you said, "domain". > > For example, I have a RoadRunner account. > Now typewww.rr.com I get: Registrant: Road Runner HoldCo LLC 13241 Woodland Park Rd Herndon VA 20171 US Domain Name: RR.COM Administrative Contact Technical Contact: Road Runner HoldCo abuse@RR.COM .. > In fact, type in:www.tampoabay.rr.comwhich is what would > be at the end of my email address with them. I get: Registrant: Road Runner HoldCo LLC 13241 Woodland Park Rd Herndon VA 20171 US Domain Name: RR.COM Administrative Contact Technical Contact: Road Runner HoldCo abuse@RR.COM ... > > I have a GMail account. > Now typewww.gmail.com I get: Registrant: Google Inc. (DOM-425410) Please contact gmail-abuse@google.com 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View CA 94043 US Domain Name: gmail.com ... > > I have a Yahoo account. > Now type inwww.yahoo.com I get: Registrant: Yahoo! Inc. (DOM-272993) 701 First Avenue Sunnyvale CA 94089 US Domain Name: yahoo.com ... > > Any others you want to try? > > Tell you what... trywww.nowhere.com I get: domain: nowhere.com status: LOCK owner-c: LULU-9514376 admin-c: LULU-9514376 tech-c: LULU-9209088 zone-c: LULU-9209088 nserver: ns1.auth.onlyns.net nserver: ns2.auth.onlyns.net created: 2007-01-13 06: 18: 47 expire: 2008-01-13 06: 18: 47 (registry time) changed: 2007-01-20 00: 01: 16 [owner-c] handle: 9514376 [owner-c] type: PERSON [owner-c] title: [owner-c] fname: Joerg [owner-c] lname: Sigmund > > What's that? Didn't work? :) > It works for me. Maybe you should have tried it yourself. -- FF     Date: 17 Aug 2007 14:27:52 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 17, 7:41 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:49:52 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > > > <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >On Aug 17, 12:47 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:19:18 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt > > >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: > >> >I rather doubt that the email address you are posting is actually > >> >yours, so I assume you did not receive the email I sent. > > >> >May I suggest that you consider posting a non-routable email > >> >address, like f...@example.com or b...@test.com? I'm sure > >> >the folks who own the domain nowhere.com would appreciate > >> >it. > > >> No such URL. > > >URL's are for HTTP, not SMTP. > > Your point? My point is that a computer that does not have a webserver does not have an URL associated with it. My overall point is that one should not publish email addresses using a domain name that belongs to someone else, without their permission. I do not personally know Mr Joerg, but I am confident that he would rather you NOT do this with his domain. I know from personal correspondence that an earlier owner of the domain was VERY unhappy about people doing that. > They tie to URL's. No, they do not. > And "domain names" > are tied to them. No, they are not. They are tied to IP addresses. > And you said, "domain". > > For example, I have a RoadRunner account. > Now typewww.rr.com In fact, type in:www.tampoabay.rr.comwhich is what would > be at the end of my email address with them. > > I have a GMail account. > Now typewww.gmail.com > > I have a Yahoo account. > Now type inwww.yahoo.com > > Any others you want to try? > > Tell you what... trywww.nowhere.com > > What's that? Didn't work? :) Do a whois for nowhere.com, what do you find? That there is no webserver using that domain name tells you nothing about whether or not there are other servers using it. Further, whether and how it is being used at this very moment is entirely irrelevant. > > Now is it possible that somewhere, there's an email > account that doesn't directly tie to a URL? Maybe. > But what's the odds? 1 The ONLY email addresses that are associated with a URL are those which can be accessed via HTTP. > > Now if there's something you wish to express, > then have at it. But being a tech for over 25 years, > I think I understand just a tad about it. > > Now a domain can be just a group of computers, > but it is the name by which a computer, or group > of computers is tied to the Internet. Strictly speaking, > it can be localized, but that is not common and > would have nothing to do with our conversation > anyway, so it would be fruitless to try to use that > as a way to appear knowledgable. > > And therefore, to have a proper "domain", one must > register it. And by doing so, one is normally assigned > a "www" link and whether or not one ever designs a > web page is irrelevant. False. Contrary to popular belief, only a minority of the computers on the internet are part of the World Wide Wide. Only a minority of reserved IP addresses are assigned to computers on which a webserver is running. > One can still type in the URL > and not get a "domain not found" message. And of > course, email addresses can be tied to it and strictly > speaking, it isn't just SMTP, although that is how it's > referred to. But also strictly speaking, SMTP is an > outgoing format. You do want something coming in, > don't you? :) After all, there are other email formats > (IMAP, etc.). > > Now I'm not really into technical discussions through > usenet. I do from time to time, offer an education > about a specific subject, when someone seems to > have it wrong, so I can offer them the benefit of > the proper facts, but other than that, I don't do it > and I don't get into lengthy discussion about it. > > And no, I am not trying to offend you, nor insult you. > And FYI, you asked why i was offended in our last > discussion. I said in my last message that I wasn't. > Within virtually every mailserver on the internet there is a feature that allows the server to be queried to check if a particular email account exists on that server. The server sends a response. To save bandwidth this is done without actually sending any email, only the query. Email address harvesting software typically uses that feature to check the validity of each email address it finds. A few years back at the FTC spam conference a sys-admin for Lavasoft stated that were it not for blacklisting parts of the internet on which most of those harvesters were being operated the traffic from those queries alone would be enough to crash his servers. Even if the current owner of the domain name is not operating a server using that domain name, there is no excuse for using his domain name without his permission. One should use example or test insted, consistent with RFC 3330. Using a fake email address (atsign)nowhere.com reduces your spamload by diverting traffic to nowhere.com. Using a fake email address @test.net or example.com reduces your spamload without burdening anyone else. The servers through which the spammer is forwarding his queries will not attempt to forward to an example.com or test.net address, so that the packets will be dropped right there. For an email address (atsign)nowhere.com, it will at least send a query to an nameserver to try to find the IP address for a mailserver using that name. Even if Mr Joerg is not currently running an SMTP server on nowhere.com,. the unauthorized use of his domain name reduces his future opportunity for the lawful use of his intellectual property. Offended or not, I had the district impression that you thought I was looking for ways to challenge certain religious doctrines. That is not my aim. I am interested in the literal, historical and factual interpretation, not the spiritual interpretation. If were not offended, would you consider telling how to put that linguistic/historical information at my fingertips as you suggested might be done? -- FF       Date: 17 Aug 2007 17:51:17 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:27:52 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > wrote: >On Aug 17, 7:41 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:49:52 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt >> >> >> >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> >On Aug 17, 12:47 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:19:18 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt >> >> >> <fredfigh...@spamcop.net> wrote: >> >> >I rather doubt that the email address you are posting is actually >> >> >yours, so I assume you did not receive the email I sent. >> >> >> >May I suggest that you consider posting a non-routable email >> >> >address, like f...@example.com or b...@test.com? I'm sure >> >> >the folks who own the domain nowhere.com would appreciate >> >> >it. >> >> >> No such URL. >> >> >URL's are for HTTP, not SMTP. >> >> Your point? > >My point is that a computer that does not have >a webserver does not have an URL associated >with it. As I said, while a domain can be a localized computer, or group of computers, it is not likely and would not have any bearing on our discussion, since if it is a registered domain, then it is tied to the Internet. And let it be noted that you would not have objected at all, if this domain was not tied to the Internet. And if a domain is tied to the Internet, then it is assigned a URL. >> They tie to URL's. > >No, they do not. Yes, they do. Now you can argue with yourself beyond this. I have no interest in going any further, since it is futile to argue with someone denying simple truths, because their ego is their main concern. >Do a whois for nowhere.com, what do you find? I didn't say a word about a "webserver". A webserver serves web pages, or some form of documents. One does not have to do that, to have a domain tied to the Internet, that has a URL. You assume that "being tied to the Internet" means that one can view a web page, when one types in the domain name. That assumption is due to your own ignorance. But you go ahead and try to purchase an email only server, that does not have a domain that is assigned a URL. And that doesn't mean one tied to a server that does have a URL assigned to it. In other words, you can't tell me how you get email accounts from someone, when you know that someone is serving you from their own domain, that has a URL. Tell me how far you get. -- A liberal is someone who will give away everything except his/her own possessions.     Date: 14 Aug 2007 13:46:20 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:55:45 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > wrote: >On Jul 23, 1:25 pm, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic >> <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: >> >> >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We >> >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the >> >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion >> >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of >> >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology >> >> Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that >> the Sun was darkened. > >Luke didn't write in English. Some English versions use >the word eclipse. I know what Luke wrote in. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (the common street Greek). Luke however, did approach Classical Greek, being an educated man. He obviously tried to keep it "street" for the common man, but probably couldn't help himself, being from an educated class of folk and it just came through. :) >I have supposed that this may be a mistranslation They probably used that word, to make it easy for people to understand it, but it is still wrong to mistranslate a text like that. >of an allegorical statement that might have been better translated >as "darkness fell over the land" rather than a literal description. No allegory about it. In fact, there are ancient reports about it happening. But I do not claim that it covered the whole planet, nor does the text. Referring back to your "English" comment, almost all people mistakenly read the word "earth" in Scripture, as if it meant "the planet" and they forget that even today, we say things like, "I planted a tree into the earth" and we don't mean that the tree takes up the whole planet. :) The truth is, there were three different Greek words that were translated into either the word "earth", or the word "world" and only one of them meant the whole planet. The first was "ge", which meant "soil", or "a region". This could mean as large as the Roman Empire, but is not always used that way. And as I said, it can also just mean "soil", like, "I planted a tree into the earth/ge". The second was "oikoumene", which meant either a large region and specifically the Roman Empire and so, could also be stated as, "the known world". The third was "kosmos", which does mean the whole planet. This word I doubt is ever translated into "earth". In Luke, the word there is "ge" and so, means simply a region. Given the ancient report that I saw (I can try to find it if you'd like, but a simple Google search should work for you), it was a rather large region, possibly as large as the Roman Empire. So thank you for your comments, but no, it is not an allegory and there is nothing in the text to imply that it is.   Date: 13 Aug 2007 22:51:33 From: Fred the Red Shirt Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 23, 12:57 pm, Scott Miller <jsfmil...@netzero.net > wrote: > Klaudio Zic wrote: > > Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We > > slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the > > scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion > > time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of > > the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology > > Small problem - there were no solar eclipses visible from Palestine in > the years surrounding the death of Jesus. Bigger problem. The crucifixion is reported to have been at Passover which is always within 3-4 days of a full moon. -- FF     Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:11:47 From: Jebus Luvs Ewe Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On 13 Aug 2007, Fred the Red Shirt <fredfighter@spamcop.net > posted some news:1187070693.641606.91080@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On Jul 23, 12:57 pm, Scott Miller <jsfmil...@netzero.net> wrote: >> Klaudio Zic wrote: >> > Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? >> > We slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the >> > scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion >> > time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report >> > of the eclipse includes biblical >> > comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology >> >> Small problem - there were no solar eclipses visible from Palestine >> in the years surrounding the death of Jesus. > > Bigger problem. The crucifixion is reported to have been at Passover > which is always within 3-4 days of a full moon. Gasp! You mean the bibble is full of lies which can be scientifically proven?   Date: 03 Aug 2007 04:54:42 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 3, 3:46 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: > On 2 Aug, 17:30, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > On Aug 2, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On 2 Aug, 11:48, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > On Aug 2, 4:13 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On 1 Aug, 18:16, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On 1 Aug, 14:17, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I > > > > > > > > have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an > > > > > > > > extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I > > > > > > > > cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, > > > > > > > > Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately the relevance of all this is not clear. > > > > > > > > If you claim that Freke and Gandy can document the statements made > > > > > > > from the ancient literature, then let's see them. > > > > > > > > But I think otherwise, being rather familiar with the Mithraic > > > > > > > record. > > > > > > > > Candidly, I suspect that if you try to pin them down, statement by > > > > > > > statement, you may end up somewhat disenchanted with Freke and Gandy. > > > > > > > > > The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various > > > > > > > > mystery religions is quite apparent.... > > > > > > > > (Reiteration snipped) > > > > > > > > I think that we all are familiar with the 'dying god' stuff from > > > > > > > J.G.Frazier. The difficulty with all these large and loose claims is > > > > > > > that they break down in the detail. > > > > > > > > > The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is > > > > > > > > from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published > > > > > > > > in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. > > > > > > > > But the question is whether this can be documented from the ancient > > > > > > > world, not whether some modern writer asserts it. What ancient source > > > > > > > does Godwin offer? If any? > > > > > > > The relevance is that many scholars mention the parallels between > > > > > > modern Christianity and the msytery religions.... > > > > > > This is generalities, tho. Can we see some specifics on Mithras, if > > > > > any of these people have any, documented from the ancient sources? > > > > > > > You ask what ancient sources do some writers use > > > > > > Indeed. People who make claims should back them up, surely? > > > > > > > and others would ask what source did evangelists like Luke use ... > > > > > > Irrelevant change of subject, tho. > > > > > > You did not produce Godwin. Does this mean that you have not in fact > > > > > read this book? > > > > > No, not an irrelevant change of subject but the topic of this thread. > > > > Irrelevant to this post. We're discussing Mithras, remember? It does > > > no good to wander off into generalities, surely, when, if we get to > > > specifics, we find there is nothing there. > > > > > I don't have every book I'v ever read and I don't generally check > > > > every reference in an author's bibliography. Do you? > > > > Well, actually I *do* if I'm going to put my backside up to be > > > kicked! :-) > > > > But no, I wasn't pillorying you; I just wondered. > > > > The thing that we need to take away from this, tho, is the amount of > > > nonsense going around the web along these lines. I really think that > > > we should believe nothing unless you have seen the ancient text that > > > says so. That doesn't stop us being misled by dishonest editing -- > > > selection, omission, etc -- but a lot of this stuff about Mithras is > > > based pure and simple on *nothing*. > > > > I saw your other posts, but again these are derails. > > > Ha! Nope, my backside wasn't up to be kicked. Quoting what scholars > > have said on a subject may be seen as taking a scholar's word for > > something, but not really offering oneself up to be kicked. > > You didn't quote any scholars, tho, did you? You just offered some > names. > > > I glanced at your website and kudos to you for the amount of work > > you've put into it. > > Glad to help -- thanks. > > > I'll try and make time to read more of it later, > > but I do notice that you identify yourself as a Christian. Without > > saying anything else, that tells one that you would be more inclined > > to accept or reject scholarship based on your belief system. > > That tells me that you are inclined to believe things that you have > heard idly asserted without being very critical about them. > > > For instance, the very same quote I cited as Mithraic in origin is > > referenced on that one website and it even lists the same source. But > > you simply say that doesn't exist. > > Sorry, but to which quote and which website do you refer? <confused> > > > Godwin says otherwise so why should one believe one over the other? > > Ahem. You don't actually know that Godwin says so, since you haven't > read him, tho. > > But never mind what any modern scholar says; where is the ancient > evidence? If someone says that a quote exists, I want to see the > ancient reference. (Many of the texts are online complete, so we can > check them). > > > While it seems that no particular pagan mystery religion mirrors the > > story of Jesus in total, when one looks at Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, > > Attis, etc., all the themes of the Jesus story are there and well before > > the time of Jesus. > > So you keep saying. But it is not in fact so. Remember that we're > discussing Mithras. None of the 'themes' you mention are actually > there. Nor, indeed, did Mithras exist at that time; the cult was > invented early in the first century, according to Clauss. > > All the best, > > Roger Pearse Sorry, but you don't get to decide for me who is and isn't a scholar. If you don't think Freke and Gandy are scholars, I really don't care. Why should I think that you're more capable of researching ancient text than they? As far as me being inclined to believe things without being very critical of them, that's rich. Unless you have quite a different definition of Christian than is commonly accepted, the things you believe without any of the evidence you claim to revere is rather extreme. I'll tell you what I'm not inclined to believe. I'm not inclined to believe that stars wander, that angels exist, much less speak to shepherds and that virgins become pregnant. I'm not inclined to believe that men can walk on water and turn water into wine. I'm not inclined to believe that men buried in their graves, get up and fly through the air after walking through a few walls (especially when the "followers" can't even agree where this flying ascension took place!). I'm not inclined to believe that any God at all exists much less believe that this God can't forgive such a human invention as the concept of "sin" without a blood offering, first of animals and finally a human sacrifice. I'm not inclined to believe that belief in any set of religious doctrines grants or prevents admission to any imaginary afterlife destinations as silly as heaven or hell. Now, as a Christian you believe all or some of these and you believe them on zero evidence. But even if you only believe one of the above, you're the last person who will have any impact when chiding me for what I may or may not believe. All the best! C.   Date: 03 Aug 2007 01:23:38 From: Roger Pearse Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse > This quote is attributed toMithras: "He who will not eat of my body and drink > of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the > same shall not know salvation." A net-search reveals that this passage was given by Franz Cumont in his great collection of testimonia from the "Zardusht-nama" (Book of Zoroaster), a 13th century text. Unfortunately I have been unable to locate a text of this work, or an English translation: the 'quote' is more circulated than researched, that is clear. But if genuine, as a Persian source it refers to Mitra, not Mithras -- the two have no connection. And as a 13th century source it must derive from Nestorian Christianity, which was active in Persia and still exists today, rather than the other way around. Here are the links that I found, in sequence of what leads to what: The quote: http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras4.php Cumont, Mithras, Zardusht (the page is mostly full of nonsense, tho) http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Mithraism/m_m/pt5.htm About the Zardust-nama: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Zoroaster (or Zartushtnamah): http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02151b.htm All the best, Roger Pearse   Date: 03 Aug 2007 00:46:13 From: Roger Pearse Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On 2 Aug, 17:30, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > On Aug 2, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 2 Aug, 11:48, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > On Aug 2, 4:13 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 1 Aug, 18:16, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 1, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On 1 Aug, 14:17, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > > > I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I > > > > > > > have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an > > > > > > > extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I > > > > > > > cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, > > > > > > > Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. > > > > > > > Unfortunately the relevance of all this is not clear. > > > > > > > If you claim that Freke and Gandy can document the statements made > > > > > > from the ancient literature, then let's see them. > > > > > > > But I think otherwise, being rather familiar with the Mithraic > > > > > > record. > > > > > > > Candidly, I suspect that if you try to pin them down, statement by > > > > > > statement, you may end up somewhat disenchanted with Freke and Gandy. > > > > > > > > The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various > > > > > > > mystery religions is quite apparent.... > > > > > > > (Reiteration snipped) > > > > > > > I think that we all are familiar with the 'dying god' stuff from > > > > > > J.G.Frazier. The difficulty with all these large and loose claims is > > > > > > that they break down in the detail. > > > > > > > > The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is > > > > > > > from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published > > > > > > > in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. > > > > > > > But the question is whether this can be documented from the ancient > > > > > > world, not whether some modern writer asserts it. What ancient source > > > > > > does Godwin offer? If any? > > > > > > The relevance is that many scholars mention the parallels between > > > > > modern Christianity and the msytery religions.... > > > > > This is generalities, tho. Can we see some specifics on Mithras, if > > > > any of these people have any, documented from the ancient sources? > > > > > > You ask what ancient sources do some writers use > > > > > Indeed. People who make claims should back them up, surely? > > > > > > and others would ask what source did evangelists like Luke use ... > > > > > Irrelevant change of subject, tho. > > > > > You did not produce Godwin. Does this mean that you have not in fact > > > > read this book? > > > > No, not an irrelevant change of subject but the topic of this thread. > > > Irrelevant to this post. We're discussing Mithras, remember? It does > > no good to wander off into generalities, surely, when, if we get to > > specifics, we find there is nothing there. > > > > I don't have every book I'v ever read and I don't generally check > > > every reference in an author's bibliography. Do you? > > > Well, actually I *do* if I'm going to put my backside up to be > > kicked! :-) > > > But no, I wasn't pillorying you; I just wondered. > > > The thing that we need to take away from this, tho, is the amount of > > nonsense going around the web along these lines. I really think that > > we should believe nothing unless you have seen the ancient text that > > says so. That doesn't stop us being misled by dishonest editing -- > > selection, omission, etc -- but a lot of this stuff about Mithras is > > based pure and simple on *nothing*. > > > I saw your other posts, but again these are derails. > > Ha! Nope, my backside wasn't up to be kicked. Quoting what scholars > have said on a subject may be seen as taking a scholar's word for > something, but not really offering oneself up to be kicked. You didn't quote any scholars, tho, did you? You just offered some names. > I glanced at your website and kudos to you for the amount of work > you've put into it. Glad to help -- thanks. > I'll try and make time to read more of it later, > but I do notice that you identify yourself as a Christian. Without > saying anything else, that tells one that you would be more inclined > to accept or reject scholarship based on your belief system. That tells me that you are inclined to believe things that you have heard idly asserted without being very critical about them. > For instance, the very same quote I cited as Mithraic in origin is > referenced on that one website and it even lists the same source. But > you simply say that doesn't exist. Sorry, but to which quote and which website do you refer? <confused > > Godwin says otherwise so why should one believe one over the other? Ahem. You don't actually know that Godwin says so, since you haven't read him, tho. But never mind what any modern scholar says; where is the ancient evidence? If someone says that a quote exists, I want to see the ancient reference. (Many of the texts are online complete, so we can check them). > While it seems that no particular pagan mystery religion mirrors the > story of Jesus in total, when one looks at Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, > Attis, etc., all the themes of the Jesus story are there and well before > the time of Jesus. So you keep saying. But it is not in fact so. Remember that we're discussing Mithras. None of the 'themes' you mention are actually there. Nor, indeed, did Mithras exist at that time; the cult was invented early in the first century, according to Clauss. All the best, Roger Pearse   Date: 02 Aug 2007 11:17:32 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 2, 1:39 pm, "I.N. Galidakis" <morph...@olympus.mons > wrote: > cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > ered for its lifting), which > is the only story in which the Supreme Being actually _testified_ for the > validity of the solution (see Luke 9:35 and Mark 9:7, for example). > Well, of course, I know of no one who heard such a voice saying such things. If I were to hear one, I might be inclined to give some credence to it. It would seem that if there is a God and that he wanted us to all believe the same thing, then he would say the same thing to all of us, as opposed to very differnt things that many claim he said, or that he says nothing at all. Which is my experience. > > The belief that Jesus actually "solves" the problem (tangentially, literally, > theologically, philosophically or practically) versus the conviction that there > may even not _be_ a problem, is essentially what separates religious people from > atheists and agnostics, imo. > Good point and I agree. >> > What each one of us does for its lifting and to what extent, is of course highly > personal and depends on the individual. > Agree with that too. C.     Date: 02 Aug 2007 21:35:31 From: I.N. Galidakis Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse clydec@optonline.net wrote: [snip] > It would seem that if there is a God and that he > wanted us to all believe the same thing, then he would say the same > thing to all of us, as opposed to very differnt things that many claim > he said, or that he says nothing at all. Which is my experience. [snip] With all due respect, I don't think you understood what I wrote. We may well have a "problem". Whatever makes you think that "whoever" is behind that problem _desires_ to help you understand or clear your (supposed) confusion about the above issue by "giving" you a consistent message? > C. -- I.N. Galidakis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/   Date: 02 Aug 2007 09:30:45 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 2, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: > On 2 Aug, 11:48, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > On Aug 2, 4:13 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On 1 Aug, 18:16, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 1 Aug, 14:17, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > > I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I > > > > > > have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an > > > > > > extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I > > > > > > cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, > > > > > > Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. > > > > > > Unfortunately the relevance of all this is not clear. > > > > > > If you claim that Freke and Gandy can document the statements made > > > > > from the ancient literature, then let's see them. > > > > > > But I think otherwise, being rather familiar with the Mithraic > > > > > record. > > > > > > Candidly, I suspect that if you try to pin them down, statement by > > > > > statement, you may end up somewhat disenchanted with Freke and Gandy. > > > > > > > The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various > > > > > > mystery religions is quite apparent.... > > > > > > (Reiteration snipped) > > > > > > I think that we all are familiar with the 'dying god' stuff from > > > > > J.G.Frazier. The difficulty with all these large and loose claims is > > > > > that they break down in the detail. > > > > > > > The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is > > > > > > from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published > > > > > > in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. > > > > > > But the question is whether this can be documented from the ancient > > > > > world, not whether some modern writer asserts it. What ancient source > > > > > does Godwin offer? If any? > > > > > The relevance is that many scholars mention the parallels between > > > > modern Christianity and the msytery religions.... > > > > This is generalities, tho. Can we see some specifics on Mithras, if > > > any of these people have any, documented from the ancient sources? > > > > > You ask what ancient sources do some writers use > > > > Indeed. People who make claims should back them up, surely? > > > > > and others would ask what source did evangelists like Luke use ... > > > > Irrelevant change of subject, tho. > > > > You did not produce Godwin. Does this mean that you have not in fact > > > read this book? > > > No, not an irrelevant change of subject but the topic of this thread. > > Irrelevant to this post. We're discussing Mithras, remember? It does > no good to wander off into generalities, surely, when, if we get to > specifics, we find there is nothing there. > > > I don't have every book I'v ever read and I don't generally check > > every reference in an author's bibliography. Do you? > > Well, actually I *do* if I'm going to put my backside up to be > kicked! :-) > > But no, I wasn't pillorying you; I just wondered. > > The thing that we need to take away from this, tho, is the amount of > nonsense going around the web along these lines. I really think that > we should believe nothing unless you have seen the ancient text that > says so. That doesn't stop us being misled by dishonest editing -- > selection, omission, etc -- but a lot of this stuff about Mithras is > based pure and simple on *nothing*. > > I saw your other posts, but again these are derails. > > All the best, > > Roger Pearse Ha! Nope, my backside wasn't up to be kicked. Quoting what scholars have said on a subject may be seen as taking a scholar's word for something, but not really offering oneself up to be kicked. I glanced at your website and kudos to you for the amount of work you've put into it. I'll try and make time to read more of it later, but I do notice that you identify yourself as a Christian. Without saying anything else, that tells one that you would be more inclined to accept or reject scholarship based on your belief system. For instance, the very same quote I cited as Mithraic in origin is referenced on that one website and it even lists the same source. But you simply say that doesn't exist. Godwin says otherwise so why should one believe one over the other? While it seems that no particular pagan mystery religion mirrors the story of Jesus in total, when one looks at Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, Attis, etc., all the themes of the Jesus story are there and well before the time of Jesus. C.     Date: 02 Aug 2007 20:39:15 From: I.N. Galidakis Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse clydec@optonline.net wrote: [snip] [snip] > While it seems that no > particular pagan mystery religion mirrors the story of Jesus in total, > when one looks at Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, Attis, etc., all the > themes of the Jesus story are there and well before the time of > Jesus. That's because the particular "problem" that is addressed by the story of Jesus, naturally predates him. The "problem" is the same. The "solutions" offered have been different. I am also inclined to believe that various (incomplete) attempts have been made to describe the problem by various ethnosocial groups in the past, but none of them succeeded in describing it in full detail, much less offering a viable solution. To the extent that no prior dogma offered a "true" solution (no matter how mystical the elements involved), most are just "precursors" of the story of Jesus, doomed to gradual non-existence. At best, such precursors can be described in the sense of "being concordant themes". You can say that a certain *culmination* came with the Jesus story (the "problem" was made concrete and a solution was offered for its lifting), which is the only story in which the Supreme Being actually _testified_ for the validity of the solution (see Luke 9:35 and Mark 9:7, for example). You could also say that descriptions of that same "problem" have persisted all the way to modern times. The story in the Matrix trilogy for example is nothing more than a more "modern" depiction of the same "problem", with appropriate technological sauce added in for digestive purposes. This problem is not necessarily a "religious" problem. It can be put in a larger philosophical perspective (in The Matrix it is pinpointed as "The problem of Choice" for example), where some force (presumably superior to human consciousness) has put certain limits on our excursions as a species. The belief that Jesus actually "solves" the problem (tangentially, literally, theologically, philosophically or practically) versus the conviction that there may even not _be_ a problem, is essentially what separates religious people from atheists and agnostics, imo. As far as I am concerned, there *is* a problem, and movies such as The Matrix and Dark City basically show that we, as a collective intelligence/consciousness, have finally come to the point where we at least _recognize_ that the problem exists. What each one of us does for its lifting and to what extent, is of course highly personal and depends on the individual. > C. -- I.N. Galidakis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/   Date: 02 Aug 2007 07:59:20 From: Roger Pearse Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On 2 Aug, 11:48, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > On Aug 2, 4:13 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On 1 Aug, 18:16, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On 1 Aug, 14:17, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I > > > > > have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an > > > > > extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I > > > > > cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, > > > > > Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. > > > > > Unfortunately the relevance of all this is not clear. > > > > > If you claim that Freke and Gandy can document the statements made > > > > from the ancient literature, then let's see them. > > > > > But I think otherwise, being rather familiar with the Mithraic > > > > record. > > > > > Candidly, I suspect that if you try to pin them down, statement by > > > > statement, you may end up somewhat disenchanted with Freke and Gandy. > > > > > > The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various > > > > > mystery religions is quite apparent.... > > > > > (Reiteration snipped) > > > > > I think that we all are familiar with the 'dying god' stuff from > > > > J.G.Frazier. The difficulty with all these large and loose claims is > > > > that they break down in the detail. > > > > > > The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is > > > > > from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published > > > > > in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. > > > > > But the question is whether this can be documented from the ancient > > > > world, not whether some modern writer asserts it. What ancient source > > > > does Godwin offer? If any? > > > > The relevance is that many scholars mention the parallels between > > > modern Christianity and the msytery religions.... > > > This is generalities, tho. Can we see some specifics on Mithras, if > > any of these people have any, documented from the ancient sources? > > > > You ask what ancient sources do some writers use > > > Indeed. People who make claims should back them up, surely? > > > > and others would ask what source did evangelists like Luke use ... > > > Irrelevant change of subject, tho. > > > You did not produce Godwin. Does this mean that you have not in fact > > read this book? > > No, not an irrelevant change of subject but the topic of this thread. Irrelevant to this post. We're discussing Mithras, remember? It does no good to wander off into generalities, surely, when, if we get to specifics, we find there is nothing there. > I don't have every book I'v ever read and I don't generally check > every reference in an author's bibliography. Do you? Well, actually I *do* if I'm going to put my backside up to be kicked! :-) But no, I wasn't pillorying you; I just wondered. The thing that we need to take away from this, tho, is the amount of nonsense going around the web along these lines. I really think that we should believe nothing unless you have seen the ancient text that says so. That doesn't stop us being misled by dishonest editing -- selection, omission, etc -- but a lot of this stuff about Mithras is based pure and simple on *nothing*. I saw your other posts, but again these are derails. All the best, Roger Pearse   Date: 02 Aug 2007 06:44:33 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 2, 9:41 am, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > On Aug 2, 6:48 am, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > On Aug 2, 4:13 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On 1 Aug, 18:16, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 1 Aug, 14:17, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > > I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I > > > > > > have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an > > > > > > extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I > > > > > > cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, > > > > > > Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. > > > > > > Unfortunately the relevance of all this is not clear. > > > > > > If you claim that Freke and Gandy can document the statements made > > > > > from the ancient literature, then let's see them. > > > > > > But I think otherwise, being rather familiar with the Mithraic > > > > > record. > > > > > > Candidly, I suspect that if you try to pin them down, statement by > > > > > statement, you may end up somewhat disenchanted with Freke and Gandy. > > > > > > > The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various > > > > > > mystery religions is quite apparent.... > > > > > > (Reiteration snipped) > > > > > > I think that we all are familiar with the 'dying god' stuff from > > > > > J.G.Frazier. The difficulty with all these large and loose claims is > > > > > that they break down in the detail. > > > > > > > The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is > > > > > > from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published > > > > > > in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. > > > > > > But the question is whether this can be documented from the ancient > > > > > world, not whether some modern writer asserts it. What ancient source > > > > > does Godwin offer? If any? > > > > > The relevance is that many scholars mention the parallels between > > > > modern Christianity and the msytery religions.... > > > > This is generalities, tho. Can we see some specifics on Mithras, if > > > any of these people have any, documented from the ancient sources? > > > > > You ask what ancient sources do some writers use > > > > Indeed. People who make claims should back them up, surely? > > > > > and others would ask what source did evangelists like Luke use ... > > > > Irrelevant change of subject, tho. > > > > You did not produce Godwin. Does this mean that you have not in fact > > > read this book? > > > > All the best, > > > > Roger Pearse > > > No, not an irrelevant change of subject but the topic of this thread. > > I don't have every book I'v ever read and I don't generally check > > every reference in an author's bibliography. Do you? > > And BTW, if one Googles "Tertullian, Celsus and diabolical mimicry" > one can read some interesting arguments, some even made to you. > > Ciao. And: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm   Date: 02 Aug 2007 06:41:20 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 2, 6:48 am, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > On Aug 2, 4:13 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 1 Aug, 18:16, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On 1 Aug, 14:17, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I > > > > > have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an > > > > > extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I > > > > > cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, > > > > > Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. > > > > > Unfortunately the relevance of all this is not clear. > > > > > If you claim that Freke and Gandy can document the statements made > > > > from the ancient literature, then let's see them. > > > > > But I think otherwise, being rather familiar with the Mithraic > > > > record. > > > > > Candidly, I suspect that if you try to pin them down, statement by > > > > statement, you may end up somewhat disenchanted with Freke and Gandy. > > > > > > The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various > > > > > mystery religions is quite apparent.... > > > > > (Reiteration snipped) > > > > > I think that we all are familiar with the 'dying god' stuff from > > > > J.G.Frazier. The difficulty with all these large and loose claims is > > > > that they break down in the detail. > > > > > > The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is > > > > > from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published > > > > > in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. > > > > > But the question is whether this can be documented from the ancient > > > > world, not whether some modern writer asserts it. What ancient source > > > > does Godwin offer? If any? > > > > The relevance is that many scholars mention the parallels between > > > modern Christianity and the msytery religions.... > > > This is generalities, tho. Can we see some specifics on Mithras, if > > any of these people have any, documented from the ancient sources? > > > > You ask what ancient sources do some writers use > > > Indeed. People who make claims should back them up, surely? > > > > and others would ask what source did evangelists like Luke use ... > > > Irrelevant change of subject, tho. > > > You did not produce Godwin. Does this mean that you have not in fact > > read this book? > > > All the best, > > > Roger Pearse > > No, not an irrelevant change of subject but the topic of this thread. > I don't have every book I'v ever read and I don't generally check > every reference in an author's bibliography. Do you? And BTW, if one Googles "Tertullian, Celsus and diabolical mimicry" one can read some interesting arguments, some even made to you. Ciao.   Date: 02 Aug 2007 03:48:22 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 2, 4:13 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: > On 1 Aug, 18:16, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 1 Aug, 14:17, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I > > > > have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an > > > > extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I > > > > cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, > > > > Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. > > > > Unfortunately the relevance of all this is not clear. > > > > If you claim that Freke and Gandy can document the statements made > > > from the ancient literature, then let's see them. > > > > But I think otherwise, being rather familiar with the Mithraic > > > record. > > > > Candidly, I suspect that if you try to pin them down, statement by > > > statement, you may end up somewhat disenchanted with Freke and Gandy. > > > > > The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various > > > > mystery religions is quite apparent.... > > > > (Reiteration snipped) > > > > I think that we all are familiar with the 'dying god' stuff from > > > J.G.Frazier. The difficulty with all these large and loose claims is > > > that they break down in the detail. > > > > > The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is > > > > from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published > > > > in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. > > > > But the question is whether this can be documented from the ancient > > > world, not whether some modern writer asserts it. What ancient source > > > does Godwin offer? If any? > > > The relevance is that many scholars mention the parallels between > > modern Christianity and the msytery religions.... > > This is generalities, tho. Can we see some specifics on Mithras, if > any of these people have any, documented from the ancient sources? > > > You ask what ancient sources do some writers use > > Indeed. People who make claims should back them up, surely? > > > and others would ask what source did evangelists like Luke use ... > > Irrelevant change of subject, tho. > > You did not produce Godwin. Does this mean that you have not in fact > read this book? > > All the best, > > Roger Pearse No, not an irrelevant change of subject but the topic of this thread. I don't have every book I'v ever read and I don't generally check every reference in an author's bibliography. Do you?   Date: 02 Aug 2007 01:13:09 From: Roger Pearse Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On 1 Aug, 18:16, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > On Aug 1, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > On 1 Aug, 14:17, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I > > > have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an > > > extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I > > > cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, > > > Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. > > > Unfortunately the relevance of all this is not clear. > > > If you claim that Freke and Gandy can document the statements made > > from the ancient literature, then let's see them. > > > But I think otherwise, being rather familiar with the Mithraic > > record. > > > Candidly, I suspect that if you try to pin them down, statement by > > statement, you may end up somewhat disenchanted with Freke and Gandy. > > > > The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various > > > mystery religions is quite apparent.... > > > (Reiteration snipped) > > > I think that we all are familiar with the 'dying god' stuff from > > J.G.Frazier. The difficulty with all these large and loose claims is > > that they break down in the detail. > > > > The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is > > > from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published > > > in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. > > > But the question is whether this can be documented from the ancient > > world, not whether some modern writer asserts it. What ancient source > > does Godwin offer? If any? > > The relevance is that many scholars mention the parallels between > modern Christianity and the msytery religions.... This is generalities, tho. Can we see some specifics on Mithras, if any of these people have any, documented from the ancient sources? > You ask what ancient sources do some writers use Indeed. People who make claims should back them up, surely? > and others would ask what source did evangelists like Luke use ... Irrelevant change of subject, tho. You did not produce Godwin. Does this mean that you have not in fact read this book? All the best, Roger Pearse     Date: 03 Aug 2007 18:32:56 From: althea Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse Roger Pearse wrote: > On 1 Aug, 18:16, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > >>On Aug 1, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>On 1 Aug, 14:17, cly...@optonline.net wrote: >> >>>>On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>>>On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: >> >>>>I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I >>>>have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an >>>>extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I >>>>cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, >>>>Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. >> >>>Unfortunately the relevance of all this is not clear. >> >>>If you claim that Freke and Gandy can document the statements made >>>from the ancient literature, then let's see them. >> >>>But I think otherwise, being rather familiar with the Mithraic >>>record. >> >>>Candidly, I suspect that if you try to pin them down, statement by >>>statement, you may end up somewhat disenchanted with Freke and Gandy. >> >>>>The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various >>>>mystery religions is quite apparent.... >> >>>(Reiteration snipped) >> >>>I think that we all are familiar with the 'dying god' stuff from >>>J.G.Frazier. The difficulty with all these large and loose claims is >>>that they break down in the detail. >> >>>>The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is >>>>from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published >>>>in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. >> >>>But the question is whether this can be documented from the ancient >>>world, not whether some modern writer asserts it. What ancient source >>>does Godwin offer? If any? >> >>The relevance is that many scholars mention the parallels between >>modern Christianity and the msytery religions.... > > > This is generalities, tho. Can we see some specifics on Mithras, if > any of these people have any, documented from the ancient sources? > > >>You ask what ancient sources do some writers use > > > Indeed. People who make claims should back them up, surely? > > >>and others would ask what source did evangelists like Luke use ... > > > Irrelevant change of subject, tho. > > You did not produce Godwin. Does this mean that you have not in fact > read this book? > > All the best, > > Roger Pearse > == >Whatever the model or the source, it is certain that no "resurrection" story was present in the original ("MARK") Gospel. Just an empty tomb and some scared women advised to go find him in Galilee. Even the much later story in John can bee seen as a story about someone who simply recovered from a coma. -- L. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 01 Aug 2007 19:46:23 From: Father Haskell Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 23, 6:58 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th <Klaz...@llurdiaxorb.govt > wrote: > eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote in news:46a4a6ac.15392072 > @news.uunet.co.za: > > > > > Scott Miller <jsfmil...@netzero.net> wrote: > > >>Klaudio Zic wrote: > >>> Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We > >>> slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the > >>> scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion > >>> time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of > >>> the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology > > >>Small problem - there were no solar eclipses visible from Palestine in > >>the years surrounding the death of Jesus. > > > We have no clue when the crucifiction took place. However Fred > > Espenak has data for an eclipse that would have been near total in > > Jerusalem in the year 29. > > Now explain how a solar eclipse occurs at the time of the passover (full > moon). There's more goofs in the bible than in an Ed Wood movie.   Date: 01 Aug 2007 10:16:06 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 1, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: > On 1 Aug, 14:17, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I > > have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an > > extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I > > cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, > > Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. > > Unfortunately the relevance of all this is not clear. > > If you claim that Freke and Gandy can document the statements made > from the ancient literature, then let's see them. > > But I think otherwise, being rather familiar with the Mithraic > record. > > Candidly, I suspect that if you try to pin them down, statement by > statement, you may end up somewhat disenchanted with Freke and Gandy. > > > The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various > > mystery religions is quite apparent.... > > (Reiteration snipped) > > I think that we all are familiar with the 'dying god' stuff from > J.G.Frazier. The difficulty with all these large and loose claims is > that they break down in the detail. > > > The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is > > from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published > > in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. > > But the question is whether this can be documented from the ancient > world, not whether some modern writer asserts it. What ancient source > does Godwin offer? If any? > > All the best, > > Roger Pearse The relevance is that many scholars mention the parallels between modern Christianity and the msytery religions. So that carries some weight with me. If it doesn't with you, okay. I can see that this can lead nowhere however, as one can always fall back on skepticism of ancient sources. Which is not a bad thing. Skepticism is good. You ask what ancient sources do some writers use and others would ask what source did evangelists like Luke use when making the claim that the Veil of the Temple was torn in two (when there's no Jewish record of such a monumental event), or what is Matthew's source when he claims that dead people got out of their graves and walked around? And when Paul says that woman was created for man, that slaves should obey their masters in everything, or that if anyone preaches a gospel contrary to his, they should be cursed, what authority does he cite? God? Well, if God tells me those things, I might have more of a tendency to believe, otherwise, I'd just have to take Luke, Matthew and Paul's word for it. And I remain skeptical. C.     Date: 02 Aug 2007 13:10:39 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 2, 3:44 pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...@127.0.0.7 > wrote: > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:52:22 -0700, in alt.astrology, > > > > cly...@optonline.net wrote: > >On Aug 2, 2:35 pm, "I.N. Galidakis" <morph...@olympus.mons> wrote: > >> cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > >> [snip] > > >> > It would seem that if there is a God and that he > >> > wanted us to all believe the same thing, then he would say the same > >> > thing to all of us, as opposed to very differnt things that many claim > >> > he said, or that he says nothing at all. Which is my experience. > > >> [snip] > > >> With all due respect, I don't think you understood what I wrote. > > >> We may well have a "problem". Whatever makes you think that "whoever" is behind > >> that problem _desires_ to help you understand or clear your (supposed) confusion > >> about the above issue by "giving" you a consistent message? > > >> > C. > > >> -- > >> I.N. Galidakis ---http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/ > > >Okay, I may well have misunderstood. So clear it up for me. If one > >quotes Luke and Matthew, I would think one gives some crediblity to > >their words. As far as anyone being behind human affairs, no, I don't > >believe that. And I'm not confused about that! > > Citing Luke and Matthew is hearsay. Especially when there is serious > doubt about who and when the accounts of Matthew and Luke were > written. > > No argument from me on this. C.   Date: 01 Aug 2007 07:59:45 From: Roger Pearse Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On 1 Aug, 14:17, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I > have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an > extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I > cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, > Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. Unfortunately the relevance of all this is not clear. If you claim that Freke and Gandy can document the statements made from the ancient literature, then let's see them. But I think otherwise, being rather familiar with the Mithraic record. Candidly, I suspect that if you try to pin them down, statement by statement, you may end up somewhat disenchanted with Freke and Gandy. > The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various > mystery religions is quite apparent.... (Reiteration snipped) I think that we all are familiar with the 'dying god' stuff from J.G.Frazier. The difficulty with all these large and loose claims is that they break down in the detail. > The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is > from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published > in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. But the question is whether this can be documented from the ancient world, not whether some modern writer asserts it. What ancient source does Godwin offer? If any? All the best, Roger Pearse   Date: 01 Aug 2007 06:17:00 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: > On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various mystery religions is quite apparent, from the dying/rising God-man theme to substitutionary atonement. The msytery religions whether the God/man was Mithras, Attis, Dionysus or Adonis all have striking parallels in modern Christian doctrine. In his "Study of History" Arnold Toynbee writes: "Behind the figure of the dying demigod there looms the greater figure of a very God that dies for different worlds under diverse names: for a Minoan world as Dionysus, for a Sumeric world as Tammuz, for a Hittite world as Attis, for a Syriac world as Adonis, for a Christian world as Christ. Who is this God of many epiphanies but only one passion?" The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. C.   Date: 01 Aug 2007 02:20:53 From: Roger Pearse Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > Paul's ideas very, very closely mirror theological > tenets taken from other savior, god-man cults that pre-date > Christianity and that were popular at the time. This claim needs to be documented, not merely asserted. It is actually false. Ancient paganism did not work like this. I suspect that you have been reading material derived from Kersey Graves, "16 crucified saviors". This elderly book is one of the few that Internet Infidels put a health warning on, because its facts are basically rubbish. > For instance, Mithraswas called The Light of the World, No, this is not correct. No ancient text or inscription gives him this title. He *was* sometimes called deus sol invictus -- the unconquered sun god -- as indeed was Apollo. > had 12 disciples, No. Nowhere is he recorded as having disciples. Inscriptions do sometimes show him with two supporters dressed in shepherd's gear -- more sophisticated versions of this story thus try and link this to Jesus. > was born on Dec. 25th, No. Mithras was not associated with any specific date. This is confusion by the author of the story with Sol Invictus, the late Roman state sun god. > was nailed to a tree No. The characteristic motif of Mithras is slaying the bull (see the photograph at the bottom of the link I give below). > and resurrected three days later No. He was a deity. How could he die? > for the sins of the world Whoever manufactured this didn't try very hard to conceal what he was doing here, did he? Needless to say no such idea is found in the texts. > and his death and resurrection was celebrated by his followers No. This too is invention. Note, by the way, the lack of references to all this. > in a ritual of wine and bread. Most ancient cults seem to have had ritual meals and ritual washings of one kind or another. This is a natural human thing to do and so is not evidence of any form of connection or derivation. There were seven different Mithraic ritual meals, or so we infer from the mosaic in the Mithraeum in Ostia. No one of them is bread and wine. One is bread and water, however, and this is also referenced in the texts. > This quote > is attributed toMithras: "He who will not eat of my body and drink > of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the > same shall not know salvation." No such words are recorded in any ancient text associated with Mithras, tho. All the ancient literary references to Mithras, however slight, are here: http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras It's not much, is it? And it certainly doesn't back up the story above. You know, I think we all need to be much more sceptical about things that seem convenient. Can't you just *feel* that this is a gross lie, manufactured by someone out of malice? A good standard undergraduate text on Mithras is Manfred Clauss, "The Roman cult of Mithras". All the best, Roger Pearse     Date: 03 Aug 2007 06:39:44 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 3, 9:02 am, "I.N. Galidakis" <morph...@olympus.mons > wrote: > cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > [snip] > > > Thanks for the link. > > You are welcome. > > > I scanned it quickly but will read it more > > carefully later as I want to go catch the GRS on Jupiter. I do > > remember a bit about the Evil Genius from a class when I was a college > > sophomore, but that was 30 years ago. But I can see why you mention > > The Matrix. If Neo is the Jesus/Savior figure and the gent he meets > > in the control room (I forget his name), is the Evil Genius, do you > > see Morpheus as the Logos? > > I think that Morpheus is an allegory for John the Baptist. He is the one who > believes in The Prophecy of The One, similar to how the Baptist was the one who > believed in The Prophecy of The Messiah. > > He (Morpheus) is also responsible for Neo's "baptism" (Neo taking the Red Pill), > similar to how the Baptist baptized Jesus. The ancient rite of "baptism" was > more or less a ceremonial procedure where the person to be initiated went > through "the mysteries" of religion, by using various rogue substances. In that > sense, taking the Red Pill, was _exactly_ akin to the mystery of a "metaphysical > baptism", an introduction to the mysteries of "the afterlife" and facing The > Truth. The "rogue substance" is the Red Pill, which forces a major alteration of > the initiate's reality. > > > Or do you combine the Logos with the One > > as the author of John's gospel does? > > I think that The Logos is always one step ahead of all stories (as well as ahead > of every one of us), as it is of transcendent nature. In the Matrix scenario one > can say that The Logos was that force which made the movie possible. He was "the > information carrier" of the movie: Something like the motivating force behind > the actual making of The Matrix allegory as a movie. Although The Logos > continuously inspires the creation of multiple copies of the central scenario, > He is not caught _inside_ any single such scenario. In a sense, as soon as > somebody or something tries to "describe" The Logos, The Logos escapes that > description. > > He is symbolically portrayed as "The Dragon (of Wisdom) who always escapes from > himself and from everyone", for example in M.C. Escher's lithograph "Dragon", > where although the drawing is 2D, the dragon manages to alter its own 2D nature > by becoming 3D and "escapes" even from his own description. > > He is also the Gnostic Serpent (of Wisdom), who helps Adam and Eve acquire true > wisdom by telling them to try The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. As a > result, Adam and Eve see The Truth of who God is and are scared out of their > living daylights. > > The only scenario where The Logos seems to actually be participating in > explicitly is the Jesus story, where He incarnates as the VERBUM of GOD, at > least according to John 1:1, for example: "In the beginning was the WORD and the > WORD was with God and the WORD WAS God...", and in John 1:14: "The WORD became > flesh and made his dwelling among us..." etc. > > Note that the "miracles" that Jesus performs, are similar and in accordance to > the "miracles" Neo performs while enlightened. Neo "flies" ala Superman style, > Jesus commands the storm. In both cases we have a human who is able to alter > nature's fundamental laws. There is one crucial difference however: Neo does all > that _inside_ the matrix, while Jesus performs his acts inside reality itself. > Hoho! I dare not think about the level of self-realiation of someone who can > command reality itself. > > In that sense, I think that Jesus was the only human ever who was completely > "posessed" if you will by The Logos. All the other scenarios are simply > "isomorphic" copies of the same story: The One, (whoever the occasion calls him > to be) gradually becoming self-aware. The Logos in my opinion is the eternal > existence of this very information in our universe: The potential for > self-realization. _That_ which occasionaly manifests and keeps reminding us of > our predicament. > > However, there is a crucial difference between all "The Ones" and The Logos: > Although all The Ones gradually become self-aware (by assimilating The Logos > partially), nobody manages to become Jesus. Jesus is the pinnacle of all the > scenarios. He is the "culmination" I spoke of elsewhere and the one who actually > "solves the problem", because he is the one who manages to take the infinite > wrath of The Demiurge on His shoulders, so that humans can be spared that wrath > if they believe in Him. > > And if you really think about it, even from an atheist or agnostic perspective > (which I understand and respect as much as the gnostic perspective) only a force > of such magnitude could manage to alter the flow of time and history on this > planet. His influence extends all the way to the most remote places of > existence: An atheist or agnostic still counts his age and times relative to the > birth of Jesus, and although this may seem like a minor point, to me it shows > clearly the extent of Jesus' influence. > > > Interesting that Neo doesn't > > believe he is the One which sort of parallels the Synoptics where > > Jesus makes no Messianic claims, again in contrast to John where he > > is a totally self aware Messiah. > > That's right. In view of the Synoptics and John we have two different versions > of Jesus, one as completely self-realized and three where he does not make any > serious Messianic claims. It is possible that John the Evangelist is taken > completely by the Baptist's prophecy and makes an explicit identification > according to his own understanding of the issue. > > > I was just struck by remembering > > something that Paul said which went something along the lines that he > > doesn't do the good which he wants, but the bad that he doesn't want. > > Perhaps another manifestation of the Evil Genius? > > Exactly. Paul seems to have understood who the Demiurge was, that's why he > writes in 2 Corinthians 5:11: "Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, > we try to persuade men.". Paul's admission of this fear is not something borne > out of excess devotion. It is his true understanding of the Demiurge and the > Absolute Terror he can inspire. Revelation 15:4: "Who will not fear you, O Lord, > and bring glory to your name?". > > > Later, > > C. > Thanks for the thoughtful post. Many similarities in the operas of Wagner to this all as well, not to mention Tolkien. Back to work for me now! C.       Date: 03 Aug 2007 18:08:44 From: I.N. Galidakis Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse clydec@optonline.net wrote: [snip] > Thanks for the thoughtful post. Thank you, sir, for an interesting discussion. [snip] > C. -- I.N. Galidakis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/   Date: 27 Jul 2007 11:46:43 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 27, 2:33 pm, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > On Jul 27, 2:17 pm, "Chris.B" <chri...@mail.dk> wrote: > > > > > I warm myself with the thought that if all the books on Earth were > > destroyed by spontaneous combustion: > > And if all human memory was somehow purged in a moment by a viral > > pandemic: > > Science would wait patiently to be rediscovered with remarkably little > > change from our present accepted model. > > Fantasy and other religious beliefs would die in the flames. Never to > > be rediscovered. > > Freed of the corrupting power of superstition and organised fear of > > the supernatural the human race would finally make great strides > > towards the stars. > > We have lost thousands of years to the fear, corruption and bigotry of > > organised religion and their afterlife insurance salesmen. > > How much longer before we stop cowering before stone age idols and > > stand tall in our own universe? > > While you sit with bowed heads before a moralizing priest another is > > raping your children's minds and bodies. > > Your collections and gifts go towards a property empire which other > > pyramid sales scams can only dream of. > > Let their clever blasphemy get-out clause be the worm which brings > > their whole corrupt system crashing down. > > Step out from under the endless darkness of religious belief and its > > deluded prophets and present-day conmen. > > Embrace reality, freedom of thought and the brilliant sunshine which > > they stole from you so very, very long ago. > > Let their own personal greed and power over your mind and creativity > > be their epitaph as they crumble into the dusts of time. > > You will die. That is a certainty. One which cannot be avoided > > regardless of belief or personal wealth. > > How much room do you think their glossy heaven has for an exploding > > world population? > > Do you expect eternal life for your cat or dog or child's hamster or > > goldfish? > > Then why do you set higher demands for the end of your own brief > > existence on this infinitely tiny speck in the universe? > > Get a life! The one you have now is all you have and is quite short > > enough already. > > Don't waste it on the small print of religious mumbo-jumbo and their > > afterlife insurance policies! > > The subscriptions are far more than you can ever afford. > > Hey, pretty good prose! > > C. p.s. BTW, though I do agree with much of what you wrote, I don't think that all religious people and/or leaders are motivated by selfish ends. I do think that religion has added much good to the human condition. If one were only to remove the great sacred works of Bach, for instance, the world would be poorer because of it. Not that I'm a fan of organized religion, but it's not that cut and dried a question for me. I do admit that if I were pressed whether to say I felt organized religion had been a net negative or a net positive for humanity, I do think I would come down on the side of a net negative. C.     Date: 27 Jul 2007 22:41:37 From: I.N. Galidakis Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse clydec@optonline.net wrote: [snip] > If one were only to remove the great sacred works of > Bach, for instance, the world would be poorer because of it. HeHe! Whether we like it or not Bach will always remain the most valuable testimony for Christianity. He is just about the only rational virtual proof for Christianity's validity (in an ideal form and detached from denominations perhaps). That's why he's been called "The 14-th disciple" (after Matthias, the 13-th who replaced Judas Iscariot). "Bach almost persuades me to be a Christian" -- Roger Fry [snip] > C. -- I.N. Galidakis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/   Date: 27 Jul 2007 11:33:40 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 27, 2:17 pm, "Chris.B" <chri...@mail.dk > wrote: > I warm myself with the thought that if all the books on Earth were > destroyed by spontaneous combustion: > And if all human memory was somehow purged in a moment by a viral > pandemic: > Science would wait patiently to be rediscovered with remarkably little > change from our present accepted model. > Fantasy and other religious beliefs would die in the flames. Never to > be rediscovered. > Freed of the corrupting power of superstition and organised fear of > the supernatural the human race would finally make great strides > towards the stars. > We have lost thousands of years to the fear, corruption and bigotry of > organised religion and their afterlife insurance salesmen. > How much longer before we stop cowering before stone age idols and > stand tall in our own universe? > While you sit with bowed heads before a moralizing priest another is > raping your children's minds and bodies. > Your collections and gifts go towards a property empire which other > pyramid sales scams can only dream of. > Let their clever blasphemy get-out clause be the worm which brings > their whole corrupt system crashing down. > Step out from under the endless darkness of religious belief and its > deluded prophets and present-day conmen. > Embrace reality, freedom of thought and the brilliant sunshine which > they stole from you so very, very long ago. > Let their own personal greed and power over your mind and creativity > be their epitaph as they crumble into the dusts of time. > You will die. That is a certainty. One which cannot be avoided > regardless of belief or personal wealth. > How much room do you think their glossy heaven has for an exploding > world population? > Do you expect eternal life for your cat or dog or child's hamster or > goldfish? > Then why do you set higher demands for the end of your own brief > existence on this infinitely tiny speck in the universe? > Get a life! The one you have now is all you have and is quite short > enough already. > Don't waste it on the small print of religious mumbo-jumbo and their > afterlife insurance policies! > The subscriptions are far more than you can ever afford. Hey, pretty good prose! C.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 11:17:42 From: Chris.B Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse I warm myself with the thought that if all the books on Earth were destroyed by spontaneous combustion: And if all human memory was somehow purged in a moment by a viral pandemic: Science would wait patiently to be rediscovered with remarkably little change from our present accepted model. Fantasy and other religious beliefs would die in the flames. Never to be rediscovered. Freed of the corrupting power of superstition and organised fear of the supernatural the human race would finally make great strides towards the stars. We have lost thousands of years to the fear, corruption and bigotry of organised religion and their afterlife insurance salesmen. How much longer before we stop cowering before stone age idols and stand tall in our own universe? While you sit with bowed heads before a moralizing priest another is raping your children's minds and bodies. Your collections and gifts go towards a property empire which other pyramid sales scams can only dream of. Let their clever blasphemy get-out clause be the worm which brings their whole corrupt system crashing down. Step out from under the endless darkness of religious belief and its deluded prophets and present-day conmen. Embrace reality, freedom of thought and the brilliant sunshine which they stole from you so very, very long ago. Let their own personal greed and power over your mind and creativity be their epitaph as they crumble into the dusts of time. You will die. That is a certainty. One which cannot be avoided regardless of belief or personal wealth. How much room do you think their glossy heaven has for an exploding world population? Do you expect eternal life for your cat or dog or child's hamster or goldfish? Then why do you set higher demands for the end of your own brief existence on this infinitely tiny speck in the universe? Get a life! The one you have now is all you have and is quite short enough already. Don't waste it on the small print of religious mumbo-jumbo and their afterlife insurance policies! The subscriptions are far more than you can ever afford.     Date: 28 Jul 2007 07:33:21 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:17:42 -0700, "Chris.B" <chris.b@mail.dk > spoke thusly: >I warm myself with the thought that if all the books on Earth were >destroyed by spontaneous combustion: >And if all human memory was somehow purged in a moment by a viral >pandemic: >Science would wait patiently to be rediscovered with remarkably little >change from our present accepted model. >Fantasy and other religious beliefs would die in the flames. Never to >be rediscovered. You thought your fantasy based on atheist bias was somehow an intelligent response? -- Pastor Dave When making liars happy in their word games takes precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned. -unknown Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith. God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest part of the water. The world says that seeing is believing. The Bible says that believing is seeing. Doctrine is not Scripture.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 10:41:13 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 27, 10:22 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:30:18 -0500, Night Owl > <night-...@swbell.net> spoke thusly: > > >>Given the fact that these same people accept, for example, > >>some Caesars' existence, when we have nothing but a single > >>piece of text, centuries after his lifetime and yet, deny the > >>existence of Christ, > > >[..] > > >But not many people demand that we accept Caesar as being God, > > >Like the man said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > > The fact is, that Caesar claimed to be "God above all gods". > Why not that statement for those some Caesars I mentioned? > Certainly Julius didn't make this demand. I'm not sure about Tiberius. From remembering my history, I believe it was Augustus that the Senate first deified, but I don't recall him making any demands. I could be wrong about that certainly. As far as those that DID demand to be worshipped, like Caligula and Nero, well they were seen as madmen both then and now. I don't think too many men took their deification seriously seeing how Caligula was murdered and how many attempts at the lives on various Caesars were made. I doubt men thought you could kill God by running him through with a sword.   Date: 27 Jul 2007 09:52:58 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 27, 10:26 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:30:18 -0500, Night Owl > <night-...@swbell.net> spoke thusly: > > >>Given the fact that these same people accept, for example, > >>some Caesars' existence, when we have nothing but a single > >>piece of text, centuries after his lifetime and yet, deny the > >>existence of Christ, > > >[..] > > >If Caesar didn't exist then we have some faulty history to deal with. > > But you don't question it, even though there is very little > in the way of evidence, which is actually pretty shoddy > and btw, Caesar did demand that people worship him > as "God above all gods", or they would die. Now what? > > -- > You know, you're really not doing yourself any good with such weak arguments which only betray how little you grasp regarding historical methodology. So what do we have for Caesar? We have coins that can be dated to the time when ALL Caesars ruled, some even have the ruler (Tiberius, for instance), age in different mintings. We have works written by different Caesars. There are statues depicting different Caesar's that can be accuarately dated to correspond with that ruler's reign. Most importantly, there are written accounts by contemporary biographers that have no religious angle or axe to grind. And there are more than a few which mention the same events, battles, etc. What do we have for Jesus? We have no written works from him. We have no images of him, which is not surprising. But what is surprising is that we have NO mention of him by contemporary historians either Jewish or otherwise of Jesus during the time frame when he is said to have lived. This was after all, a very literate period in human history. Here's just a very few of the writers who lived and wrote within a century of the time frame given for Jesus: Pliny the Elder, Martial, Seneca, Plutarch,Ptolemy, Valerius Maximus and Lucanus. Those are just ones I remember off the top of my head. Not one of them mentions Jesus. More damaging IMO, is the complete silence by Jewish historians. Philo's dates correspond with those given for Jesus and about 50 of his works still survive. His works deal with history, philosophy and religion and even tell us much about Pontius Pilate, but again, make no mention of Jesus at all. Justus of Tiberias was a contemporary of Philo's and even wrote a Jewish history beginning with Moses and extending to his own time, but does not mention Jesus. Yes, I know the evidence given from Josephus' writings, but also know that by far the prevailing view of scholars is that this was added text. When one considers that the first time this text was ever mentioned in history was at the beginning of the fourth century and further, that is the propaganda minister of the Church, Bishop Eusebius, that "discovered" it, that speaks quite loudly. So to try and make the claim that there is no more evidence for Caesar's existence( ANY Caesar), than there is for Jesus is simply uninformed. C.   Date: 25 Jul 2007 16:57:03 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 25, 6:30 pm, Night Owl <night-...@swbell.net > wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:12:31 -0400, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> > wrote the following in sci.astro.amateur: > > > > > > [..] > > But not many people demand that we accept Caesar as being God, that we > worship him blindly, that we believe that he was raised from the dead > and performed miracles, etc. You took the words right out of my mouth. I was raised a fundamentalist Baptist. I know a couple of you are saying "that explains a lot" and you're right, of course. It does. Still, even in 9th or 10th grade, several things really struck me that led to my questioning and eventually rejecting fundamentalist Christianity. First, I was taught very forcibly that Jesus was the only way to salvation and anyone who believed differently was going to Hell. It struck me that I happened to be born into a family with a very strong father and it was easy to believe what he taught us and how fortunate that what he taught just happened to be the only doctrine that would save me from hell. I remember the first time I thought about a little Jewish boy or Hindu boy who loved his father just as much as I did mine, and who believed just as fervently the religious doctrine he was taught. I couldn't square such unfairness as any part of God's plan. I couldn't believe that God would require so many little boys to reject their father, their culture, their way of life totally to escape damnation. Telling my father I no longer believed as I did when I was a teenager was the hardest thing I've ever done. Things have never been the same between us. I can't accept that's God's plan. Give us all the same evidence. The sky is blue beyond all doubt becuase no matter if you're Jew, Muslim, Christian, male, female, at the poles or at the Equator, the sky is blue for everyone on earth that has color vision. Why shouldn't such a concept as salvation be as obvious? C.   Date: 25 Jul 2007 09:32:32 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 25, 10:29 am, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 24, 7:56 pm, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > Uh, no, the written text is a claim, not evidence. You do understand > > that, right? If I say I have a dog that can talk and even write that > > down, that's a claim, that's not evidence. > > In that case, there is no written evidence for any ancient event; > there are only claims. > > The fact is, eyewitness accounts are evidence. The value of that > account may vary widely depending on who is giving the account, and of > course how many different, independent, accounts there are (and other > factors like how well the accounts agree), but they are evidence. > > Austin Sure eyewitness accounts are evidence. But there's certainly no reason to believe that the account of the sun darkening was an eyewitness account. Africanus lived over a century after the fact, so do you think that was an eyewitness? Do you think Luke was there at the crucifixion? He never claims to be an eyewitness, in fact says he wasn't in the opening of the book. C.   Date: 25 Jul 2007 07:29:54 From: AustinMN Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 24, 7:56 pm, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > Uh, no, the written text is a claim, not evidence. You do understand > that, right? If I say I have a dog that can talk and even write that > down, that's a claim, that's not evidence. In that case, there is no written evidence for any ancient event; there are only claims. The fact is, eyewitness accounts are evidence. The value of that account may vary widely depending on who is giving the account, and of course how many different, independent, accounts there are (and other factors like how well the accounts agree), but they are evidence. Austin   Date: 25 Jul 2007 02:54:10 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 24, 10:52 pm, starburst <n...@nospam.net > wrote: > > There's been a HUGE output of recent scholarship on James and the > > early church lately. I would suggest you go to the religion section > > of the nearest Barnes and Noble or the like and check it out. If you > > think that the only evidence comes from Acts, you'll be surprised. > > You should start with the book "Just James" by Geoffrey Butz. > > I would if he had written it ;) John Painter wrote _Just James_, and > while he has decent historical chops his focus is on theology more than > history. There are snippets of sources from the first century outside of > the New Testament, but they are extremely limited, and by nature > demand a high degree of interpretation. Moreover, we have no way of > knowing, outside of the NT, the context of their production. Who exactly > wrote that Paul spewed lies, and why did he write it? Who knows? It's > like trying to piece together the personality of a person who wrote a > grocery list when the only parts that survive are: "oran___ ap__ h__ > p___m." We can cautiously assume from the list that the person bought > oranges, but we don't know if he liked them or bought them for someone else. > > > My mistake about the title, though the Butz book has a similar title as the Painter. There's an umlaut over the "u" in Butz's name, my computer just doesn't want to do it. At any rate, many of the conclusions of the two authors are the same and they use the same evidence to arrive there. C.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 18:58:14 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 24, 9:03 pm, "Rico" <hoga...@bigpond.net.au.au > wrote: > <cly...@optonline.net> wrote in message > > news:1185228876.025143.323500@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jul 23, 9:25 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic > >> <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: > > >> >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We > >> >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the > >> >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion > >> >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of > >> >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology > > >> Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that > >> the Sun was darkened. There's a difference. > >> There was a Full Moon at the Passover, which > >> means that there couldn't have been an eclipse > >> and it was therefore, a supernatural event, > >> which furthermore, was seen and shaking felt, > >> all over the empire, with some destruction. > > >> -- > > > Pastor Dave, > > > So you believe that the sun was darkened for 3 hours even though > > there's no other record of this in history or even the other gospels? > > > Izar > > If God can part the Red Sea (sometimes called the sea of reeds), keep the > sun in the sky while Moses prayed for victory in battle, can cause 3 barren > women to become pregnant (Sarah, Hannah, Elizabeth the cousin of Mary) and > cause a girl who can't possibly get pregnant (as she was a virgin), then > surely He can blot the sun out for 3 hours in one specific region of the > world, besides which when there is an eclipse the sun is only covered > completely for a few minutes Yeah, if is quite a big word isn't it? If God can do all that, one would assume that he could also see to it that over 10,000 infants don't starve to death every DAY in the world. Or maybe he could at least warn thousands of helpless people when a tsunami was bearing down on them. I mean, how hard could that be? The text quoted often quoted in Isaiah is a mistranslation. In Hebrew it reads " a young woman is with child", not "a virgin shall conceive". Both the tense is wrong as well as the word translated as virgin. The word used is "almah" which means young woman. Betulah is the word that means virgin and it is not used. You can seek out a rabbi if you're skeptical. I was skeptical once and that's exactly what I did. The gospel author quoting Isaiah was using a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible known as the Septuagint. Besides, Isaiah was talking with King Azah in this encounter and the King wanted a sign that his current military campaign would be successful. Why would Isaiah talk about a child that would be born hundreds of years in the future?   Date: 24 Jul 2007 18:07:29 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 24, 8:06 pm, starburst <n...@nospam.net > wrote: > > Chris, > > > Well, sadly, a lot of stories have enough currency that folks are > > willing to die for them. There are folks who will blow themselves and > > others up today because they think God will bless them for it. > > Well, I don't know if there are that many people willing to toss away > everything on the basis of an impressive story. There are really very > few people who are that nutty. > > > > > As for the early Church, it certainly wasn't "Christian" as we know > > the word today. > > Depends on what you call the early church. We don't know what the very > earliest practitioners, Jesus' assumed disciples, were doing, aside from > the evidence of Paul and his associate Luke. As you say, he had his own > ideas. But the only evidence that I can think of about what they were > doing comes from Acts, and that's not exactly unbiased. That being said, > the earliest evidence describes the idea of a communal meal with > overtones of cannibalism. That sounds awfully like modern Christianity, > at least as practiced by Anglicans, Lutherans and Catholics. > > What's come down to us as Christianity is really > > > Paul's interpretation of Jesus, which the Jews of his day rejected and > > still reject today and for the same reason. Paul claimed that Jesus' > > death did away with the Law, which the Jews believe God them as the > > means of reconcilliation with him forever and can never be abrogated. > > Even Jesus himself said this. > > Assuming that he actually said it, of course. But by the same token, he > was oddly eccumenical in his treatment of Samaritans and others. And he > did make some odd comments about the nature of the law and how it could > be practiced. Hell of a message, considering the context. > > The first "Christians" were headed by > > > James, the brother of Jesus, along with Peter in Jerusalem. They were > > Jews through and through and did not believe that Jesus was in any way > > divine or that his death was any sort of substitutionary atonement for > > sin. > > You do not know this. > > They worshipped in the temple as Jews and kept all the festivals > > > and holidays including the Day of Atonement. They thought he was the > > Messiah, but that's a Jewish concept and merely means the man chosen > > by God to bring about the conclusion of Judaism, i.e., The End of > > Days. This was "the Kingdom of God" that Jesus often talked about, > > NOT the bloodbath depicted in Revelation. > > Again, this is your interpretation, based on your notions of how people > ought to act in a situation that you are envisioning. It is a pretty > picture, but massively conjectural. And your interpretation of what a > Messiah ought to do according the the Hebrew tradition differs markedly > from the views of the Zealots and Maccabees. > > The Jewish concept of a > > > time of world peace as the end of days rather than a time where the > > majority of world's population will be slaughtered by God seems a > > little more God-like! (Though I don't believe in any God concept, as > > an aside). > > To you, obviously, and maybe to me, too. But I don't know if the > population of Roman Palestine, which was forced to suffer daily contact > with an occupying force that refused to keep the law, and were therefore > physically unclean, would necessarily agree with such a warm, fuzzy > conclusion. > > Paul's ideas very, very closely mirror theological > > > tenets taken from other savior, god-man cults that pre-date > > Christianity and that were popular at the time. For instance, > > Mithras was called The Light of the World, had 12 disciples, was born > > on Dec. 25th, was nailed to a tree and resurrected three days later > > for the sins of the world and his death and resurrection was > > celebrated by his followers in a ritual of wine and bread. > > Just to pick a nit, these were not Paul's ideas - they were part of the > gospels. > > Otherwise, your comments about Mithras are remarkably confident, > considering that its practitioners wrote almost nothing down. It was a > secret religion. Not writing about it was part of the deal. Also, the > sources that we have on Mithras generally derive from the Christian > world. It is difficult therefore to determine which religion influenced > which. However, it is clear that Christianity echoed a number of mystery > cults in the Mediterranean basin and near east. > > This quote > > > is attributed to Mithras: "He who will not eat of my body and drink > > of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the > > same shall not know salvation." Jesus was a Jew and had a religion, > > Judaism. He lived and died trying to make people become better Jews > > as he understood it, not trying to make them Christians. It would > > take Paul for that and Jesus would truly be appalled at the claims > > made for him that he would have never made himself. > > If it's not putting too fine a point upon it, how the hell do you know > what would have appalled Jesus? You are a product of your world, not > his, and your world (especially its ideas about right and wrong) have > been massively influenced by the very religion you choose to disdain. > > Cheers, > Chris There's been a HUGE output of recent scholarship on James and the early church lately. I would suggest you go to the religion section of the nearest Barnes and Noble or the like and check it out. If you think that the only evidence comes from Acts, you'll be surprised. You should start with the book "Just James" by Geoffrey Butz. Though everything about that time has to be pieced together, there's little doubt that indeed James was the leader of the early church. Even as recorded in Acts, it's James who gives the decision about the circumcision question and he's even quoted as saying "I have decided". There's little doubt as to what they believed either considerding they lived and worshipped in Jerusalem in the Temple itself. Do you really think that other Orthodox Jews would allow a group to worship with them who was proclaiming a crucified man the same as God??? That's not really a hard one. And James was killed in the early 60's, so they were there about 30 years under his leadership. As I said, there's a lot of scholarship available. Of course Jesus would be appalled at some things claimed about him. He was a first century Palestinian Jew who revered the Law of Moses. How do you think he would feel about people worshipping him as God or saying his death did away with the Law? That's not a hard one either. As for nothing being written down about the rites of Mithraism, well, Jesus wrote nothing down either and look how many people think they knew what he said. We get the stories of the rites of Mithraism the same way, by reading what others claimed and wrote. It's just up to the individual to weigh as much evidence possible and choose what seems most plausible. Or one can just believe on blind faith as many obviously do. C.     Date: 24 Jul 2007 22:52:28 From: starburst Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse > > > There's been a HUGE output of recent scholarship on James and the > early church lately. I would suggest you go to the religion section > of the nearest Barnes and Noble or the like and check it out. If you > think that the only evidence comes from Acts, you'll be surprised. > You should start with the book "Just James" by Geoffrey Butz. I would if he had written it ;) John Painter wrote _Just James_, and while he has decent historical chops his focus is on theology more than history. There are snippets of sources from the first century outside of the New Testament, but they are extremely limited, and by nature demand a high degree of interpretation. Moreover, we have no way of knowing, outside of the NT, the context of their production. Who exactly wrote that Paul spewed lies, and why did he write it? Who knows? It's like trying to piece together the personality of a person who wrote a grocery list when the only parts that survive are: "oran___ ap__ h__ p___m." We can cautiously assume from the list that the person bought oranges, but we don't know if he liked them or bought them for someone else. > > Though everything about that time has to be pieced together, there's > little doubt that indeed James was the leader of the early church. > Even as recorded in Acts, it's James who gives the decision about the > circumcision question and he's even quoted as saying "I have > decided". Sure - Thomas also has some choice words on James. But we don't know how James fit into the growing disagreement between the Christian and orthodox communities. There's little doubt as to what they believed either > considerding they lived and worshipped in Jerusalem in the Temple > itself. Some of them did, but many clearly did not, as by the 60s, at the very latest, there were a number of communities of Christians scattered through the Roman, and especially the Hellenic, worlds. These hellenic Christians likely grew out of the pharisaic groups that accompanied the diaspora when Alexander's followers took over the region. These Jews could not worship in the temple. It was among them that Paul seems to have had the most impact. Do you really think that other Orthodox Jews would allow a > group to worship with them who was proclaiming a crucified man the > same as God??? That's not really a hard one. No, but it is difficult to determine with certainty the relationship between the Christians and the orthodox. It seems to have been a bad one that had become bitter by the time of the destruction of the temple. And James was killed > in the early 60's, so they were there about 30 years under his > leadership. As I said, there's a lot of scholarship available. > > Of course Jesus would be appalled at some things claimed about him. > He was a first century Palestinian Jew who revered the Law of Moses. > How do you think he would feel about people worshipping him as God or > saying his death did away with the Law? That's not a hard one either. If you assume that he was a normal preacher, I suppose it's not a hard question. But if he said that he'd rebuild the temple in three days, or that the law was fulfilled in him, or that it was OK to talk with Samaritan women of ill repute, the question becomes more difficult, doesn't it. Perhaps he believed himself the fulfillment of the law. Perhaps he believed that Judaism should not narrowly constrain itself to the teachings ascribed to Moses. Perhaps he believed that outward compliance was less important than inward kindness. Perhaps he believed he was the son of God. Maybe he even said it, and got himself killed for it. > > As for nothing being written down about the rites of Mithraism, well, > Jesus wrote nothing down either and look how many people think they > knew what he said. We get the stories of the rites of Mithraism the > same way, by reading what others claimed and wrote. I think you are missing my point. Christians obviously had no problem writing about Christianity. They wrote down stories about Jesus. They wrote letters to each other about Jesus. They wrote accounts of the deaths of his followers. They wrote to each other to try and come to some sort of common orthodoxy, or catholicism (in the sense of universality.) The followers of Mithras didn't write stuff down about him because they were proscribed from doing so. It's a somewhat different deal. It's just up to > the individual to weigh as much evidence possible and choose what > seems most plausible. Or one can just believe on blind faith as many > obviously do. On this we do not disagree. Chris   Date: 24 Jul 2007 17:56:05 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 24, 8:44 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk > wrote: > <cly...@optonline.net> wrote in message > > news:1185279593.056032.3690@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > >> >> -- > > > > How could such an unprecedented event go > > unrecorded by sky observers? Did it only happen over Golgotha? If > > one chooses to believe something extraordinary without extraordianry > > evidence, or even any evidence at all, that's their choice. > > There /is/ some evidence - the written text /is/ evidence. It may not be > good evidence, but it is some kind of evidence. > > Uh, no, the written text is a claim, not evidence. You do understand that, right? If I say I have a dog that can talk and even write that down, that's a claim, that's not evidence. C.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 15:21:12 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 24, 5:10 pm, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > On Jul 24, 2:22 pm, "P. Edward Murray" <ed1wa...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > Clyde, > > > I'm sorry but you are not a real christian and certainly not Catholic > > at all. > > And because of that you have no idea what you are talking about > > period. > > If you did, you would know about the miracle of the Eucarist, where > > wine became human blood and the host...a circular wafer of > > bread..became human flesh..heart muscle in fact. > > > Do some research. > > Typical of those who call themselves Christian to decide what others > are or aren't. I've done my research. But you're right that I'm > certainly not Catholic at all. Thank God for that! > > Ciao, > C. p.s. In case your post was tongue in cheek, mea culpa! It's hard to tell sometimes. In case it wasn't, enjoy that heart and blood! Is there a ventricle favored for Lent?   Date: 24 Jul 2007 14:10:40 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 24, 2:22 pm, "P. Edward Murray" <ed1wa...@verizon.net > wrote: > Clyde, > > I'm sorry but you are not a real christian and certainly not Catholic > at all. > And because of that you have no idea what you are talking about > period. > If you did, you would know about the miracle of the Eucarist, where > wine became human blood and the host...a circular wafer of > bread..became human flesh..heart muscle in fact. > > Do some research. Typical of those who call themselves Christian to decide what others are or aren't. I've done my research. But you're right that I'm certainly not Catholic at all. Thank God for that! Ciao, C.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 11:22:53 From: P. Edward Murray Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse Clyde, I'm sorry but you are not a real christian and certainly not Catholic at all. And because of that you have no idea what you are talking about period. If you did, you would know about the miracle of the Eucarist, where wine became human blood and the host...a circular wafer of bread..became human flesh..heart muscle in fact. Do some research.     Date: 24 Jul 2007 15:21:09 From: Shawn Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse P. Edward Murray wrote: > Clyde, > > I'm sorry but you are not a real christian and certainly not Catholic > at all. > And because of that you have no idea what you are talking about > period. > If you did, you would know about the miracle of the Eucarist, where > wine became human blood and the host...a circular wafer of > bread..became human flesh..heart muscle in fact. That's nasty. Canabalism (deusphagia?)! Tastes like chicken? ;-) When I was a christian, I always thought of it metaphorically. I guess first communion was my first step away from faith. Shawn     Date: 24 Jul 2007 16:03:49 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:22:53 -0700, "P. Edward Murray" <ed1ward2@verizon.net > spoke thusly: >Clyde, > >I'm sorry but you are not a real christian and certainly not Catholic >at all. >And because of that you have no idea what you are talking about >period. >If you did, you would know about the miracle of the Eucarist, where >wine became human blood and the host...a circular wafer of >bread..became human flesh..heart muscle in fact. > >Do some research. This may be Catholic, but it is not Christian. -- Pastor Dave When making liars happy in their word games takes precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned. -unknown Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith. God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest part of the water. The world says that seeing is believing. The Bible says that believing is seeing. Doctrine is not Scripture.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 07:09:01 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 24, 9:45 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:06:18 -0400, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> > wrote: > > >No > >honest researcher could say such things, knowing > >the facts. > > You are sadly misinformed. In fact, a number of very credible historians > have raised valid questions as to whether Jesus existed at all. While > this is a minority position, it is not considered unscholarly. The > mainstream view (by historians without any dogmatic bias) is that Jesus > did exist, but that most of the stories that have come down to us today > were invented (or substantially altered) many years after his death, and > that there is little to be found in the gospel tales that can be trusted > historically. > > What I said was simply that the claims in the stories are so > historically weak that attempting to match them to actual astronomical > events is not likely to be a fruitful line of work. Similar > "astronomical" stories about the Sun going dark, new stars in the sky, > etc are common in all mythology, and Christian mythology is no > exception. These stories tell us more about how myths form than they do > about history. > > _________________________________________________ > > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com Good post. Agreed on all counts. C.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 05:27:12 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 24, 8:04 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:14:36 -0700, cly...@optonline.net spoke > thusly: > > >> >Izar > > There is a record of it. That's how I know about > the rest. Look into Thallus and Africanus. > > -- Okay, I found some info on Africanus. He was born in 160!! I hope you don't cite him as a credible source of reporting an event that supposedly happened 130 years earlier!! I'll check into Thallus later, but would imagine he was born much later as well. C.     Date: 01 Aug 2007 13:12:15 From: Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse clydec@optonline.net wrote in news:1185280032.900105.9430@ 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com: > On Jul 24, 8:04 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:14:36 -0700, cly...@optonline.net spoke >> thusly: >> >> >>> >Izar >> >> There is a record of it. That's how I know about >> the rest. Look into Thallus and Africanus. >> >> -- > > Okay, I found some info on Africanus. He was born in 160!! I hope > you don't cite him as a credible source of reporting an event that > supposedly happened 130 years earlier!! I'll check into Thallus > later, but would imagine he was born much later as well. We only know about Thallus from secondary sources i.e other writers reporting bits and pieces of what Thallus wrote. Many unsupported and contradictory claims are made about this individual. Klazmon.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 05:19:53 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 24, 8:04 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:14:36 -0700, cly...@optonline.net spoke > thusly: > > > > > >> -- > > >Pastor Dave, > > >So you believe that the sun was darkened for 3 hours even though > >there's no other record of this in history or even the other gospels? > > >Izar > > There is a record of it. That's how I know about > the rest. Look into Thallus and Africanus. > > -- > > The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and others were quite interested in astronomy by this time period. There is no record of a 3 hour period of the sun being darkened. How could such an unprecedented event go unrecorded by sky observers? Did it only happen over Golgotha? If one chooses to believe something extraordinary without extraordianry evidence, or even any evidence at all, that's their choice. I certainly can't live my life that way and don't think that's how nature intended. Blind faith and reason are not compatible. Clyde     Date: 25 Jul 2007 01:44:04 From: OG Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse <clydec@optonline.net > wrote in message news:1185279593.056032.3690@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 24, 8:04 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:14:36 -0700, cly...@optonline.net spoke >> thusly: >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> >> >Pastor Dave, >> >> >So you believe that the sun was darkened for 3 hours even though >> >there's no other record of this in history or even the other gospels? >> >> >Izar >> >> There is a record of it. That's how I know about >> the rest. Look into Thallus and Africanus. >> >> -- >> >> > The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and others were quite interested in > astronomy by this time period. There is no record of a 3 hour period > of the sun being darkened. Is your argument that "it could only have been an eclipse; therefore it wasn't an eclipse", or is it "it could only have been an eclipse; therefore it didn't happen" ? > How could such an unprecedented event go > unrecorded by sky observers? Did it only happen over Golgotha? If > one chooses to believe something extraordinary without extraordianry > evidence, or even any evidence at all, that's their choice. There /is/ some evidence - the written text /is/ evidence. It may not be good evidence, but it is some kind of evidence. >I > certainly can't live my life that way and don't think that's how > nature intended. Blind faith and reason are not compatible. > > Clyde As I've posted above, there is a left-brain fascism that drives both religious funides and anti-religious fundies.   Date: 24 Jul 2007 05:03:34 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 23, 10:22 pm, starburst <n...@nospam.net > wrote: > Chris L Peterson wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:06:59 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene > > Griessel) wrote: > > >> From where I'm sitting, there's frankly no real evidence that you > aren't also a load. > > The Jesus story had enough currency among people who were familiar with > the events that they believed it was worth getting themselves killed > for, as happened with the Nero persecution in the year 64, chronicled by > Tacitus, who was neither a Christian nor a figment of someone's > imagination. There would have been a bunch of people floating around at > the time who remembered the actual events of Jesus' death. By the year > 110, we have an exchange of letters between Pliny and Trajan describing > the Christian cult, including a reference to the torture of a few > practitioners. They were dangerous zealots, after all. > > As for it being made up hundreds of years later, this interpretation > strains credulity more than doubt. Several of the epistles were written > by Paul in the 60s, and he clearly knew many of Jesus' disciples. Read > Acts, which was also written by Luke, who in turn was one of Paul's > associates. I know of precisely zero academic historians of professional > stature greater than Ajay Sharma that deny the establishment of the > Christian cult within the first fifty years, or even the first thirty > years after Jesus' death. The age of the so-called Gospels is more > problematic, but the consensus opinion of historians is that there was > an early version, no longer extant, written in the 30s or 40s, from > which the gospel of Mark was derived. If not, Mark was the earliest, > likely in circulation before the year 70. To say that it was all created > centuries later is akin to denying the moon landings. > > Chris Chris, Well, sadly, a lot of stories have enough currency that folks are willing to die for them. There are folks who will blow themselves and others up today because they think God will bless them for it. As for the early Church, it certainly wasn't "Christian" as we know the word today. What's come down to us as Christianity is really Paul's interpretation of Jesus, which the Jews of his day rejected and still reject today and for the same reason. Paul claimed that Jesus' death did away with the Law, which the Jews believe God them as the means of reconcilliation with him forever and can never be abrogated. Even Jesus himself said this. The first "Christians" were headed by James, the brother of Jesus, along with Peter in Jerusalem. They were Jews through and through and did not believe that Jesus was in any way divine or that his death was any sort of substitutionary atonement for sin. They worshipped in the temple as Jews and kept all the festivals and holidays including the Day of Atonement. They thought he was the Messiah, but that's a Jewish concept and merely means the man chosen by God to bring about the conclusion of Judaism, i.e., The End of Days. This was "the Kingdom of God" that Jesus often talked about, NOT the bloodbath depicted in Revelation. The Jewish concept of a time of world peace as the end of days rather than a time where the majority of world's population will be slaughtered by God seems a little more God-like! (Though I don't believe in any God concept, as an aside). Paul's ideas very, very closely mirror theological tenets taken from other savior, god-man cults that pre-date Christianity and that were popular at the time. For instance, Mithras was called The Light of the World, had 12 disciples, was born on Dec. 25th, was nailed to a tree and resurrected three days later for the sins of the world and his death and resurrection was celebrated by his followers in a ritual of wine and bread. This quote is attributed to Mithras: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." Jesus was a Jew and had a religion, Judaism. He lived and died trying to make people become better Jews as he understood it, not trying to make them Christians. It would take Paul for that and Jesus would truly be appalled at the claims made for him that he would have never made himself. Clyde     Date: 24 Jul 2007 20:06:04 From: starburst Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse > > Chris, > > Well, sadly, a lot of stories have enough currency that folks are > willing to die for them. There are folks who will blow themselves and > others up today because they think God will bless them for it. Well, I don't know if there are that many people willing to toss away everything on the basis of an impressive story. There are really very few people who are that nutty. > > As for the early Church, it certainly wasn't "Christian" as we know > the word today. Depends on what you call the early church. We don't know what the very earliest practitioners, Jesus' assumed disciples, were doing, aside from the evidence of Paul and his associate Luke. As you say, he had his own ideas. But the only evidence that I can think of about what they were doing comes from Acts, and that's not exactly unbiased. That being said, the earliest evidence describes the idea of a communal meal with overtones of cannibalism. That sounds awfully like modern Christianity, at least as practiced by Anglicans, Lutherans and Catholics. What's come down to us as Christianity is really > Paul's interpretation of Jesus, which the Jews of his day rejected and > still reject today and for the same reason. Paul claimed that Jesus' > death did away with the Law, which the Jews believe God them as the > means of reconcilliation with him forever and can never be abrogated. > Even Jesus himself said this. Assuming that he actually said it, of course. But by the same token, he was oddly eccumenical in his treatment of Samaritans and others. And he did make some odd comments about the nature of the law and how it could be practiced. Hell of a message, considering the context. The first "Christians" were headed by > James, the brother of Jesus, along with Peter in Jerusalem. They were > Jews through and through and did not believe that Jesus was in any way > divine or that his death was any sort of substitutionary atonement for > sin. You do not know this. They worshipped in the temple as Jews and kept all the festivals > and holidays including the Day of Atonement. They thought he was the > Messiah, but that's a Jewish concept and merely means the man chosen > by God to bring about the conclusion of Judaism, i.e., The End of > Days. This was "the Kingdom of God" that Jesus often talked about, > NOT the bloodbath depicted in Revelation. Again, this is your interpretation, based on your notions of how people ought to act in a situation that you are envisioning. It is a pretty picture, but massively conjectural. And your interpretation of what a Messiah ought to do according the the Hebrew tradition differs markedly from the views of the Zealots and Maccabees. The Jewish concept of a > time of world peace as the end of days rather than a time where the > majority of world's population will be slaughtered by God seems a > little more God-like! (Though I don't believe in any God concept, as > an aside). To you, obviously, and maybe to me, too. But I don't know if the population of Roman Palestine, which was forced to suffer daily contact with an occupying force that refused to keep the law, and were therefore physically unclean, would necessarily agree with such a warm, fuzzy conclusion. Paul's ideas very, very closely mirror theological > tenets taken from other savior, god-man cults that pre-date > Christianity and that were popular at the time. For instance, > Mithras was called The Light of the World, had 12 disciples, was born > on Dec. 25th, was nailed to a tree and resurrected three days later > for the sins of the world and his death and resurrection was > celebrated by his followers in a ritual of wine and bread. Just to pick a nit, these were not Paul's ideas - they were part of the gospels. Otherwise, your comments about Mithras are remarkably confident, considering that its practitioners wrote almost nothing down. It was a secret religion. Not writing about it was part of the deal. Also, the sources that we have on Mithras generally derive from the Christian world. It is difficult therefore to determine which religion influenced which. However, it is clear that Christianity echoed a number of mystery cults in the Mediterranean basin and near east. This quote > is attributed to Mithras: "He who will not eat of my body and drink > of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the > same shall not know salvation." Jesus was a Jew and had a religion, > Judaism. He lived and died trying to make people become better Jews > as he understood it, not trying to make them Christians. It would > take Paul for that and Jesus would truly be appalled at the claims > made for him that he would have never made himself. If it's not putting too fine a point upon it, how the hell do you know what would have appalled Jesus? You are a product of your world, not his, and your world (especially its ideas about right and wrong) have been massively influenced by the very religion you choose to disdain. Cheers, Chris   Date: 23 Jul 2007 18:46:32 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 23, 8:41 pm, "Joe S." <non...@nosuch.net > wrote: > <cly...@optonline.net> wrote in message > > news:1185228876.025143.323500@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Jul 23, 9:25 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic > >> <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: > > >> >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We > >> >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the > >> >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion > >> >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of > >> >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology > > >> Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that > >> the Sun was darkened. There's a difference. > >> There was a Full Moon at the Passover, which > >> means that there couldn't have been an eclipse > >> and it was therefore, a supernatural event, > >> which furthermore, was seen and shaking felt, > >> all over the empire, with some destruction. > > >> -- > > > Pastor Dave, > > > So you believe that the sun was darkened for 3 hours even though > > there's no other record of this in history or even the other gospels? > > > Izar > > Well -- up in my neck of the woods, the snake handlers believe that the > last few verses of Mark tell them to drink strychnine and handle > rattlesnakes and moccasins -- even though there's no mention of this in the > other gospels. > > http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Snakes.html > > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehand... > > http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1581 Yeah, I grew up in Va. and know about snake handling. BTW, the oldest copies of Mark's gospel end at Chap. 16 and verse 8. The verses that have the snake handling references, post resurrection apperances, the Great Commission, etc. are not in the oldest copies and were added later.     Date: 25 Jul 2007 01:37:08 From: OG Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse <clydec@optonline.net > wrote in message news:1185241592.709228.241220@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... >> rattlesnakes and moccasins -- even though there's no mention of this in >> the >> other gospels. >> >> http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Snakes.html >> >> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehand... >> >> http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1581 > > Yeah, I grew up in Va. and know about snake handling. BTW, the oldest > copies of Mark's gospel end at Chap. 16 and verse 8. The verses that > have the snake handling references, post resurrection apperances, the > Great Commission, etc. are not in the oldest copies and were added > later. Gotta ask - how do you know that the 'oldest copies', by which I assume you mean the oldest /extant/ copies, are complete? We don't assume that the oldest dinosaurs only had "2 ribs, half a hip and a jaw" do we?   Date: 23 Jul 2007 15:14:36 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 23, 9:25 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic > <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: > > >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We > >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the > >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion > >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of > >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology > > Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that > the Sun was darkened. There's a difference. > There was a Full Moon at the Passover, which > means that there couldn't have been an eclipse > and it was therefore, a supernatural event, > which furthermore, was seen and shaking felt, > all over the empire, with some destruction. > > -- > Pastor Dave, So you believe that the sun was darkened for 3 hours even though there's no other record of this in history or even the other gospels? Izar     Date: 25 Jul 2007 01:03:13 From: Rico Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse <clydec@optonline.net > wrote in message news:1185228876.025143.323500@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 23, 9:25 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic >> <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: >> >> >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We >> >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the >> >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion >> >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of >> >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology >> >> Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that >> the Sun was darkened. There's a difference. >> There was a Full Moon at the Passover, which >> means that there couldn't have been an eclipse >> and it was therefore, a supernatural event, >> which furthermore, was seen and shaking felt, >> all over the empire, with some destruction. >> >> -- >> > Pastor Dave, > > So you believe that the sun was darkened for 3 hours even though > there's no other record of this in history or even the other gospels? > > Izar > If God can part the Red Sea (sometimes called the sea of reeds), keep the sun in the sky while Moses prayed for victory in battle, can cause 3 barren women to become pregnant (Sarah, Hannah, Elizabeth the cousin of Mary) and cause a girl who can't possibly get pregnant (as she was a virgin), then surely He can blot the sun out for 3 hours in one specific region of the world, besides which when there is an eclipse the sun is only covered completely for a few minutes     Date: 24 Jul 2007 08:04:56 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:14:36 -0700, clydec@optonline.net spoke thusly: >On Jul 23, 9:25 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic >> <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: >> >> >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We >> >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the >> >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion >> >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of >> >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology >> >> Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that >> the Sun was darkened. There's a difference. >> There was a Full Moon at the Passover, which >> means that there couldn't have been an eclipse >> and it was therefore, a supernatural event, >> which furthermore, was seen and shaking felt, >> all over the empire, with some destruction. >> >> -- >> >Pastor Dave, > >So you believe that the sun was darkened for 3 hours even though >there's no other record of this in history or even the other gospels? > >Izar There is a record of it. That's how I know about the rest. Look into Thallus and Africanus. -- Pastor Dave When making liars happy in their word games takes precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned. -unknown Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith. God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest part of the water. The world says that seeing is believing. The Bible says that believing is seeing. Doctrine is not Scripture.     Date: 23 Jul 2007 20:41:50 From: Joe S. Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse <clydec@optonline.net > wrote in message news:1185228876.025143.323500@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 23, 9:25 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic >> <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: >> >> >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We >> >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the >> >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion >> >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of >> >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology >> >> Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that >> the Sun was darkened. There's a difference. >> There was a Full Moon at the Passover, which >> means that there couldn't have been an eclipse >> and it was therefore, a supernatural event, >> which furthermore, was seen and shaking felt, >> all over the empire, with some destruction. >> >> -- >> > Pastor Dave, > > So you believe that the sun was darkened for 3 hours even though > there's no other record of this in history or even the other gospels? > > Izar > Well -- up in my neck of the woods, the snake handlers believe that the last few verses of Mark tell them to drink strychnine and handle rattlesnakes and moccasins -- even though there's no mention of this in the other gospels. http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Snakes.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0407_030407_snakehandlers.html http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1581   Date: 23 Jul 2007 11:32:31 From: P. Edward Murray Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse Come to think of it, The Star of Bethlehem was probably a supernatural event too. I read a book about it...it's upstairs somewhere, and there in fact was a Catholic Saint that had a vision about it. She said it was a miracle, not like the stars above but had a "Charming light".   Date: 23 Jul 2007 11:32:17 From: Cycle Surfer Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 23, 12:12 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jul 23, 8:25 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic > > <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: > > > >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We > > >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the > > >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion > > >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of > > >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology > > > Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that > > the Sun was darkened. There's a difference. > > There was a Full Moon at the Passover, which > > means that there couldn't have been an eclipse > > and it was therefore, a supernatural event, > > which furthermore, was seen and shaking felt, > > all over the empire, with some destruction. > > It also lasted three hours...I'd love to see the eclipse that lasted > three hours... > > Austin- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Jesus is just the retelling of the story of horus, khrishna and 18 other world saviors. it is based in astronomy / astrology / cosmology. worship of the sun. This is all historical FACT, not belief... http://www.cyclesurfer.com/Articles/SunGod.htm   Date: 23 Jul 2007 11:30:10 From: P. Edward Murray Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse Actually, eclipses do last about that long...Totality doesn't though.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 10:12:45 From: AustinMN Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 23, 8:25 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com > wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic > <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: > > >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We > >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the > >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion > >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of > >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology > > Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that > the Sun was darkened. There's a difference. > There was a Full Moon at the Passover, which > means that there couldn't have been an eclipse > and it was therefore, a supernatural event, > which furthermore, was seen and shaking felt, > all over the empire, with some destruction. It also lasted three hours...I'd love to see the eclipse that lasted three hours... Austin     Date: 24 Jul 2007 08:02:52 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:12:45 -0700, AustinMN <tacooper260@hotmail.com > spoke thusly: >On Jul 23, 8:25 am, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic >> <rt...@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: >> >> >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We >> >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the >> >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion >> >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of >> >the eclipse includes biblical comments.http://www.lulu.com/astrology >> >> Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that >> the Sun was darkened. There's a difference. >> There was a Full Moon at the Passover, which >> means that there couldn't have been an eclipse >> and it was therefore, a supernatural event, >> which furthermore, was seen and shaking felt, >> all over the empire, with some destruction. > >It also lasted three hours...I'd love to see the eclipse >that lasted three hours... Amen! :) -- Pastor Dave When making liars happy in their word games takes precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned. -unknown Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith. God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest part of the water. The world says that seeing is believing. The Bible says that believing is seeing. Doctrine is not Scripture.   Date: 23 Jul 2007 09:25:18 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic <rtrrt@sdf.lonestar.org > spoke thusly: >Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We >slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the >scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion >time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of >the eclipse includes biblical comments. http://www.lulu.com/astrology Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that the Sun was darkened. There's a difference. There was a Full Moon at the Passover, which means that there couldn't have been an eclipse and it was therefore, a supernatural event, which furthermore, was seen and shaking felt, all over the empire, with some destruction. -- Pastor Dave When making liars happy in their word games takes precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned. -unknown Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith. God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest part of the water. The world says that seeing is believing. The Bible says that believing is seeing. Doctrine is not Scripture.     Date: 23 Jul 2007 19:17:52 From: Shawn Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse Pastor Dave wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:11:33 -0700, Klaudio Zic > <rtrrt@sdf.lonestar.org> spoke thusly: > > >> Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We >> slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the >> scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion >> time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of >> the eclipse includes biblical comments. http://www.lulu.com/astrology > > Luke doesn't say it was an eclipse. He said that > the Sun was darkened. There's a difference. > There was a Full Moon at the Passover, which > means that there couldn't have been an eclipse > and it was therefore, a supernatural event, > which furthermore, was seen and shaking felt, > all over the empire, with some destruction. Cloud perhaps? Shawn   Date: 23 Jul 2007 08:57:05 From: Scott Miller Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse Klaudio Zic wrote: > Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We > slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the > scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion > time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of > the eclipse includes biblical comments. http://www.lulu.com/astrology > Small problem - there were no solar eclipses visible from Palestine in the years surrounding the death of Jesus.     Date: 23 Jul 2007 23:41:37 From: John Savard Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:57:05 -0400, Scott Miller <jsfmiller@netzero.net > wrote, in part: >Small problem - there were no solar eclipses visible from Palestine in >the years surrounding the death of Jesus. Bigger problem: the Crucifixion took place around Passover. Which, like Easter, takes place at the time of the Full Moon. Which is OK for a lunar eclipse, but it kind of makes having a solar eclipse a bit difficult. But then, that just means that this particular eclipse was a _miraculous_ one instead of just an ordinary one. John Savard http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html     Date: 23 Jul 2007 13:03:37 From: Eugene Griessel Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse Scott Miller <jsfmiller@netzero.net > wrote: >Klaudio Zic wrote: >> Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We >> slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the >> scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion >> time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of >> the eclipse includes biblical comments. http://www.lulu.com/astrology >> > >Small problem - there were no solar eclipses visible from Palestine in >the years surrounding the death of Jesus. We have no clue when the crucifiction took place. However Fred Espenak has data for an eclipse that would have been near total in Jerusalem in the year 29. Eugene L Griessel A day for firm decisions!!!!! Or is it?       Date: 03 Aug 2007 12:49:43 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 3, 2:27 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: > On 3 Aug, 12:54, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > I did read the remainder of what you wrote, but I should tell you that > I have heard it before, and generally put rather better. Why not > think for yourself? > > All the best, > You know, until the above gem I wasn't going to reply in this thread anymore. I do try to think for myself, but I generally don't feel it my place to tell others that. even when I disagree with them. After looking at more of your website, I've come across some "self help" psycho babble from you that makes Dr. Phil seem like Freud. To whit: "There is a reason things tend to seem pointless. Human beings are all messed up." Wow. Deep stuff there. Were you born with this defeatist attitude or did your faith instill it in you? You then go on to quote some Bible verses. Thinking for yourself there, huh? "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Thanks Reverend. Well, how can anyone make it through life without such insight? I just don't know. How about "human beings cannot overcome all their failings by themselves, they need help." Got any ancient texts to back that one up there Doctor? It goes without saying that the help the Doctor prescribes is Jesus. So how did humans overcome their "failings" before 2000 years ago? No wait, I don't have any anthropologists names handy stating that homo sapiens has been around longer than 2000 years, so I'll withdraw that. Here's a substitution: How do the millions of people that live in the 21st century and will die without once hearing the Jesus story overcome their "failings"? I guess they're out of luck. Oh yeah, and congrats on your lovely insult to Islam and to thoughtful Muslims everywhere. It made about as much sense as lumping all Christians in with Falwell and Robertson. And you say that since you're not a Jew, that Judaism has nothing to offer you? That's well reasoned. Other than Jesus the Jew you mean? And the fact that you seem to love to quote the Hebrew Bible. Unbelievable. As for Freke and Gandy selling sex books, I have no knowledge of that and couldn't care less. It must have been hard for you to even type the word sex,but it's not the perverse practice that Christianity has hung upon it. And even if they did sell sex books, so what? That has no more bearing on their current works than the fact that Tom Back used to be a stereo salesman does on his current work. Thanks for the entertainment anyway. And keep thinking for yourself. Though I have no idea what you would do without your Bible to pull quotes from. Heaven forbid you'd actually have to think of something on your own. No wait, you did. I quoted some of them above. Better stick to quoting the Bible. Toodles, C       Date: 03 Aug 2007 11:31:14 From: Roger Pearse Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On 3 Aug, 11:33, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: > On 3 Aug, 09:23, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > This quote is attributed toMithras: "He who will not eat of my body = and drink > > > of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the > > > same shall not know salvation." > > > A net-search reveals that this passage was given by Franz Cumont in > > his great collection of testimonia from the "Zardusht-nama" (Book of > > Zoroaster), a 13th century text. Unfortunately I have been unable to > > locate a text of this work, or an English translation: the 'quote' is > > more circulated than researched, that is clear. > > > But if genuine, as a Persian source it refers to Mitra, not Mithras -- > > the two have no connection. And as a 13th century source it must > > derive from Nestorian Christianity, which was active in Persia and > > still exists today, rather than the other way around. > > > Here are the links that I found, in sequence of what leads to what: > > > The quote:http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras4.php > > > Cumont, Mithras, Zardusht (the page is mostly full of nonsense, tho)htt= p://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Mithraism/m_m/pt5.htm > > > About the Zardust-nama:http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Zoroaster > > > (or Zartushtnamah):http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02151b.htm > > and some more: > > http://www.avesta.org/dhalla/history6.htm > > "Other works in Persian. Besides the Rivayats, several works, both in > prose and in verse, have reached us. The most important of these is > the Zartusht Namah or Book of Zartusht composed in verse by Zartusht > Bahram Pazdu in the thirteenth [460] century.2 The account of the life > of the prophet is based upon the Pahlavi works. Several Pahlavi works > are rendered into Persian. The Avestan texts are translated into > Persian with the help of their Pahlavi version. A considerable > devotional literature and treatises on miscellaneous subjects are > extant. There are about forty short prayers in verse and gazal form, > called Mon=E2j=E2ts composed by about a dozen different priests. The > earliest in point of time are the four hymns attributed to the > authorship of Zartusht Bahram Pazdu, the author of the Zartusht Namah. > The latest are composed in the third quarter of the last century. > > 2 West, GIrPh. 2.122, 123; Eastwick, tr. in English in Wilson's Parsi > Religion, p. 477-522; Rosenberg, Le Livre de Zoroaster." > > Wilson's Parsi Religion (online complete): > > http://books.google.com/books?id=3Da9smeE8qIIgC&pg=3DPA85&dq=3DWilson%27s= +P... > > I have examined the translation of the Zartusht-Namah in Wilson, but I > couldn't see the lines in question. References to 'Meher' are being > treated as 'Mithra'. > > There seems to be some question of whether this text is faintly > genuine, even as what it purports to be. > > In short this whole 'quote' is about as dubious a thing as can be > found. The only source that I can find for the quote is Vermaseren, "Mithras: the secret god". I have been to look at this. Infuriatingly, it gives no reference for the statement, beyond "Cumont". I've also had a look at Cumont's two volume compendium of all literature, "Textes et Monuments", and it contains no reference in the texts or in the index to the Zardusht or any Persian literature. I think that Vermaseren wouldn't have made it up; but I don't quite know how to proceed. Incidentally do you notice that, of all those who have freely circulated this 'quote', none of them have verified it? It's left to me -- a poor Christian -- to do the basic legwork. Is it quite honest for people to circulate as fact something which they have never actually researched? All the best, Roger Pearse       Date: 03 Aug 2007 11:27:57 From: Roger Pearse Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On 3 Aug, 12:54, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > On Aug 3, 3:46 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > On 2 Aug, 17:30, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > On Aug 2, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 2 Aug, 11:48, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 2, 4:13 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On 1 Aug, 18:16, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 10:59 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 1 Aug, 14:17, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 1, 5:20 am, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 24 Jul, 13:03, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I've never read the text you cite about the 16 crucified saviors. I > > > > > > > > > have read "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freke and Gandy which has an > > > > > > > > > extensive bibliography and references to each and every quote I > > > > > > > > > cited. I've also read the works of Crossan, > > > > > > > > > Borg, Pagels, N.T. Wright, Armstrong, Spong, Funk, and many others. > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately the relevance of all this is not clear. > > > > > > > > > If you claim that Freke and Gandy can document the statements made > > > > > > > > from the ancient literature, then let's see them. > > > > > > > > > But I think otherwise, being rather familiar with the Mithraic > > > > > > > > record. > > > > > > > > > Candidly, I suspect that if you try to pin them down, statement by > > > > > > > > statement, you may end up somewhat disenchanted with Freke and Gandy. > > > > > > > > > > The links between Paul's interpretation of Jesus and the various > > > > > > > > > mystery religions is quite apparent.... > > > > > > > > > (Reiteration snipped) > > > > > > > > > I think that we all are familiar with the 'dying god' stuff from > > > > > > > > J.G.Frazier. The difficulty with all these large and loose claims is > > > > > > > > that they break down in the detail. > > > > > > > > > > The quote I cited attributed to Mithras which mirros the Eucharist is > > > > > > > > > from Godwin's "Mystery Religions in the Ancient World" published > > > > > > > > > in 1981 by Thames & Hudson. > > > > > > > > > But the question is whether this can be documented from the ancient > > > > > > > > world, not whether some modern writer asserts it. What ancient source > > > > > > > > does Godwin offer? If any? > > > > > > > > The relevance is that many scholars mention the parallels between > > > > > > > modern Christianity and the msytery religions.... > > > > > > > This is generalities, tho. Can we see some specifics on Mithras, if > > > > > > any of these people have any, documented from the ancient sources? > > > > > > > > You ask what ancient sources do some writers use > > > > > > > Indeed. People who make claims should back them up, surely? > > > > > > > > and others would ask what source did evangelists like Luke use ... > > > > > > > Irrelevant change of subject, tho. > > > > > > > You did not produce Godwin. Does this mean that you have not in fact > > > > > > read this book? > > > > > > No, not an irrelevant change of subject but the topic of this thread. > > > > > Irrelevant to this post. We're discussing Mithras, remember? It does > > > > no good to wander off into generalities, surely, when, if we get to > > > > specifics, we find there is nothing there. > > > > > > I don't have every book I'v ever read and I don't generally check > > > > > every reference in an author's bibliography. Do you? > > > > > Well, actually I *do* if I'm going to put my backside up to be > > > > kicked! :-) > > > > > But no, I wasn't pillorying you; I just wondered. > > > > > The thing that we need to take away from this, tho, is the amount of > > > > nonsense going around the web along these lines. I really think that > > > > we should believe nothing unless you have seen the ancient text that > > > > says so. That doesn't stop us being misled by dishonest editing -- > > > > selection, omission, etc -- but a lot of this stuff about Mithras is > > > > based pure and simple on *nothing*. > > > > > I saw your other posts, but again these are derails. > > > > Ha! Nope, my backside wasn't up to be kicked. Quoting what scholars > > > have said on a subject may be seen as taking a scholar's word for > > > something, but not really offering oneself up to be kicked. > > > You didn't quote any scholars, tho, did you? You just offered some > > names. > > > > I glanced at your website and kudos to you for the amount of work > > > you've put into it. > > > Glad to help -- thanks. > > > > I'll try and make time to read more of it later, > > > but I do notice that you identify yourself as a Christian. Without > > > saying anything else, that tells one that you would be more inclined > > > to accept or reject scholarship based on your belief system. > > > That tells me that you are inclined to believe things that you have > > heard idly asserted without being very critical about them. > > > > For instance, the very same quote I cited as Mithraic in origin is > > > referenced on that one website and it even lists the same source. But > > > you simply say that doesn't exist. > > > Sorry, but to which quote and which website do you refer? <confused> > > > > Godwin says otherwise so why should one believe one over the other? > > > Ahem. You don't actually know that Godwin says so, since you haven't > > read him, tho. > > > But never mind what any modern scholar says; where is the ancient > > evidence? If someone says that a quote exists, I want to see the > > ancient reference. (Many of the texts are online complete, so we can > > check them). > > > > While it seems that no particular pagan mystery religion mirrors the > > > story of Jesus in total, when one looks at Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, > > > Attis, etc., all the themes of the Jesus story are there and well before > > > the time of Jesus. > > > So you keep saying. But it is not in fact so. Remember that we're > > discussing Mithras. None of the 'themes' you mention are actually > > there. Nor, indeed, did Mithras exist at that time; the cult was > > invented early in the first century, according to Clauss. > > Sorry, but you don't get to decide for me who is and isn't a scholar. Where did that come from? Ask around if you don't believe me. > If you don't think Freke and Gandy are scholars, I really don't care. That's entirely up to you. If you want to fill your mind from a pair of hacks who used to peddle sex-books for a living until they found flogging Jesus Mysteries paid better, rather than seek out the facts for yourself, well... feel free. I admit that I don't understand how that benefits you, that's your concern rather than mine. <baffled > > Why should I think that you're more capable of researching ancient > text than they? No reason at all. Until we start asking questions of things that we DO find convenient, tho, we can be sold any old nonsense. You know, why don't you try researching things yourself? Then you don't have to depend on any of these people. However good a real scholar may be, he's only human! And with the internet, getting access to the sources is easier than it has ever been. I'm not asking you to take my word for anything. What I'm saying here is that you and I can find out. If people make statements in print about antiquity, either these are based on ancient evidence -- in which case let's see it -- or they are not. I did read the remainder of what you wrote, but I should tell you that I have heard it before, and generally put rather better. Why not think for yourself? All the best, Roger Pearse       Date: 03 Aug 2007 03:33:18 From: Roger Pearse Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On 3 Aug, 09:23, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: > > This quote is attributed toMithras: "He who will not eat of my body an= d drink > > of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the > > same shall not know salvation." > > A net-search reveals that this passage was given by Franz Cumont in > his great collection of testimonia from the "Zardusht-nama" (Book of > Zoroaster), a 13th century text. Unfortunately I have been unable to > locate a text of this work, or an English translation: the 'quote' is > more circulated than researched, that is clear. > > But if genuine, as a Persian source it refers to Mitra, not Mithras -- > the two have no connection. And as a 13th century source it must > derive from Nestorian Christianity, which was active in Persia and > still exists today, rather than the other way around. > > Here are the links that I found, in sequence of what leads to what: > > The quote:http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras4.php > > Cumont, Mithras, Zardusht (the page is mostly full of nonsense, tho)http:= //www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Mithraism/m_m/pt5.htm > > About the Zardust-nama:http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Zoroaster > > (or Zartushtnamah):http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02151b.htm and some more: http://www.avesta.org/dhalla/history6.htm "Other works in Persian. Besides the Rivayats, several works, both in prose and in verse, have reached us. The most important of these is the Zartusht Namah or Book of Zartusht composed in verse by Zartusht Bahram Pazdu in the thirteenth [460] century.2 The account of the life of the prophet is based upon the Pahlavi works. Several Pahlavi works are rendered into Persian. The Avestan texts are translated into Persian with the help of their Pahlavi version. A considerable devotional literature and treatises on miscellaneous subjects are extant. There are about forty short prayers in verse and gazal form, called Mon=E2j=E2ts composed by about a dozen different priests. The earliest in point of time are the four hymns attributed to the authorship of Zartusht Bahram Pazdu, the author of the Zartusht Namah. The latest are composed in the third quarter of the last century. 2 West, GIrPh. 2.122, 123; Eastwick, tr. in English in Wilson's Parsi Religion, p. 477-522; Rosenberg, Le Livre de Zoroaster." Wilson's Parsi Religion (online complete): http://books.google.com/books?id=3Da9smeE8qIIgC&pg=3DPA85&dq=3DWilson%27s+P= arsi+Religion#PPA480,M1 I have examined the translation of the Zartusht-Namah in Wilson, but I couldn't see the lines in question. References to 'Meher' are being treated as 'Mithra'. There seems to be some question of whether this text is faintly genuine, even as what it purports to be. In short this whole 'quote' is about as dubious a thing as can be found. All the best, Roger Pearse       Date: 02 Aug 2007 12:15:34 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > On Aug 2, 2:35 pm, "I.N. Galidakis" <morph...@olympus.mons> wrote: > > > > > cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > It would seem that if there is a God and that he > > > wanted us to all believe the same thing, then he would say the same > > > thing to all of us, as opposed to very differnt things that many claim > > > he said, or that he says nothing at all. Which is my experience. > > > [snip] > > > With all due respect, I don't think you understood what I wrote. > > > We may well have a "problem". Whatever makes you think that "whoever" is behind > > that problem _desires_ to help you understand or clear your (supposed) confusion > > about the above issue by "giving" you a consistent message? > > > > C. > > > -- > > I.N. Galidakis ---http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/ > > Okay, I may well have misunderstood. So clear it up for me. If one > quotes Luke and Matthew, I would think one gives some crediblity to > their words. As far as anyone being behind human affairs, no, I don't > believe that. And I'm not confused about that! And further, whatever "problem" or problems we may have, will either be solved by us (humans), or will destroy us.       Date: 02 Aug 2007 12:15:21 From: Chris.B Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse What is there to discuss? A psychological terrorist organisation calling itself Christianity put some propaganda around to support their fantasies. The Romans did their best to keep the lid on things but you know what terrorists are like when they get "a cause" under their belt.. Particularly when there isn't much education about, the power at the center is totally corrupt and you have to work for your bread or go hungry. As a "nice little earner" the churches grew fat on the results of this crafty propaganda. The rest is history. Endless religious wars, genocide, The Inquisition, torture, murder, corruption, ban on progress for 1000 years. Keep taking the money. Power always corrupts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases http://www.topix.net/world/canada/2007/07/roman-catholic-archbishop-will-sell-main-office-to-raise-money-to-settle-lawsuits-for-sexual-abuse Etc. etc. Only the tip of the iceberg. Most cases would go completely unreported. By the terrified child. Or the embarrassed parents. Suffer little children while I come into thee? Gentle Jesus? Whatever.       Date: 02 Aug 2007 11:52:22 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 2, 2:35 pm, "I.N. Galidakis" <morph...@olympus.mons > wrote: > cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > [snip] > > > It would seem that if there is a God and that he > > wanted us to all believe the same thing, then he would say the same > > thing to all of us, as opposed to very differnt things that many claim > > he said, or that he says nothing at all. Which is my experience. > > [snip] > > With all due respect, I don't think you understood what I wrote. > > We may well have a "problem". Whatever makes you think that "whoever" is behind > that problem _desires_ to help you understand or clear your (supposed) confusion > about the above issue by "giving" you a consistent message? > > > C. > > -- > I.N. Galidakis ---http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/ Okay, I may well have misunderstood. So clear it up for me. If one quotes Luke and Matthew, I would think one gives some crediblity to their words. As far as anyone being behind human affairs, no, I don't believe that. And I'm not confused about that!         Date: 02 Aug 2007 23:14:29 From: I.N. Galidakis Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse clydec@optonline.net wrote: [snip] > Okay, I may well have misunderstood. So clear it up for me. I can't. Not unless you see something "wrong" with this reality/existence. The Matrix trilogy was good: Not unless you have that "splinter" in your brain which constantly reminds you that "something" is wrong with this reality. > If one quotes Luke and Matthew, I would think one gives some crediblity to their words. I do give credibility to the Bible, but not in a fundamentalist way or because of some unknown or mystical superdooper reason, rather because it explains correctly and rationally (using literary prose) the "problem" that I mentioned elsewhere for _my_ existence. And this existence is all I have to go by. I really cannot know what anyone else thinks or knows. > As far as anyone being behind human affairs, no, I don't > believe that. And I'm not confused about that! Okay. I will then quietly retreat back to lurking mode, since there's nothing to discuss. When you recognize not only that behind human affairs there is "somebody", but _additionally_ that this "somebody" is far from benevolent, then we can talk again. And no, I am _not_ talking about the "Devil". If you will allow me one last comment before I go, most myths carry seeds of various sporadic historical truths, however those thuths are distorted later under the influence of time. So even if the Jesus story is a myth, it must be extremely puzzling to you to wittness all those admittedly concordant scenarios (Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, Attis, Gilgamesh, Jesus, et. al.,), with no rational explanation. Whatever those "myths" are trying to say, if anything? And why? -- I.N. Galidakis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/         Date: 02 Aug 2007 12:44:48 From: Bob Officer Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:52:22 -0700, in alt.astrology, clydec@optonline.net wrote: >On Aug 2, 2:35 pm, "I.N. Galidakis" <morph...@olympus.mons> wrote: >> cly...@optonline.net wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> > It would seem that if there is a God and that he >> > wanted us to all believe the same thing, then he would say the same >> > thing to all of us, as opposed to very differnt things that many claim >> > he said, or that he says nothing at all. Which is my experience. >> >> [snip] >> >> With all due respect, I don't think you understood what I wrote. >> >> We may well have a "problem". Whatever makes you think that "whoever" is behind >> that problem _desires_ to help you understand or clear your (supposed) confusion >> about the above issue by "giving" you a consistent message? >> >> > C. >> >> -- >> I.N. Galidakis ---http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/ > >Okay, I may well have misunderstood. So clear it up for me. If one >quotes Luke and Matthew, I would think one gives some crediblity to >their words. As far as anyone being behind human affairs, no, I don't >believe that. And I'm not confused about that! Citing Luke and Matthew is hearsay. Especially when there is serious doubt about who and when the accounts of Matthew and Luke were written. -- Ak'toh'di       Date: 24 Jul 2007 10:58:10 From: Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote in news:46a4a6ac.15392072 @news.uunet.co.za: > Scott Miller <jsfmiller@netzero.net> wrote: > >>Klaudio Zic wrote: >>> Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We >>> slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the >>> scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion >>> time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of >>> the eclipse includes biblical comments. http://www.lulu.com/astrology >>> >> >>Small problem - there were no solar eclipses visible from Palestine in >>the years surrounding the death of Jesus. > > We have no clue when the crucifiction took place. However Fred > Espenak has data for an eclipse that would have been near total in > Jerusalem in the year 29. Now explain how a solar eclipse occurs at the time of the passover (full moon). Klazmon. > > > Eugene L Griessel > > A day for firm decisions!!!!! Or is it?         Date: 23 Jul 2007 23:06:59 From: Eugene Griessel Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th <Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt > wrote: >eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote in news:46a4a6ac.15392072 >@news.uunet.co.za: > >> Scott Miller <jsfmiller@netzero.net> wrote: >> >>>Klaudio Zic wrote: >>>> Evangelist Luke reports an eclipse of the sun, but is he correct? We >>>> slightly modified the biblical report for the benefit of the >>>> scientifically minded faithful. An eclipse happened at crucifixion >>>> time as reported by the evangelists. The detailed astronomic report of >>>> the eclipse includes biblical comments. http://www.lulu.com/astrology >>>> >>> >>>Small problem - there were no solar eclipses visible from Palestine in >>>the years surrounding the death of Jesus. >> >> We have no clue when the crucifiction took place. However Fred >> Espenak has data for an eclipse that would have been near total in >> Jerusalem in the year 29. > >Now explain how a solar eclipse occurs at the time of the passover (full >moon). > >Klazmon. One thing we are also pretty sure of is that the crucifiction did not take place at the time of the Jewish passover. To try and straighten out anomalies in the story it has been suggested that it took place at the time the Essenes celebrated passover - they used a different calendar. Eugene L Griessel Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.           Date: 13 Aug 2007 15:12:52 From: Roger Pearse Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 3, 7:31 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: > On 3 Aug, 11:33, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > On 3 Aug, 09:23, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > This quote is attributed toMithras: "He who will not eat of my bod= y and drink > > > > of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the > > > > same shall not know salvation." > > > > A net-search reveals that this passage was given by Franz Cumont in > > > his great collection of testimonia from the "Zardusht-nama" (Book of > > > Zoroaster), a 13th century text. Unfortunately I have been unable to > > > locate a text of this work, or an English translation: the 'quote' is > > > more circulated than researched, that is clear. > > > > But if genuine, as a Persian source it refers to Mitra, notMithras-- > > > the two have no connection. And as a 13th century source it must > > > derive from Nestorian Christianity, which was active in Persia and > > > still exists today, rather than the other way around. > > > > Here are the links that I found, in sequence of what leads to what: > > > > The quote:http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras4.php > > > > Cumont,Mithras, Zardusht (the page is mostly full of nonsense, tho)ht= tp://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Mithraism/m_m/pt5.htm > > > > About the Zardust-nama:http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Zoroaster > > > > (or Zartushtnamah):http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02151b.htm > > > and some more: > > >http://www.avesta.org/dhalla/history6.htm > > > "Other works in Persian. Besides the Rivayats, several works, both in > > prose and in verse, have reached us. The most important of these is > > the Zartusht Namah or Book of Zartusht composed in verse by Zartusht > > Bahram Pazdu in the thirteenth [460] century.2 The account of the life > > of the prophet is based upon the Pahlavi works. Several Pahlavi works > > are rendered into Persian. The Avestan texts are translated into > > Persian with the help of their Pahlavi version. A considerable > > devotional literature and treatises on miscellaneous subjects are > > extant. There are about forty short prayers in verse and gazal form, > > called Mon=E2j=E2ts composed by about a dozen different priests. The > > earliest in point of time are the four hymns attributed to the > > authorship of Zartusht Bahram Pazdu, the author of the Zartusht Namah. > > The latest are composed in the third quarter of the last century. > > > 2 West, GIrPh. 2.122, 123; Eastwick, tr. in English in Wilson's Parsi > > Religion, p. 477-522; Rosenberg, Le Livre de Zoroaster." > > > Wilson's Parsi Religion (online complete): > > >http://books.google.com/books?id=3Da9smeE8qIIgC&pg=3DPA85&dq=3DWilson%27= s+P... > > > I have examined the translation of the Zartusht-Namah in Wilson, but I > > couldn't see the lines in question. References to 'Meher' are being > > treated as 'Mithra'. > > > There seems to be some question of whether this text is faintly > > genuine, even as what it purports to be. > > > In short this whole 'quote' is about as dubious a thing as can be > > found. > > The only source that I can find for the quote is Vermaseren, "Mithras: > the secret god". I have been to look at this. Infuriatingly, it > gives no reference for the statement, beyond "Cumont". > > I've also had a look at Cumont's two volume compendium of all > literature, "Textes et Monuments", and it contains no reference in the > texts or in the index to the Zardusht or any Persian literature. > > I think that Vermaseren wouldn't have made it up; but I don't quite > know how to proceed. > > Incidentally do you notice that, of all those who have freely > circulated this 'quote', none of them have verified it? It's left to > me -- a poor Christian -- to do the basic legwork. Is it quite honest > for people to circulate as fact something which they have never > actually researched? Andrew Criddle has now tracked down the 'Cumont' that was referred to: --start-- The article by Cumont is in "Revue Archeologique" 1946 vol 25 pages 183-195 "Un Bas-Relief Mithriaque du Louvre" it refers (pps 193-195) to an Arabic manuscript in Syriac characters (Garshuni) in the Mingana collection in Birmingham England (Manuscript 142 in "Catalogue of the Mingana collection of Manuscripts". v 1) This manuscript is undated but the handwriting supports a date in the 17th century. (NB this is the date of the copy. The original could be anytime after the Arab conquests of the middle east in the 7th century.) The "Catalogue of the Mingana collection of Manuscripts" says (paraphrased from memory) that manuscript 142 contains two apparently unrelated Christian works. The second is a strange work comparing the truth of Christianity to the false imitations found in other religions. In this work Zoroaster says 'He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation....' (Wording actually slightly different from above which is from Vermaseren. The passage in Vermaseren has been translated from English to French and back again.) Cumont gives a somewhat fuller account of the work. It compares the falsehoods of the Jews and the Magi to the truth of Christianity. After the alleged quote from Zoroaster it gives a little later the Christian parallel. 'He who eats of my body and drinks of my blood shall have eternal life.' The only apparent relevance to Mithraism is that after giving the quote from Zoroaster the work immediately goes on according to Cumont "quand ses oeuvres devinrent celebres et que ses adeptes se repandirent dans le monde ils le firent bouillir et burent son bouillon." which I translate as "when its works became famous and its followers spread in the world they boiled [beef] and drank its broth.". This seems to imply that a Magian/Zoroastrian sacred meal involving beef broth is being understood as a communion in the body of Zoroaster. This sacred meal may suggest parallels to Mithraism but the work itself is comparing alleged Magian/Zorostrian beliefs with those of Christianity. There is IIUC no explicit mention of Mithras at all. ---end--- So we have no connection with Mithras at all; only a strange text of unknown origin but much later. All the best, Roger Pearse           Date: 03 Aug 2007 14:11:28 From: Roger Pearse Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On 3 Aug, 20:49, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > On Aug 3, 2:27 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 3 Aug, 12:54, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > I did read the remainder of what you wrote, but I should tell you that > > I have heard it before, and generally put rather better. Why not > > think for yourself? I note that you snipped every portion of my post other than the one in which I expressed total lack of interest in your religious ranting. Oh dear. > You know, until the above gem I wasn't going to reply in this thread > anymore. That is certainly your right. I wish, tho, that you had engaged with the factual matter, rather than perpetually trying to change the subject. I have no interest in your religious demons. I have been told, incidentally, that your source, Godwin -- whom you have not read -- is cited as a source by Freke and Gandy, whom no doubt you have. I have also been told that Godwin offers no reference whatever for his 'quote'. Hmm. (The source must be Vermaseren; but I can't get behind V. yet). Surely honest people do not repost hearsay unattributed as fact? After all, it hardly hurts to reference your sources; albeit people may laugh and point fingers if your 'scholarly source' is Freak and Bendy. But that's something that you will just have to deal with. Good luck! All the best, Roger Pearse           Date: 02 Aug 2007 13:51:16 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 2, 4:14 pm, "I.N. Galidakis" <morph...@olympus.mons > wrote: > cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > If you will allow me one last comment before I go, most myths carry seeds of > various sporadic historical truths, however those thuths are distorted later > under the influence of time. So even if the Jesus story is a myth, it must be > extremely puzzling to you to wittness all those admittedly concordant scenarios > (Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras, Attis, Gilgamesh, Jesus, et. al.,), with no rational > explanation. Whatever those "myths" are trying to say, if anything? And why? > -- > I meant to reply to this too. The similarity of the myths is interesting, but it's also interesting how different cultures all have legends of fire breathing dragons. But I don't know of any evidence that they ever actually existed. C.             Date: 03 Aug 2007 00:34:37 From: I.N. Galidakis Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse clydec@optonline.net wrote: [snip] > I meant to reply to this too. The similarity of the myths is > interesting, but it's also interesting how different cultures all have > legends of fire breathing dragons. But I don't know of any evidence > that they ever actually existed. That's right, until you look "behind" the symbols and relate the underlying meaning of "dragon" to what it actually is. The Chinese have retained the "dragon's" true meaning: Wisdom (, remnants of which supposedly characterize the personas of those who have the "dragon" as a sign in their Chinese horoscopes, for example). The various myths about dragons are basically all saying a similar story: The story of the eternal quest of man for knowledge/wisdom and what happens when man acquires it. For example, the allegory behind dragons "breathing" fire that burns, is nothing more than "Wisdom 'burning' the soul when you acquire it", which is a different way of saying that The Truth is a horrible thing if you are not prepared for it. Behind the chained/imprisoned damsel and the noble knight who has to fight the fire-breathing dragon, lies the meaning of the man who must fight a (n unsurmountable) "problem" (dragon of Wisdom, which is done by gaining knowledge/wisdom) in order to "save" and "win-over" the distressed damsel, who is imprisoned by that very special "someone". Note that this "someone"/"something" (the imprisoner) is usually nowhere to be found (and is what I am talking about elsewhere). The same dragon existed in the story of the argonauts when they reached Colchis, guarding the golden fleece. In the case of the argonauts, there was one little additional detail: The dragon was put to sleep with the help of Media (a woman), which carries strong undertones of that special kind of "man-woman" love/union as the absolute power against that malevolent "someone" exactly like in The Matrix scenario (or in the scenario for The Fifth Element, for example). The story of Saint George killing the dragon in Christian lore is another example: An allegory illustrating what happens when humans acquire "too-much" wisdom (i.e., when they become dragons (of wisdom) themselves). They usually become malevolent, exactly according to the Evil Genius scenario, eventually confronting "the saints". Wiki has an interesting article on that with some tangential notions to the "problem" I was talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Genius It's also interesting that the Evil Genius scenario persists in modern lore as well, with the various "mad scientist" scenarios of the Pinky & Brain type, etc. :-) > C. -- I.N. Galidakis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/           Date: 02 Aug 2007 13:36:13 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 2, 4:14 pm, "I.N. Galidakis" <morph...@olympus.mons > wrote: > cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > [snip] > > > Okay, I may well have misunderstood. So clear it up for me. > > I can't. Not unless you see something "wrong" with this reality/existence. Nope. I don't see anything "wrong" or "right" with this existence/ reality. It just is. > > their words. > >> Okay. I will then quietly retreat back to lurking mode, since there's nothing to > discuss. When you recognize not only that behind human affairs there is > "somebody", but _additionally_ that this "somebody" is far from benevolent, then > we can talk again. And no, I am _not_ talking about the "Devil". > Okay, fair enough and thanks for the postings. I'm going back to lurking mode tomorrow myself since my vacation is over then and I'll have much less free time on my hands to think about the Matrix and the like! Sort of like millions of folks around the world whose day is filled with thinking of mere survival rather than philosophical/ religious arguments and who have never seen a movie. But "sort of" in a very loose way as those of us typing posts here on SAA about anything are in a much better place. C.           Date: 30 Jul 2007 13:49:11 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Jul 29, 1:50 am, Night Owl <night-...@swbell.net > wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:34:35 -0400, Pastor Dave <no...@nowhere.com> > wrote the following in sci.astro.amateur: > > >> > >You're trying to avoid the point. > > You're projecting like a bad headlight PD. It's you that's avoiding > the point. > > > As I thought, > >so you go ahead and consider it on your own. > >I know you are and so, that is enough. Goodbye. > > I hope for your sake you do a better job of arguing your point from > the pulpit than you do here. Amen to that. But then, he's preaching to the choir there and doesn't need to do a very good job of arguing.           Date: 23 Jul 2007 23:14:42 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:06:59 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene Griessel) wrote: >One thing we are also pretty sure of is that the crucifiction did not >take place at the time of the Jewish passover... There's no real evidence that the whole load wasn't just made up a couple of hundred years after the supposed events. Trying to link something that's already extremely speculative to actual astronomical events is pretty much a waste of time. Especially when you consider that a significant number of people who believe these things actually happened are willing to believe that supernatural events can also occur. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com             Date: 25 Jul 2007 01:29:18 From: OG Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message news:rcdaa3pdq1cranv884pqo5idgqrsfmbqfu@4ax.com... > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:06:59 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene > Griessel) wrote: > >>One thing we are also pretty sure of is that the crucifiction did not >>take place at the time of the Jewish passover... > > There's no real evidence that the whole load wasn't just made up Yup, you just gotta admit there's no such evidence >a > couple of hundred years after the supposed events. Trying to link > something that's already extremely speculative to actual astronomical > events is pretty much a waste of time. Especially when you consider that > a significant number of people who believe these things actually > happened are willing to believe that supernatural events can also occur. To be honest, there are problems on both sides. Yes, there are Christian Fundies who take a strict 14th C interpretation of 1st and 2nd C scripts. There are also those who are vehement anti-religionists who use left-brain arguments as though they settled everything. To me it's probable that both groups are in fact 'left-brain' fascists, the difference between them being the set of premises and values that are taken as 'given' and which form the mould around which their narrow thought patterns are formed.             Date: 24 Jul 2007 08:06:18 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:14:42 GMT, Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > spoke thusly: >On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:06:59 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene >Griessel) wrote: > >>One thing we are also pretty sure of is that the crucifiction did not >>take place at the time of the Jewish passover... > >There's no real evidence that the whole load wasn't just made up a >couple of hundred years after the supposed events. Speculation on the part of both of you and erroneous to boot. You gentleman have a long way to go, since you obviously aren't even interested in finding out, which is why you make such statements. No honest researcher could say such things, knowing the facts. -- Pastor Dave When making liars happy in their word games takes precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned. -unknown Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith. God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest part of the water. The world says that seeing is believing. The Bible says that believing is seeing. Doctrine is not Scripture.               Date: 24 Jul 2007 13:45:28 From: Chris L Peterson Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:06:18 -0400, Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com > wrote: >No >honest researcher could say such things, knowing >the facts. You are sadly misinformed. In fact, a number of very credible historians have raised valid questions as to whether Jesus existed at all. While this is a minority position, it is not considered unscholarly. The mainstream view (by historians without any dogmatic bias) is that Jesus did exist, but that most of the stories that have come down to us today were invented (or substantially altered) many years after his death, and that there is little to be found in the gospel tales that can be trusted historically. What I said was simply that the claims in the stories are so historically weak that attempting to match them to actual astronomical events is not likely to be a fruitful line of work. Similar "astronomical" stories about the Sun going dark, new stars in the sky, etc are common in all mythology, and Christian mythology is no exception. These stories tell us more about how myths form than they do about history. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com                 Date: 24 Jul 2007 19:24:01 From: starburst Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse Chris L Peterson wrote: > > You are sadly misinformed. In fact, a number of very credible historians > have raised valid questions as to whether Jesus existed at all. While > this is a minority position, it is not considered unscholarly. Not at all. There are several intelligent, well-trained folks who deny the existence of Jesus. As you say, it is the minority opinion, but it is hardly a crackpot theory. That isn't what you posted above, of course. You posted that there was "no real evidence that the whole load wasn't just made up a couple of hundred years after the supposed events." That is a crackpot idea generally advanced by people with, as you put it, a profound dogmatic bias. It is an idea crushed by the weight of evidence. Whether Jesus existed is immaterial to the dating of the documents. The > mainstream view (by historians without any dogmatic bias) is that Jesus > did exist, but that most of the stories that have come down to us today > were invented (or substantially altered) many years after his death, and > that there is little to be found in the gospel tales that can be trusted > historically. No argument. The veracity of the gospels is practically impossible to substantiate. People can believe, or not. It's faith. > > What I said was simply that the claims in the stories are so > historically weak that attempting to match them to actual astronomical > events is not likely to be a fruitful line of work. Similar > "astronomical" stories about the Sun going dark, new stars in the sky, > etc are common in all mythology, and Christian mythology is no > exception. These stories tell us more about how myths form than they do > about history. Absolutely. Unless you happen to believe. Chris                   Date: 25 Jul 2007 09:12:31 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:24:01 -0400, starburst <nope@nospam.net > spoke thusly: >Chris L Peterson wrote: > >> You are sadly misinformed. In fact, a number of very credible historians >> have raised valid questions as to whether Jesus existed at all. While >> this is a minority position, it is not considered unscholarly. > >Not at all. There are several intelligent, well-trained folks who deny >the existence of Jesus. As you say, it is the minority opinion, but it >is hardly a crackpot theory. Given the fact that these same people accept, for example, some Caesars' existence, when we have nothing but a single piece of text, centuries after his lifetime and yet, deny the existence of Christ, even though we have many, many texts and have text fragments from the first century, I disagree. It is a crackpot theory. In fact, it isn't even a theory and these people love to label anything that they want to believe, no matter how ridiculous, a "theory". Theories require facts and that is what they are lacking. Therefore, it is nothing more than speculation that they wish were true and so, pretend that they actually have credible support. >That isn't what you posted above, of course. You posted that there was >"no real evidence that the whole load wasn't just made up a couple of >hundred years after the supposed events." That is a crackpot idea >generally advanced by people with, as you put it, a profound dogmatic >bias. It is an idea crushed by the weight of evidence. Amen! :) > >Whether Jesus existed is immaterial to the dating of the documents. > >The >> mainstream view (by historians without any dogmatic bias) is that Jesus >> did exist, but that most of the stories that have come down to us today >> were invented (or substantially altered) many years after his death, and >> that there is little to be found in the gospel tales that can be trusted >> historically. > >No argument. The veracity of the gospels is practically impossible to >substantiate. People can believe, or not. It's faith. Actually, that's not true and they stand up to the tests that textual criticism gives them and they are very accurate historically. Furthermore, any attempts to write letters, or books, which contained lies would have been quickly and easily dismissed and that is all I'll say about it. From this point, it's up to each person to do their own proper research. And if they're not willing to, then they won't listen to anything I have to say here anyway and will reject anything and everything presented, so I simply don't bother going into depth in this type of discussion, since I have never seen one unbeliever here who was willing to honestly consider anything that didn't say what they already wanted to hear. Thanks for your post. -- Pastor Dave When making liars happy in their word games takes precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned. -unknown Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith. God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest part of the water. The world says that seeing is believing. The Bible says that believing is seeing. Doctrine is not Scripture.                     Date: 25 Jul 2007 17:30:18 From: Night Owl Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:12:31 -0400, Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com > wrote the following in sci.astro.amateur: >On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:24:01 -0400, starburst ><nope@nospam.net> spoke thusly: > > >>Chris L Peterson wrote: >> >>> You are sadly misinformed. In fact, a number of very credible historians >>> have raised valid questions as to whether Jesus existed at all. While >>> this is a minority position, it is not considered unscholarly. >> >>Not at all. There are several intelligent, well-trained folks who deny >>the existence of Jesus. As you say, it is the minority opinion, but it >>is hardly a crackpot theory. > >Given the fact that these same people accept, for example, >some Caesars' existence, when we have nothing but a single >piece of text, centuries after his lifetime and yet, deny the >existence of Christ, [..] But not many people demand that we accept Caesar as being God, that we worship him blindly, that we believe that he was raised from the dead and performed miracles, etc. Like the man said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If Caesar didn't exist then we have some faulty history to deal with. If Jesus didn't exist then some folks have a major problem, like those who make a living talking about him for example.                       Date: 27 Jul 2007 10:26:29 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:30:18 -0500, Night Owl <night-owl@swbell.net > spoke thusly: >>Given the fact that these same people accept, for example, >>some Caesars' existence, when we have nothing but a single >>piece of text, centuries after his lifetime and yet, deny the >>existence of Christ, > >[..] > >If Caesar didn't exist then we have some faulty history to deal with. But you don't question it, even though there is very little in the way of evidence, which is actually pretty shoddy and btw, Caesar did demand that people worship him as "God above all gods", or they would die. Now what? -- Pastor Dave When making liars happy in their word games takes precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned. -unknown Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith. God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest part of the water. The world says that seeing is believing. The Bible says that believing is seeing. Doctrine is not Scripture.                         Date: 27 Jul 2007 23:13:24 From: Night Owl Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:26:29 -0400, Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com > wrote the following in sci.astro.amateur: >On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:30:18 -0500, Night Owl ><night-owl@swbell.net> spoke thusly: > > >>>Given the fact that these same people accept, for example, >>>some Caesars' existence, when we have nothing but a single >>>piece of text, centuries after his lifetime and yet, deny the >>>existence of Christ, >> >>[..] >> >>If Caesar didn't exist then we have some faulty history to deal with. > >But you don't question it, even though there is very little >in the way of evidence, which is actually pretty shoddy >and btw, Caesar did demand that people worship him >as "God above all gods", or they would die. Now what? I don't question it because the consequences mean little today. If Caesar didn't exist it doesn't really cause me any problems. But if Jesus didn't exist it might be a problem for you and all those who make a living off of him.                           Date: 28 Jul 2007 07:34:35 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:13:24 -0500, Night Owl <night-owl@swbell.net > spoke thusly: >On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:26:29 -0400, Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> >wrote the following in sci.astro.amateur: > >>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:30:18 -0500, Night Owl >><night-owl@swbell.net> spoke thusly: >> >> >>>>Given the fact that these same people accept, for example, >>>>some Caesars' existence, when we have nothing but a single >>>>piece of text, centuries after his lifetime and yet, deny the >>>>existence of Christ, >>> >>>[..] >>> >>>If Caesar didn't exist then we have some faulty history to deal with. >> >>But you don't question it, even though there is very little >>in the way of evidence, which is actually pretty shoddy >>and btw, Caesar did demand that people worship him >>as "God above all gods", or they would die. Now what? > >I don't question it because the consequences mean little today. If >Caesar didn't exist it doesn't really cause me any problems. But if >Jesus didn't exist it might be a problem for you and all those who >make a living off of him. You're trying to avoid the point. As I thought, so you go ahead and consider it on your own. I know you are and so, that is enough. Goodbye. -- Pastor Dave When making liars happy in their word games takes precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned. -unknown Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith. God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest part of the water. The world says that seeing is believing. The Bible says that believing is seeing. Doctrine is not Scripture.                             Date: 29 Jul 2007 05:50:38 From: Night Owl Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:34:35 -0400, Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com > wrote the following in sci.astro.amateur: >On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:13:24 -0500, Night Owl ><night-owl@swbell.net> spoke thusly: > > >>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:26:29 -0400, Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> >>wrote the following in sci.astro.amateur: >> >>>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:30:18 -0500, Night Owl >>><night-owl@swbell.net> spoke thusly: >>> >>> >>>>>Given the fact that these same people accept, for example, >>>>>some Caesars' existence, when we have nothing but a single >>>>>piece of text, centuries after his lifetime and yet, deny the >>>>>existence of Christ, >>>> >>>>[..] >>>> >>>>If Caesar didn't exist then we have some faulty history to deal with. >>> >>>But you don't question it, even though there is very little >>>in the way of evidence, which is actually pretty shoddy >>>and btw, Caesar did demand that people worship him >>>as "God above all gods", or they would die. Now what? >> >>I don't question it because the consequences mean little today. If >>Caesar didn't exist it doesn't really cause me any problems. But if >>Jesus didn't exist it might be a problem for you and all those who >>make a living off of him. > >You're trying to avoid the point. You're projecting like a bad headlight PD. It's you that's avoiding the point. > As I thought, >so you go ahead and consider it on your own. >I know you are and so, that is enough. Goodbye. I hope for your sake you do a better job of arguing your point from the pulpit than you do here.                       Date: 27 Jul 2007 10:22:45 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:30:18 -0500, Night Owl <night-owl@swbell.net > spoke thusly: >>Given the fact that these same people accept, for example, >>some Caesars' existence, when we have nothing but a single >>piece of text, centuries after his lifetime and yet, deny the >>existence of Christ, > >[..] > >But not many people demand that we accept Caesar as being God, > >Like the man said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The fact is, that Caesar claimed to be "God above all gods". Why not that statement for those some Caesars I mentioned? Bias, maybe? Hmmm... -- Pastor Dave When making liars happy in their word games takes precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned. -unknown Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith. God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest part of the water. The world says that seeing is believing. The Bible says that believing is seeing. Doctrine is not Scripture.                         Date: 27 Jul 2007 23:10:50 From: Night Owl Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:22:45 -0400, Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com > wrote the following in sci.astro.amateur: >On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:30:18 -0500, Night Owl ><night-owl@swbell.net> spoke thusly: > > >>>Given the fact that these same people accept, for example, >>>some Caesars' existence, when we have nothing but a single >>>piece of text, centuries after his lifetime and yet, deny the >>>existence of Christ, >> >>[..] >> >>But not many people demand that we accept Caesar as being God, >> >>Like the man said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. > >The fact is, that Caesar claimed to be "God above all gods". >Why not that statement for those some Caesars I mentioned? Who today asks that we believe Caesar's claims of divinity? But there are plenty of people who do demand that we accept some guy who might have lived in the 1st century CE as god, even though claims of his divinity are no better than Caesar's. >Bias, maybe? Hmmm... Yes, on your part. You choose to believe one ancient guy was really a god, yet scoff at any other ancient claims of divinity.                           Date: 28 Jul 2007 07:32:05 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:10:50 -0500, Night Owl <night-owl@swbell.net > spoke thusly: >On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:22:45 -0400, Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> >wrote the following in sci.astro.amateur: > >>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:30:18 -0500, Night Owl >><night-owl@swbell.net> spoke thusly: >> >> >>>>Given the fact that these same people accept, for example, >>>>some Caesars' existence, when we have nothing but a single >>>>piece of text, centuries after his lifetime and yet, deny the >>>>existence of Christ, >>> >>>[..] >>> >>>But not many people demand that we accept Caesar as being God, >>> >>>Like the man said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. >> >>The fact is, that Caesar claimed to be "God above all gods". >>Why not that statement for those some Caesars I mentioned? > >Who today asks that we believe Caesar's claims of divinity? Whether people today choose to believe his claim, is irrelevant. There is still that "extraordinary evidence" claim to deal with. Where is it for them? -- Pastor Dave When making liars happy in their word games takes precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned. -unknown Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith. God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest part of the water. The world says that seeing is believing. The Bible says that believing is seeing. Doctrine is not Scripture.                             Date: 29 Jul 2007 05:47:05 From: Night Owl Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 07:32:05 -0400, Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com > wrote the following in sci.astro.amateur: >On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:10:50 -0500, Night Owl ><night-owl@swbell.net> spoke thusly: > > >>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:22:45 -0400, Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com> >>wrote the following in sci.astro.amateur: >> >>>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:30:18 -0500, Night Owl >>><night-owl@swbell.net> spoke thusly: >>> >>> >>>>>Given the fact that these same people accept, for example, >>>>>some Caesars' existence, when we have nothing but a single >>>>>piece of text, centuries after his lifetime and yet, deny the >>>>>existence of Christ, >>>> >>>>[..] >>>> >>>>But not many people demand that we accept Caesar as being God, >>>> >>>>Like the man said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. >>> >>>The fact is, that Caesar claimed to be "God above all gods". >>>Why not that statement for those some Caesars I mentioned? >> >>Who today asks that we believe Caesar's claims of divinity? > >Whether people today choose to believe his claim, >is irrelevant. There is still that "extraordinary evidence" >claim to deal with. Where is it for them? That's the point PD, there isn't any so there is no need to take such claims seriously.                               Date: From: Subject:             Date: 24 Jul 2007 05:14:20 From: Eugene Griessel Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote: >On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:06:59 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene >Griessel) wrote: > >>One thing we are also pretty sure of is that the crucifiction did not >>take place at the time of the Jewish passover... > >There's no real evidence that the whole load wasn't just made up a >couple of hundred years after the supposed events. Trying to link >something that's already extremely speculative to actual astronomical >events is pretty much a waste of time. Especially when you consider that >a significant number of people who believe these things actually >happened are willing to believe that supernatural events can also occur. > Oh - I fully agree with that. I have grave doubts about the veracity of most of the New Testament. Eugene L Griessel Much as he is opposed to lawbreaking He is not bigoted about it.             Date: 23 Jul 2007 22:22:20 From: starburst Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse Chris L Peterson wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:06:59 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene > Griessel) wrote: > > >>One thing we are also pretty sure of is that the crucifiction did not >>take place at the time of the Jewish passover... > > > There's no real evidence that the whole load wasn't just made up a > couple of hundred years after the supposed events. Trying to link > something that's already extremely speculative to actual astronomical > events is pretty much a waste of time. Especially when you consider that > a significant number of people who believe these things actually > happened are willing to believe that supernatural events can also occur. > > From where I'm sitting, there's frankly no real evidence that you aren't also a load. The Jesus story had enough currency among people who were familiar with the events that they believed it was worth getting themselves killed for, as happened with the Nero persecution in the year 64, chronicled by Tacitus, who was neither a Christian nor a figment of someone's imagination. There would have been a bunch of people floating around at the time who remembered the actual events of Jesus' death. By the year 110, we have an exchange of letters between Pliny and Trajan describing the Christian cult, including a reference to the torture of a few practitioners. They were dangerous zealots, after all. As for it being made up hundreds of years later, this interpretation strains credulity more than doubt. Several of the epistles were written by Paul in the 60s, and he clearly knew many of Jesus' disciples. Read Acts, which was also written by Luke, who in turn was one of Paul's associates. I know of precisely zero academic historians of professional stature greater than Ajay Sharma that deny the establishment of the Christian cult within the first fifty years, or even the first thirty years after Jesus' death. The age of the so-called Gospels is more problematic, but the consensus opinion of historians is that there was an early version, no longer extant, written in the 30s or 40s, from which the gospel of Mark was derived. If not, Mark was the earliest, likely in circulation before the year 70. To say that it was all created centuries later is akin to denying the moon landings. Chris               Date: 03 Aug 2007 14:45:14 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 3, 5:26 pm, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > On Aug 3, 5:11 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 3 Aug, 20:49, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > I have no interest in your religious demons. > > Nor have I in yours or anyone's. > > As far as reporting hearsay as fact: you mean like the gospels? > > Goodbye and good luck with your software projects. And by the way, good move not mentioning or trying to defend any of those positions I cited from your website. I'd try to draw as little attention to them as possible if I were you as well. Look in the mirror. Everything you need to be happy in life is looking right back at you. You don't need any imaginary friend or big brother. Everything life throws at you, you're capable of handling.               Date: 03 Aug 2007 14:26:43 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 3, 5:11 pm, Roger Pearse <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote: > On 3 Aug, 20:49, cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > I have no interest in your religious demons. Nor have I in yours or anyone's. As far as reporting hearsay as fact: you mean like the gospels? Goodbye and good luck with your software projects.               Date: 02 Aug 2007 17:27:36 From: Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Aug 2, 5:34 pm, "I.N. Galidakis" <morph...@olympus.mons > wrote: > cly...@optonline.net wrote: > > > > Wiki has an interesting article on that with some tangential notions to the > "problem" I was talking about: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Genius > > It's also interesting that the Evil Genius scenario persists in modern lore as > well, with the various "mad scientist" scenarios of the Pinky & Brain type, etc. Thanks for the link. I scanned it quickly but will read it more carefully later as I want to go catch the GRS on Jupiter. I do remember a bit about the Evil Genius from a class when I was a college sophomore, but that was 30 years ago. But I can see why you mention The Matrix. If Neo is the Jesus/Savior figure and the gent he meets in the control room (I forget his name), is the Evil Genius, do you see Morpheus as the Logos? Or do you combine the Logos with the One as the author of John's gospel does? Interesting that Neo doesn't believe he is the One which sort of parallels the Synoptics where Jesus makes no Messianic claims, again in contrast to John where he is a totally self aware Messiah. I was just struck by remembering something that Paul said which went something along the lines that he doesn't do the good which he wants, but the bad that he doesn't want. Perhaps another manifestation of the Evil Genius? Later, C. > --                 Date: 03 Aug 2007 16:02:36 From: I.N. Galidakis Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse clydec@optonline.net wrote: [snip] > Thanks for the link. You are welcome. > I scanned it quickly but will read it more > carefully later as I want to go catch the GRS on Jupiter. I do > remember a bit about the Evil Genius from a class when I was a college > sophomore, but that was 30 years ago. But I can see why you mention > The Matrix. If Neo is the Jesus/Savior figure and the gent he meets > in the control room (I forget his name), is the Evil Genius, do you > see Morpheus as the Logos? I think that Morpheus is an allegory for John the Baptist. He is the one who believes in The Prophecy of The One, similar to how the Baptist was the one who believed in The Prophecy of The Messiah. He (Morpheus) is also responsible for Neo's "baptism" (Neo taking the Red Pill), similar to how the Baptist baptized Jesus. The ancient rite of "baptism" was more or less a ceremonial procedure where the person to be initiated went through "the mysteries" of religion, by using various rogue substances. In that sense, taking the Red Pill, was _exactly_ akin to the mystery of a "metaphysical baptism", an introduction to the mysteries of "the afterlife" and facing The Truth. The "rogue substance" is the Red Pill, which forces a major alteration of the initiate's reality. > Or do you combine the Logos with the One > as the author of John's gospel does? I think that The Logos is always one step ahead of all stories (as well as ahead of every one of us), as it is of transcendent nature. In the Matrix scenario one can say that The Logos was that force which made the movie possible. He was "the information carrier" of the movie: Something like the motivating force behind the actual making of The Matrix allegory as a movie. Although The Logos continuously inspires the creation of multiple copies of the central scenario, He is not caught _inside_ any single such scenario. In a sense, as soon as somebody or something tries to "describe" The Logos, The Logos escapes that description. He is symbolically portrayed as "The Dragon (of Wisdom) who always escapes from himself and from everyone", for example in M.C. Escher's lithograph "Dragon", where although the drawing is 2D, the dragon manages to alter its own 2D nature by becoming 3D and "escapes" even from his own description. He is also the Gnostic Serpent (of Wisdom), who helps Adam and Eve acquire true wisdom by telling them to try The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. As a result, Adam and Eve see The Truth of who God is and are scared out of their living daylights. The only scenario where The Logos seems to actually be participating in explicitly is the Jesus story, where He incarnates as the VERBUM of GOD, at least according to John 1:1, for example: "In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD WAS God...", and in John 1:14: "The WORD became flesh and made his dwelling among us..." etc. Note that the "miracles" that Jesus performs, are similar and in accordance to the "miracles" Neo performs while enlightened. Neo "flies" ala Superman style, Jesus commands the storm. In both cases we have a human who is able to alter nature's fundamental laws. There is one crucial difference however: Neo does all that _inside_ the matrix, while Jesus performs his acts inside reality itself. Hoho! I dare not think about the level of self-realiation of someone who can command reality itself. In that sense, I think that Jesus was the only human ever who was completely "posessed" if you will by The Logos. All the other scenarios are simply "isomorphic" copies of the same story: The One, (whoever the occasion calls him to be) gradually becoming self-aware. The Logos in my opinion is the eternal existence of this very information in our universe: The potential for self-realization. _That_ which occasionaly manifests and keeps reminding us of our predicament. However, there is a crucial difference between all "The Ones" and The Logos: Although all The Ones gradually become self-aware (by assimilating The Logos partially), nobody manages to become Jesus. Jesus is the pinnacle of all the scenarios. He is the "culmination" I spoke of elsewhere and the one who actually "solves the problem", because he is the one who manages to take the infinite wrath of The Demiurge on His shoulders, so that humans can be spared that wrath if they believe in Him. And if you really think about it, even from an atheist or agnostic perspective (which I understand and respect as much as the gnostic perspective) only a force of such magnitude could manage to alter the flow of time and history on this planet. His influence extends all the way to the most remote places of existence: An atheist or agnostic still counts his age and times relative to the birth of Jesus, and although this may seem like a minor point, to me it shows clearly the extent of Jesus' influence. > Interesting that Neo doesn't > believe he is the One which sort of parallels the Synoptics where > Jesus makes no Messianic claims, again in contrast to John where he > is a totally self aware Messiah. That's right. In view of the Synoptics and John we have two different versions of Jesus, one as completely self-realized and three where he does not make any serious Messianic claims. It is possible that John the Evangelist is taken completely by the Baptist's prophecy and makes an explicit identification according to his own understanding of the issue. > I was just struck by remembering > something that Paul said which went something along the lines that he > doesn't do the good which he wants, but the bad that he doesn't want. > Perhaps another manifestation of the Evil Genius? Exactly. Paul seems to have understood who the Demiurge was, that's why he writes in 2 Corinthians 5:11: "Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men.". Paul's admission of this fear is not something borne out of excess devotion. It is his true understanding of the Demiurge and the Absolute Terror he can inspire. Revelation 15:4: "Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name?". > Later, > C. -- I.N. Galidakis --- http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/             Date: 23 Jul 2007 20:35:44 From: Joe S. Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse "Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message news:rcdaa3pdq1cranv884pqo5idgqrsfmbqfu@4ax.com... > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:06:59 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene > Griessel) wrote: > >>One thing we are also pretty sure of is that the crucifiction did not >>take place at the time of the Jewish passover... > > There's no real evidence that the whole load wasn't just made up a > couple of hundred years after the supposed events. Trying to link > something that's already extremely speculative to actual astronomical > events is pretty much a waste of time. Especially when you consider that > a significant number of people who believe these things actually > happened are willing to believe that supernatural events can also occur. > > _________________________________________________ > > Chris L Peterson > Cloudbait Observatory > http://www.cloudbait.com Amen -- if I may use that term. No one is certain when "Jesus" lived or died. Speculation runs from XX "BC" to XX "AD." Folks who try to fit celestial events into the legend find a handy celestial event then move the Jesus life span to fit the celestial events. I wonder if anyone has ever said, well, okay, a "star" is supposed to have heralded Jesus' birth and an earthquake and eclipse occurred at his death and his birth and death were about 33 years apart. Now -- let's find all the conjunctions that would have occurred around XX that would explain the star, now, let's find all the eclipses that occurred 33 or so years late -- I'll bet we would find a lot of such pairings, especially if we didn't hold too closely to the 33 year life span.               Date: 24 Jul 2007 08:08:19 From: Pastor Dave Subject: Re: Crucifixion Eclipse On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:35:44 -0400, "Joe S." <noname@nosuch.net > spoke thusly: >"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message >news:rcdaa3pdq1cranv884pqo5idgqrsfmbqfu@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:06:59 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene >> Griessel) wrote: >> >>>One thing we are also pretty sure of is that the crucifiction did not >>>take place at the time of the Jewish passover... >> >> There's no real evidence that the whole load wasn't just made up a >> couple of hundred years after the supposed events. Trying to link >> something that's already extremely speculative to actual astronomical >> events is pretty much a waste of time. Especially when you consider that >> a significant number of people who believe these things actually >> happened are willing to believe that supernatural events can also occur. >> >> _________________________________________________ >> >> Chris L Peterson >> Cloudbait Observatory >> http://www.cloudbait.com > >Amen -- if I may use that term. > >No one is certain when "Jesus" lived or died. Speculation runs from XX "BC" >to XX "AD." Folks who try to fit celestial events into the legend find a >handy celestial event then move the Jesus life span to fit the celestial >events. > >I wonder if anyone has ever said, well, okay, a "star" is supposed to have >heralded Jesus' birth and an earthquake and eclipse occurred at his death >and his birth and death were about 33 years apart. Now -- let's find all >the conjunctions that would have occurred around XX that would explain the >star, now, let's find all the eclipses that occurred 33 or so years late -- >I'll bet we would find a lot of such pairings, especially if we didn't hold >too closely to the 33 year life span. It obviously upsets you that the timing was right. So much so, that you claim that these things were so common. Do yourself a favor and do some research. And no, I'm not your school. I know better. All you'd be interested in, is in trying to ridicule. Do it on your own. -- Pastor Dave When making liars happy in their word games takes precedence over truth, Christ has been abandoned. -unknown Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith. God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest part of the water. The world says that seeing is believing. The Bible says that believing is seeing. Doctrine is not Scripture.