Archaeologica.org

Minimalist wrote:I believe the final form was determined by Bishop Athanasius c. 365 AD.

Various bishops had put their two cents in prior to that including Irenaeus and Eusebius.

One of them is supposed to have demanded that only books which were written by "apostles" could be included which explains why the gospels are given the names of apostles even though no one knows who wrote them.

so...............

seems to me we have another - even though previous - redaction of the arthur syndrome. an historical amazing guy kicks ass in his own way, enters the oral, and in the case of jesus, written, tradition. and then devlops his own numinousness. all of which is fine. but it isn't god. to me, god is our ultimate excuse for our own failings. and i want to be specific here. we have erected an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent excuse, so that we can to some extent avoid responsibility for our own actions. well, tain't so.

jesus made me do this.

alexander, anyone?

john

The difference between Arthur and Jesus is that there probably was a British or British/Roman noble who tried to rally resistance to barbarian invaders in the 5th century.

Of course, he had nothing to do with the 12th century world of chivalry as it was shown when the tale was finally written down.

Minimalist wrote:The difference between Arthur and Jesus is that there probably was a British or British/Roman noble who tried to rally resistance to barbarian invaders in the 5th century.

Of course, he had nothing to do with the 12th century world of chivalry as it was shown when the tale was finally written down.

and this is different from a judean trying to rally resistance from roman invaders in the 1st century?

you are correct that religion is not the point.


john

and this is different from a judean trying to rally resistance from roman invaders in the 1st century?

The words that the gospel writers created for jesus to speak hardly amount to leading a resistance.

In fact, he seems like a collaborator.


Of course in the context of 70 AD that was a wise course of action as there were 4 Roman legions still cleaning the blood off their weapons.

Minimalist wrote:

and this is different from a judean trying to rally resistance from roman invaders in the 1st century?

The words that the gospel writers created for jesus to speak hardly amount to leading a resistance.

In fact, he seems like a collaborator.


Of course in the context of 70 AD that was a wise course of action as there were 4 Roman legions still cleaning the blood off their weapons.[/quot


so who cranked up the bubble machine? and, more to the point, how did it end up being the "holy" roman empire?


Innocent xxx

It was never Holy, Roman, nor an Empire.

[quote="Minimalist"]It was never Holy, Roman, nor an Empire.[/q

i agree, except i have to say that it was an empire, ghosts of which exist to this day. i still see its effects, every day. like a bad dream. i sure as hell don't like it, but to deny it is like denying the elephant in the living room.

john

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/nationa ... troduction

The Holy Roman Empire (HRE) never achieved the political unification that France did; a prolonged attempt at centralizing authority starting with Maximilian I (1493-1519) was wrecked by the Reformation and the ensuing wars, culminating with the Thirty Years War (1618-48) and the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). The latter formalized the relationship between the Emperor and his vassals, who thereby achieved all but complete sovereignty. As a result, the HRE was still composed at the end of the 18th century of around 360 distinct entities, differing widely in size, rank and power. Some were kings and princes, other were counts; some were clerics, other were secular rulers.

Now, Rome....THAT was an EMPIRE.

SPQR.

to answer john, i was writing 'tongue in cheek' since the bible is an ancient document but the rest of the conversation i will not participate in.

i would like to move to another topic for a bit and suggest a theory concerning geography. many people place a high importance on the design of the land and feel that the geography played and plays a vital role in human history.

i feel that geography is a moot point and plays a very minor part inthe events of world history because the layout of the land cannot be changed and is designed in such a manner to dictate where major events would take place.

since humans have a limitation, the necessity of water to survive, the location of encampments, towns, cities is not that important andis a moot point indetermining events of history.

i am probably not explaining that to well, suffice it to say geography and habitation are just minor factors when it comes to history and should not be given vital status as neither element can be altered nor omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Design" of the land?

There is a theory that Greece developed into a myriad of independent city states because the land is cut up with valleys which make communication difficult and that Egypt developed into a single nation because the Nile was a unifying factor.

Consider that had the cultures of Palestine been located at the base of the Arabian peninsula (around Yemen) instead of on the land bridge between Asia and Africa, they most likely would not have attracted the constant attention of conquerors.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Design" of the land?

just trying to not be repititive.

There is a theory that Greece developed into a myriad of independent city states because the land is cut up with valleys which make communication difficult and that Egypt developed into a single nation because the Nile was a unifying factor

i understand that but again, geography could have been developed in different ways thus making it a minor factor not a major one in the scope of human history. i feel that if you change geography you change human history and the world is laid out geographically to ensure that certain events take place.

inother words it was done for a purpose and not by chance.

inother words it was done for a purpose and not by chance.

Arch.....are you trying to extend "intelligent design" to geology?

no, just making a point. i think thisone needs a rest as well

I would expect the number of papers written about the digs at Megiddo to be somewhat down this year as a result of the rocket barrages in the area.

Now, that is a shame.

kenneth kitchen made a comment in one of his lectures concerning meggido and the outer regions of the kingdom.

He said that the reason there is so little construction at that site was that solomon was just beginning to build there. He hadn't done a lot of construction in the outlying areas as his early reign was focused on jerusalem and other cities.

another interesting point kitchen made was that in usual empires, the capital cities receive a lot of construction as each emporer wanted to make his mark upon the land and the cities were huge.

Jerusalem on theother hand, did not receive such treatment because of the split in the kingdom after solomon.