Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Ben Kenobi]

You want to be a little more specific, rather than thinking I should guess at whatever point you think you're trying to make?

Luke was a physician. The wound indicates time of death.

Oh, so you're a mindreader now? Not believing that something is 100% true isn't the same as believing it's 100% false.

Again, where is your evidence that what really happened is contrary to the Gospel account? It's not enough to merely handwave and say that it is obviously false.

There are thousands of pieces of evidence, and gaps, and many areas where there is no evidence. Not including things like laws of physics, etc. Just take the contradictions in the crucifixion account for a small start.

So let's start with the contradictions in the Crucifixion then. Where are the contradictions?

It proved nothing of the sort. In fact, Schliemann (as was his wont) ****ed up royally due to lack of discipline and the lack of accurate understanding of stratification, and he destroyed far more of value than he found. All Schliemann proved was that the location the author used corresponded to the location of an actual city. If someone wrote a 35th century CE story about an Aztec empire that dominated the entire hemisphere for a millenia, headquartered in a city just north of a river that happened to fit the description of the Potomac, would you interpret the disovery of the remains of Washington DC as proof of that story?

It would be proof that the story wasn't based on just a legend, yes. It would prove that there was some historical basis to the story. You do realize exactly how little material we have going that far back? Anything that would survive to come down from that time *is* significant.

There were at least ten settlments on the site of Troy, for the very simple reason that it was a strategic location and logical place to build a city. The one Schliemann erroneously believed to by the Homeric Troy is too old and too small. Any ancient find is interesting. King Richard III was almost universally detested, but there was a lot of excitement at finding his remains and positively identifying them.

And noting where the actual historical evidence is incongruent with the physical evidence. Such as the inimical bias in Tudor historians that want to paint Richard III as a hunchback.

Reality is most likely, given Roman provincial governance, that Pilate probably did not more than stamp an order and spent less than a minute on it.

Ok. Great. Where's the evidence for your position? I have documentary evidence that says this is not so.

The whole examination and found innocent bit was likely embellishment, if not fabrication, because Roman law did not give rights to people like Jesus.

Ah I see. And the evidence for your position? Is there an account which corroborates your assessment?

Ego for one. Demonstration of dominance for a pragmatic one. If I appease you, am I not demonstrating in fact that I need to listen to or respond to you? Which means you're going to expect me to do so in the future. Stalin could appeased people too, without cost. So for that matter, can Kim Jong Un. Often appeasement of one group is antagonism of another. In short, there are plenty of reasons not to be a bootlicker.

Ok, great. Now where's your evidence that Pilate thought in this manner?

Do you really think Pilatus had anything to "evade?"

Why did he bring up Barabbas and give the peasantry a choice of Barabbas or Jesus? Why even bother with this spectacle?

Really? Perhaps you can name them and the year, location and manner of execution?

Paul was executed by them as was Peter.

I'm using the description of his acts by Josephus and Philo.

Ok, show me then.

[MRT144]

You're at least 100 years behind the times.

2000 years.

Also, having kids doesnt help with poverty.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Luke was a physician. The wound indicates time of death.

Really? Care to quote the specific verse? Lancing a crucified prisoner was not common practice. Crurifragium would have been the standard procedure. Interestingly enough, only one gospel records this rather odd event, and then magically, a few centuries later, we get Longinius the Centurion, in a document not regarded as scriptural.

Again, where is your evidence that what really happened is contrary to the Gospel account? It's not enough to merely handwave and say that it is obviously false.

You want to start with the laws of physics? Oh yeah, that's right, we have two ways of punting. Either it's allegory when convenient, or literal when convenient, or else it's the old standard "God can ignore the laws of physics whenever he wants." I'm really not going to play a prove the negative parsing game with you. You're claiming literal truth, inspired by God, not I. You can also go into old testament ages, the nonsense of the flood and Noah's ark, blah blah blah. Then the fairy tale believers spin and bob and weave. You want to believe in fairy tales, or lust after fairy tails, be my guest. There is not a single piece of extensive ancient literature or historical records which do not contain exaggerations, inconsistencies, plagiarism, etc. The authors were more interested in good stories that served their purposes than veracity. Oh, yes, these books are different, they were divinely inspired because we say so. Ok there.

So let's start with the contradictions in the Crucifixion then. Where are the contradictions?

I assume you're read the bible.

It would be proof that the story wasn't based on just a legend, yes. It would prove that there was some historical basis to the story.

It proves nothing more than that the authors were not making up local geography. The minimal evidence at Troy VIIa is not enough to establish destruction by war. let alone by whom, if such a war occurred. Assuming a war occurred, it could just as easily be an internal succession conflict or local city state, or looting after a drought or disaster. No reason at all, and no evidence at all, to support the Homeric notion of a Trojan war between the Trojans and an Achaean coalition. The particular details of the Trojan war were fun, but fanciful bull****. Ten years to prepare? Then ten years of warfare? For a chick? Great stuff, but accurate they're not.

And noting where the actual historical evidence is incongruent with the physical evidence. Such as the inimical bias in Tudor historians that want to paint Richard III as a hunchback.

Oh, yeah, he was a handsome scrapping one. The withered arm detail was incorrect. BFD. The severe scoliosis was correct. He was clearly deformed. It's not "bias" per se, though there was plenty of that, and no lack of reason. It is the typical imprecision of medieval and older sources.

Ok. Great. Where's the evidence for your position? I have documentary evidence that says this is not so.

I know. The Good Book.

Ah I see. And the evidence for your position? Is there an account which corroborates your assessment?

Roman law. There are numerous accounts over an extended period of time as to Roman provincial governance and the handling of prisoners, criminals, etc., the "rights" of non-Roman subjects, etc.

Ok, great. Now where's your evidence that Pilate thought in this manner?

There's no evidence one way or another. The available evidence is that he was a thieving, conniving psychopath who detested the Jews, and probably was none too favored in Rome, given his ****ty assignment and eventual recall. The idea that he gave a rat's ass one way or another about one palestinian Jew is laughable, considering the butcher's bill he levied.

Why did he bring up Barabbas and give the peasantry a choice of Barabbas or Jesus? Why even bother with this spectacle?

What's the evidence that this is anything other than an embellishment to reinforce the blameless Rome vs. Dirty Evil Jews editorial slant of the authors of the gospels?

Paul was executed by them as was Peter.

Really now? :duh: And which of the gospels did they write? See, we were referring to gospel authors and their accounts, and you ran your mouth, then back into a corner and play word games.

Ok, show me then.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Works-Josephus-Complete-Unabridged/dp/0913573868

[Kidlicious]

Also, having kids doesnt help with poverty.

I know. I have one. I keep telling him to give me money, but he keeps asking for money.

[MrFun]

Ben, I'm going to get some dried haberno peppers and rub them over your eyes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Habaneros?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's the trendy hot pepper that Mr. Fun has discovered since his exile from Iowa. Fun wants to show off how hip he is.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I was thinking why waste a good pepper?

[Ben Kenobi]

You're claiming literal truth, inspired by God

I am claiming that the Gospels, insofar as Christ is the Son of God, is an accurate historical source.

You can also go into old testament

The topic at hand is Christ - which means we're sticking with the Gospels.

The authors were more interested in good stories that served their purposes than veracity.

The authors themselves claim that the Gospels are a historically accurate account of Jesus' ministry. They are the result of collaboration and editing and published some 20 years after his death and are still extant today.

I assume you're read the bible.

Okay... so where are the contradictions?

It proves nothing more than that the authors were not making up local geography.

So given accurate geography (for the time that it was written), does that mean we should be able to glean other information about an age with which we no longer possess any other written documentation? You take what you can get and the Iliad is priceless. If I were to take a book out - any book - it would tell me quite a bit about the period in which it was written, even if it were fiction.

The particular details of the Trojan war were fun, but fanciful bull****. Ten years to prepare? Then ten years of warfare? For a chick? Great stuff, but accurate they're not.

Almost as fanciful as a King who gave up his crown to marry a commoner divorcee, or another King who founded his own Church and started a war just to get a second wife? Yeah, totally unbelievable.

It's not "bias" per se, though there was plenty of that, and no lack of reason. It is the typical imprecision of medieval and older sources.

Yeah, and it's funny how the Tudor historians swiftly sweep it all under the rug - imagine if people began to question that Henry VII really might have been a usurper.

Roman law. There are numerous accounts over an extended period of time as to Roman provincial governance and the handling of prisoners, criminals, etc., the "rights" of non-Roman subjects, etc.

Anything which refers to Jesus' imprisonment?

There's no evidence one way or another. The available evidence is that he was a thieving, conniving psychopath who detested the Jews, and probably was none too favored in Rome, given his ****ty assignment and eventual recall. The idea that he gave a rat's ass one way or another about one palestinian Jew is laughable, considering the butcher's bill he levied.

So you're just pulling it out of your ass. Ok.

What's the evidence that this is anything other than an embellishment to reinforce the blameless Rome vs. Dirty Evil Jews editorial slant of the authors of the gospels?

Where's the evidence that it's an embellishment?

Really now? :duh: And which of the gospels did they write? See, we were referring to gospel authors and their accounts, and you ran your mouth, then back into a corner and play word games.

So your thesis is that the Gospel writers would have zero sympathy for their Apostolic brothers who were killed and would go so far as to distort the account in order to make the Romans look better? If anything - it would go the other way.

[Ben Kenobi]

I was thinking why waste a good pepper?

He probably thinks it's the fire of the gods or somesuch. I dunno. I'm surprised he even knows what a pepper is.

[Aeson]

I was making a pithy comment about how you're setting up a category of just one member.

Yah, you're the only deaf Catholic heterosexual in the world, and/or Asher is the only non-disabled atheist homosexual

See- I don't really gage myself as a deaf person. I look at everyone else in general and my goal is to match up with them. Always has been.

Except that you always bring up how hard it is being deaf to build up your accomplishments.

Well, sure. As a single man without many means I would be a bad father. Which is why I'm not a dad.

I'm glad we can agree that since Asher isn't single and has lots of means, he would be a great father.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I am claiming that the Gospels, insofar as Christ is the Son of God, is an accurate historical source.
The topic at hand is Christ - which means we're sticking with the Gospels.

I really should get back to work, but blame it on Stone Ruination IPA

Since you're claiming accuracy, the burden is on you to show accuracy of every single claim you contend is accurate. Not "oh, they said Rome, and Rome exists, so it must all be true" The gospels are part and parcel of all the "divinely inspired" works. They didn't suddenly become accurate in the midst of inaccuracy, but if you want to limit the discussion there, you can toss most of the "miracles" straightaway as myth based on laws of physics and biology. No waking on water, no water to wine, no resurrecting the dead or real faith healing (you can have a little placebo effect and tall tale embellishment. Anything reported inconsistently without external support, toss that too.

The authors themselves claim that the Gospels are a historically accurate account of Jesus' ministry. They are the result of collaboration and editing and published some 20 years after his death and are still extant today.

The authors themselves are not definitely known. The earliest assumed dates for three are around 60 CE, but all but Mark have assumed dates as late as ~80ish CE or later, about 50 years later, not 20. So not likely by actual eyewitnesses given historical lifespans, but more by second or even third hand sources. Ironically, Mark, the assumed earliest, also has the latest age for the first known fragments, nearly three centuries later. All of the earliest known fragments of the texts date approximately a century later, but keep spinning there.

So given accurate geography (for the time that it was written), does that mean we should be able to glean other information about an age with which we no longer possess any other written documentation? You take what you can get and the Iliad is priceless. If I were to take a book out - any book - it would tell me quite a bit about the period in which it was written, even if it were fiction.

BINGO!!! The trick is, you have to distinguish what it tells you from what it doesn't.

Almost as fanciful as a King who gave up his crown to marry a commoner divorcee, or another King who founded his own Church and started a war just to get a second wife? Yeah, totally unbelievable.

Hardly. Here you go flapping your ass in your breeze, demonstrating youthful naivete and lack of critical thinking skills. How does an army support itself in the field for ten years at a beachhead in that specific microclimate? Let alone a besieged force in a city? It didn't happen. Not once in the ancient world, not even close. Totally ignoring the field mortality, sanitation conditions, etc. Then ten years to prepare? Nice hyperbole. Same way we know the Greek exagerrations of the Persian army size at Thermopylae - you can't support a primitive army of that size in the field. It can not be done, and you can get into all sorts of details, calculating availability and flow rates of wells, mean temperature, fresh water demands, number of animals need to eat, bivouac space. Hyperbolic exaggeration was a common theme of all ancient authors, hell, we have tall tales and fish stories in the modern era. Read Tom ****ing Clancy.

Yeah, and it's funny how the Tudor historians swiftly sweep it all under the rug - imagine if people began to question that Henry VII really might have been a usurper.

He usurped the usurper. Who gives a ****, really? There was enough against Richard III that antipathy towards him is objectively understandable, but, as you note, the story tellers have a slanted agenda and objective assessment of facts is entirely secondary.

Anything which refers to Jesus' imprisonment?

Having one's ass in jail doesn't get you a date with the gov'nor.

So you're just pulling it out of your ass. Ok.

You're the one insisting on an interpretation inconsistent with available independent evidence. Particularly Josephus and Philo, who write from very different perspectives, especially as Josephus became a Roman citizen and apologist, but he condemns Pilatus in very strong terms.

Where's the evidence that it's an embellishment?

You're the one asserting accuracy without corroborating evidence.

So your thesis is that the Gospel writers would have zero sympathy for their Apostolic brothers who were killed and would go so far as to distort the account in order to make the Romans look better? If anything - it would go the other way.

My thesis is that in the face of increasing hostility from Rome, after Nero, they wouldn't be so stupid as to write something that could be definitively taken as a calling to rise against Rome, which would have absolutely condemned all Christians throughout the empire and trigger a massive Roman response. Instead, shift the blame to the Jews. The Romans are the ones with the legions and the spears, not the Jews. It has nothing to do with "sympathy" and everything to do with a pragmatic realization that truth be damned, it's easier to "spread the word" within Rome, rather than in open opposition to Rome. Rome thrived on making forceful demonstrations of the results of defiance.* It was also done to make it consistent with alleged prophecy, because if you weren't consistent with prophecy, then your so-called divine authority goes swimming in the latrine.

* Fun stuff. Are you familiar with the philosophical and legal underpinnings of damnatio ad flammas and damnatio ad bestias?

[MichaeltheGreat]

He probably thinks it's the fire of the gods or somesuch. I dunno. I'm surprised he even knows what a pepper is.

Why? I wasn't aware Canuckistan was a hotbed of culinary diversity.

[MRT144]

I know. I have one. I keep telling him to give me money, but he keeps asking for money.

You must counter this trade deficit.

[Ninot]

Since when has the state mandated marriage?

Since when has the state mandated adherence to religious scripture?

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

On topic comment: I feel like SCOTUS will probably punt on this one from everything I'm reading, but America is slowly getting on the right side of history