You're panicking, Boaz. And it is starting to show.

>>Pericles... I and others have provided all the information that relates to Jesus many times over.
-Josephus
-Herodotus
-Pliney
-and so it goes on..<<

One line, Boaz, that's all I asked for. One line of a contemporary account that corroborates just one event of Jesus' - apparently highly unusual, and highly eventful - life.

Josephus: was not a contemporary, and doesn't mention any of the miracles. Which would have attracted some attention, surely.

Herodotus: really, Boaz? The only Herodotus I am aware of lived several centuries before Jesus was born.

Pliny: not contemporary. Repeated hearsay.

>>I won't say anything about the various archeological finds which were not known by any other source than the Bible... there is too much. Particularly the New Testament. End of sidetrack.<<

Please don't hold anything back. I'm happy to look wherever you wish to point me, but really, wouldn't it be much easier - if there is any evidence at all - just to let me in on it?

And sadly, it is not a sidetrack.

I would have thought that you would be particularly concerned about the historical foundations of the New Testament, given your almost fanatical fascination with that of the Qur'an.

Face it Boaz.

As one under god so wisely explained

>>Its not for any to prove anything [to anyone ]
as jesus reveals your faith alone
Its seek and you will find
[remembering that some [vile][evil] type person will gladly destroy any document ][or any paper or libery ] just to suppress ANY fool-proof truth<<

I think there's something in that for all of us. Don't you?

Come on now, this is getting a little painfull to watch. You are way out of your depth here, BD. Give in gracefully. In fact, now is probably the time to do your runner.

We know that you have an inflated idea of your own capabilities, but you should do a reality check here.

Look, when it was pointed out that you are making yourself look silly I think you probably took that as a phatic statement? Which it probably would be if you made it. But it meant just that. You really are. By choosing to try to engage with the topic of interpreting texts with people who have been doing it all their lives you are only exposing your own shortcomings in that area.

Come on now, give it up. Go start a new thread on gay people or muslims or something. This time you've bitten off a little more than you can possibly chew. You really are choking quite painfully.

Oliver, I read: Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 3:28:17 PM
and referred to: Oliver, Monday, 2 June 2008 7:52:25 PM

But I am not sure what point you are making, other than the bloody obvious, that Jesus inherits the line of David and Abraham.

What is there to interpret in the opening of Gospel that you wanted my attention drawn to?

There seems to be an over-emphasis in this thread, upon Jesus' being born to Mary a virgin, as though that made him a bastard. Actually the opening Chapter of Mathew tells us that Joseph married Mary, as he has already intended,but after he found out she was pregnant. You never know, perhaps it was one of those situations, where fluids mix without penetration, obviously leaving both parents virgins. (my own parents conceived me like that in fact, but I am not claiming to be nearly so capable and Godly as Jesus, just making the point that the story might be far simpler than folk usually imagine)

However, none of this really helps anybody to comprehend HOW to interpret religious and/or secular texts.

I like this thread though, since it is halfway decent at showing up the fact that believers in Jesus usually notice the joke against us, and have fun playing along. (I could say that those who are more likely to take offence are least likely to be sustaining real belief, but then, perhaps somebody might say something to offend me, and I don't want to go disproving myself before there is any reason, nor afterwards either, but the fact of debates around religious meanings, is that it is so bloody cut throat, that anybody familiar with religious discourse, is not too bothered by the nastier undercurrents in secular debate normally.)

Is the thread going anywhere useful though?

Dear Romany..what in the world are you muttering about there?

<<Look, when it was pointed out that you are making yourself look silly >>

I get called silly by irrational people each day here :) that doesn't bother me. Specially when (with the exception of naming Herodotus rather than Tacitus oops) I know my subject quite well.

<<By choosing to try to engage with the topic of interpreting texts with people who have been doing it all their lives you are only exposing your own shortcomings in that area.>>

Now..I'm totally mystified, and your chirpings and mutterings there need some definite interpretation:) Clearly you know MUCH more about each other poster than I do. Hmm have you some secret access to the Book Life or something?

And.. you are also suggesting that I've not been doing that very thing all my own adult life? How interesting.

I've been ignoring many posts which are not in the slightest on target, but I am curious about which one makes me look a dill...?

Ya know.. if you had followed 'c_l_o_s_e_l_y' you would have actually noticed that most of what I've been doing thus far is simply establishing WHAT the text “says”, let alone what it means.
Now..who is the dill here? Sorry but it looks like its....you.

Did you make any contribution to the topic? Err..no. In fact the sum total of your 'contribution' is.. “you-look-silly” gr8. * frown *

Pericles. You are sidetracking bigtime.

BACK_TO_TOPIC.

TOPIC IS NOT.. “reliability of the text”
TOPIC IS..........”what do the accepted texts SAY” and then..”What do they MEAN” (to adherents)

Matthew 28:18-20 might give us a better idea of a text which includes a “command' (people/disciples/Christians/then_only/Now_also?) to DO something.
THIS...requires “interpretation.”

Therefore go
and make disciples
of all nations,
baptizing them etc
and
teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Applies to Christians today or only the disciples then? (3rd line_is_a_hint)

Curae.."yes"-hang in mate:)

That was very churlish, Boaz, I hope Romany takes you to task for your petty sniping.

I'm pretty sure we are at the end of this particular thread, given that you are scratching around for some kind of exit that doesn't damage your self-image too much.

>>Pericles. You are sidetracking bigtime. BACK_TO_TOPIC.<<

Sidetrack? Moi?

A tiny touch of gentle re-direction, I will admit to, but certainly not the sort of deviation that you suggest.

>>TOPIC IS NOT.. “reliability of the text” TOPIC IS..........”what do the accepted texts SAY” and then..”What do they MEAN” (to adherents)<<

Well, isn't that interesting?

The topic we began with was - and these are your own words, Boaz -

>>In each [religious text], one needs to examine what type of literature the document is 'claiming' to be. (i.e.. internal claim in the document itself)<<

So we have moved - not very subtly - from examining the documents objectively, to discussing their meaning "to adherents".

Which makes me wonder why you called upon me to get involved:

>>I'm jussssst trying to focus on 'how to interpret texts'.. which is a MOST needed lesson among many of us.. Pericles and CJ included ..bright as they appear to be.<<

Since I have never for a moment suggested that I am an "adherent", why ask my opinion?

I then gave you my opinion, which was that this thread was simply a stalking horse for your campaign against the Qur'an. This, you eventually admitted.

So if you are looking to defend Romany's charge of looking silly, I would suggest that you address the two following points:

Changing the topic mid-thread simply because you are on the losing end of the discussion.

Pretending that your mission here is objective analysis, when in fact your agenda is entirely subjective. Moreover, to add to the silliness quotient, the fact that you really believed you had anyone fooled as to your intentions.

Probably best to back away quietly.

Apologies are optional - none owed to me, I hasten to add, I have enjoyed taking advantage of the free hit.

Curaezipirid,

Off thread, but, can't let your comments stand:

[1] Mary was a Nun in training for marriage. Seemly she broke her vows. [Thiering, University of Sydney] Matthew is a religious document. Irrelevant. Self-serving.

[2] The point about The House of David is Historical and goes back to Heli and Joseph. Jesus was trying to re-establish a ruling house.

Jesus’ claims for The House of David were quasi-secular towards the Romans and very religious towards the Jews.

Rome granted the Herods [Later the Annas] some provincial power. The Herods allowed the Davanics to minister to the Gentiles. The point is Jesus needed to establish temporal standing, as a bastard. Not easy.

[3] Mikveh or Miqvah had several versions. The tovelei shaharit were morning bathers [Clementine Homolies]. There is physical evidence of baths at Quam. The immersion in a river is mentioned in the Qumran Temple Scroll.

Non-Essene Immersion for; conversion by Gentiles to Christianity, Women’s monthly periods, before Yom Kippur, and pots, and using eating utensils manufactured by a non-Jews [related to what I said about Gentiles entering the Temple to pray... How the Gentiles prepared meat.]. Among B'nai-Amen the immersion means separation from all the world. There was an immersion pool at the Mount of Olives (Par. 3:7).

[4] The sin-fests. [Mack, Claremount Theological College]

[5] Baptism. Origin is Greek: Gr. [wont print], trans. Latin baptismus European: a1300 Cursor M. 12726 In is hali Ion time Was lagh bigun neu of baptim. c1325 E.E. Allit. P. A. 626 In e water of baptem ay dyssente. [OED – Unabridged, Etymology]

[6] I think you will find the largest genocide in History was the Russians against the Poles: 15 million? I am looking documents to find the correct number Jews persecuted in Rome, if recorded. Suspect it will be high, because Nero was really bad. Josephus is not really an impartial source. Also, numbers might include non-Jews