Koyaanisqatsi

Offer nothing relevant.

The next one, however, demonstrates my contention that leonarde is nothing more than a propagandist:

Then nothing else for several posts except pointless ramblings about ARN...until page three, which is simply littered with leonarde talking to himself about points I never made so that leonarde can pretend to have a legitimate reason to offer more propaganda.

We'll start at the top:

So we have another biased collection

The "trial/hearing?" When did it become a "hearing?"

Once again, we are told what Wilson notes, not provided with a direct quote from Wilson!

Now it's a "trial" again...

Right, because unnecessary procedures that would have never happened in the manner presented isn't evidence of fraud, just evidence that we have to revise history in order to fit the biased preconception...

See how dishonest is leonarde's scholarship? He claims this is what Wilson argues and then offers no direct quote to support it. He then dismisses such a burden of proof in order to provide us with a quote from Wilson that will have little to nothing directly to do with leonarde's claims:

See! We have only Wilson's conclusion and not what Wilson based his conclusion upon. For that we must rely on leonarde!

What popularity? He had twelve disciples, one of which stabbed him in the back; another doubted him; another denied him three times; etc., etc., etc.

The speculation hinges upon more speculation. What good is this quote?

How does this in any way shape or form allow us to form any kind of conclusion at all?

Again, this supports none of your arguments, is little more than revisionist, biased speculation that assumes the truth of the gospel accounts; i.e, tries to reconcile those accounts with the obvious contradictory qualities already pointed out.

Apologetics is evidence of fraud, IMO, not evidence supportive of dismissing deductive logic.

Again, the point is to evaluate the existing evidence honestly and directly and not see how far we can stretch either the facts surrounding the shroud or the gospel accounts to reconcile that which cannot be reconciled. The attempt alone demonstrates that fraud, IMO, and you have done the exact opposite in disproving such an opinion.

And it still is. All you do is make claims of legitimate arguments and then provide a URL for your evidence. Every single time I have followed those links, I have found evidence of your deliberate obfuscation and omission.

This is precisely why I have stated the demonstrable, literal fact that your scholarship is untrustworthy and why I imposed the rules upon you that you have consistently broken.

Accordingly, this will most likely be my last post.

Two more urls without relevant quotes. The purpose of affirmative argumentation is to make an argument and then present a quote that supports that argument.

You consistently do neither.

What do you think, class? Will it be...?

Then Jesus and the bible is lying:

It's your call. Jesus was telling us the truth or lying.

No, actually, this thread was never meant to give you a soapbox to pontificate upon; it was meant to get you to focus directly on the evidence and address the many hundreds of questions that arise that you have never addressed, only disingenuously claimed you already did.

As has been abundantly demonstrated, your assessment is neither true in specific, nor trustworthy in general.

As mentioned several times, until you follow the most basic rules of debate by providing detailed, point-by-point counter-argumentation, I will not address any ancillary propaganda you toss into the air.

If anybody else wants to address such an obvious redirectional ploy, feel free. As I have demonstrated again and again, it isn't at all difficult to find the chink in the "armor."

It is clear at this point that continuing this is a complete waste of everyone's time, since leonarde is under the impression that quantity of irrelevant posts is somehow equal to quality.

Your obvious intention, but then that's my problem for ever thinking you an honest scholar to begin with.

A mistake I will never make again.

You then quote me asking for how your source defined what was a "violent death" that would force a change in normal tahara procedures (burial customs practiced since Moses).

In true leonarde form, you spewed apparently relevant hyperbole only to then offer nothing to support it:

Worthless rhetorical nonsense deliberately employed to evade the point that you source provided and you provided no definition of what is or is not considered a "violent death" by the Jewish laws of burial!

You ignore all arguments and pretend I made ones I did not by turning the ones made into straw men that you think you can simply dismiss with childish witticisms, such as:

THE POINT IS AND ALWAYS SHALL BE THAT YOU NEVER ESTABLISHED ANYTHING AT ALL REGARDING JESUS' DEATH NOR DID YOU PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE LINKING THE MANNER IN WHICH JESUS DIED WITH THE "OFFICIAL" DESIGNATION YOU ALLEGE THAT WOULD MANDATE A CHANGE IN BURIAL PROCEDURE, NOR DID YOU DEMONSTRATE ANYWHERE AT ALL THE DETAILS OF THAT BURIAL PROCEDURE AND WHAT THAT WOULD HAVE NECESSARILY MEANT IN JESUS' CASE.

Again and again and again, you are demonstrating to everyone involved your obvious and deliberate obfuscation attempts and no one, I assure you, is buying it, other than Tercel, which, quite frankly, surprises me even less.

Already addressed, but just wanted to add that my prophecy was correct; you are in fact incapable of addressing any of my arguments directly and point-by-point and that you would come up with an excuse to get out of doing so.

Accusing me of what you are most demonstrably guilty only settles the issue against you.

I can find nothing else at all in your posts that even comes close to addressing anything I have posted, which means, of course, according to forensic standards, that my arguments stand and you have failed to meet your prima facie affirmative burden (the nonsense regarding reasonable doubt included).

This ends our "debate," since, again as I prophesied, there would not be one to begin with.

You have done nothing but prove yourself a deceitful and deliberate propagandist, entirely disinterested in actually employing the standards you claimed you did previously.

As previously, this has been a pointless wast of time.

Koyaanisqatsi

You are demonstrably incorrect. You know perfectly well that I lay my arguments out bare for all to see and directly address.

I notice neither you nor leonarde ever have the courage to demonstrate these kinds of claims against me; merely assert them and prove yourselves guilty of what you accuse me of doing.

Why? Everyone here can read and plainly see that your assertions only apply to yourself, so, have fun with that.

Ok, there you go. You've now directly addressed something I wrote, so let's see what your counter argument is accordingly:

I "believe." That's what addending the words "I believe" means.

Predicated on my initial disclaimer, of course, where I stated that it was my belief that the GJohn papyri was dated to the 4th century.

The difference being, of course, that when I use the word "believe" it is to denote unsurety, contrary to when you use the word .

Careful who you call an idiot when staring in a mirror, my friend. You are the one who it seems are not capable of understanding what it means to qualify one's comments with "I believe," meaning that it is unsure and duly qualified as such.

In other words, the second century, which is what I stated initially, further qualifying what I believed to be the case regarding (specifically) GJohn to be in the fourth century.

Clearly my beliefs regarding that dating were as incorrect as my qualifying comment would suggest.

Now who is the idiot?

So my belief of later dating was justified, though incorrect. Hence, I was correct in qualifying my assertion upon what it is I believed, not what it was that I knew or had evidence for.

Nothing relevant that I can determine, especially if you're correct and GJohn can be dated to the second century (circa 125 was it?), which would have been fifty five years later. We don't need archeologists to prove what we know about German cities during World War II.

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

katerina

Mon cher aimant,

"Tout fourmille de commentaires ; d’auteurs, il en est grand cherté"

--Montaigne

Principia

Ce n'est rien que foiblesse particuliere, qui nous faict contenter de ce que d'autres, ou que nous-mesmes avous trouvé en cette chasse de cognoissance : un plus habile ne s'en contentera pas. Il y a tousjours place pour un suivant, ouy et pour nous mesmes, et route par ailleurs. Il n'y a point de fin en nos inquisitions.

--Ibid

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

leonarde

We interrupt this page to announce that although
this page was almost ENTIRELY in two foreign languages, French and Koyese, subsequent pages may
indeed be in the American version of the English
tongue. Don't touch that dial!!!!!

leonarde

Posted by Koy: ALL EXECUTIONS
are in effect violent deaths. Is that so hard to understand? Even forcing someone to take hemlock has an element of violence to it. Who on earth, besides Koy, thinks that a crucifixion is NOT A
VIOLENT DEATH??????? It involves driving nails or
spikes through arms and legs and waiting until the
victim(s) die from suffocation/shock/bloodloss or
some combination. How violent must it be for Koy to admit it is a violent death? I am amazed......
Cheers!

katerina

un poinct gaigné, meshuy bien gaigné, mon cheri, si le mesme poinct ne fust pas si mal plaçé...

Il n’y a point de fin en nos inquisitions ; nostre fin est en l’autre monde.

Quand-meme!

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: katerina ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

That's it? For f*ck's sake, leonarde!

QUOTE FROM WILSON DIRECTLY AND COMPLETELY AND LIST PRECISELY WHAT JUDAIC LAW CLASSIFIES AS A "VIOLENT DEATH" AND THEN QUOTE IN COMPLETE DETAIL EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THE BURIAL PROCEDURE THIS DESIGNATION NECESSARILY ENTAILS, OMMITTING NOTHING.

It is the most basic rule of evidentiary procedure. Make an argument and then back it up by directly quoting a source.

The fact that you consistently refuse to do this most basic procedure three times now is conclusive proof that you are deliberately obfuscating the fact that such a designation ("violent death") is being deliberately misapplied.

Just as in our jurisprudence, Judaic laws and customs are based upon precise terminology and detailed instructions. As I argued previously and you support in your post when you state:

Any death that doesn't involve dying in one's sleep could be declared a "violent death," which in turn means that the phrase is pointlessly vague as you are defining it.

IT IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT WHAT ANYBODY THINKS A "VIOLENT DEATH" IS. THE ONLY THING RELEVANT IS THE OFFICIAL JUDAIC CLASSIFICATION AND WHAT SUCH A CLASSIFICATION NECESSARILY ENTAILS IN REGARD TO BURIAL PROCEDURES.

Your opinion, appeals to popular analysis and consistent evasion of the most basic evidentiary procedures possible serves only as proof that you are deliberately obfuscating the fact that the designation of "violent death" is not and cannot be applicable to Jesus' alleged death on the cross, IMO.

One last time. QUOTE IN FULL THE JUDAIC DEFINITION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A "VIOLENT DEATH" THAT WOULD NECESSARILY INSTRUCT THEM TO ALTER THE BURIAL CUSTOMS AND THEN QUOTE IN FULL WHAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE BURIAL CUSTOMS ENTAILS.

And make absolutely no mistake about this; you have not done this in any of your posts here! The only thing you did was claim Wilson and other Jewish sources said something!

That is not the procedure. Quote them completely--ommitting nothing--and let us evaluate the evidence!

If you do not do this in your very next post, then you will have conceded this "debate" by omission; your favored modus operandi.

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

"...et ma volonté étendent mou dans un monde vide..."

--Nabokov

leonarde

Posted by Koy: I hereby concede:

1)Anyone who holds that crucifixion is a "non-violent death" can rest assured I shan't be
addressing them in any future posts: they, like Koy, are in la-la land.

2)Those who realize (and realized a few pages back)that crucifixion IS a violent death are encouraged to read all of Chapter 4 of Ian Wilson's book, "The Blood and the Shroud" (and no
I'm not getting any split in the royalties). The references to Jewish burial proceedures are on the
first 3 or 4 pages of Chapter 4. If I find anything of interest on the Shroud---a URL, a
book, or magazine article----I'll post it here. The last Shroud thread was here:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000148&p=1" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000148&p=1</a>

Cheers!