Ah well, I tried. If you did not recognise that as genuine advice or make any attempt to take it on board then so be it.

And...for what I hope will be the last time I have to say this: I do not "mutter", "chirp" "whine" "whinge" or any of the other verbs you constantly apply to me when I submit a direct and perfectly clearly articulated response. I write - to be absolutely correct. I also state. Sometimes I venture, or question or ask.

Why is it so hard for you to utilise any of these perfectly apt verbs in relation to any statement I make? If there is such a paucity in your understanding of the nuance of the English language then how on earth do you expect anyone to take seriously your "instruction" on interpreting texts which, by definition requires an adequate knowledge of the use of language?

Either you can claim ignorance as a defense or admit that you are being condescending and deliberately nasty. No middle ground there.
And you wonder why it is clearly obvious that no, you have not spent your life interpreting texts. Accepting the teachings of some bible college somewhere? Yeah, granted. Treating the perfectly complex and wonderful organ of your brain like one of Pavlov's dogs to react predictably to certain stimuli? Yep, also.

"Did you make any contribution to the topic? Err..no. In fact the sum total of your 'contribution' is.. “you-look-silly” gr8. * frown *". Nope. No frown. Genuinely trying to save you from yourself. It did't work. So yeah: silly me

Yes, I think this thread has been summed pretty well.

Boaz, I think it is quite clear that in this thread:

a) You have attempted to claim the mantle of teacher (for a particularly broad concept - I mean, to infer that you have the foremost skills in interpreting religious or secular texts? Interpretation varies from person to person.)

b) People don't like it when somebody tells them or hints they may have a better idea of how to 'interpret' things. Seeing as interpretation is by its very definition subjective, I can understand why people are distinctly put off by this. Even more so than most of your causes.

c) Perhaps its time to let this thread go the way of the dinosaurs.

[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.

In first century Rome, the poor where sometimes crucified in times of food scarcity. [Josephus and the Jews: The Religion and History of the Jews as Explained by Flavius Josephus (1930), Foakes] Josephus is not really an impartial source: His wife and parents were killed by the Romans.

On the unreliability of ancient statistics, Talmud Gittin 57b, gives 4 "b"illion as the number of Jews killed by the Romans at Betar.

[7] Caligula's reign was 12-40 CE. You quote a period just before Pompei-Caesar Civil War. I don’t think the Romans would have been too concerned about the Jews.

If you reply, please use real History books: Gibbon; Toynbee; Wells; Quigley; McNeill, not the self-referencing Bible. At Forum we don’t always assume Gospels, gospel ;-). Dead Seas Scrolls and period documents okay.

The Jews [66 CE] revolted, because, priest, Eliezar ben Hanania, who was interrupted praying for the safety of the Emperor, led a revolt against the Romans, when Roman soldiers would stop Greek’s expressing their right of religious beliefs, sacrificing a pigeon close to the Temple. Bad taste, perhaps, but grounds for a war, silly. [Josephus, War of the Jews II.14.5]

Josephus claims 1.1 million Jews were killed in Jerusalem, but the Roman legions only numbers in the tens of thousands. Does gell.

Incidently, there was “no Roman census was imposed in Galilee, where he represents Jesus' family as living, or could have been. For there was no moment in the lifetime of Jesus when Roman tribute was raised in Galilee.” - The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.-A.D. 337 (1993)., p. Fergus Millar - author. Publisher: Harvard University Press. Looking for Jerusalem. Think it was 600,000 in the first century, but need to check/confirm.

Biblical sources are too unreliable for the secular scholar.

Boazy,

Sorry. I felt compelled to address Curaezipirid's account history.

Hey Iamjoseph,

I'm wondering if you see the similarities I do between the Jews of the period of the revolt and the conditions within Iraq today?

Here you have bitter in-fighting between religious groups and the conflict between them is often as bloody as that with the invader. One might think of the Sunnis as the Zealots, the Shites as the Pharisees or Sadducees and Al Qeada as the Sicarii.

Today's invaders were prepared to sacrifice 500,000 Iraqi children even before they invaded.

The trial and death of Saddam Hussain certainly had the pseudo-legal echos of Jesus'.

Dear Pericles.. “free hit”:) hardly...

You quoted my words (here)

>>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)<<

Bingo! Mark 1:1 “the beginning of THE GOSPEL” -'that' is what it claims to 'be' you duffer..

You seem to be confusing “Christians claim Mark is the Word of God” with the above internal claim for it to be 'The Gospel'.

Now..how you convolute that into 'now I'm changing the topic' is.. well.. I'm speechless.
a)It 'is' the topic...
b)My words quoted by you underline that very fact.

But.. to bend as far as I reasonably can to to accommodate this 'interesting' thinking.. let me flesh out the intended meaning of “claims to be”. And “type of literature” and “internal claim”.

My goal is to examine 'some text' based on how it stands..objectively, without reference to external information which will unfairly influence out grasp of that text... then.. when we have looked closely at what is in front of us, and understand it, we can then move to “Interpretation”.

You 'interpreted' my words to mean “examine the historic veracity of the text” -how it came to be, and then, to -"Is it reliable factually?"

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there, and blame 'me'.. for not making it clearer...

But interestingly “to_its_adherents” varies according to social context. Western Muslims minimize problem verses, in Arab countries, Muslims just use them as they are. Can you think why this might be?

Dear ROMANY . If you think you have grounds for 'saving me'...please be specific or silent.

Your condescending tone could be 'interpreted' as.. arrogance? You came in..just criticized, without a shred of evidence...and demonstrated that you don't have a clue about this topic.

I'm sure you can interpret, but you clearly have missed what's going on here. I say this by way of advice, to save you from looking more of a dill than you think I am. "Specifics"?

Pericles, Romany came and sniped_at_me.... check_back.

Boazy and friends,

Always, I am leaving the most important word out.

The Jews attacked the Romans because the Romans would NOT stop the Greeks, sacrificing a pigeon. [First Jewish-Roman War].

Might be a day before I can post again.

Boazy,

Many posters, here, know the Mark text too well and project into. Want me to try and find something from China or Eygpyt of the same period, wheer the plays and terms will be less known?