stephan huller

The original question was directed at me:

I provided an answer which included an illustrative example of how the rabbinic tradition interpreted the passage and furthermore included that this interpretation was shared by the material in Josephus's account of the Jewish War. None of the tangential attacks against me or my book change any of that. The reason that archibald did not ask Mary Helena for her opinion, I presume, is the same reason that he didn't ask his mother for an explanation. She has no perceived expertise in these matters.

To this end, I will address the second part of his question which been addressed by Iskander and Toto. It has been argued ever since Porphyry at least that Daniel was written with the events in the second century BCE in mind. Those arguments are very compelling. Nevertheless archibald's citation of Carrier's discussion of the messiah who is killed required a proper grounding which I gave in my exegesis. The material can be interpreted in a number of different ways but the correct interpretation is that it originally said he would disappear and be no more for the reasons I just gave.

Solo

Factor in slope grade and consistency of the evacuation.

Jiri

Sheshbazzar

Ah, so for you, the 'original question' in this thread was posed by archibald in Post #12
Seems to me, the original question was posed in the TITLE of this thread, and in the first line of the OP.
You were going on about Moses before archibald chimed in with his belated question, which certainly was NOT the original question posed in this thread. Nor was it directed specifically at you.

stephan huller

Perhaps if I had written 'the original question which aroused the non-existent controversy (and predictable resentful vitriol of Mary Helena)' you would have been satisfied. My apologies for the lack of clarity on my part.

Toto

I don't know what to do with this thread.

I thought about asking people to act like adults, but this is how adults act on the internet. Misreading piled on misunderstanding, argument by smilie, argument by scatological reference, personal attacks, sarcasm . ..

Are your lives so empty that this is how you entertain yourselves?

Iskander

Let us return to the OP

Was “Romeo and Juliet “inevitable? Men and women can take each other very seriously and adolescents have a tendency to exaggerate.

Was “war and peace” inevitable? Russia felt the full force of the Napoleonic army in a rather painful manner after having tried to keep them away by agreeing to peace

Was “Don Quixote” inevitable? It was a country under the grip of the Inquisition and escaping into a coded fantasy world was the only option for a writer of a healthy disposition


Were the gospels inevitable? Humans have been doing that sort of thing everywhere on this planet for a long time before the gospels and it has continued after that. (Koran, Mormons...)

Spurious

Interesting stuff ITT.

DCHindley

Now? Fear not! Many of us received revelation from on high about your whackyness from the very start, man. Now that you too have gained your sight, welcome to the club ><

DCH

Sheshbazzar

Pretty likely the same as the real impetus behind the Gospels. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Superstitious suckers would buy it, and shysters dressed up the garb religion were ever more than willing to produce, promote, and sell it.
The lucrative religion racket is still going strong in the churches and on television, countless billions are scammed from these poor deluded suckers every week.

The 2012 twist is just the latest angle to part fools from their money, and grab a measure of power and influence over peoples thoughts, lives, and ultimately and most importantly their wallets and checkbooks.

Religious books sell and sell well. If they are at least a bit credible, millions of $ await the writer that produces what the yokels want to hear.
And that is what ends up in the libraries and on peoples book-shelves, and what was and is ultimately accepted by the gullible as being 'religious history'.
Then and now, the same old same old. Go against that flow and your work will be forgotten, and your books go unsold.





.

stephan huller

I don't think that we need be a cynical as Sh-whatever-his-name-is. Plato was sincerely interested in uncovering the truth about the nature of being. There is no reason for us to assume that the founder of Christianity was no less sincere. That people seek to profit from other people's success is a fault of humanity. The universe a profoundly mysterious, profoundly interesting place. Venerating that mysteriousness is among the most sincere things humanity is capable of.