Like what, exactly, Inviolable? Now that I think on it, Judaism and Christianity are very, very different faiths.


They are very different, but the entire OT of the bible is in essence the Torah. Christians use the same teachings of Moses as Jews do.
The only thing that seperates the two, even though they are very different, is Jesus Christ.
The only reason all Jews dont have the same teachings is because of the mesiah, if the Jews accepted the New Testament, that would mean they accept the fact that they put their messiah to death.

Because Jesus was Jewish? And because it is partly based on Judaism, just like it is partly based upon many other religions?


Partly is putting it mildly, theres a great deal of Judaism in Christianity.

Here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism

"The values and history of the Jewish people are a major part of the foundation of other Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Islam, as well as Samaritanism and the Bahá'í Faith."

Is your "death by tedium" an insult by any chance?As opposed to a compliment?
You accuse me of insults, but when I ask for specifics, you don't produce, but only repeat the accusation.I could round up a dozen insults of yours in two minutes, and a dozen over-sensitive reactions by you to others' non-insults in another two minutes, if I had the inclination.
but in discussing serious matters. Since you find such things boringI love discussing serious matters. It's you I find boring.
just put me on your ignore list and you won't be bothered any more.That's no solution. You are drowning the entire forum in your turgid dreariness. It only takes one killjoy to kill the joy.

That's no solution. You are drowning the entire forum in your turgid dreariness. It only takes one killjoy to kill the joy.

I like Thislin's posts, as I like yours Blob. Honestly, if you find his posts that dull, don't read them, or jump in and "liven up" the discussion if you wish. Just posting complaints isn't the way to go IMO.

Partly is putting it mildly, theres a great deal of Judaism in Christianity.

Here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism

"The values and history of the Jewish people are a major part of the foundation of other Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Islam, as well as Samaritanism and the Bahá'í Faith."
Yes, there have been a great deal of Jewish ideas and customs borrowed by Christianity. I never said there weren't. The point of the whole discussion, which you seem to be trying to avoid by endlessly saying the same thing over and over, is that Christianity also borrowed from other religions. Perhaps you can save me from having to say that again by responding to that instead of some invisible claims that Judaism didn't contribute to Christianity at all.

Yes, there have been a great deal of Jewish ideas and customs borrowed by Christianity. I never said there weren't. The point of the whole discussion, which you seem to be trying to avoid by endlessly saying the same thing over and over, is that Christianity also borrowed from other religions. Perhaps you can save me from having to say that again by responding to that instead of some invisible claims that Judaism didn't contribute to Christianity at all.


Maybe instead of saying it again, you can show where and which ones?
We can see where Judaism plays its part just by glancing. The other religions dont seem as apparent.

Maybe instead of saying it again, you can show where and which ones?
We can see where Judaism plays its part just by glancing. The other religions dont seem as apparent.

Well you could have asked that instead of repeating over and over that Judaism is "THE ONLY BASIS OF CHRISTIANITY" or whatever the point is that you're trying to drill into this...

Anyways I'll come back later and try to explain the contributions of some other religions to Christianity, but at the moment I have 15 minutes to shower and get dressed and get out the door.

I like Thislin's posts, as I like yours Blob. Honestly, if you find his posts that dull, don't read them, or jump in and "liven up" the discussion if you wish. Just posting complaints isn't the way to go IMO.
I have put him on my ignore list, so he can complain all he wants and I won't notice unless someone responds to him.

Personally I think he has taken this approach as a less-than-forthright way to try to censor me, or, failing that, discredit me. My ego is too great for me to actually think I might be boring <grin>.

Well you could have asked that instead of repeating over and over that Judaism is "THE ONLY BASIS OF CHRISTIANITY" or whatever the point is that you're trying to drill into this...

Anyways I'll come back later and try to explain the contributions of some other religions to Christianity, but at the moment I have 15 minutes to shower and get dressed and get out the door.
My point is a little stronger than yours, if I read this thread correctly. Your view is that Christianity may be mainly Jewish but with add-ons from many other religions.

My view is that Christianity is mainly a Greek mystery-cult turned world religion, with only a superficial and rather forced connection to Judaism, brought about by the fact that this particular mystery cult adopted the Jewish Messiah as found in Isaiah as its centerpiece.

Judaism is mainly about the life of the chosen people--the Jews--and their relationship with God. In the modern age people can join that chosen group by converting, and probably this has always been the case to some extent, but it is mostly about an inherited connection with God.

It is not a salvationist religion. The OT does not promise an afterlife, although Jews under Persian influence began, on the edges, to consider such possibilities. It was and remains a religion about living one's life with God.

Christianity is a Hellenistic religion almost entirely about salvation. We are born accursed and must partake of the sacrifice of Jesus (Bacchus, Dionysus, Osiris, Heracles, or, of course, Mithra). The basic pattern in all of these was the same--the demiurge was born of a god and a human woman (often, although not always, a virgin). He grew up and did wondrous things, was betrayed by someone very close to him, died an unjust and ignominious death, and then was miraculously resurrected and raised to Heaven.

Even the apocalyptic element in early Christianity (although this probably comes from Maccabean interpretation of Isaiah that they picked up as much as from Greek sources) is found in the myths of the ultimate return of this now divine being.

The other critical aspect is the ritual one must perform to partake of the credit of this sacrifice--one must be baptised and one must partake of the blood and body of the sacrificed being in some symbolic way.

That this is the center of Christianity, and that it came almost entirely from Greek rather than Jewish thinking, should be obvious.

It's true that the main ideas of Christianity are very different from those of Judaism, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the borrowings from Judaism "superficial" and certainly not "forced". Christianity borrowed the entire Old Testament, for example. Half the holy writings of a religion coming from another religion really suggests a more than superficial connection, to me.

All in all though, Thislin, I agree with you.

My point is a little stronger than yours, if I read this thread correctly. Your view is that Christianity may be mainly Jewish but with add-ons from many other religions.

My view is that Christianity is mainly a Greek mystery-cult turned world religion, with only a superficial and rather forced connection to Judaism, brought about by the fact that this particular mystery cult adopted the Jewish Messiah as found in Isaiah as its centerpiece.

Judaism is mainly about the life of the chosen people--the Jews--and their relationship with God. In the modern age people can join that chosen group by converting, and probably this has always been the case to some extent, but it is mostly about an inherited connection with God.

It is not a salvationist religion. The OT does not promise an afterlife, although Jews under Persian influence began, on the edges, to consider such possibilities. It was and remains a religion about living one's life with God.

Christianity is a Hellenistic religion almost entirely about salvation. We are born accursed and must partake of the sacrifice of Jesus (Bacchus, Dionysus, Osiris, Heracles, or, of course, Mithra). The basic pattern in all of these was the same--the demiurge was born of a god and a human woman (often, although not always, a virgin). He grew up and did wondrous things, was betrayed by someone very close to him, died an unjust and ignominious death, and then was miraculously resurrected and raised to Heaven.

Even the apocalyptic element in early Christianity (although this probably comes from Maccabean interpretation of Isaiah that they picked up as much as from Greek sources) is found in the myths of the ultimate return of this now divine being.

The other critical aspect is the ritual one must perform to partake of the credit of this sacrifice--one must be baptised and one must partake of the blood and body of the sacrificed being in some symbolic way.

That this is the center of Christianity, and that it came almost entirely from Greek rather than Jewish thinking, should be obvious.
Thislin, all I can say is God go w/you because none of us will!

You have a very warped perception of being "Christian"/Catholic.

I don't know where you get your comments/info from but I strongly suggest you read the Bible. Both OLD & NEW TESTAMENT.

Christ is GOD. GOD IS "WHO I AM" and it is time for people like you to stop twisting words and acknowledge that as that statement has never been disproved.

Jesus LIVED. That is a FACT. Jesus DIED. THAT is a FACT. All that is questioned today is what he taught and that is indisputable "Love one another as I have loved you".

Ditz Him if you will but I don't see any basis for you do do so in your post... you were not there... you do not KNOW!

I get my information from scholars, you get yours from preachers. The results do tend to be different.

Now all scholars do not always agree, so I tend to credit those that are not associated with churches. These, to my way of thinking, are out to prove their faith, and that is not genuine scholarship.

Jesus LIVED. That is a FACT. Jesus DIED. THAT is a FACT. All that is questioned today is what he taught and that is indisputable "Love one another as I have loved you".

Ditz Him if you will but I don't see any basis for you do do so in your post... you were not there... you do not KNOW!

I take it you were there.

It's true that the main ideas of Christianity are very different from those of Judaism, but I wouldn't go so far as to call the borrowings from Judaism "superficial" and certainly not "forced". Christianity borrowed the entire Old Testament, for example. Half the holy writings of a religion coming from another religion really suggests a more than superficial connection, to me.

All in all though, Thislin, I agree with you.
I don't think our difference is that important either. The OT is, though, only "officially" part of the Christian Bible. They use it when it suits and have the "fulfillment of the Law" teaching to excuse ignoring it when that suits.

It seems to me it would have been perfectly natural for the early Christians to latch onto the Greek (not the Hebrew) OT. Indeed, that is where the Vulgate came from. Only modern translations try to get back to the original Hebrew for their sources.

Jesus LIVED. That is a FACT. Jesus DIED. THAT is a FACT.

(then, in the paragraph immediately following......)

Ditz Him if you will but I don't see any basis for you to do so...... you were not there... you do not KNOW!

Fucking hilarious.

You think God "sends sickness" and still you worship him? I must say that flabbergasts me. Where is your moral sense?


I think hes going to send you to Hell and I still worship him.


What you represent gives me the creeps. I cannot say less.....Your irrational and hateful attitude needs to be overcome. It does you no good and may end up doing you immense harm.


He is a Christian.

The warp and the weave of his ideology and his existence is to be both irrational and hateful.

"""Now to the root of the matter. The great unmentionable evil at the center of American culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved---Judaism,Christianity and Islam. These are the sky-god religions. They are,literally, patriarchal---God is the omnipotent father---hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on Earth, as he is in place not just for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth.One God, one King, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family at home.""______Gore Vidal

He is a Christian.

The warp and the weave of his ideology and his existence is to be both irrational and hateful.

"""Now to the root of the matter. The great unmentionable evil at the center of American culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved---Judaism,Christianity and Islam. These are the sky-god religions. They are,literally, patriarchal---God is the omnipotent father---hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on Earth, as he is in place not just for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth.One God, one King, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family at home.""______Gore Vidal
Now both of us know many Christians who are neither irrational nor hateful, so don't try to draw overrarching conclusions from one example.

I take it you were there.

No but your mom was!

OH! I'm on a roll!

Forgot the reply here.

No it isnt Christian.
Yes it is a bad reply.
I know, just like burning dogs.

He is a Christian.



Your mom is Christian!

I know, I know, I am good!

Now for the reply, please choose the one you like best...

You catch on quick.
Yes it is to bad you dont see it in yourself.
I'm rubber and youre glue.

My point is a little stronger than yours, if I read this thread correctly.

That this is the center of Christianity, and that it came almost entirely from Greek rather than Jewish thinking, should be obvious.


That is just your opinion and you have yet to prove it one way or the other.

No but your mom was!

OH! I'm on a roll!
Are you drunk or something?

Are you drunk or something?

No, but now that you point it out it does look like it.

FT's reasoning is pretty extreme...

there happen to be some radical fundamentalists.. so that means anyone who believes in God is a radical fundamentalist... his reasoning teeters on a mental disorder.

*waits for FT to use "mental disorder" to describe christianity*

there happen to be some radical fundamentalists.. so that means anyone who believes in God is a radical fundamentalist... his reasoning teeters on a mental disorder. not very extreme. Look at it this way;

If there are far more "real" followers of god than not, why is it that the radical fundimentalists are able to cause so much suffering and death among the "real" followers?

I don't buy it but its not really a stretch.

FT's reasoning is pretty extreme...there happen to be some radical fundamentalists.. so that means anyone who believes in God is a radical fundamentalist...

While your "reasoning" is non-existant......since I have never asserted that "anyone who believes in God is a radical fundamentalist".

Thislin drew the same moronic conclusion, when I said about what I did about Inviolable.

I did not say that every Xtian on the planet was irrational and hateful.......I was refering to the warp and the weave of Xtian ideology in general as being both irrational and hateful. As explained by Gore Vidal below.

__________________________

""Now to the root of the matter. The great unmentionable evil at the center of American culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved---Judaism,Christianity and Islam. These are the sky-god religions. They are,literally, patriarchal---God is the omnipotent father---hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on Earth, as he is in place not just for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth.One God, one King, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family at home.""______Gore Vidal

While your "reasoning" is non-existant......since I have never asserted that "anyone who believes in God is a radical fundamentalist".

Thislin drew the same moronic conclusion, when I said about what I did about Inviolable.

I did not say that every Xtian on the planet was irrational and hateful.......I was refering to the warp and the weave of Xtian ideology in general as being both irrational and hateful. As explained by Gore Vidal below.

__________________________

""Now to the root of the matter. The great unmentionable evil at the center of American culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved---Judaism,Christianity and Islam. These are the sky-god religions. They are,literally, patriarchal---God is the omnipotent father---hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on Earth, as he is in place not just for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth.One God, one King, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family at home.""______Gore Vidal


So you went with #2?
Yes it is to bad you dont see it in yourself.

That is just your opinion and you have yet to prove it one way or the other.
I have posted lengthy support for my opinions. You have done nothing but reject without any evidence. Therefore I am not inclined to give your views any credence until you change tactics.

FT's reasoning is pretty extreme...

there happen to be some radical fundamentalists.. so that means anyone who believes in God is a radical fundamentalist... his reasoning teeters on a mental disorder.

*waits for FT to use "mental disorder" to describe christianity*
There are plenty of mentally disordered Christians about; delusions of grandeur and paranoia are a couple examples of things that do fit the Christian meme.

I dare say I have never seen a Jew or a Buddhist or a Taoist or an animist do the equivalent of stand on a box in a public place and declare the end of the world, or tell people they are going to Hell, or beat their child for masturbating. These sorts of delusional behaviors do seem to be limited to Christianity and its close cousin Islam (the "intolerance is a virtue" found in Islam is derived from Christianity).

There are quite a number of Hindus that a Westerner would perceive as deranged, but within the culture it is not quite the same.

The Buddha said there are three major sources of suffering in the world--desire, revulsion, and delusion (the Buddha would have appreciated Sesame Street's Count).

While your "reasoning" is non-existant......since I have never asserted that "anyone who believes in God is a radical fundamentalist".

Thislin drew the same moronic conclusion, when I said about what I did about Inviolable.

I did not say that every Xtian on the planet was irrational and hateful.......I was refering to the warp and the weave of Xtian ideology in general as being both irrational and hateful. As explained by Gore Vidal below.

__________________________

""Now to the root of the matter. The great unmentionable evil at the center of American culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved---Judaism,Christianity and Islam. These are the sky-god religions. They are,literally, patriarchal---God is the omnipotent father---hence the loathing of women for 2000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on Earth, as he is in place not just for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth.One God, one King, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family at home.""______Gore Vidal
I don't see where Gore Vidal can be said to be an authority on anything. He was a reasonably successful novelist, nothing more.

My recollection is that I jumped on you for attacking the extremes of Christianity as the norm. What you seem to do, is do it, and then, when you are called on it, deny doing it and lable those who call you on it, "morons."

I have posted lengthy support for my opinions. You have done nothing but reject without any evidence. Therefore I am not inclined to give your views any credence until you change tactics.


I left at least one page of nothing but proof and afterword pointed out the entire OT is the Torah.

Not to mention the origins of the Septaugint isn't Greek, as you keep repeating how the LXX has something to do with cult influence.

I left at least one page of nothing but proof and afterword pointed out the entire OT is the Torah.

Not to mention the origins of the Septaugint isn't Greek, as you keep repeating how the LXX has something to do with cult influence.
I do not know what the OT or the Torah has to do with the historicity of the Jesus myths. You sound seriously confused.

I do not know what the OT or the Torah has to do with the historicity of the Jesus myths. You sound seriously confused.
As for the LXX, it was in Greek. It was a translation of much of the Hebrew OT into Greek done in Alexandria.

You are again entirely confused.

So you went with #2?

Erm....."number 2"......?


Yes it is to bad you dont see it in yourself.

See what?

I don't see where Gore Vidal can be said to be an authority on anything. He was a reasonably successful novelist, nothing more.
He wrote books, therefore he is not qualified to be taken as an authority on anything else, even philosophy?

Allow me to let you in on a little secret, one does not need a PhD in religious studies to be an imposing figure in a discussion about theology.
My recollection is that I jumped on you for attacking the extremes of Christianity as the norm. What you seem to do, is do it, and then, when you are called on it, deny doing it and lable those who call you on it, "morons."
Actually FT usually insults those who have any religious beliefs because they hold those beliefs, not just because they're an extremist in their faith.

As for the LXX, it was in Greek. It was a translation of much of the Hebrew OT into Greek done in Alexandria.

You are again entirely confused.

Heres a little history for you.

The Septuagint is said to be the first translation of the bible. Philo of Alexandria a Hellenized Jewish philosopher who was a native of Alexandria, Egypt is known for his account of the translation. Pharaoh Ptolemy II of Egypt invited a delegation from Jerusalem to translate Hebrew and Jewish text into Greek.
Philo describes how the Egyptian Pharaoh sent word to the chief priest Eleazar, in Jerusalem to send six scholars from each of the twelve tribes of Isreal.
The seventy two Jewish scholars translated the Torah in seventy two days. The scholars were placed in seventy two different chambers and still produced identical translations. While this account is widely viewed as implausible by todays standards it does demonstrate that ancient Jews wished to portray the Septuagint has significant.
The Torah is writen in Hebrew, the oldest Jewish language. The word Torah can mean, "teaching," "instruction," or "law." However it is commonly used to refer to the five Books Moses wrote. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
A version of this account can be found in the Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud. A Talmud is a collection of ancient rabbinic teachings, law and legend.
The Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud contains fifteen translations made by the scholars but only two of these translations are said to be found in the Septuagint.
It is speculated that the Septaugint came into existence sometime around the 3rd century BC and gets its name from Latin "seventy" or "septuaginta".
From the Latin word comes an abbreviation, "LXX" that is used on occasion to describe the Septuagint.
The LXX was often used by Hellenized Jews who gradually lost their Hebrew language under the rulership of the Roman Empire. It remained in use two hundread years after the first century AD by Christians. Hellenistic is a term to refer to the rulership of Greeks over people who were not Greek.
While most of the existing text from the LXX is in Greek small portions of it have servived to present day that were writen in Aramaic.
The Septuagint contains old Jewish books that can not be found in the Hewbrew bible, including the books of the Maccabees. The Maccabees were Jewish warriors who fought against Antiochus IV Epiphanes in an effort to regain rulership. Antiochus IV Epiphanes reigned as ruler over a Hellenistic Empire known as the Seleucid Empire. The Maccabees are celebrated by some for saving Jewish law and the book of the Torah from suppression by the Syrian Greeks.
They were also portrayed has religious zealots in the first books of the Maccabees murdering those who chose the life of Hellenism.

Are you trying to say you aren't confused? I never said the LXX was written by Greeks--I said it was written in Greek.

What you posted proves you can do a web search, but is irrelevant to the fact that the early Christians used the LXX, not the Hebrew Bible--and this is not what one would expect of Palestinians.

He wrote books, therefore he is not qualified to be taken as an authority on anything else, even philosophy?

I dunno what his education was: he was a producer of popular novels, mostly about people in American History. They are fiction, not scholarship. One presumes he researched them, so probably the events portrayed are at least consistent with known history, but he is not an authority on anything I know about.

Allow me to let you in on a little secret, one does not need a PhD in religious studies to be an imposing figure in a discussion about theology.

People without credentials can have valid and important insights, but it is not likely. An education in the subject does help one filter one's ideas.


Actually FT usually insults those who have any religious beliefs because they hold those beliefs, not just because they're an extremist in their faith.

He strikes me as just entertaining himself. I don't think his purpose is to deconvert anyone.

Are you trying to say you aren't confused? I never said the LXX was written by Greeks--I said it was written in Greek.

What you posted proves you can do a web search, but is irrelevant to the fact that the early Christians used the LXX, not the Hebrew Bible--and this is not what one would expect of Palestinians.


I can guaranty this site is the only place you'll see what I wrote on the web.


For starters you say the LXX was of Greek origin or was altered by Greek teaching.
The fact that some of the LXX is in Aramaic says otherwise. Another fact you dont seem to see which should be plain is that the LXX seems to be unchanged from when it was translated from the Torah.
If you'd like we can go over the books within the LXX, it just so happens I have a copy of it.
We can make for certain that the books within the LXX and the same as the ones in theTorah.
Taking into account that the books in the LXX are the same as the books in the Torah I'd say its undeniable that the LXX was not altered by the Greeks.

For starters you say the LXX was of Greek origin or was altered by Greek teaching.

As I said, you are confused. I said the early Christians, being Greeks, not Palestinians, naturally turned to the LXX. You have distorted this into something nonsensical, and I had no part in doing it--you are confused.

Taking into account that the books in the LXX are the same as the books in the Torah I'd say its undeniable that the LXX was not altered by the Greeks.

No, it was Jews in Alexandria who did the translating, and the LXX was widespread in the Hellenistic world. I never said the LXX was altered--I said that a Greek reader inventing the earliest Christianity misread a passage in Isaiah--not that he changed it--giving what should have been read as "of the Branch of Jesse" into "Jesus of Nazareth" .He seems to have thought that "Branch" was a proper noun--Nazaria, giving him--in the Greek style, "Jesus of Nazareth."

By the way, you keep referring to the "Torah" as the entire OT. This is wrong. It generally refers only to the Pentateuch--the first five books--not to the entire OT. The LXX was a translation of these and most of the rest of the OT today as we have it. (I say "generally" because there are Jewish sects who have included other--non OT--writings in the "Torah," but not mainstream Judaism).

As I said, you are confused. I said the early Christians, being Greeks, not Palestinians, naturally turned to the LXX. You have distorted this into something nonsensical, and I had no part in doing it--you are confused.


OK, nevermind all of this, its starting to wear on me.


--I said that a Greek reader inventing the earliest Christianity misread a passage in Isaiah--not that he changed it--giving what should have been read as "of the Branch of Jesse" into "Jesus of Nazareth" .He seems to have thought that "Branch" was a proper noun--Nazaria, giving him--in the Greek style, "Jesus of Nazareth."

That is the enitre basis of your arguement. Right?
Before we move on please tell me that everything you have based your reasoning on, all comes down to what you have said here.
That some guy mistranslated something.

That is the enitre basis of your arguement. Right?
That some guy mistranslated something.

You are incredible; that is a minor point: I have posted much, much more on this topic than that and you know it.

And again, it is not "mistranslated." He was a Greek reading Greek. He misread it.

You are incredible; that is a minor point: I have posted much, much more on this topic than that and you know it.

And again, it is not "mistranslated." He was a Greek reading Greek. He misread it.

Yes you have thats why I left all of the info I did. Then you called me confused and we ended up here. Was the LXX altered or not? Did Christianity come from other sources then Hebrew and Jewish?

A "misreading" when used the way you have described, is a "mistranslation".

Now, youre talking about Nazareth.

This is your arguement.

"is supported by the results of the excavations at Nazareth which do not furnish evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times," "Thus, it is possible that the town of Nazareth came into existence only with the spread of Christianity."

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Earliest_History_.26_Archaeological_Evide nce

However later on that same site the following arguement is made.

"additional archaeological evidence related to settlement in the Nazareth basin during the Bronze and Iron Ages, and adds that "Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period"

While there are several arguments on the subject, there is no proof either way. There really is no point in arguing the existence of Nazareth in Jesus time.
Its a standstill, either way.

We could go into scripture and see that Nazareth wasnt mentioned, however we would also have to go into translations. Which as of yet are still up for debate because there is no proof one way or the other.
Thats not saying there isnt any proof to back up each argument, thats to say each argument has just enopugh proof to make it's claim.
But not enough to say one way or the other.

You say the name Jesus is Greek and I agree but it is in the same boat as the first two topics. There is no proof to push it completely to the side of its origins being of Hebrew or Greek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_%28name%29
"The claim that the form Yeshua is the original name for Jesus is debatable. The English name Jesus derives from the Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates from the Koine Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs."

So we can take both of those into contrast and see that our argument on the subject would have no end.

All we really have is this.

"--I said that a Greek reader inventing the earliest Christianity misread a passage in Isaiah--not that he changed it--giving what should have been read as "of the Branch of Jesse" into "Jesus of Nazareth" .He seems to have thought that "Branch" was a proper noun--Nazaria, giving him--in the Greek style, "Jesus of Nazareth."

Because, so far both of us have failed to meet each other on common ground and allow for some kind of order to our opinions.

Maybe you can take what I said here into consideration and we can find some ground to have our conversation on?

Yes you have that's why I left all of the info I did. Then you called me confused and we ended up here. Was the LXX altered or not? Did Christianity come from other sources then Hebrew and Jewish?

You need reading glasses. For the umpteenth time, let me repeat: I never said the LXX was changed.

A "misreading" when used the way you have described, is a "mistranslation".
Not correct. A misreading is when you read something in your own language and don't get it right. This is a far cry from a mistranslation. The early Christians were Greek and they were reading the LXX, a Greek translation from Hebrew of the OT. So, when they misread, they did not mistranslate--the passage is capable of either meaning since back then there was no clear way of identifying proper nouns. What was intended to mean "branch" was taken as a proper noun.


"is supported by the results of the excavations at Nazareth which do not furnish evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times," "Thus, it is possible that the town of Nazareth came into existence only with the spread of Christianity."

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#Earliest_History_.26_Archaeological_Evide nce

However later on that same site the following argument is made.

"additional archaeological evidence related to settlement in the Nazareth basin during the Bronze and Iron Ages, and adds that "Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period"


The archaeology is debated and irrelevant. All that really has been found are pottery shards and graves, and at some point a structure of some sort--probably some sort of shed--seems to have been there (this is over a several thousand year span). That this was "Nazareth" is hardly demonstrated. One thing is sure, it was not a major settlement--ever--until it was declared by Constantine's mother to be the site. She made these declarations arbitrarily whenever no existing place could be produced for something in the NT--and so modern Nazareth came to exist at least three centuries after any Jesus lived.

Up until then there is utterly no mention of such a place in any record whatsoever--not even in Josephus who makes a catalogue of every settlement in Galilee.


While there are several arguments on the subject, there is no proof either way. There really is no point in arguing the existence of Nazareth in Jesus time.
Its a standstill, either way.

That tends now to be the approach Christian apologists would like us to take. I think we have the right to think that a "city" (the word is used in conjunction with places like Rome and Jerusalem and Tyre), would be mentioned in some account somewhere.


Because, so far both of us have failed to meet each other on common ground and allow for some kind of order to our opinions.
We haven't met on common ground because there is no common ground. I am arguing one thing and you another. There is nothing terrible about that.

Not correct. A misreading is when you read something in your own language and don't get it right. This is a far cry from a mistranslation. The early Christians were Greek and they were reading the LXX, a Greek translation from Hebrew of the OT. So, when they misread, they did not mistranslate--the passage is capable of either meaning since back then there was no clear way of identifying proper nouns. What was intended to mean "branch" was taken as a proper noun.

OK.



That tends now to be the approach Christian apologists would like us to take. I think we have the right to think that a "city" (the word is used in conjunction with places like Rome and Jerusalem and Tyre), would be mentioned in some account somewhere.

I see. Have it your way then.



The archaeology is debated and irrelevant. All that really has been found are pottery shards and graves, and at some point a structure of some sort--probably some sort of shed--seems to have been there (this is over a several thousand year span). That this was "Nazareth" is hardly demonstrated. One thing is sure, it was not a major settlement--ever--until it was declared by Constantine's mother to be the site. She made these declarations arbitrarily whenever no existing place could be produced for something in the NT--and so modern Nazareth came to exist at least three centuries after any Jesus lived.

Up until then there is utterly no mention of such a place in any record whatsoever--not even in Josephus who makes a catalogue of every settlement in Galilee.

Flavia Iulia Helena or Saint Helena, Saint Helen, Helena Augusta and Helena of Constantinople, was also said to have found the cross Jesus was nailed to. Her pilgrimage to Palestine was recorded by Eusebius, who worked on a Latin translation of the LXX with Jerome. Which happens to be the majority of the only remaining evidence of the LXX, besides a very small portion of it that remained in the original Greek.
Jerusalem having suffered massive destruction from Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus, was still in the process of rebuilding during Helena's visit. Local cities and roads were unrecognisable to anyone who wasnt already familar with the surroundings.
Her task was to retrieve relics from Natzeret or more commonly known, Nazareth. She did not make an arbitrarily declaration of the site. It was pointed out to her by locals as well as suggested to her by the bishops chosen to escort her.

To accept one account with no questions asked, would mean you would have to accept any account made of her. Which would mean you would have to accept that she did in fact find the cross Jesus was put on.





We haven't met on common ground because there is no common ground. I am arguing one thing and you another. There is nothing terrible about that.

We have now, say hello to my little friend!

Flavia Iulia Helena or Saint Helena, Saint Helen, Helena Augusta and Helena of Constantinople, was also said to have found the cross Jesus was nailed to.

Guffaw!

How could she have possibly made such a determination as to who was crucified on any piece of wood she might have found?!

Guffaw!

How could she have possibly made such a determination as to who was crucified on any piece of wood she might have found?!


Its writen in history and considering I cant find a single shred of evidence to back up what Thislin is saying, it has more credence then his claims.

How could she have possibly made such a determination as to who was crucified on any piece of wood she might have found?!
She was on a tear. The idea, seen from modern eyes, was to solidify Christianity by putting roots in Palestine, so that pilgrims could think they were seeing the actual places.

Most of the "holy sites" were decided upon by her, quite arbitrarily. Since she was the Emperor's wife, and utterly ruthless, no one questioned her.

"Inviolable" would like to maintain the idea that there was some basis for her choices. All he says is that it is written in history. He has, I think, no sense of historiography to make such a statement.

As you point out, finding all sorts of relics (which as everyone knows evolved into an immense business), proves how arbitrary she was. There is no way pieces of the cross could be identified--nor the "tomb" or where the Mount of Olives was, and so on.

When Israeli tourist authorities take you to those places today, they perpetuate the same fantasies--it is a profitable business still today.

I would suggest I have posted lots of evidence, and you could find a lot more if you actually looked. You just don't like the results and therefore deny the evidence.

I would suggest I have posted lots of evidence, and you could find a lot more if you actually looked. You just don't like the results and therefore deny the evidence.

Think I'll suggest the exact same thing about you.
Doesnt make it true but I'll follow your lead and suggest it anyway.


"Inviolable" would like to maintain the idea that there was some basis for her choices. All he says is that it is written in history. He has, I think, no sense of historiography to make such a statement.

You would be wrong. Here is a site to back up my claims, which is something you have failed to produce so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_of_Constantinople


As you point out, finding all sorts of relics (which as everyone knows evolved into an immense business), proves how arbitrary she was. There is no way pieces of the cross could be identified--nor the "tomb" or where the Mount of Olives was, and so on.

If she had an army of scholars behind her, she very well could have. Which she did. For the first time in a very long time scholars were free to do the kinds of things they wanted to do. She had some of the smartest people in the world at the time flocking to her.


When Israeli tourist authorities take you to those places today, they perpetuate the same fantasies--it is a profitable business still today.

I agree, but when a team of scientist show up with the President of the United States one of two things happens.
Those tourist better have their facts straight.
They'er not blue collar tourist guiding them around, they'er highly educated scholars guiding them around.
Which do you think the "feared" Emperess would of had?
By the way, history, records that she was highly favored by her people having been said to be from common origins.

She had armies of "scholars" around her--that is your contention--and these "scholars" knew which pieces of wood were from the Cross.

You have got to be kidding.

I like Thislin's posts, as I like yours Blob. Honestly, if you find his posts that dull, don't read them, or jump in and "liven up" the discussion if you wish. Just posting complaints isn't the way to go IMO.Message received, I'll leave him be.

She had armies of "scholars" around her--that is your contention--and these "scholars" knew which pieces of wood were from the Cross.

You have got to be kidding.

I didnt say that, I said it was possible that "finding all sorts of relics" is definitely within reason. I'd also have to say, these "scholars" knew what was important and what wasn't.

Now quit dodgeing the bullet and provide a link that backs up your claims, unless you want to quit now and save yourselve the trouble of losing this argument later.

I didnt say that, I said it was possible that "finding all sorts of relics" is definitely within reason. I'd also have to say, these "scholars" knew what was important and what wasn't.

Now quit dodgeing the bullet and provide a link that backs up your claims, unless you want to quit now and save yourselve the trouble of losing this argument later.
I don't post links "that back up my claims." Anyone can find a link that "backs up" practically anything. I see you doing this and what you link to does not even generally say what you say it says--or it is irrelevant.

Even links from scholarly sources are not worth much in this medium, since anyone can mine them for quotes. (I could do a long paper on the art of quote mining for propaganda).

This is not a peer reviewed scholarly publication.

Now--how, then, is what I say to be believed? For the most part I post stuff that is generally understood by scholars as true. Where I deviate from the common opinion is where most non-Christian scholars deviate from what gets published as "consensus."

Unfortunately, biased Christians dominate the fields associated with Bible research, so what we tend to get are claims that certain things have been refuted when they haven't, and that "scholarly opinion" is this or that when it is just Christian opinion. It is a lot like the claims of the environmental extremists that certain of their claims are scientifically accepted, when in fact there are many remaining questioning voices.

What is someone like you, uninformed except in Christian apologetics, to do? If you question some particular statement, then by all means state what your view is, or just question it, and I will try to respond. I am not making this stuff up.

More to the point, what I post depends mostly on reasoning based on the facts and reasonable inference. I do not "know" that Jesus as a person never existed--but I can make that reasonable inference from the fact that nothing except mythical material makes any mention of him.

If I am to believe Jesus existed, I may as well believe the same about Agammennon and Heracles and Romulus and Remus--Lord knows there is more stuff from the ancient world about them than about Jesus.

I didnt say that, I said it was possible that "finding all sorts of relics" is definitely within reason. I'd also have to say, these "scholars" knew what was important and what wasn't.

Now quit dodgeing the bullet and provide a link that backs up your claims, unless you want to quit now and save yourselve the trouble of losing this argument later.
The point is that she arbitrarily assigned values; there was no real such thing as "scholarship." She was surrounded by Christians just as determined as she to "find" all the things they needed. Even if they had had doubts, they would not have expressed them aloud. This was a period when Christians were actively suppressing and persecuting everything but themselves.

I don't post links "that back up my claims." Anyone can find a link that "backs up" practically anything. I see you doing this and what you link to does not even generally say what you say it says--or it is irrelevant.

Even links from scholarly sources are not worth much in this medium, since anyone can mine them for quotes. (I could do a long paper on the art of quote mining for propaganda).

This is not a peer reviewed scholarly publication.

Now--how, then, is what I say to be believed? For the most part I post stuff that is generally understood by scholars as true. Where I deviate from the common opinion is where most non-Christian scholars deviate from what gets published as "consensus."

Unfortunately, biased Christians dominate the fields associated with Bible research, so what we tend to get are claims that certain things have been refuted when they haven't, and that "scholarly opinion" is this or that when it is just Christian opinion. It is a lot like the claims of the environmental extremists that certain of their claims are scientifically accepted, when in fact there are many remaining questioning voices.

What is someone like you, uninformed except in Christian apologetics, to do? If you question some particular statement, then by all means state what your view is, or just question it, and I will try to respond. I am not making this stuff up.

More to the point, what I post depends mostly on reasoning based on the facts and reasonable inference. I do not "know" that Jesus as a person never existed--but I can make that reasonable inference from the fact that nothing except mythical material makes any mention of him.

If I am to believe Jesus existed, I may as well believe the same about Agammennon and Heracles and Romulus and Remus--Lord knows there is more stuff from the ancient world about them than about Jesus.


OK, look. I undertstand youre one of All Forums more sensitive residents.
There are more then a few poeple here who will say I am pretty sensitive myself. I would like to think of it as, I say what I want when I see a line of bullshit.
I dont mean to get you angry but the bullshit is starting to pile up and I dont have any waders. So I think we should stop it now, before it gets to deep.
A lot of the links I left have supported both of our theories. I pointed that out each time I posted them to show you what you were getting into.
Aperently your argument is important enough to you that you have to twist what you can to help you out a bit. I cant say I havent done the same myself.
However when it comes to fact I always admit when I'm wrong. Anyone here can say I have admitted to being wrong several times.
The link I left on Helena does in fact support what I say and it comes from a site that is trusted more often then not.
Besides the obvious that what I have said is historical fact, it is recorded and sited as truth. Thats all I have left as evidence to back up my claims, is historical fact.
So far all I have seen from you is what you want to say and frankly its making me regret sticking up for you when you first got here.

I miss Mad Dog, I wish I could apologise to him now. I surely know the pains I put him through.

Inviolable.... There is no such thing as "historical fact", especially back that far in history. My history professor, who has a PhD in history, says that "fact", with regards to history, is not necessarily true. It's silly to think you know that anything someone wrote down in history even really happened, much less to think that the person wrote it down correctly.

Inviolable.... There is no such thing as "historical fact", especially back that far in history. My history professor, who has a PhD in history, says that "fact", with regards to history, is not necessarily true. It's silly to think you know that anything someone wrote down in history even really happened, much less to think that the person wrote it down correctly.

I know, how else would I say it? It's recorded as truth and used as evidence and a teaching tool by scholars world wide.
So even if it isnt really "fact" there are many other manuscripts that back up these events.

I know, how else would I say it? It's recorded as truth and used as evidence and a teaching tool by scholars world wide.
So even if it isnt really "fact" there are many other manuscripts that back up these events.
The "fact" is, this woman arbitrarily picked a place that she said was Nazareth, and before that it had not been a city or even a village, according to archaeologists. The point is, you cannot be sure, and you could not be sure even if the evidence was actually somewhat convincing (it's not).

The "fact" is, this woman arbitrarily picked a place that she said was Nazareth, and before that it had not been a city or even a village, according to archaeologists. The point is, you cannot be sure, and you could not be sure even if the evidence was actually somewhat convincing (it's not).


Archeology hasnt proved it one way or the other but history has recorded it differently. There is no, if and or buts about it. History records what I have stated here and those records are backed up by several other records and so on.
Prove me wrong.

Archeology hasnt proved it one way or the other but history has recorded it differently. There is no, if and or buts about it. History records what I have stated here and those records are backed up by several other records and so on.
Prove me wrong.
Archaeology has not "proven" anything in the sense that it is completely true. That doesn't ever happen. However, when there is absolutely no evidence of a city or town in a location, you can reasonably assume that there was not a city or town. And if by "history" you mean some Christian priests who wrote it down and had it repeated by other Christian priests, it has about the same historical value as the New Testament. Which is pretty much none.

Archeology hasnt proved it one way or the other but history has recorded it differently. There is no, if and or buts about it. History records what I have stated here and those records are backed up by several other records and so on.
Prove me wrong.
There are no historical mentions of any Nazareth prior to the third century. Why do you claim otherwise? Can you produce one?

You need to lean the difference between evidence and "proof." You seem to accept evidence as proof if it suits you and to reject it as not proof if it doesn't.

Archaeology has not "proven" anything in the sense that it is completely true. That doesn't ever happen. However, when there is absolutely no evidence of a city or town in a location, you can reasonably assume that there was not a city or town. And if by "history" you mean some Christian priests who wrote it down and had it repeated by other Christian priests, it has about the same historical value as the New Testament. Which is pretty much none.
The only mentions of Nazareth that I am aware of are from the Gospels or writings that quote them. The OT is silent; the Rabbinic literature is silent, Josephus is silent, Philo is silent, there are no inscriptions or coins that mention such a place, no classical author before the Christians came to power mentions such a place.

I am going to break my rule and quote from a web site that goes into greater detail:

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.
• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.
• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.
• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

Thanks Thislin. Now he cannot reasonably claim that you have provided nothing to back up your side of the argument. Not that it will stop him from doing so.

You know thats pretty messed up. All I hear from Thislin is how Christians reject this or that and how the truth is staring us blindly in the face and we want to remain ignorant.
Talk about double standards.
Yeah you to Dark.

Let me get past my disgust and allow me to say I'm not argueing archeology or what the scriptures say. Besides the fact and yes its "fact" that Thislin has told me more then once that archeology didnt prove anything and so it wasnt part of the debate.
I have given you evidence, undeniable evidence. OK if this was a Chrsitian argueing evolution and he said there was no evidence every single Atheist on this board would line to post their evidence and then consider the Christian to be unreasonable.

You know what, I'm seeing the exact same thing here and its the biggest line of bullshit I have ever witnessed.
All that crap about how facts are facts and evidence is evidence, just went out the window.
Youre just as blind as those you accuse, if not worse.

You are in full hysterical denial. The hormones must be working overtime to keep your mind firmly closed.

You know thats pretty messed up. All I hear from Thislin is how Christians reject this or that and how the truth is staring us blindly in the face and we want to remain ignorant.
Talk about double standards.
Yeah you to Dark.

Let me get past my disgust and allow me to say I'm not argueing archeology or what the scriptures say. Besides the fact and yes its "fact" that Thislin has told me more then once that archeology didnt prove anything and so it wasnt part of the debate.
I have given you evidence, undeniable evidence. OK if this was a Chrsitian argueing evolution and he said there was no evidence every single Atheist on this board would line to post their evidence and then consider the Christian to be unreasonable.

You know what, I'm seeing the exact same thing here and its the biggest line of bullshit I have ever witnessed.
All that crap about how facts are facts and evidence is evidence, just went out the window.
Youre just as blind as those you accuse, if not worse.

Honestly, my mind is open. You obviously don't know me very well. You have not provided any convincing evidence. And by the way, "convincing" is subjective. It is not convincing to me. I am NOT saying that anything you say is untrue. I am saying that I don't believe it. Also, you are being a little bit rude. I apologize if I offended you and did something to cause you to be rude, but I don't think I did.

Well if you are sincere in what we say, I find you incomprehensible.

You deny what I've posted is evidence, but you never address it, and for the life of me I cannot see where you have posted anything that support what you claim.

In 39 CE, Emperor Caligula declared himself a god and ordered his statues to be set up in temples throughout the Empire. The Jews refused this order and started a revolt in 66 after some Greeks sacrificed birds in front of the local synagogue.. Essentaily the revolt was a war that lasted until the summer of 70 when the Romans had breached the walls of Jerusalem, ransacking and burning nearly the entire city. This account was recorded by Josephus
With Jerusalem devistated and hundreds of thousands of Jews dead in the wake of the war, the Rabbis were forced to change their oral debates and discussions of the law into writen form. It is believed that the first Talmud was made around this time. The La géographie du Talmud quotes,on page 190, moreover, an elegy on the destruction of Jerusalem, taken from ancient Midrashim now lost and according to this document, Nazareth was a home for the priests who went by turns to Jerusalem, for service in the Temple.

This evidence gives the very real possibility of a record of Nazareth well before Helena arrived in Jerusalem.

The Emperor Adrian rebuilt Jerusalem renaming it "Aelia Capitolina" in 132 after three years of war resulting from the second Jewish revolt.
Sometime after, Hadrian founded upon the ruins his colony of Aelia Capitolina, giving the jews false hope and desecrating sacred ground of Jerusalem by building temples to false gods. One of these temples having been built on the hill Jesus was crusified. Which remained in Jerusalem until Constantine brought back peace in about 327.
Eusebius Pamphili records the events that follow.
Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, conceived the design of securing the Cross of Christ, the sign of which had led her son to victory. Constantine himself, having long had at heart a desire to honour "the place of the Lord's Resurrection", "to erect a church at Jerusalem near the place that is called Calvary", encouraged her design, and giving her imperial authority, sent her with letters and money to Macarius, the Bishop of Jerusalem. Her tour guide.
Helena and Macarius, having made fruitless inquiries as to the existence of the Cross, turned their attention to the place of the Passion and Resurrection, which was known to be occupied by a temple of Venus erected by the Romans in the time of Hadrian, or later. The temple was torn down, the ruins were removed to a distance, the earth beneath, as having been contaminated, was dug up and borne far away. Then, "beyond the hopes of all, the most holy monument of Our Lord's Resurrection shone forth" (Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", III, xxviii). Near it were found three crosses, a few nails, and an inscription such as Pilate ordered to be placed on the Cross of Christ.

This evidence demonstrates that Helena didn't simply choose a place and give it a name.
Also recorded by Eusebius, she assisted not only individuals but entire communities. The poor and destitute were the special objects of her charity.

This evidence is widely accepted by scholars today, not so much so that Helena did find "the" cross. However it is considered to be an accurate record of accounts. Nothing I left here is my opinion. It's not what I say happened it is what is predominately believed to have happened.
If this were evidence tward Evolution, what I have stated here would be fossil evidence. The strongest evidence providing any kind of proof.

What I expact you to do is to give me evidence that is just as strong. Not your opinion and definitely not proof from a very questionable site.

Josephus does not mention Nazareth. That is false. You also refer to a "now lost" document. Of what good is that?

Are you making this up as you go? More likely you are getting it from some Roman Catholic source, probably by Jesuits. Give me strength!

Josephus does not mention Nazareth. That is false. You also refer to a "now lost" document. Of what good is that?

Are you making this up as you go? More likely you are getting it from some Roman Catholic source, probably by Jesuits. Give me strength!

I didnt say Josephus mentions Nazareth, I said he recounts the revolt. The original document is lost, as is quite a few documents, most of what we know comes from copies. The La géographie du Talmud which is a document that is highly regarded and fairly well safegaurded has copies of these events, that aprenetly you dont have a clue about. If you did you would know more then you do.

While the Roman Catholics do use the same source, its also the source everyone uses world wide and once again you havent given any evidence of your own. You have only slightly tried to slander mine with your own opinion .
I got it out of a book, you should try to read one instead of taking someone elses word on it.

I didnt say Josephus mentions Nazareth, I said he recounts the revolt. The original document is lost, as is quite a few documents, most of what we know comes from copies. The La géographie du Talmud which is a document that is highly regarded and fairly well safegaurded has copies of these events, that aprenetly you dont have a clue about. If you did you would know more then you do.

While the Roman Catholics do use the same source, its also the source everyone uses world wide and once again you havent given any evidence of your own. You have only slightly tried to slander mine with your own opinion .
I got it out of a book, you should try to read one instead of taking someone elses word on it.
Your mantra that I haven't given any evidence is false. In fact the very fact that Josephus does not mention Nazareth, while cataloging over a hundred towns in Galilee, is itself evidence the place did not exist. So also is the fact that there is no mention of such a place in over fifty other ancient authors that are not lost.

One has to ask why Constantine's mother had to build a church in the place she decided Nazareth should be--why wasn't there one there already if the place already existed?

I posted a discussion of myth on another thread yesterday--and quoted at length from Mark to demonstrate the writing's mythical nature. Another interesting aspect of Mark Chapter Five is that it describes the area around Nazareth as having cliffs high enough for the swine to be killed when they leap off it. Modern Nazareth is in a gentle valley, with no such features.

You are the one making the affirmative assertion (that the place existed) so you have the burden of proof. I already pointed out your inconsistent approach--you want "proof" and ignore evidence.

Your mantra that I haven't given any evidence is false. In fact the very fact that Josephus does not mention Nazareth, while cataloging over a hundred towns in Galilee, is itself evidence the place did not exist. So also is the fact that there is no mention of such a place in over fifty other ancient authors that are not lost.

One has to ask why Constantine's mother had to build a church in the place she decided Nazareth should be--why wasn't there one there already if the place already existed?

I posted a discussion of myth on another thread yesterday--and quoted at length from Mark to demonstrate the writing's mythical nature. Another interesting aspect of Mark Chapter Five is that it describes the area around Nazareth as having cliffs high enough for the swine to be killed when they leap off it. Modern Nazareth is in a gentle valley, with no such features.

You are the one making the affirmative assertion (that the place existed) so you have the burden of proof. I already pointed out your inconsistent approach--you want "proof" and ignore evidence.


The point isnt what Josephus says or does. Josephus isnt the last word on Jerusalem. You keep repeating how Josephus doesnt tell us there isnt a Nazareth as if it would shock you to know there are other sources.

Well it just so happens I know a few of those other sources and pointed one of them out to you. Your job now isnt to repeat what you have been saying all along. Its to give evidence that my evidence is worthless.
To be honest the simple fact that Josephus doesnt mention Nazareth isnt discrediting what I left as evidence one bit.

Also, I went into more detail has to what happened when Helena went to Jerusalem. Showing that she made inquiries about the significance of the locations she decided to visit. Showing that she didnt simply pick a spot and name it what she wanted to at her wim.
What you have to do now is go into your own detail and prove me wrong and not simply repeat what you have been repeating. What you have been saying isnt enough information to disprove what I left as evidence.

The one and only link you left was bias in nature and I wouldnt be a bit surprised to see it was a site you yourself had a hand in making.
Besides what you say, there are websites that can be used to back up what you say in a debate. I am willing to guess that while I could probaly link 5 or 6 sites 3 or 4 of wich would be accepted in general by anyone, you could only provide the one link to back up your claims.

The fact that you do not address what I left as evidence and simply repeat what you have been saying is leaving your intentions in questionable standing. Youre beginning to look like a bigot.
So for your sake I am giving you this second chance to address the new information I have provided with some new information you can disprove it with. However it is up to you to provide the new information.

Has anyone read the story of this man and the jewish war ???

So Josephus is not relevant? The fact that he lists over a hundred settlements in Galilee (a region smaller than Rhode Island) but does not mention Nazareth is irrelevant?

How about the fact that he records residing in a town less than a mile from modern Nazareth (I forget the name of the place) for about six months but still doesn't mention Nazareth? It all begins to stretch credulity, if you were open you would see that.

I can tell you are reacting with anger, calling things "crap" and "bullshit" and so on. This strikes me as typical of those who have their childhood indoctrination brought into question. The hormones of the instinct to hold onto these beliefs are working overtime with you.

As far as the "archaeology" goes, as I said, there is nothing there. For sure a few coins and pottery shards and even the foundation of a building have been found, but is this surprising? Does it prove anything? The same can be said for any given spot in Galilee--the area has been heavily populated for several thousands of years.

I had nothing to do with the web site I posted. I only posted it because you insisted I was inventing this material on my own, so I did a quick web search and found it. I am sure I could find more.

Has anyone read the story of this man and the jewish war ???
I think I am familiar with the basic outlines of Josephus's biography. What is your point?

So Josephus is not relevant? The fact that he lists over a hundred settlements in Galilee (a region smaller than Rhode Island) but does not mention Nazareth is irrelevant?

Of course what Josephus says is relevant, but that doesnt mean what he didnt say someone else did. The point I am making is while Josephus may not have seen it prudent to mention Nazareth, someone else did and there is evidence of this that youre ignoring.


How about the fact that he records residing in a town less than a mile from modern Nazareth (I forget the name of the place) for about six months but still doesn't mention Nazareth? It all begins to stretch credulity, if you were open you would see that.


Youre right, I can see that and all I am asking is for you to consider the information I have left and for you to be just as open.


I can tell you are reacting with anger, calling things "crap" and "bullshit" and so on. This strikes me as typical of those who have their childhood indoctrination brought into question. The hormones of the instinct to hold onto these beliefs are working overtime with you.

To be as frank and to the point as I can, I was responding in anger because you seem to be a dumbass. I grew up hating Christianity, so its not a childhood indoctrination. The point of my anger is your inability to respond with new information that counters the information I left.


As far as the "archaeology" goes, as I said, there is nothing there. For sure a few coins and pottery shards and even the foundation of a building have been found, but is this surprising? Does it prove anything? The same can be said for any given spot in Galilee--the area has been heavily populated for several thousands of years.

You know how you were showing anger tward the Septaugint? I could say thats a childhood indoctrination brought into question. However I didnt because I came to realize you werent arguing that it was changed. Just like I'm not arguing the archeology.


I had nothing to do with the web site I posted. I only posted it because you insisted I was inventing this material on my own, so I did a quick web search and found it. I am sure I could find more.

Then by all means, please show a website that isnt bias in nature.

Then by all means, please show a website that isnt bias in nature.

The one I posted is objective enough. Anything I post that you disagree with you are going to say is biased.

You know how you were showing anger toward the Septuagint? I could say that's a childhood indoctrination brought into question. However I didn't because I came to realize you weren't arguing that it was changed. Just like I'm not arguing the archeology.

Sometimes you make no sense. How could I be angry at the LXX?

My childhood indoctrination, such as it was, was in Calvinism (of the "Orange" John Knox variety) in N. Ireland.

Fortunately my parents disagreed with my grandparents, and when my father found out that my grandfather had taken to beating me for masturbating, we moved out.

So the indoctrination didn't really "take," and I experienced little difficulty realizing that both the Protestants and Catholics were full of it, neither side having an ounce of real Christianity.

My experience with people who defend their beliefs irrationally--which is how you seem to me--is because it is as a result of indoctrination. Since religions are not allowed to indoctrinate people nowadays (although every now and then a cult comes along trying to do so), I have to ascribe it to childhood.

I am not anti-Christian, but I am anti-fundamentalist. This is to me an important distinction. Christianity does great good in the world today, but it also does great harm. The good is from the liberal denominations, the harm from the fundamentalist ones.

The historicity of Christianity--such as whether a real historical Jesus existed--is not relevant to the good or harm the religion does today--it is of intellectual, not fundamental, interest. This is because I think it is possible that myth is the way God reveals himself--a vocabulary of stories that create a culture's religious world.

Sometimes you make no sense. How could I be angry at the LXX?

My childhood indoctrination, such as it was, was in Calvinism (of the "Orange" John Knox variety) in N. Ireland.

Fortunately my parents disagreed with my grandparents, and when my father found out that my grandfather had taken to beating me for masturbating, we moved out.

So the indoctrination didn't really "take," and I experienced little difficulty realizing that both the Protestants and Catholics were full of it, neither side having an ounce of real Christianity.

My experience with people who defend their beliefs irrationally--which is how you seem to me--is because it is as a result of indoctrination. Since religions are not allowed to indoctrinate people nowadays (although every now and then a cult comes along trying to do so), I have to ascribe it to childhood.

I am not anti-Christian, but I am anti-fundamentalist. This is to me an important distinction. Christianity does great good in the world today, but it also does great harm. The good is from the liberal denominations, the harm from the fundamentalist ones.

The historicity of Christianity--such as whether a real historical Jesus existed--is not relevant to the good or harm the religion does today--it is of intellectual, not fundamental, interest. This is because I think it is possible that myth is the way God reveals himself--a vocabulary of stories that create a culture's religious world.

Thislin, I will try this one more time and from another perspective.

Your claims that Nazareth didnt exist until Helena got to Jerusalem are from forms of information that are genrally unquestioned. Right?
More over the evidence you use comes from very reliable sources.
We can go as far as to say your information is sound because it is gathered from sources that are unquestionable.

Would this be a close assumption?

The one I posted is objective enough. Anything I post that you disagree with you are going to say is biased.


The site you posted comes from Kenneth Humphreys. Who is known to speak against Christianity and is well known as being bias.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/humphreysk01.html
http://www.meria.net/category/ken-humphreys
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=190
http://www.blubrry.com/programs/353/atheism/73798/ig-kenneth-humphreys-jesus-never-existed/

Just a few sites highlighting Kenneth Humphreys and what he stands for.
A reliable site is something like Wikipedia, its informational rather then opinionated.

The site you posted comes from Kenneth Humphreys. Who is known to speak against Christianity and is well known as being bias.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/humphreysk01.html
http://www.meria.net/category/ken-humphreys
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=190
http://www.blubrry.com/programs/353/atheism/73798/ig-kenneth-humphreys-jesus-never-existed/

Just a few sites highlighting Kenneth Humphreys and what he stands for.
A reliable site is something like Wikipedia, its informational rather then opinionated.
You translate speaking against certain aspects of Christianity as a bias against Christianity. I suppose, then, that you would say the fact that Thomas Jefferson spoke against certain aspects of monarchy proves that he was biased against monarchy.

Who said something is relevant if they are an "expert" speaking on their expertise, or when the dispute is over what a certain figure actually said, quotes from that figure are relevant.

Otherwise, it doesn't matter who said something but only what they said. Claiming someone is biased achieves nothing; refute what they say if you want to achieve somehting.

Wikipedia is informative and good for looking things up, but it does not provide a good authoritative source. No such reference book does. The only authority one can depend on for historical material are original sources. Secondary material is helpful but not if contradicted by primary material.

I did not use any source in making my argument except the LXX, Josephus, the modern Bible, Tacitus, and the Talmud. The only argument I have made is that except for the NT, no one says anything about any Nazareth anywhere until after the third century (which includes all the sources you have indicated).

Now for the most part this is not surprising if Nazareth were an out-of-the-way village, but the NT describes it as a "city." (There are passages where words for "town," "village" and "city" all appear together, and the "city" word is the one the NT consistently uses to describe Nazareth).

I have made a big thing about Josephus because, among all the ancient sources, his writings are the ones were we would most especially expect to see mention of Nazareth--even if it had been only a village.

Now no one can prove a negative. I cannot "prove" Nazareth did not exist until the third century. However, I don't think I have to. I think there is enough lack of evidence to be persuasive that it did not.

The :assumption" that Helena "founded" modern Nazareth comes from the descriptions of her travels. She picked a spot and ordered the building of a church. There was no church until then. I don't know how plain that could be.

This was what she and her entourage were all about--to create places for pilgrims to visit as a foundation for the new state religion. I really doubt if she thought historical accuracy was even relevant.

You translate speaking against certain aspects of Christianity as a bias against Christianity. I suppose, then, that you would say the fact that Thomas Jefferson spoke against certain aspects of monarchy proves that he was biased against monarchy.

Who said something is relevant if they are an "expert" speaking on their expertise, or when the dispute is over what a certain figure actually said, quotes from that figure are relevant.

Otherwise, it doesn't matter who said something but only what they said. Claiming someone is biased achieves nothing; refute what they say if you want to achieve somehting.

You know something Thislin, you need to come to grips with reality. In the real world I called a site you quoted bias, because you quoted a bias site and refused the proof I gave you that says youre wrong, I then called you bias.

I would say more but I'd rather not fracture your grip on sanity.

Was Einstein biased against Newton? Come now--that is a propaganda tactic, not rational argument. Bias is in the eye of the beholder, and Christians do way too much dismissing their opponents because they are "biased."

It is really a form of the old propaganda tactic "name calling." You can't refute what the person says, so you dismiss the person with bad names--"biased," being the one you have now chosen to use.

Wikipedia is informative and good for looking things up, but it does not provide a good authoritative source. No such reference book does. The only authority one can depend on for historical material are original sources. Secondary material is helpful but not if contradicted by primary material.

I did not use any source in making my argument except the LXX, Josephus, the modern Bible, Tacitus, and the Talmud. The only argument I have made is that except for the NT, no one says anything about any Nazareth anywhere until after the third century (which includes all the sources you have indicated).

Now for the most part this is not surprising if Nazareth were an out-of-the-way village, but the NT describes it as a "city." (There are passages where words for "town," "village" and "city" all appear together, and the "city" word is the one the NT consistently uses to describe Nazareth).

I have made a big thing about Josephus because, among all the ancient sources, his writings are the ones were we would most especially expect to see mention of Nazareth--even if it had been only a village.

Now no one can prove a negative. I cannot "prove" Nazareth did not exist until the third century. However, I don't think I have to. I think there is enough lack of evidence to be persuasive that it did not.


Well, you have to because I proved it did exist before then.
Are you familar with the works of Adolf Neubauer?

Was Einstein biased against Newton? Come now--that is a propaganda tactic, not rational argument. Bias is in the eye of the beholder, and Christians do way too much dismissing their opponents because they are "biased."

It is really a form of the old propaganda tactic "name calling." You can't refute what the person says, so you dismiss the person with bad names--"biased," being the one you have now chosen to use.

I give up

http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/nazareth.html
Nazareth

E5 on the Map.

Jesus grew up in Nazareth, which was a very small village near the Plain of Esdralon in Galilee. Although it is not mentioned in the Old Testament, there have been excavations revealing settlements in the area dating back to the Bronze Age, and tombs dating from the iron age to the Hasmonean period. The Biblical narrative reveals that Joseph and Mary lived here after their betrothal, in the announcement of Jesus' birth came to Mary here in Nazareth (Lk 1:26). Joseph made his living here as a carpenter possibly because it was near Sepphoris, a Hellenistic city being built by Herod Antipas.

I give up
OK, so now we have established that it is almost certain no "city" of Nazareth existed in the first century, or for that matter for two more centuries.

What is the implication of this? A reasonable inference is that maybe a "Jesus of Nazareth" never existed either.

The NT tells us that Jesus created a considerable stir in Jerusalem--attracting great multitudes to hear him speak and to be healed of all manner of illnesses--creating a riot at one occurrence and so on.

Why is it that no contemporary secular historian, out of over fifty ancient authors who address Palestinian matters, mentions this "Jesus."

(The earliest real mention of "Jesus" is from around 150 AD in Tacitus, and this is not really a mention of Jesus as it is a mention of the existence of "Christians"--and their existence is beyond question).

However, the problem arises--if "Jesus" did not exist historically, then how did Christianity come to be?

On this we can only speculate, but there are lines of evidence. Probably the most important of these are the earliest extant writings we have of any Christian--the genuine Pauline Epistles, which originated in Asia Minor and Greece around 50-60 CE.

These epistles do not know of the earthly, Palestinian, Jesus we find in the Gospels. They only know of a heavenly Jesus sitting at the right hand of God, who shortly (Paul expected it before he died) would come to the Earth and overthrow the existing world.

Where is the Jesus biography of the Gospels? It might be argued that Paul was not interested in this, but that really stretches credibility. There are places where reference to events narrated in the Gospels would have improved his argument, but he makes no allusions at all. It is as though he did not know the stories.

Since the actual Gospels originated at least a generation later, this is a more probable way to understand it than to say Paul for some reason avoided mentioning the Jesus biography. The Jesus myth had not yet evolved, or, if it was evolving, it was among Christian groups that Paul did not have contact with (the world then was much smaller than now).

The Jesus we see in Paul is that of a more typical demiurge, who lived on the earth in what is called "mythic time," was betrayed and killed and resurrected and whose blood and flesh provide salvation to those who believe and partake of the ritual. This is much closer to the other Greek mystery cults--in fact it is essentially the same except "Jesus" (the Isaiah Messiah) is put in place of Osiris or Heracles or whomever.

OK, so now we have established that it is almost certain no "city" of Nazareth existed in the first century, or for that matter for two more centuries.

What is the implication of this? A reasonable inference is that maybe a "Jesus of Nazareth" never existed either.

The NT tells us that Jesus created a considerable stir in Jerusalem--attracting great multitudes to hear him speak and to be healed of all manner of illnesses--creating a riot at one occurrence and so on.

Why is it that no contemporary secular historian, out of over fifty ancient authors who address Palestinian matters, mentions this "Jesus."

(The earliest real mention of "Jesus" is from around 150 AD in Tacitus, and this is not really a mention of Jesus as it is a mention of the existence of "Christians"--and their existence is beyond question).

However, the problem arises--if "Jesus" did not exist historically, then how did Christianity come to be?

On this we can only speculate, but there are lines of evidence. Probably the most important of these are the earliest extant writings we have of any Christian--the genuine Pauline Epistles, which originated in Asia Minor and Greece around 50-60 CE.

These epistles do not know of the earthly, Palestinian, Jesus we find in the Gospels. They only know of a heavenly Jesus sitting at the right hand of God, who shortly (Paul expected it before he died) would come to the Earth and overthrow the existing world.

Where is the Jesus biography of the Gospels? It might be argued that Paul was not interested in this, but that really stretches credibility. There are places where reference to events narrated in the Gospels would have improved his argument, but he makes no allusions at all. It is as though he did not know the stories.

Since the actual Gospels originated at least a generation later, this is a more probable way to understand it than to say Paul for some reason avoided mentioning the Jesus biography. The Jesus myth had not yet evolved, or, if it was evolving, it was among Christian groups that Paul did not have contact with (the world then was much smaller than now).

The Jesus we see in Paul is that of a more typical demiurge, who lived on the earth in what is called "mythic time," was betrayed and killed and resurrected and whose blood and flesh provide salvation to those who believe and partake of the ritual. This is much closer to the other Greek mystery cults--in fact it is essentially the same except "Jesus" (the Isaiah Messiah) is put in place of Osiris or Heracles or whomever.


I give up because you refuse to listen to me and instead you bombard me with the same brainnumbing speach you have been bombarding anyone else unfortunitate enough to cross paths with you.
It seems I know a little bit more about this then you do and I have been desperately trying to show you information you seem to be completely ignorant about, that no other person with a fair amount of knowledge on the subject would be ignorant of.
Your argument is completely one sided and no one who claims to be open minded is so overwhelming as one sided as you are.
Its as if you have programmed this bit of information into your head and it wont leave and now some invisible secret evil forces have programmed you to send it down upon anyone you can like a disease.

I should have just listened to Nap when he very simply stated, youre an idiot.
In other words, I've had enough of you, the debate on the other hand would be a nice one if someone else with a small amount of intelligence was debating it.
I know youre new here so I'll point it out for you. You have, in less then a weak, chased away all of the long time residents of this section of All Forums, with the exception of a select few who have more pateints then humanly possible.
My first guess would be its at your expense, this whole conversation was at mine.
If you claim you understand anything I just told you as simply as anyone can explain something I'd call you a liar. Simply because I think any type of reasonable understanding is beyond you.

According to Christian tradition, "snakes" or "serpents" have traditionally represented pagans or Druids. Haven't you ever heard about how St. Patrick "drove the 'snakes' out of Ireland"? I guarantee you they're not referring to actual snakes.

Only stupid fundamentalists take the Bible literally.

Interesting take... "Snakes/Serpents" represent "EVIL", not pagans, nor Druids.

St. Patrick drove EVIL out of Ireland, not snakes...

Even in today's society how many times have you heard someone refered to as a "snake" meaning "EVIL"?

The Bible was written over time... stories back then were "word of mouth" until they were actually written down. They are not stories but a group of peoples recollections of the past passed down through one generation to the next... no different then any other recollection/story...

So, are you trying to tell us "HISTORY" is not "literal"... after all much of HISTORY is recollection, passed to one generation to the next, BEFORE it was written down...

Does that mean SLAVERY NEVER EXISTED? Does that mean the HOLLICOST never happened?

I don't think so...

Interesting take... "Snakes/Serpents" represent "EVIL", not pagans, nor Druids.

St. Patrick drove EVIL out of Ireland, not snakes...

Even in today's society how many times have you heard someone refered to as a "snake" meaning "EVIL"?

The Bible was written over time... stories back then were "word of mouth" until they were actually written down. They are not stories but a group of peoples recollections of the past passed down through one generation to the next... no different then any other recollection/story...

So, are you trying to tell us "HISTORY" is not "literal"... after all much of HISTORY is recollection, passed to one generation to the next, BEFORE it was written down...

Does that mean SLAVERY NEVER EXISTED? Does that mean the HOLLICOST never happened?

I don't think so...

Actually, you've touched upon fact here... First of all, pagans and Druids were considered by early Christians to be evil, hence they were referred to as "snakes". I think you're agreeing with me here.

As far as history not being "literal", you're right. Especially in ancient history, we know almost nothing. Before the advent of widespread historical recording, that is, before the middle ages basically, stories (anything from pure myth to basically true history) were passed down from generation to generation orally. Eventually things would be written down, but usually after being diluted through several generations, and of course since we rarely have more than one account of any ancient events, we must take them with a grain of salt since they were surely influenced by the biases and beliefs of the author.

As far as slavery and the Holocaust, I don't think what you're saying applies to them. There are people alive now who remember the Holocaust, and everything in the past 500 years or so has been meticulously recorded, and we know the basic facts about all major events. So the grain of salt with which we must take ancient "history" does not apply to anything in modern times.

Announcing, "I give up" is utterly lame. It is grandstanding. It is in fact a subconscious concession that you are not able to respond intelligently--because you can't refute.

The reason I don't "listen" to you is that you make no sense, and ignore the evidence. Do not take someone's refusal to buckle under your superstitions and misinformation as refuasal to listen.

I know youre new here so I'll point it out for you. You have, in less then a weak, chased away all of the long time residents of this section of All Forums, with the exception of a select few who have more pateints then humanly possible.


Like who?

Me.

The Mishnah is the first recording of the oral law of the Jewish people. When the Jews took to recording their laws in book form the Mishnah was the first copy of their laws. This book was writen sometime in the 1st century A.D.
It is taken into high regard as it is considered the first work of Rabbinic Judaism.
Rabbinic commentaries on the Mishnah over the next three centuries were recorded mostly in Aramaic and were revised as the Gemara.
The Mishnah and the Gemara together form the Talmud.
The Talmud is a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, customs and history.


In the 1800's a man named, Adolf Neubauer was set with the responsibility of translating the Mishnah as well as several other works of Rabbinic Judaism.
Neubauer, services were secured by the University of Oxford for the task of cataloging the Hebrew manuscripts in the Bodleian Library. After 18 years of preperation the catalog appeared.
The Bodleian Library, the main research library of the University of Oxford, is one of the oldest libraries in Europe, and in England is second in size only to the British Library.
Neubauer, was created M.A. of Oxford in 1873, and was elected an honorary fellow of Exeter College in 1890. In the latter year he received the honorary degree of Ph.D. from the University of Heidelberg and was made an honorary member of the Real Academia de la Historia at Madrid.
While working on the Mishnah over a course of 16 years, Neubauer published a book called the La géographie du Talmud. Which records the existence of Nazareth around 200 A.D on page 190.

Someone, anyone, other then Thislin, please tell me you understand what I have said here and know what it means?

I am begging you.

Me.

I'm stunned. You were never a quitter Nap.

That aside you hardly represent "all of the long time residents of this section of All Forums".

Vile, I simply do not have the patience to counteract Thislin's long-winded diatribes and disgustingly pedantic insults. I'm not trying to say that I represent all of them, but that I am one of them, and he has more or less chased me away, in the same way that dharmabum seems to have chased Brooks away.

I'm not the same as I was when I first started posting here. I've grown and changed and the same things no longer amuse me in the same way. The thing that worries me about Thislin is that he shows little sign of slowing. He might well be infecting the forums with exactly the same dull, unreadable sophistry two or three years from now.

I can only hope that, as with dharmabum, the rest of the people here will eventually see him for who he is and just ignore him. The sad thing is, though, R+P attracts a shorter lived, less present sort of poster. Thislin might well always be able to find new blood here willing to listen to him.

I'm sure he has a place, AllForums isn't really it. He'd likely be better off on a more religion oriented board, like one of the thousands of Buddhist or Christian boards around, who would welcome with open arms someone with an education and background like his. Here he simply gets in the way of everybody else's fun.

Yeah I gotta come out and side with Inviolable and Napster here, sorry Vile. While Inviolable's statement about "all of the long time residents" is technically untrue it relates to something very real: a new prolific poster who makes R&P a less attractive place to post. I'm frequently absent for a month or two due to time demands in my offline life and my very recent absence was due to that and not because of Thislin. However the couple of times I did have a quick glance the forum's most recent posts were all Thislin's and were all unpleasant insults at various people. I thought "Oh fuck it, I can't be bothered". I'm not saying Thislin always insults people and indeed seems to have calmed down now (though frankly his insults were more entertaining than his monotone monologues especially when contrasted against his own hyper-sensitivity to other's phrasology). However he is a prolific poster who moans if anyone dares to smile and is drowning R&P in dreariness.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/crybaby.jpg