Conquer Club

Posted: **Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:08 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:2753 since the founding of Rome. Why?

Atta boy! Just checking.

Posted: **Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:41 pm**

Romanes eunt domus

Posted: **Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:44 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:
2753 since the founding of Rome. Why?

Wait... so 2012 was like 741 years ago??

Posted: **Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:48 pm**

ser stiefel wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:
2753 since the founding of Rome. Why?

Wait... so 2012 was like 741 years ago??

Not where I'm sitting. Looks like 3658.

Posted: **Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:50 pm**

2dimes wrote:
ser stiefel wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:
2753 since the founding of Rome. Why?

Wait... so 2012 was like 741 years ago??

Not where I'm sitting. Looks like 3658.

breaker breaker 2dimes... whats your 20?

Posted: **Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:54 pm**

26th of Tevet, 5770

Posted: **Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:59 pm**

hmmm... i wonder how close to 2012 the flood was. I think it was in 1656 or so, but I may be off...

Posted: **Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:08 pm**

Cool, that's a good question. I'm trolling though, It's 2110 at my house. I keep looking for a nice hebrew family to adopt me once a year for passover though. Anyone know what event happened to start the hebrew calender. There must be older ones. I have heard talk dating other religions as quite a bit older. Why did they run off B.K Barunt? he'd probalby have some theory that he found.

Posted: **Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:38 pm**

Actually I was 10 years out - it's 2763. My bad, I mean mea culpa.

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:22 am**

ser stiefel wrote:
comic boy wrote:The Dead Sea scrolls are contemporary, they have not been edited to fit any agenda, they were written by a messianic sect who would have been highly excited by a figure such as Jesus, the lack of any references to him speaks volumes in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7Q5

A portion of the gospel of Mark was found in the dead sea scrolls. The portion of the dead sea scroll item 7Q5 appears to be from Mark 6:52-53 below. Also, this would be the earliest gospel manuscript in existence dated probably to 68 AD.

Mark 6:52-53
Jesus Walks on the Water
45Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray.
47When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50because they all saw him and were terrified.

Immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid." 51Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.

53When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there. 54As soon as they got out of the boat, people recognized Jesus. 55They ran throughout that whole region and carried the sick on mats to wherever they heard he was. 56And wherever he went—into villages, towns or countryside—they placed the sick in the marketplaces. They begged him to let them touch even the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were healed.

I am afraid you are being dishonest here, the fragment in question does not appear to be the Gospel of Mark, the notion was proposed in 1982 but has subsequently been universaly rejected. Your quote from Mark ( attempting to link it to the scrolls ) and the claim that it favourably dates the said Gospel is pure conjecture, clutching at thin straws like that is slightly pathetic really. I repeat there is no mention of Jesus in the scrolls, or any of his disciples, in fact nothing at all that bears any relation to what is written in the New Testament Gospels.
Pretty strange that there is a huge volume of material pertaining to the Old Testament but ,despite the Essenes living right next to Jerusalem for the entire period of his life, of Jesus they detail absolutely nothing. Lets not forget that we are talking about a messianic sect, a figure such as the Jesus of the gospels would have been of massive importance to them, especially as ( by coincidence perhaps

) he apparently ticked all the prophetic boxes.

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:47 am**

comic boy wrote:I am afraid you are being dishonest here....clutching at thin straws like that is slightly pathetic really.

Since you feel so strongly about the authors of the Wikipedia article in question, I think you need to log onto Wikipedia and provide meaningful editorial feedback to the article and its sponsors whom you are maligning!

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:48 am**

ser stiefel wrote:
comic boy wrote:I am afraid you are being dishonest here....clutching at thin straws like that is slightly pathetic really.

Since you feel so strongly about the authors of the Wikipedia article in question, I think you need to log onto Wikipedia and provide meaningful editorial feedback to the article and its sponsors whom you are maligning!

Nothing wrong with the article in question, it specifically states that the claim is universally rejected by scholars, its your embelishments that are dishonest

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2010 11:08 am**

comic boy wrote:
ser stiefel wrote:
comic boy wrote:I am afraid you are being dishonest here....clutching at thin straws like that is slightly pathetic really.

Since you feel so strongly about the authors of the Wikipedia article in question, I think you need to log onto Wikipedia and provide meaningful editorial feedback to the article and its sponsors whom you are maligning!

Nothing wrong with the article in question, it specifically states that the claim is universally rejected by scholars, its your embelishments that are dishonest

[quote = "article"]The majority of scholars have not been convinced by O'Callaghan's and Thiede's identification[1][2] and it is "now virtually universally rejected".[3][4][/quote]

Maybe a technicality, but the exact quote is "virtually universally rejected." Which is a quote from a single source, Elliot (2004). You did leave out "virtually" btw.

Either way, I suspect that both Jose O´Callaghan and Carsten Peter Thiede would disagree strongly with Elliot. But they are both deceased.

Another critical review of O'Callaghan can be found here.

http://bible.org/article/7q5-earliest-nt-papyrus

While it is true that this review is equally critical of dogmatic interpretations of conservative viewpoints like O'Callaghan, it is also cautionary in its view of liberal viewpoints which seek to discredit his work out of hand.

I personally like O'Callaghan's argument, and until it is disproven I see no reason to discount my own opinion as either dishonest or pathetic. Although, I take no offense at being so labeled by others.

Posted: **Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:18 pm**

Its understandable that you choose to form such an opinion, as I said before you are clutching at straws , but I dont think it reasonable to present it as fact, that is intelectual dishonesty my friend and you well know it

Let us though play Devils Advocate and accept that the fragment was part of Marks gospel, this would mean that the Essenes were aware of Jesus the Messiah........but they decided to keep it quiet yes :lol:

Posted: **Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:33 pm**

ser stiefel wrote:Romanes eunt domus

Mmmmmm doughnuts.

Conquer Club

Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus

Re: Criss Angel vs. Jesus