DCHindley

When will folks figure out that the criterion of embarrassment is not what someone claims about themselves without provocation, but how someone responds to an embarrassing charge made against them.

Someone saying they laughed so hard they peed their pants is not the same as admitting to his wife that he was caught in bed with a prostitute during a police raid on a bordello.

If he was not in fact caught in bed with a prostitute, but his wife heard on the news that some folks were caught in bed with prostitutes during the raid, and his wife's friend saw him at the scene, she might confront him about his involvement. What will he say? 'Oh yeah, that was me and she was tall and thin"? No, he will simply say "I was just walking by when the raid happened, and stopped to watch."

But if he was caught in bed with a prostitute, he's going to say something like "Of course not, honey snicker doodle, I was at church when that happened, but I can't find my wallet and someone must have stole my identification. When the raid happened, the nice police called me to let me know they found it on one of the Johns, and that I should come there to pick it up."

Figure it out. Non Christians charged that Christians were rebels/criminals because their founding figure was crucified. Crucifixion was the punishment for rebels and criminals. The Christians responded "Aw gee, well yeah, he was cruficied, but it was all a horrible mistake. Jesus was just being a pesty wise man like Diogenes the Cynic, and it was those rebellious Jews who killed him out of, um, envy, yeah, that's the ticket!"

DCH

DCHindley

Abe, Please stop using chan lingo. This is not a chan board that bumps messages. :angry:

Besides, if it was, then the attached pictures would be a whole lot more interesting ...

ApostateAbe

The lingo that 4chan uses typically becomes the lingo of the whole Internet, and "bump" has been web forum lingo for maybe a decade.

DCHindley

FAIL!

Abe, I don't know what boards you have been frequenting, but I have never heard the term "bump" used on a respectable board (such as this :rolleyesa, although Spin did use it once a couple years ago. It's like saying "Let's make FRDB be just like an AOL discussion board!" If you can believe it, AOL board users are even cruder and ruder than those who dwell here.

4chan and the others, bless their hearts, are full of folks who can't type, speak atrocious Japanese/English, love Pedobear (whatever that is :devil, and generally act like jr high kids. Sorry, but I do not believe in bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator.

If you want to recommend someone reopen a long dorment thread, we call it "resurrect the thread" 'cuz we's respec'able. (fart)

DCH

beallen041

So to be clear, from this point of view, Mark's story of the Baptism is not embarrassing in any way then, as Mark clearly makes no bones about the fact of who is baptizing whom and why they are doing so.

aa5874

You can't make up stories about Christians of antiquity because we won't be able to confirm what you say. There won't be any source of antiquity with your made up story.

Let us LOOK at the written evidence.

1.Jesus Christ in the Synoptics did NOT start a religion under the name of Christ.

Matthew 16:20 - 2. The Jews did NOT know the Christ was among them in gMatthew and gMark.

Read all of gMatthew and gMark.

3. Incredibly, instead of Jesus telling his disciples he was Christ it was Peter who FIRST told Jesus he was Christ and Jesus accepted Peter's statement but demanded that the disciples do NOT repeat what Peter said.

See Matthew 16.

4. It was Peter who told Jesus he was Christ but even in the NT, Peter was a NOTORIOUS Liar.

Peter told Jesus he was the Christ but told people he did NOT EVEN know Jesus or was associated with him.

See Mark 14.71.

It is clear that Jesus of the NT did NOT start any religion under the name of Christ.

The Jews did NOT know that Christ lived among them in gMatthew and gMark.

Christianity STARTED without Jesus Christ of the NT.

Solo

Apparently, the last mention of Sherlock's addiction to cocaine came in the 1904 The Adventure of the Missing Three-Quarter where Watson boasted that "for years I gradually weaned him from that drug mania which had threatened once to check his remarkable career". It indeed appears that coke's fortunes seemed to wane fast after the turn of the 20th century. Not just cocaine use, but the coke-based tonics and elixirs, so popular in the preceding three decades, were quickly disappearing even before the official outlawing in the US of cocaine use by the Harrison Act in 1914.

Coca-cola was "detoxified" in 1903. Interesting though, one of the earliest inventions, and one which inspired Pemberton's fizz, survived the onslaught of the temperance maniacs. It was the French coke-spiked wine known as Vin Mariani. Perhaps, at least initially, Angelo Mariani, was protected by a gold medal he received in recognition for his brand of spirit by the Rosary pope, Leo XIII, who, it was reputed, carried a hip flask with the concoction. Pius X., the antimodernist pontiff who placed Loisy's books on the index was also apparently fond of the forbidden coca fruit. The other high-placed toker assuring respectability for Angelo Mariani's psychoactive drink was Queen Victoria.

Best,
Jiri

stj

Excuse me, but not every member of a religion is a fraud. And there are true believers who might twist their logic while denying it to themselves, but still would never, never omit a letter of sacred scripture. Maybe it's not perfectly consistent but I've never found people to possess that kind of integrity. The gospels and epistles had individual authors authors who, whatever their personal proclivities, had an audience who often had certain expectations. So the old picture of authors feeling compelled to include stories they disliked because they were expected isn't absurd in itself. I don't agree such detail were more likely factual because knowing whether the original stories were embarrassing is so difficult.

I'm not sure whether to believe there was actually much in the way of oral traditions as opposed to written scriptures. (I'm afraid I'm not even convinced the pericopes identified in the gospels can even be thought of as oral anecdotes. They seem to me to be The picture in the New Testament is of a church based on written texts, the Scriptures. There is a huge amount of detail contained in scriptural references. The training it would take to produce all this ex tempore, orally, seems to me pretty much reserved to Jewish scribes, who are not by testimony of the NT itself the people who led the early church.

Greek speakers with a Septuagint at hand wrote these works I think. Some of the words of Jesus I expect were borrowed from manuals of wisdom, documents that looked much like the book of Wisdom, except attributed to Jesus (Savior) instead of Sophia (Wisdom.) Frankly a major motive of copying details is the same as student plagiarists': It's less work than doing it all yourself!

And frankly, Luke's syncretistic approach seems to me to be eerily similar to the mashup of J & E documents in the Pentateuch. Stuff is jammed together with a little smoothing so that a false unity can be proclaimed. For Luke it was different factions in the early church, while for the Pentateuch is was between Israel and Judah.

All consideration that, I think, render the criterion of embarrassment embarrassingly useless.

Steven Carr

It is a well known fact that 3 leaky buckets hold more water than one leaky bucket.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, you can either make the best use that you can of those leaky buckets or die of dehydration.