Archaeologica.org

Ishtar wrote:

Minimalist wrote:

Min, I wouldn't even allow a programme with a name like that into my living room.

It's important to know what the other side is thinking, Ish.

They actually went into quite a bit of historical detail.....and ignored the fact that history did not support the tale!

They taught their actor to speak Aramaic which is quite a trick since Aramaic is now only spoken in a very small part of Syria.

Yeah... and totally irrelevant when the NT was written in Greek.

Typical of people in denial to go to so much trouble over one irrelevant detail, meanwhile totally ignoring the main point (no Freudian pun intended ) that there is no historical evidence for their man at all. Psychotherapists call it 'displacement activity'.

Yeah but if you are going to dramatize the fiction you have to adhere to the idea that these were spoken tales which were later written down. There is no evidence of that, either, of course, but as the comics say: Buy the premise buy the bit.

I'd love for someone to make a documentary that blasts the living hell out of the HJ myth but I don't expect to see it over here.

Ishtar wrote:

john wrote:
Ishtar -

Did you really mean

Tangenital,

Or the more common

Tangential?
j

Oh dear!

Mind you, maybe 'tangenital' might be more interesting?

Ishtar -

"And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

We'd like to know a little bit about you for our files
We'd like to help you learn to help yourself
Look around you, all you see are sympathetic eyes
Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home

And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

Hide it in a hiding place where no one ever goes
Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes
It's a little secret, just the Robinsons' affair
Most of all, you've got to hide it from the kids

Coo, coo, ca-choo, Mrs Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Ev'ry way you look at it, you lose

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio
A nation turns it's lonely eyes to you (Woo, woo, woo)
What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson
Joltin' Joe has left and gone away
(Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)"

Courtesy of Mr. Paul Simon.


The leadoff question here, of course,

Is whether its all about jesus

Or plastics.

Or neither.


hoka hey

john

seeker wrote:
You've really been studying this stuff since you were one?

Well, I guess seven .... I used to read the New Testament, particularly my favourite Luke, before going to sleep at night. I used to think then that Jesus was this very cool guy with a dry sense of humour!

But I wasn't counting from then. I started reading the Srimad Bhagavatham in my early twenties, and then I just went from there.

It occurred to me somewhere in the dark vales and twisting, labyrinthine byways of my disturbed sleep last night that maybe you guys were trying to be nice and just gently hinting that I should stop this thread, as we couldn't really get much further?

I will stop if that's what everyone wants.

john wrote:
The leadoff question here, of course,

Is whether its all about jesus

Or plastics.

Or neither.

hoka hey

john

I think, at the end of the day, it's all about atheism.

Last night, I watched a yawningly long documentary that Richard Dawkins did on evolution and Darwin. I've watched him on other things too, recently, and read some of his stuff. You might say I've been studying him. And what I've discovered is that his professed atheism isn't atheism at all ... or isn't based on anything scientific, although he professes it is. His atheism is based on the fact that fossils prove the process of evolution and the dating of said fossils proves that it took a lot longer to create the world than six days, But Genesis says the world was created in six days, therefore, science proves that there is no God.

Can anyone see a flaw in this little argument? Because I can see a gaping hole that you could drive a bus through ....

Minimalist wrote: I'd love for someone to make a documentary that blasts the living hell out of the HJ myth but I don't expect to see it over here.

No, that's not going to happen.

But at the same time, we also don't have to trust the thinking of these telly literalists who would have no idea why, mythologically-speaking, Joseph was called a tekton and why there are all these builders and building-type sayings sprinkled through the gospels.

Ishtar wrote:

seeker wrote:
You've really been studying this stuff since you were one?

Well, I guess seven .... I used to read the New Testament, particularly my favourite Luke, before going to sleep at night. I used to think then that Jesus was this very cool guy with a dry sense of humour!

But I wasn't counting from then. I started reading the Srimad Bhagavatham in my early twenties, and then I just went from there.

It occurred to me somewhere in the dark vales and twisting, labyrinthine byways of my disturbed sleep last night that maybe you guys were trying to be nice and just gently hinting that I should stop this thread, as we couldn't really get much further?

I will stop if that's what everyone wants.

No reason to stop, at least in my view.

I think the whole point of sites like this is to get points of view out and examine them.

Ish:
Although I haven’t jumped in often, I have found this thread to be entertaining and enlightening.
Though I do not share many of the beliefs talked about, I have learned things about what others have believed in the past as well as now.
And that can explain a lot of history.
It is more anthropology than archeology, but that is OK because that line has become pretty blurred lately as we are recognizing how one affects the other.
I think you will know when to let it go is when you don’t get any replies.
Keep the tempest brewing in your teapot.

A little present for you, Ish, from Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle" page 3.

And yet to use the word "Christianity" or a phrase like "the Christian movement" is fundamentally misleading. It implies that the phenomenon being studied was a single entity, something unified, that it began in a particular location out of an identifiable set of circumstances and events. It also implies -- so Christian tradition has it -- that it was all set in motion by a specific historical figure, Jesus the Christ, and by the actions of those who responded to him. But such a picture evolved only later. In reality, "Christianity" in its beginnings was much more diffuse. It was made up of several unrelated strands of activity within the religious philosophy and culture of the time, strands which lacked any common point or figure of origin. Only through a unique set of circumstances did all of theose strands come together to produce the picture of Christian origins which the world has envisioned for so long.

As for Dawkins, I suggest reading his books. "The God Delusion" does the best job I've yet seen in explaining evolution.

I used to read the New Testament, particularly my favourite Luke, before going to sleep at night.

Good cure for insomnia, there!

seeker wrote:
No reason to stop, at least in my view.

I agree.

I’m glad that’s settled. So ... moving on and... what do we think of Dionsyiac Architects then? And what about that one who bit his tongue out? I think they’re a pretty sexy lot and I wouldn’t mind if one wanted to come round to my house with his golden rule, or to erect one of his brass pillars.

Secondly, ain’t it great news that God’s not dead? Science hasn’t proved it at all after all, it turns out. They’ve only proved that Genesis is wrong. Well, we didn’t need a scientist to tell us that, did we? Like I’m sure God really cares what Genesis says, or what Richard Dawkins thinks for that matter. ... not. Talk about The God Delusion ... Richard Dawkins can just kiss my ass.

Right, what’s next ... ah yes... how could I forget? Arch!

It turns out that Arch is actually one of these Dionsyiac Architects ...that's why his nickname is Arch. Well, I have to tell you, once I saw his divine proportions, I couldn't help myself. And so I want you all to be the first to know that Arch and I have finally admitted our feelings for one another and we’ve named the day. Yes! Isn’t it wonderful? You will all have invites to the wedding, of course ... well, all except Min that is. I’m sure you’ll understand. We would have invited him, for old times sake, you know ... but we don’t want it to be a shotgun wedding.

This is Glenda Slagg reporting from Calvary where the crown of thorns is giving me a really bad hair day and the nails are playing havoc with my nylons! Still, these are the trials of the investigative journalist ...

Tarah for now!




Glenda Slagg
Gossip columnist to the stars

ooooo...I'm going to get letters on that one

Ishtar wrote: I think, at the end of the day, it's all about atheism.

Last night, I watched a yawningly long documentary that Richard Dawkins did on evolution and Darwin. I've watched him on other things too, recently, and read some of his stuff. You might say I've been studying him. And what I've discovered is that his professed atheism isn't atheism at all ... or isn't based on anything scientific, although he professes it is. His atheism is based on the fact that fossils prove the process of evolution and the dating of said fossils proves that it took a lot longer to create the world than six days, But Genesis says the world was created in six days, therefore, science proves that there is no God.

Can anyone see a flaw in this little argument? Because I can see a gaping hole that you could drive a bus through ....

You mean the notion that disproving a statement in the bible is disproving God? I suppose he would argue that if the bible is the supposed inerrant word of God the evolution disproves it and thus disproves God as he is claimed by the bible.

Ishtar wrote:
I agree.

I’m glad that’s settled. So ... moving on and... what do we think of Dionsyiac Architects then? And what about that one who bit his tongue out? I think they’re a pretty sexy lot and I wouldn’t mind if one wanted to come round to my house with his golden rule, or to erect one of his brass pillars.

Secondly, ain’t it great news that God’s not dead? Science hasn’t proved it at all after all, it turns out. They’ve only proved that Genesis is wrong. Well, we didn’t need a scientist to tell us that, did we? Like I’m sure God really cares what Genesis says, or what Richard Dawkins thinks for that matter. ... not. Talk about The God Delusion ... Richard Dawkins can just kiss my ass.

Right, what’s next ... ah yes... how could I forget? Arch!

It turns out that Arch is actually one of these Dionsyiac Architects ...that's why his nickname is Arch. Well, I have to tell you, once I saw his divine proportions, I couldn't help myself. And so I want you all to be the first to know that Arch and I have finally admitted our feelings for one another and we’ve named the day. Yes! Isn’t it wonderful? You will all have invites to the wedding, of course ... well, all except Min that is. I’m sure you’ll understand. We would have invited him, for old times sake, you know ... but we don’t want it to be a shotgun wedding.

This is Glenda Slagg reporting from Calvary where the crown of thorns is giving me a really bad hair day and the nails are playing havoc with my nylons! Still, these are the trials of the investigative journalist ...

Tarah for now!




Glenda Slagg
Gossip columnist to the stars

So have you gnosticized Arch or are you taking him literally.

Sorry about that, Michelle. That woman's always butting into my threads.

seeker wrote: You mean the notion that disproving a statement in the bible is disproving God? I suppose he would argue that if the bible is the supposed inerrant word of God the evolution disproves it and thus disproves God as he is claimed by the bible.

But my point is ... if the man is stupid or ignorant enough to think that anything that such an omnipotent and omniscient being could ever be is contained in the book of Genesis and so by overturning Genesis, he's overturning God.... then who is under The God Delusion ... God or Dawkins?

seeker wrote: So have you gnosticized Arch or are you taking him literally.

I think Glenda would like to do more than gnosticise Arch, Seeker, but I'm afraid that I'm not responsible for anything that woman says.