 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Ancient History / July 2008Christian Origins
"When we say that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." [Justin Martyr, First Apology, 21] "It is very hard not to see extensive and basic similarities between these [mystery] religions and the Christian Religion. But somehow Christian scholars have managed not to see it, and this, one must suspect, for dogmatic reasons.... "Richard Reitzenstein and Wilhelm Bousset were two scholars who did manage to grasp the relevance of these ancient faiths for the study of early Christianity. Their conclusion was a simple and seemingly inevitable one: Once it reached Hellenistic soil, the story of Jesus attracted to itself a number of mythic motifs that were common to the syncretic religious mood of the era. Indeed, as people familiar with the other Mystery Religions came to embrace the Christian savior, it would have been practically impossible for them not to have clothed him in all the accoutrements of his fellow Kyrioi [LORDS}." (Deconstructing Jesus by Robert Price Professor of Biblical Criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, member of the Jesus Seminar, and editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism) Comments? David Christainsen >"When we say that the Word, >who is the first-birth of God, [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >David Christainsen A number of people have pointed out the parallels with the cult of Isis and Osiris. Eric Stevens > >"When we say that the Word, > >who is the first-birth of God, [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Eric Stevens A number of people have pointed out: DONT FEED THE TROLL ! >> >"When we say that the Word, >> >who is the first-birth of God, [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > >A number of people have pointed out: DONT FEED THE TROLL ! Quite true. I don't make a practice of feeding trolls and on this occasion I don't believe I am. There is a case to be made that neither the archaeological nor the historical interpretation of historical events of the period -100BC to c14AD can be properly made without an understanding of the 'religious' background of the events of the period. This does not entail the unquestioning acceptance of christian theology, which I certainly do NOT support. There also is a case to be made for both John and Jesus putting the case for conflicting interpretations of the cult of Isis and Osiris. What is now known as 'christianity' is what Paul later made of it. Eric Stevens > >> >"When we say that the Word, > >> >who is the first-birth of God, [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > - Show quoted text - you left out Typhon-Set and the Double-Edged Horus > > >> >"When we say that the Word, > > >> >who is the first-birth of God, [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > you left out Typhon-Set and the Double-Edged Horus and, Lorna Duune of the Maldum Fornax! >>>>>> "When we say that the Word, >>>>>> who is the first-birth of God, [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > and, Lorna Duune of the Maldum Fornax! So laze, laze through all your days, Time has tolled for M'Lord Sandwich.  SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > > >> >"When we say that the Word, > > >> >who is the first-birth of God, [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > you left out Typhon-Set and the Double-Edged Horus and what in hell does any of this have to do with Quaker Life? to which its cross posted! Growe up kiddoes. >>>>>> "When we say that the Word, >>>>>> who is the first-birth of God, [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Growe up kiddoes. They have newsgroups about insurance companies now? SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>> >"When we say that the Word, >>> >who is the first-birth of God, [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > I don't make a practice of feeding trolls and on this occasion I don't > believe I am. But you are. David is a troll, and that doesn't change just because in one of his thousands of bullshit posts he happens across something that interests you. If you want to have a proper discussion of the topic, at least have the decency to drop the religious groups David attempts to cause flame wars with. Regardless of what you think of their beliefs, you should at least respect them enough to stay away from their group. > There is a case to be made that neither the archaeological nor the > historical interpretation of historical events of the period -100BC to > c14AD can be properly made without an understanding of the 'religious' > background of the events of the period. Maybe, but that is history, not current specific denominations such as quakers. > This does not entail the > unquestioning acceptance of christian theology, which I certainly do > NOT support. But that is what the other newsgroup does, and that is why it was set up, so it should not be included in this discussion, to do so is disrespectful. > There also is a case to be made for both John and Jesus > putting the case for conflicting interpretations of the cult of Isis > and Osiris. What is now known as 'christianity' is what Paul later > made of it. > > Eric Stevens > "Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message >... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > so it should not be included in this discussion, to do so is disrespectful. >... You yourself are disrespectful of me. Also, you do not know what you are talking about when you attribute acceptance of christian theology to SRQ. You definitely do not know why SRQ was set up. Have you forgotten that I was a RSOF member for 28 years and also on SRQ since 1997? Have you forgotten that Robert Price, author of "Deconstructing Jesus", is editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism? Why don't you reconsider your behavior and also get interested in the subject of Christian Origins itself? Peace, David Christainsen > Have you forgotten that I was a RSOF member for 28 years > and also on SRQ since 1997? We haven't forgotten that you publically "declared war" on the quaker meeting of which you were a member, and that you were subsequently thrown out and banned even from attending meetings because of your aggressive and harassing behaviour towards others. Peace, Ian > > Have you forgotten that I was a RSOF member for 28 years > > and also on SRQ since 1997? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > aggressive and harassing behaviour towards others. >... There is no truth in your libel - specifically, my alleged "aggressive and harassing behaviour towards others". Therefore, your lies cannot hurt me. BTW the "war" continues and I won't stop until God gives me the victory. David Christainsen >> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message >>... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >You yourself are disrespectful of me. Yeah, so? >Also, you do not >know what you are talking about when you attribute >acceptance of christian theology to SRQ. You definitely >do not know why SRQ was set up. It was set up for quakers to converse with people interested in the same thing (in this case quakerism), as most newsgroups are. If they wanted to discuss history or facts rather than the elements of their faith, then they'd look in on a relevant newsgroup. The fact that a tosser like you wants to continually harass them is unfortunate enough, without others compounding the problem by not removing the non-relevant groups from their posts. >Have you forgotten that I was a RSOF member for 28 years >and also on SRQ since 1997? "Forgotten"? I didn't know, and now that I do, I can honestly say I don't give a sh.t, and will no doubt forget very shortly. >Have you forgotten that Robert Price, author of >"Deconstructing Jesus", is editor of the Journal >of Higher Criticism? See previous responce. and add: so? >Why don't you reconsider your behavior and also >get interested in the subject of Christian Origins itself? Show me history, and I'll converse. Faith has no place here, and faith based newsgroups should be left to their own devices. >Peace, >David Christainsen > >> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message > >>... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yeah, so? So, I want the world to know it. > >Also, you do not > >know what you are talking about when you attribute [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > compounding the problem by not removing the non-relevant groups from their > posts. Your statement is outrageous libel. BTW the Society of Friends had departed the existing Christian churches in seventeenth- century England, rebelling against the political and religious feuding of the time. SRQ has both Friends and non-Friends on it. We can talk about Christian Origins on SRQ if we want to. Christian Origins is also on topic for SHA. > >Have you forgotten that I was a RSOF member for 28 years > >and also on SRQ since 1997? > > "Forgotten"? I didn't know, and now that I do, I can honestly say I don't > give a sh.t, and will no doubt forget very shortly. Watch your language and listen for a change. Don't pop off with a quick response. > >Have you forgotten that Robert Price, author of > >"Deconstructing Jesus", is editor of the Journal > >of Higher Criticism? > > See previous responce. and add: so? Your thought process should perk up when Price touches on deconstruction of Jesus. Isn't this what Dr. Thiering has already done or has she merely brought out the Historical Jesus? > >Why don't you reconsider your behavior and also > >get interested in the subject of Christian Origins itself? > > Show me history, and I'll converse. Faith has no place here, and faith > based newsgroups should be left to their own devices. >... Been there, done that on showing you history. You were totally asleep at the switch. BTW if you think SRQ is faith-based, you are completely out of your mind. Peace, David Christainsen >>>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message >>>> ... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > century England, rebelling against the political and religious > feuding of the time. David: Calling you a "tosser" is outrageous libel? I don't think so. Roger: Your argument to David is the same argument I used to you in a.r.u-u. Get it? This (s.h.a) is where we discuss facts (David). SRQ and a.r.u-u is where we discuss beliefs and belief systems. David: The folks at SRQ apparently don't want the Thiering discussion. Why not take the high road and simply not cross post these discussions there. If some there want to discuss Christian origins, let them come here. > SRQ has both Friends and non-Friends on it. We can talk > about Christian Origins on SRQ if we want to. Christian [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> based newsgroups should be left to their own devices. >> ... hear, hear! > Been there, done that on showing you history. You were > totally asleep at the switch. > > BTW if you think SRQ is faith-based, you are completely > out of your mind. Only because you (and perhaps others) inject other stuff that they really don't want to talk about. > Peace, > David Christainsen >... > > Your statement is outrageous libel. BTW the Society of Friends [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > David: Calling you a "tosser" is outrageous libel? > I don't think so. You miss the point; you and Roger are not SRQ regulars and don't know the dynamics of the people in the group. The flare point is the false charge that I continually harass an unspecified "them" - names are never mentioned. More than that, you are confused on the identity of the Quakers from seventeenth-century England. What theology are you or Roger talking about? > Roger: Your argument to David is the same argument > I used to you in a.r.u-u. Get it? > > This (s.h.a) is where we discuss facts (David). SRQ > and a.r.u-u is where we discuss beliefs and belief > systems. No; false dichotomy. > David: The folks at SRQ apparently don't want the > Thiering discussion. Why not take the high road and > simply not cross post these discussions there. Do you understand that Robert Price is a different person from Barbara Thiering? Do you understand that I will talk about Thiering viz-a-viz Christian Origins if I feel like it because I want somebody in the entire world to find a flaw in her methodology or conclusions? So far, nothing; absolutely nothing after years. > If some there want to discuss Christian origins, let > them come here. Yowie of SRQ already came "here". > > SRQ has both Friends and non-Friends on it. We can talk > > about Christian Origins on SRQ if we want to. Christian [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > hear, hear! Empty rhetoric! > > Been there, done that on showing you history. You were > > totally asleep at the switch. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > talk about. >... Where do you get this false attitude of yours? On SRQ I was recently invited to justify Thiering methodology, which I did in the face of my 2 correspondents' ignoring of the evidence. However, other people can read it. Further, don't assume SRQ is faith-based. Anytime you want to discuss history (Christian Origins), let me know. I thought my recent theme is a good one - re-invention of Christianity to suppress its Jewish origins in the patristic period. David Christainsen > I will talk about Thiering viz-a-viz Christian Origins if I feel like > it because I want somebody in the entire world to find a flaw in her > methodology or conclusions? I don't think that can be quite correct, you will talk about Thiering viz- a-viz Christian Origins if you feel like it because you want somebody in the entire world to agree with you! On this newsgroup there was one, but he has long since ceased posting. There also doesn't seem to be anyone in "the entire world", who agrees with you that she actually has demonstrated that, "her methodology or conclusions", are in any way valid. SignatureJohn "Who is John Galt." > > I will talk about Thiering viz-a-viz Christian Origins if I feel like > > it because I want somebody in the entire world to find a flaw in her > > methodology or conclusions? > > I don't think that can be quite correct, Yet, it is entirely correct. > you will talk about Thiering viz- > a-viz Christian Origins if you feel like it because you want somebody in > the entire world to agree with you! On this newsgroup there was one, but > he has long since ceased posting. Wrong; that is not my motivation. Further, only the evidence counts; let it lead where it may. > There also doesn't seem to be anyone in "the entire world", who agrees > with you that she actually has demonstrated that, "her methodology or > conclusions", are in any way valid. >... Her methodology and conclusions are on her official website. I am waiting for anybody in the world to get into the nitty-gritty of it and show an understanding of Thiering pesher, whether or not they agree with it. I fully realize that this project is formidable but I stand ready to be of assistance, should anybody express interest. Peace, David Christainsen >> I will talk about Thiering viz-a-viz Christian Origins if I feel >> like it because I want somebody in the entire world to find a flaw [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with you that she actually has demonstrated that, "her methodology or > conclusions", are in any way valid. There have been a number of folks, who have posted their concerns, questions, and critiques of Thieiring's methodology and conclusions, both here on the NG, and indeed other academics who have reviewed Theiring's work. David doesn't consider that any these questions, concerns and criticisms highlight 'flaws' in Thiering's methodology and conclusions. He will accuse anyone who doesn't 100% agree with Thiering as "not having done the work" and if they do demonstrate they've done the work, he'll then accuse them of either "being prejudiced" or "not understanding properly". Yowie (followups set to SRQ only) > >> I will talk about Thiering viz-a-viz Christian Origins if I feel > >> like it because I want somebody in the entire world to find a flaw [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Yowie > (followups set to SRQ only) I intend to have this matter thoroughly discussed on the NGs to a definite conclusion. IOW - Folks, we are going to get specific. Please note that Yowie did NOT get specific - concerns are one thing, flaws or errors in Dr. Thiering's work quite another. BTW I invite questions. To illustrate the problem - VanderKam, Flint, and Vermes have NO IDEA how Thiering pesher works although they are aware of the bulk of her conclusions. Here is a suggestion for beginners to show that Thiering pesher exists objectively in the NT text - "Difficult for us to grasp is the belief illustrated in the 18 pesharim that when the OT talked about 'Babylonians' it was really talking about Romans. The NT took the step of using "Babylon" as code for Rome (1 Pet 5: 13, Rev 18)." Papias http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1919 Extract - Eusebius approves of Papias when he confirms that ‘the great and mighty Peter’ was in Rome in the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54), and that Peter’s teaching lay behind the gospel of Mark. Papias "says that Peter mentions Mark in his first Epistle (1 Pet 5:13), and that he composed this in Rome itself, which they say that he himself indicates, referring to the city metaphorically as Babylon, in the words ‘the elect one in Babylon greets you, and Marcus my son’." Peace, David Christainsen >> ... >>> Your statement is outrageous libel. BTW the Society of Friends [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The flare point is the false charge that I continually harass > an unspecified "them" - names are never mentioned. Whether or not you are welcome at SRQ is not the point. What we see here are requests to (usually very polite) stop cross posting certain threads to SRQ. That's all we know. We see repeats of these requests. Therefore we suggest that it might be a good idea to honor the request. > More than that, you are confused on the identity of the > Quakers from seventeenth-century England. You mean Mr. Fox, William Penn, Blake T.? Blake T.? Who is Blake T.? Blake T. is modern Quaker who embodies all of what I've read about Quakers in 17th century England and 18th century America. Kind, gentle, erudite, hard working and many other virtues that I believe about Quakers as a group, but of course understand that people who are Quakers are indeed people with all of the warts that carries. > What theology are you or Roger talking about? Roger and I had a little spat, more about a word meaning than anything else. You could read it at alt.religion.unitarian-universalist. >> Roger: Your argument to David is the same argument >> I used to you in a.r.u-u. Get it? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > or conclusions? So far, nothing; absolutely nothing > after years. From what little I've been able to understand of the method, it's her method. Nobody else in the "world" uses it or fully understands it. There is no independent corroboration of the method. It is truly impossible to find fault with it because it can neither be confirmed nor denied. Every time someone asks you to give evidence for Thiering assertions, you refer back to other assertions. This is NOT proof in any way shape or form. This is circular logic. The flaw in her methodology is that it cannot be corroborated by other/independent means. The strength of her method is that it cannot be refuted by other/independent means. Giving meaning to words written thousands of years ago which are different from the common meaning of those words at that time is a mental exercise and conceit of the person giving meaning to those words in this time. >> If some there want to discuss Christian origins, let >> them come here. > > Yowie of SRQ already came "here". Fine, then he and others at SRQ know about "here" and can come, so why continue to bother the rest of the folks at SRQ? >>> SRQ has both Friends and non-Friends on it. We can talk >>> about Christian Origins on SRQ if we want to. Christian [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Empty rhetoric! How so? It sound like a reasonable request to me. >>> Been there, done that on showing you history. You were >>> totally asleep at the switch. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Where do you get this false attitude of yours? From requests from people at SRQ asking you to stop cross posting. > On SRQ I was recently invited to justify Thiering methodology, > which I did in the face of my 2 correspondents' ignoring of > the evidence. However, other people can read it. If this is so, it apparently wasn't cross posted to here and, since requested, it was appropriate to SRQ. > Further, don't assume SRQ is faith-based. > > Anytime you want to discuss history (Christian Origins), > let me know. I thought my recent theme is a good one - > re-invention of Christianity to suppress its Jewish origins > in the patristic period. I don't think that's a particularly new idea. From what I've read, many people seem to think that was Paul's role in 'gentile-izing' Christianity as opposed to the James church of Christian Jews. Some people even see conflict there. All of this without the use of "persher". > David Christainsen > >> ... > >>> Your statement is outrageous libel. BTW the Society of Friends [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > we suggest that it might be a good idea to honor the > request. Your polite and well-meaning suggestion is rejected. I have every right to cross-post on Christian Origins and Thiering, especially when I stick to the merits and evidence of the argument. > > More than that, you are confused on the identity of the > > Quakers from seventeenth-century England. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Quakers are indeed people with all of the > warts that carries. We are simply on different wavelengths. > > What theology are you or Roger talking about? > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > impossible to find fault with it because it can > neither be confirmed nor denied. Hold on! It's all on her official website to be confirmed or denied. I stand ready to help anybody in the world who takes on this formidable project. > Every time someone > asks you to give evidence for Thiering assertions, > you refer back to other assertions. This is NOT > proof in any way shape or form. This is circular > logic. Absolutely false observation on your part. I've already given my evidence that Thiering pesher exists objectively in the NT text such that a beginner can understand it. Ask me close questions on this point, if you like. > The flaw in her methodology is that it cannot be > corroborated by other/independent means. The > strength of her method is that it cannot be > refuted by other/independent means. Totally false assumption on your part. > Giving meaning to words written thousands of years > ago which are different from the common meaning of > those words at that time is a mental exercise and > conceit of the person giving meaning to those words > in this time. Not in this case and we are now talking about a formidable scholar with a brilliant mind. > >> If some there want to discuss Christian origins, let > >> them come here. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and can come, so why continue to bother the rest > of the folks at SRQ? They on SRQ are doing the bother to themselves; I already gave the evidence which they have not refuted or even understood because they fail to ask questions to learn anything new. IOW it's on them! > >>> SRQ has both Friends and non-Friends on it. We can talk > >>> about Christian Origins on SRQ if we want to. Christian [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > How so? It sound like a reasonable request to me. I realize that but appearances are deceiving. It was unreasonable and the truth would become clearer after extensive study of the dialogue etc. on SRQ. > >>> Been there, done that on showing you history. You were > >>> totally asleep at the switch. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > From requests from people at SRQ asking you to > stop cross posting. But their requests are without merit! Thus, they are being consistently over-ridden on the basis of a "better righteousness" (quote from Jesus Christ) > > On SRQ I was recently invited to justify Thiering methodology, > > which I did in the face of my 2 correspondents' ignoring of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to here and, since requested, it was appropriate > to SRQ. Correct. > > Further, don't assume SRQ is faith-based. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > use of "persher". >... True. Further, James was Jewish Christian and never taught the resurrection while Paul wanted to drop Jewish identity in the mission to Gentiles that other Christian ministers put him somewhat out of fellowship between 46-50 AD. David Christainsen >>>> ... >>>>> Your statement is outrageous libel. BTW the Society of Friends [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > and Thiering, especially when I stick to the merits > and evidence of the argument. Yes, you do. You have every right to make every other person in the world pissed off at you too. And sometimes it appears that's your intent. >>> More than that, you are confused on the identity of the >>> Quakers from seventeenth-century England. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > or denied. I stand ready to help anybody in the world > who takes on this formidable project. It's all on her official website in what form? Assertions based on her persher? Anything else? >> Every time someone >> asks you to give evidence for Thiering assertions, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > beginner can understand it. Ask me close > questions on this point, if you like. Your 'evidence' is that Thiering says it exists. Got anything else? >> The flaw in her methodology is that it cannot be >> corroborated by other/independent means. The >> strength of her method is that it cannot be >> refuted by other/independent means. > > Totally false assumption on your part. This is an unsupported assertion. It may well be true, but simply saying so does not make it true. >> Giving meaning to words written thousands of years >> ago which are different from the common meaning of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not in this case and we are now talking about a > formidable scholar with a brilliant mind. Maybe so. I'd like to hear/see more than just assertions as to the 'facts' that are revealed through 'her' persher. >>>> If some there want to discuss Christian origins, let >>>> them come here. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > being consistently over-ridden on the basis of > a "better righteousness" (quote from Jesus Christ) A request is a request. It has its own merit. You can choose to ignore it, but it is never without merit. >>> On SRQ I was recently invited to justify Thiering methodology, >>> which I did in the face of my 2 correspondents' ignoring of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > David Christainsen >... > > I have every right to cross-post on Christian Origins [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > at you too. And sometimes it appears that's > your intent. It is not my intent but I say the responsibility for getting angry is on them, not me. In fact - when the dust settles, they have A LOT of explaining to do. People, just please stick to the merits... >... > It's all on her official website in what form? I can make suggestions if anybody is doing a serious investigation. If interested, I will give links as preliminary tutorial. A must is to gain practise following her verse by verse pesher. You choose the verses from her index. Then again, there is the very hard work of getting into her solar calendar as the gateway into her pesher - IOW she has an extensive lexicon of time indications from NT text that allows her to build chronology of NT events in detail. > Assertions based on her persher? Anything else? I already told you she has an airtight case to date DSS ToR to 26 AD. This is NOT her pesher. >... > Your 'evidence' is that Thiering says it exists. > Got anything else? Earth to VtSkier - go ahead, try me, ask me some specific questions... Hint - the NT took the step of using "Babylon" as code for Rome (1 Pet 5: 13, Rev 18). Papias http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1919 "Eusebius approves of Papias when he confirms that ‘the great and mighty Peter’ was in Rome in the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54), and that Peter’s teaching lay behind the gospel of Mark. Papias "says that Peter mentions Mark in his first Epistle (1 Pet 5:13), and that he composed this in Rome itself, which they say that he himself indicates, referring to the city metaphorically as Babylon, in the words ‘the elect one in Babylon greets you, and Marcus my son’." > >> The flaw in her methodology is that it cannot be > >> corroborated by other/independent means. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > well be true, but simply saying so does > not make it true. Please, let's not go around in circles. Exercise some restraint on your part and recognize your need to get on her offficial website to examine the evidence for yourself. Or at least have the good grace to bow to superior argument without doing all that hard work I am suggesting. <grin> > >> Giving meaning to words written thousands of years > >> ago which are different from the common meaning of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > just assertions as to the 'facts' that are > revealed through 'her' persher. Official Thiering website - Pesher of Christ http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/ >... > A request is a request. It has its own merit. > You can choose to ignore it, but it is never > without merit. >... My suggestion for Yowie etc of SRQ is simply to ignore Thiering conversation if it does not interest them but to let it proceed to a conclusion on the merits. IOW they should stop putting pressure to limit or stop the Thiering discussion. Remember Gamaliel's speech to the Sanhedrin over the Christians. If they are from God, they cannot be stopped. Peace, David Christainsen <snip> >> Yowie of SRQ already came "here". > > Fine, then he and others at SRQ know about "here" > and can come, so why continue to bother the rest > of the folks at SRQ? Please stop cross-posting to SRQ. I know David does it, and its easy to hit 'reply' without noticing the crossposting, but when you do notice, please remove SRQ from the discussion. Also be aware David often likes to add back the other Newsgroups that gentlefolk have kindly removed, so keep an 'eye out' so to speak. Yowie (followups set back to SRQ only, which is where I read this stuff. I don't read SHA except in crossposts, and haven't for a long time) > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (followups set back to SRQ only, which is where I read this stuff. I don't > read SHA except in crossposts, and haven't for a long time) I depart from any typical answer to Yowie's request. Let's try something different - just who are the Quakers and what are their origins? "A Life in Full - Richard M. Nixon" by Conrad Black PublicAffairs, 2007 page 4 "The Quakers, the Society of Friends, had departed the exisiting Christian churches in seventeenth-century England, rebelling against the political and religious feuding of the time. The English Reformation see-sawed back and forth from the Roman Catholic apostate Henry VIII and his Papist (Mary) and Protestant (Elizabeth) daughters, through Cromwell's Puritan Commonwealth, to the officially self-proclaimed Glorious Revolution of 1688. George Fox had started the Society of Friends, taking the name from Christ's assertion that his 'friends' were those who did as he 'commanded' (John 15:14). Fox founded an unstructured, quietist church, espousing simple dress and tastes, abstinence, temperance, ascetism, and many prophetic secular causes. These included pacifism and the abolition of capital punishment, slavery, and racial discrimination. It was a contemplative church, where divine inspiration would come to the quiet seeker of it. They were good and courageous and idealistic, if somewhat unworldly, and unexciting people." This description fits me like a glove and I embody the idealism, simplicity, courage, and unworldliness of the earliest Friends in that I am Christ's Friend by following his commands. I will not stop my project until the finish line is crossed, God willing. So, my request is that Yowie be disregarded on the cross-posting. Otherwise, I have already told her she is a very polite woman... Peace, David Christainsen On Jul 9, 6:34 pm, "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > VtSkier wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > (followups set back to SRQ only, which is where I read this stuff. I don't > read SHA except in crossposts, and haven't for a long time) --SNIP a load of stuff that is completely off-topic for SHA-- If you want to discuss Quakerism, post there and leave us out of it. If you want to discuss ancient history, post here and leave them out of it. The two groups have nothing in common, and you are simply providing more proof that you are just the latest in a long line of trolls who come onto these groups. You also provide Thiering with more reasons to distance herself from you whenever anyone asks her about you. She has already made it clear that you are not in a position to discuss her work, so if anyone here thought her work had any merits we'd go discuss it with her. > On Jul 9, 6:34 pm, "Yowie" <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > that you are not in a position to discuss her work, so if anyone here > thought her work had any merits we'd go discuss it with her. However, the truth is opposite to what you say; you have NO IDEA what you are talking about... For example, I just discussed reliably on SRQ the Thiering argument for dating the writing of John's Gospel as before 37 AD. This topic is directly appropriate for both SRQ and SHA. Yes, it could be a matter of controversy but in any true and full discussion the stronger argument would win. I would want that kind of testing for the Thiering Thesis among SHAers and SRQers. What are you afraid of? David Christainsen > David: Calling you a "tosser" is outrageous libel? > I don't think so. Most guys do it, except for the very rich, who have sex on demand. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >>>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message >>>> ... [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > what Dr. Thiering has already done or has she > merely brought out the Historical Jesus? I swing with Price here. He does not dismiss Thiering, but he certainly thinks she is out on a limb. SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” >... > I swing with Price here. He does not dismiss Thiering, but he certainly > thinks she is out on a limb. >... Hold on! Price published in his journal her work on the Gospel of Phillip to date it to 1st century AD, her work on the Letter of Jesus to authenicate it as from the real, historical Jesus. The trouble with a huge number of people worldwide, not just Martin Edwards, is that they never examined the evidence (with competence). Of course, Martin can make a start by consulting his bookmarks. David Christainsen >> ... >> I swing with Price here. He does not dismiss Thiering, but he certainly [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > David Christainsen By the way, my application to your Yahoo group has been pending for weeks. Did I do something wrong? SignatureCorporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management decisions. -From “Rollerball” > >> ... > >> I swing with Price here. He does not dismiss Thiering, but he certainly [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > weeks. Did I do something wrong? >... I am sorry for the trouble you experienced. My Christian Origins Yahoo Group is defunct. Due to circumstances completely beyond my control, I left the Group years ago as Moderator. Here is Dr. Thiering's good-bye message when she left also. Her email for private correspondence is - thiering@ozemail.com.au Saying good-bye http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/5649 ----- Pontifical letters of Jesus http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/5285 "Another of Jesus' letters to the east is quoted in Eusebius, in HE 1, 13, 10. It has of course been thought to be spurious. In a forthcoming article in the journal of Higher Criticism I will be arguing that it is genuine. When the article is published I'll explain why." Any historian with a sincere interest in the Historical Jesus would investigate the Letter of Jesus. My Christian Origins yahoo forum http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3816 "By the way, you will be pleased to know that my article on the Abgar legend ... will appear in an electronic version soon, on the internet. Volume 11, number 1, of the Journal of Higher Criticism." S. 67-82: Thiering, Barbara E.: Authenticity of the Abgar documents and the letter of Jesus / Barbara Thiering In: The Journal of higher criticism. - 11. 2005, 2 --- My Christian Origins yahoo forum http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3346 "You will have noticed that the recent correspondence between Sergey and myself, in #3334,3336,3338,3341, 3342, led to a positive conclusion about the authenticity of the Abgar documents, in particular of the letter of Jesus quoted by Eusebius. Sergey supplied a missing link, with the '343rd year' in a document in an 1876 book, not published in AN-F." --- For calendar experts http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3522 ----- to date Gospel of Philip of NHL before 70 AD 'Life' and 'death' meant something different http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/37 Is Mary of the alabaster jar Mary Magdalene? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/1691 "as I have argued in JHC 2,1, 1995" Sincerely, David Christainsen >> "When we say that the Word, >> who is the first-birth of God, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > A number of people have pointed out the parallels with the cult of > Isis and Osiris. "Acharya S." has a website and several books addressing Christian origins and the parallels between the stories of Christianity and various other mythologies. http://truthbeknown.com/ Other skeptical sites have explored the same issues. Use your Google-fu to find them (I found them before Google was invented, so it has to be easier now, and there's probably more of them, too) Yowie (followups set to SRQ only) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.