What would it take to make you happy, TODAY?

[Whaleboy]

*Whaleboy thinks back to Drogue's 19th*

Oh yes it does!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Agathon


Loosely based on history... very loosely.

Look - Some Greek historian exaggerating the size of the Persian army or claiming that people with eyes in the backs of their heads exist in Hyperborea or some such place is bollocks.

But it's not religiously motivated bollocks.

Oh, come on. What about all those Gods taking favourites and slipping in a bit of divine intervention here and there? "Worship me and I'll get you laid a lot" and all that?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Drogue
Plus the two scarily hot girls who call me Mr. President (they're two of the vice presidents, it's a joke thing), which does *so* much for my ego

You're not HT though.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, beat that

[Drogue]

High Tower? Damn, there's someone I haven't seen for a while. Speaking of which, where's Zylka? Have they ( ) escaped OTF?!

[Provost Harrison]

High Tension

[Mrs. Tuberski]

If any of you guys are catholic watch the passion of the christ that movie was awesome. It makes you or it did me anyway think about my B.S. complaining. If jesus could go through that,and i mean all of that , I have to ask my self who am i to complain about my life.

[Ben Kenobi]

Or even if you are not catholic.

I watched that movie while I was a protestant, and look at me now.

[Ben Kenobi]

Aren't you making a rather big assumption, that Paul's epistles are of the same nature as the journals of the Goncourt Brothers, or Samuel Pepys's diaries ? They aren't, of course.

It's somewhat different, in that Paul's epistles are written to a different audience than Pepys' diaries. He's writing to them in order to strengthen each church as best as he can.

So I suggest you compare apples to apples, in using the synoptics, which I submitted as historical evidence for the death and resurrection of Christ.

Of course, you can also use the epistles, but the only one that really works for this purpose is 1st Corinthians.

The issue is whether or not historians of ancient times lied. Eusebius condemns himself out of his own mouth, as do the others. They lied as much as the Romans who dreamt up a descent from Troy, or fabricated Romulus and Remus, or the English historians with their ludicrous attributions to Brut.

Which reasserts my claim that we can be more sure of what the Christians say than we can about anything else in that time period.

The Bible is not objective 'history', it is an historical text, altered, selected, and with a propagandistic purpose.

All history is prone to such editing. I admit this, even as I affirm their authority and trustworthiness. The alternative is to reject all the knowledge that we have of this time.

No surprises as to where the notion or idea of propaganda as we know it came from as Pope Gregory XV created a 'Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide (for the propagation of the faith)' in 1622. Of course, the propaganda machine had been working long before that, fabricating the Donation of Constantine to justify temporal powers for a worldly church.

The Gospels don't read like propaganda. They show the sheer stubborness and foibles of all of Christ's disciples. It reads more like an accurate account, in how even the most steadfast denies Christ three times.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

If anyone can get out what i did of that movie then your on the same page. I for one have had a lot of doubts I havent yet let go of all my disregards but I might be able to here in the future . We shall see. To be happy tomorrow I wish for peaceful sleep and respectful people I have to deal with in the A.M.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It's somewhat different, in that Paul's epistles are written to a different audience than Pepys' diaries. He's writing to them in order to strengthen each church as best as he can.

So I suggest you compare apples to apples, in using the synoptics, which I submitted as historical evidence for the death and resurrection of Christ.

Of course, you can also use the epistles, but the only one that really works for this purpose is 1st Corinthians.

So you're just admitting that it is all propaganda, manipulated for the convenience of politics. How do you reconcile believing in a fallacy?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It's somewhat different, in that Paul's epistles are written to a different audience than Pepys' diaries. He's writing to them in order to strengthen each church as best as he can.

The Gospels don't read like propaganda.

Oh good grief. Who brought up kitchen sink history ?

You did. In Pepys's diaries and the Goncourt journals we read about real lives, lived by real people with no miraculous events an dno overt propagandistic intent.

What they write about is corroborated by archaeological evidence, by disinterested parties, by the minutiae and detritus that accumulates when ordinary lives are lived.

The Pauline and Apostolic epistles are not simply writing to an audience, they are attempting to create an audience too, and to instil orthodoxy.

If you think the Bible doesn't read as propaganda, then I suggest you don't understand either the nature or purpose of propaganda, or are simply being wilfully dishonest.


'Which reasserts my claim that we can be more sure of what the Christians say than we can about anything else in that time period.'

Obi Gyn

What rubbish. It does nothing of the sort- it simply shows that they are constructing a mythology and if necessary, revising it. The Synoptic Gospels aren't historical evidence in the same way that the accounts of the Peruzzi or Bardi banking houses are evidence, nor are they remotely similar to the transcripts of the trials of Oscar Wilde.

If anything, they are in modern terms like the histories of Soviet Russia in the Stalinist era, when (nearly) all uncomfortable references and images have been edited out.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you're just admitting that it is all propaganda, manipulated for the convenience of politics. How do you reconcile believing in a fallacy?

A letter written to strengthen a church has a different audience from the Gospels, or from Pepys's diary, and that has to be assessed when determining their merits as a historical source. This does not render them without historical merit, letters are an important part of historical events, but in terms of determining where bias lies, audience has to be considered. The Gospels are very different, in that they present direct testimony as to the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

If you looked at my caveat, you'll see why I set 1st Corinthians aside. There, Paul argues for the resurrection, citing the testimony of the believers, many of whom are still alive.

[Ben Kenobi]

If anything, they are in modern terms like the histories of Soviet Russia in the Stalinist era, when (nearly) all uncomfortable references and images have been edited out.

Rubbish!

I already cited one of many, many references that portray the disciples of Christ in a negative light. They are stubborn, dull, uncomprehending, faithless, they abandon Christ on the cross, they refuse to believe him, they oppose his mission, and Judas betrays him with a kiss.

They do not shy away from the difficult teachings of Christ, even admitting that they interpreted a parable incorrectly, as in the yeast of the parisees. They admit that the Sermon on the mount is difficult, that the teachings on marriage are difficult, that the teachings of Christ as the bread of life are difficult, they say when many chose to leave Christ when they could not accept his message.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Rubbish!

'Rubbish!' right back at you.

What happened to all those 'unhelpful' gospels and gnostic texts ?

What happened to all those believers who didn't believe the new party line ? Pauline or Jacobite Church ?

Monophysite or Monothelite ? Nestorian, Arian, Pelagian, et cetera et cetera....


More to the point- who is being worshipped, the disciples and apostles or the god ?

Unless of course you're suggesting that the early Christians were attempting to propagate the gospel to get themselves worshipped, which isn't what I suggested.



Oh, let's see, they were left out, burnt, destroyed, marginalized, eradicated, exiled, executed, waged war upon, et cetera, et cetera.

The Christians proved to be no better when their little sect took power than any of the persecuting pagan Romans, and a good deal less tolerant, since THEIR way was now the ONLY way.

No more toleration of Syrian or Eastern or Egyptian or Etruscan or Greek gods, no more Iranian cults, no more temples to Cybele, or Isis or Serapis.

Gosh, that does have a fine 20th Century intolerant ring to it.