Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kevinagain

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: April 12, 2013, 12:02:54 PM »
yet it has always been implemented as part of a political revolution that arrived with a great deal of baggage

the baggage generally proved more influential.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: your own wisdom thread
« on: April 12, 2013, 11:57:44 AM »
...Just like how "theory" denotes a repeatedly confirmed model of understanding in field of science, but the public uses it to mean hypothesis.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: your own wisdom thread
« on: April 07, 2013, 08:00:13 AM »
If he had bought cheese dip for it I would be bearing his child right now

6

The cross was also a sacred symbol for The Greek Bacchus, Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin. Notice I said "sacred" symbol. CHrist would not have been impaled on a cross that was a sacred symbol for other gods and their votaries.

why?

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: your own wisdom thread
« on: April 02, 2013, 06:08:52 PM »
Her hair-line starts only about half an inch above her eyebrows. My experience of this phenomena leads me to believe this woman has an incredibly hairy thatch and an arsehole like a water vole's nest.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion
« on: March 30, 2013, 06:37:34 PM »
i know an american of european descent who has converted to sikhism.

i don't know of his standing among other sikhs, but he's never mentioned any second-rate status.

9
interesting point. i was unaware of any controversy aside from that of the witnesses, who make a point of referring to "stauros" as a "torture stake."

Quote
"Stauros" interpreted as a cross

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, dealing specifically with the crucifixion of Jesus, says it is most likely that the stauros had a transverse in the form of a crossbeam. "Secular sources do not permit any conclusion to be drawn as to the precise form of the cross, as to whether it was the crux immissa (+) or crux commissa (T). As it was not very common to affix a titlos (superscription, loanword from the Lat. titulus), it does not necessarily follow that the cross had the form of a crux immissa."

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion
« on: March 30, 2013, 05:56:49 PM »
Quote from: kevin

talk to christians much?

I talk to a great many, but not necessarily about religion. Why?

because you're overgeneralizing,

what you describe is characteristic of only a minority of christians, not all, or even most.

is your experience primarily with protestants?


11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion
« on: March 30, 2013, 04:06:48 PM »
Then again, I also find it irritating when they do think it isn't a sin. They're pretty much told to blindly believe everything their holy book tells them, and they can't even do that right.

talk to christians much?

12
First you would have to be a linguist and know the history of languages because that would help alot with original ancient texts.  For example:  The Greek word rendered cross is stauros' meaning an upright stake or pale, and only LATER did it also become known as an execution stake having a cross piece.  Same thing is similar with the earliest Romans the "crux" (from which our cross is derived) appears to have originally been an upright pole.  The word "xylon" (meaning beam, post, cudgel or club) has also been used.  You see it would be quite easy for someone without the study of languages and when translating to confuse terms IF THEY DO NOT KNOW how they were used in that language or where they were derived.

you are quite correct about the greek. my references are to 'stauros:"

Quote
G4716
σταυρός
stauros
stow-ros'
From the base of G2476; a stake or post (as set upright), that is, (specifically) a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment); figuratively exposure to death, that is, self denial; by implication the atonement of Christ: - cross.

i am not a linguist, so i simply don't know how the term was originally used. the jehovah's witnesses also reject the idea of a cross, preferring "stake" instead.

but how is this distinction important?



Third, I did not say ALL bibles over 200 years old, but you mentioned 1, and there are about 30.  You mentioned the KJV and there is the Douay-Rhiems verision, the Jerusalem Bible version, the American Standard version, the New American Standard version, New International version, New Living version,  Revised Standard version, New Revised Standard, the Holman and Lexham and Darby and Geneva and Guttenberg etc etc.  I personally use 4 different Bibles and one that I have that is only 125 years old does not contain cross or crucified.  If I did not have to go back that far to find one in my family, you shouldn't have to go back too far or try too hard to find one yourself.  I have seen multiple old bibles besides the one that I own and yes they do not use "cross"  or crucified either.
   

of the ones you mentioned, only the douay-rheims, KJV, the geneva, and the guttenberg are older than 200 years.

i use a kjv/textus receptus interlinear for the NT, and the textus receptus uses "stauros" as well. i can't ever find the witnesses's westcott and hort interlinear, but the W&h original uses "stauros."

http://www.archive.org/stream/newtestamentinor00westrich#page/132/mode/2up

again, i'm curious. is this important? if it is, why?

13
CRUCIFIXTION - NOT CRUCIFIED
A)  Actually old Bibles from 200 years ago do not contain crucifixtion or crucifix or crucified.  The scriptures use the words impaled or "nailed to the stake" or "nailed to a tree" NOT nailed to a cross.  Sometimes you don't have to go back 200 years on every Bible translation for every Christian religion and need only go back about 125 years.  Man has changed this with making revisions and over time the original words were replaced by the now "crucified".

here's a few passages from matthew, mark, luke, and john, from the english-language 1611 version, later called the "authorized king james bible"(after 1769). they refer to a "crosse."

Mat_27:32  And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to beare his Crosse.
Mar_15:21  And they compell one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, comming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to beare his Crosse.
Luk_23:26  And as they led him away, they laid hold vpon one Simon a Cyrenian, comming out of the countrey, and on him they laid the crosse, that hee might beare it after Iesus.
Joh_19:17  And he bearing his crosse, went foorth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrewe, Golgotha:


and of "crucified":

Mat_27:35  And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet, They parted my garments among them, and vpon my vesture did they cast lots.
Mar_15:24  And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots vpon them, what euery man should take.
Luk_23:33  And when they were come to the place which is called Caluarie, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
Joh_19:18  Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Iesus in the middest.


so i think the term "crucifixion" is at least as old as 1611.

B)  The verbage or lettering in Bibles is not the only proof of this.  The cross was connected with nature worship for some, by other peoples it was considered a phallus or coition, by others it was a symbol of the sun-god (for Babylonians), and some used the symbol in the "Solar Wheel', and in some instances was a symbol for the authorities of other gods like the Greek Bacchus, The Tyrian Tammuz and the Chaldean Bel.  It wasn't until the 3rd cenury A.D. that crosses were accepted by Christian faiths, which is way after the death of Christ.

that's an interesting point. the antenicene fathers refer to the christian cross earlier than the third century, but that doesn't contradict your point about it being way after the death of christ. the earliest mention of veneration i can find off hand is from about 200, in tertullian, which supports your argument.

14
hi sandokhan

To the point:

But the Post-Apostolic Men Do Not Know Their Alleged Apostolic Masters, Which Is Absurd!

i'm not sure of the relevance of the 1894 publication of edwin johnson (or of the discussion of the post-apostolic writers) to the question of where christ was crucified. it doesn't seem to be addressed in the documents in your link. so i can't speak to that.

regarding your quote from paul's letter to the galatians, you've already said that you reject the new testament epistles as being valid. so given that, nothing written in galatians would be pertinent to the crucifixion of jesus, and so the secular evidence i've already provided stands uncontested.

Great city in the book of Revelation:

The author of the book of Revelation states quite clearly WHICH great city is mentioned in the text:

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. (Rev. 14:8 )

Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits (Rev. 17:9 )

The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth. (Rev. 17:18 )


Everything is very clear.


And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. (Rev. 11:8 )


Christ was crucified in the GREAT CITY, built on SEVEN HILLS, which reigns over the kings of the earth (not Jerusalem in any case).

i've already address this^^^part. so far, the evidence against a jerusalem crucifixion is not compelling, to me.

15
The Lounge / Re: Handy chart of fallacies
« on: March 24, 2013, 07:24:30 PM »
well now, think about it, though.

look at the appeal to authority. sceptimatic's main focus is a self-reliance on personal perception and understanding. i expect he knows how to quote authorities as opposed to providing arguments, but he never does. all his stuff is justified in solo performances.

that's one tool that seems inconsistent with how he approaches a question.

16
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: March 23, 2013, 07:38:17 PM »
would you please make this your avatar so i can look at it more often?

17
The Lounge / Re: Handy chart of fallacies
« on: March 23, 2013, 05:50:59 AM »
sceptimatic has never used an appeal to authority, that i can recall.

that and appeals to ignorance are often attempted against his arguments, though.

18
The Lounge / Re: Handy chart of fallacies
« on: March 22, 2013, 03:43:22 PM »
very good examples of tools used in rhetoric.

logic is easier, though, as the hardest part is peeling away the extraneous words until the argument sits in front of you. once you do that, it's easy to see whether or not it's valid.

less easy to see whether or not the conclusion is true.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: your own wisdom thread
« on: March 22, 2013, 03:29:02 PM »

He's special? o.o I thought he was just a dude who confuses me from time to time by either using grammar so awesome that I cannot comprehend it or so idiotic it makes no sense.


20
Sorry. Thought you wanted to know something.

he did, martian.

he wants to be able see whether you just made all that up.

so do i. it's very interesting.

21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: your own wisdom thread
« on: March 22, 2013, 11:19:26 AM »

The ancient babylonians were able to predict cosmological events and they believed the earth was flat. Aristotile was able to predict cosmological events and he didn't even believe the earth rotated around the sun.



22
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: March 22, 2013, 11:13:25 AM »
A reverse image search reveals kevinagain's TRUE IDENTITY!

i am fascinated to discover that indonesia came up in your search.

i spent some years messing about in singapore, selangor, and in the south china sea off sarawak.

odd.

23
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Fleetwood Mac-Future Games

i first heard this many years ago, camping under the coconut palms on the beaches of selangor, nothing except blue water between me and sumatra on the horizon.

check it out.

24
The Lounge / Re: Thork
« on: March 22, 2013, 11:00:31 AM »
here it is


25
hi sandokhan

i've reassembled my thoughts, andi'd like to return to the original subject of this thread.

Please read History: Fiction or Science? vol. 1 (you have the link to this work in my previous message).

i can't read this book, as there is no online version. but as it concerns the revelation, it's perhaps not as directly relevant to the evidence as to where jesus christ was crucified as other information, especially as you've pointed out that you believe the revelation to be inauthentic for various reasons.

regarding the jerusalem crucifixion, three of the christian gospels were written either by eye witnesses to it (john and matthew) or by a historian recording the words of an eyewitness (mark quoting peter). all three agree in broad details that jesus was crucified in jerusalem by pontius pilate. but if the gospels themselves are suspect, it's worth noting that pontius pilate has his own historical record:

--philo of alexandria places pilate in palestine under tiberias:

http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/documents/thatcher-37-4.pdf

--tacitus explains that jesus was crucified by pilate in judea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome#Rumors_of_arson_and_the_persecution_of_Christians

the pilate stone identifies pilate as the prefect of judea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilate_Stone

and josephus specifically mentions pilate in reference to the execution of jesus, as well as jesus himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

all of these extrascriptural references are consistent with scripture, but even if scripture is discounted, they provide  independent secular evidence of a crucifixion of jesus at jerusalem, by pontius pilate.

second, the antenice fathers comprise the most extensive record of the early christian church, and their writings specifically discuss a jerusalem crucifixion, and not a roman one. origen, for instance, refers to the crucifixion over 69 times in gospel commentaries, and as a resident of caesarea and a hebrew speaker, he was in a position to have recorded any ambiguities in the  gospel record, should any have come to his attention. yet none did, and rome is not mentioned.

similarly, many of the antenicene fathers discussed their practice of the eucharist as emulating that which jesus performed in the upper room in jerusalem, and none questioned the customary belief that this even occurred in judea. again, rome is never mentioned.

in contrast, douglas gill's conclusion that the crucifixion occurred in rome is based solely on his assertion that the term "great city" is not used there to describe jerusalem, but instead applies to rome. i agree with that. but i have also pointed out already that the term "great city" is not limited to rome, but has been a common descriptor for large, influential cities in various places in the hebrew and greek testaments.
and you yourself have explained that the assertions in the revelation are not to be trusted on other grounds, which undercuts doug gill's argument completely, and returns us to the conventional expolanation as the most likely.

so with all this together, i see no reason yet to doubt the history that describes a crucifixion event taking place in jerusalem, and not in rome. the evidence for it is compelling, being ordinary history, and evidence against it is novel, and is suspect for other reasons, as you have pointed out.

what is your opinion of these points?


26
The Lounge / Re: Thork
« on: March 20, 2013, 08:31:12 PM »
btw, I am strictly enforcing the rules with you guys from now on so watch what you post if you'd like to stay a bit.

never mind

i found it.

27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: your own wisdom thread
« on: March 20, 2013, 08:23:21 PM »

You don't trust your eyes but you trust your brain. Why? Both are organs come up by evolution. They allow us to grasp enough of reality to survive and breed, but may not be sufficent to understand how reality actually works.


28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does the sun move in a circle?
« on: March 20, 2013, 06:43:21 PM »
I'm also curious how the sun could move overhead along the tropic of capricorn so much faster than it does over the tropic of cancer and no one has ever noticed this variation in speed from the ground.

i've wondered about this as well.

all i could come up with is that time passes slower-- only at ground level-- in the southern planisphere, and so when people look up the sun seems to move at the same speed.

this makes no sense these days, now that we can talk to people across the planispheres in real time.

29
i have nothing to add at the moment, but i want this thread to appear in my show new replies to your posts listing.

SO LIKE NOBODY MOVE IT TO CN PLEASE

thank you.

30
The Lounge / Re: Post an image of yourself!
« on: March 20, 2013, 06:15:49 PM »

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14