Conference back40::soapbox

    
    Well, don't keep us in suspense. Who was he?
    
    Paul

>    and He is the centerpiece
>    of the human race

    He is? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. It also suggests western
    ethnocentrism.

    
    western ethnocentrism???
    
    Sounds an awful lot like "victim" rhetoric.....
    

    Re .2
    
    You will never have the abundant life without Him.
    
    -Jack

    you forgot something, jack.  that's "abundant life(tm)."  some people
    have what they believe to be a very abundant life without him.

I thought Abundant Life sold woodstoves?

>    Sounds an awful lot like "victim" rhetoric.....
 
    I haven't the slightest idea what you mean.   

    Re:.4
    
    Possibly. But .0 asserts that He IS the "centerpiece of the human
    race", not that He ought to be. Given the context, it suggests that the
    whole human race has concentrated its attention on this one human life
    and that is why we ought to be impressed by it. Do you think that is
    the case?
    
    Frankly, it seems to me that I've heard a number of His followers here,
    bemoaning the fact that He is no longer even the "centerpiece" of
    American society by itself, let alone all of Western Civilization or
    the human race in general.

    
    are we discussing Richard Strauss?

    Alot of our forefathers were deists and Christ wasn't at the center of
    their life either.  They did however, uphold the highest honor and
    right of those who worshipped Jesus as savior, unlike today.
    
    I think what disturbs me more is that people in this country have
    actually chosen a god to worship.  They don't worship the true God and
    that's their right; however, they also aren't idle in their devotion to
    a deity.  I notice the fruits society reaps from the deity they follow
    and that's what disturbs me most!
    
    -Jack 

    Somewhere between 385 AD and 1000 AD Christianity discovered a fast
    route to power, the foisting of guilt onto innocent, valuable,
    productive individuals. As an effective rallying symbol, they found and
    elevated to martyr level status an obscure historical individual who
    died three centuries earlier. That individual was an illiterate,
    hallucinating, unproductive person who lived off a group of mystical
    followers and manipulators. That individual, their new symbol, was
    named Jesus and was proclaimed the christ. 
    
    This farce continues to this day, continually perpetrated by those who
    seek easy money and power by the continual foisting of false quilt. They now
    have support of the producer, like those who proclaim christianity in
    this conference, without any productive effort of their own. 
    
    ...Tom

	>false quilt

	Good way to freeze to death.  Watch out.

    .12
    
    goes pretty good with the rest of the garbage spewed in .11.

    What's amazing is that Tom has followed the liberal credo...that you
    all are idiots for not thinking rationally like he does...and that
    humanism is non convicting and has served the purposes of mankind far
    better than a silly religion such as following Jesus Christ.
    
    Tom, let me be the first to thank people such as yourself.  You have
    truly proven through history that humanism is a far more effective way
    to go.
    
    -Jack

    One man's garbage is another man's food.
    
    I heard that somewhere, yuk!
    
    I also love it when no logical rebuttal can be made, unrelated words are
    spewed and typos are pointed out.
    
    ...Tom

RE: Note 186.14, Jack
    
    >What's amazing is that Tom has followed the liberal credo...that you
    >all are idiots for not thinking rationally like he does
    
    Anyone who is paying attention knows this to be a pile of crap. I am not
    a liberal nor have I ever referred to anyone as an idiot. In fact, I
    have argued your points many times Jack. This problem creation tactic
    of "liberal credo" and "humanism" is your method of avoiding the issue,
    just like the two notes prior to yours. Take a stand Jack, I and most
    others repect that and will stand by your individual right to believe
    and live it. But, argue your points with facts or opinion based
    on fact. Instant, emotional responses never succeed. 
    
    >Tom, let me be the first to thank people such as yourself.  
    
    Your welcome.
    
    ...Tom

Re: Note 186.11             
DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!"                    15 lines  19-DEC-1994 11:52

Okay Tom, then let's deal with the facts.

>>    Somewhere between 385 AD and 1000 AD Christianity discovered a fast
>>    route to power, the foisting of guilt onto innocent, valuable,
>>    productive individuals. 

Screwup number 1.  Constantine declared the whole world christian.  However, 
surely you agree this doesn't make it so.  Tom, the above was pulled out of
your arse...that's a fact.  The above is pure conjecture according to the 
gospel of Tom.

>>    As an effective rallying symbol, they found and
>>    elevated to martyr level status an obscure historical individual who
>>    died three centuries earlier. 

Screwup #2
Josephus the historian would certainly disagree with this.  A recommended book
would be Foxes Book of Martyrs.  You will find that martyrs for this obscure
man started with John the Baptist.  Furthermore 11 of the 12 apostles were 
martyred along with Stephen and Paul.  Point being these men and women of the
time of Nero considered Jesus mission so important they were more than willing 
to die for their beliefs. 

    >>That individual was an illiterate,
    >>hallucinating, unproductive person who lived off a group of mystical
    >>followers and manipulators. That individual, their new symbol, was
    >>named Jesus and was proclaimed the christ. 
    
Screwup #3
Again Josephus as well as Dr. Luke and the other theologians who peened the 
Bible would disagree with you.  Tom, you talk about facts.  How can any 
discourse with you be taken seriously when you write drivel like this.  
Remember, Jesus at the age of 12 was teaching the religious leaders of the
synagogue.  One must be literate and extremely well versed in the scriptures.
Furthermore, they would need to know Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

>>    This farce continues to this day, continually perpetrated by those who
>>    seek easy money and power by the continual foisting of false quilt. They now
>>    have support of the producer, like those who proclaim christianity in
>>    this conference, without any productive effort of their own. 
  
Tom, just what in blazes are you talking about here?! 

-Jack

>peened the bible

I didn't know that!  What, written in the snow?

    Jesus, Son of the Living God. <smile>

    Bahahaha....penned....penned!  

    i liked peened better.  sure enough, enough people have hammered on it.

Note 186.17, Jack
    
>just what in blazes are you talking about here?! 

    I am speaking of work done by Morton M. Hunt and others. I will find
    the titles. I never use my arse for information, it is to dirty of a
    business. I will find the titles, so perhaps you can read them. The
    problem with your information Jack is that most of it is taken from the
    bible or from men who set out to prove the bible correct. Mr. Hunt and
    his associates did the same (trying to prove the bible correct for an
    unbelieving world) but found the "facts" of the bible to disagree with
    history. Your effort to belittle my statements with bibical "facts" does
    not now, or ever has worked. Many statements in the bible just are not
    true.
    
    ...Tom

   .22 (Ralston):
   
   >> I never use my arse for information, it is to dirty of a
   >> business.

    Tom:
    
    Josephus is one of the best historians of that time.  
    
    -Jack

    .24
    
    except that he had a vested interest in sucking up to the flavians, as,
    basically, being a jew, he wanted to stay alive.  which could have had,
    and probably did have, an effect on the slant of his history.

    RE: .25
    
    Thanks Binderman. Jack is correct "Josephus is one of the best historians 
    of that time", as far as writing things down. However, his accuracy is
    disputed because of what you said.
    
    ...Tom
                                                                   

    If he were writing a newspaper I'd be inclined to agree.  

    Re:.10
    
    Which diety is that?

        Probably Richard Simmons.

    
    i hear that Mr Simmons is really taken with Barbra, who'd
    just as soon have him get lost..

    Oops. Guess I shoulda stuck with the word "god". :-)

    .30
    
    Barbra who?

    	Streisand.

    Tom and others:
    
    Supreme Court Justice Taft, when asked once about the facts in the
    Bible concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, said two
    important things:
    
    1. The facts as presented in the Bible, if this were a court case,
    would have been sufficient to convince him of the authenticity of the
    accounts written in the Bible.
    
    2. He would be inclined to believe the testimony of the 11 Apostles who
    were present and the more than 500 eye witnesses who saw Jesus in the
    flesh after his crucifixion rather than "modern day detractors who,
    1900 years later, try to falsify the biblical account to serve their
    private agendas."
    
    Case closed.

	Still comes down to people who aren't here anymore being used as proof
for something. Remember when we were taught that Columbus discovered America?
Now just where did he end up????

    
    RE: USAT05::WARRENFELTZR
    
        >Case closed.
    
    Because of one Supreme Justice?! I think you should go over to the
    abortion topic and stand up for the Roe vs Wade decision. After all the
    same argument applies.
    
    ...Tom

    
    RE: .35
    
    If we take your (warped) logic to its conclusion, then how do we know
    he (Columbus) ever existed? Are there any eyewitnesses? Any
    photographs? What about Alexander the Great? Caeser? Cleopatra? Have
    you ever seen them? What do you know about any of these (and more)
    people except for what you read in history books (which were written by
    men)???

    .37
    
    i think there's a diff between acknowledging the erstwhile existence of
    a person and believing everything that is said about that person.  i'm
    sure to with a gnat's hair that gaius iulius caesar lived, but i'm as
    leery as a cat of a bath about the allegation that he was born by
    cesarian section - in fact, had he been delivered by cesarian, his
    mother would have died under the knife, as the operation was INVARIABLY
    fatal to the mother until very recent times.  and caesar's mother lived
    for quite some time after his birth.

| <<< Note 186.37 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| If we take your (warped) logic to its conclusion, then how do we know
| he (Columbus) ever existed? 

	Wow! He throws in warped as his own thought! Too clever for me Andy,
too clever for me.... the point I was making is it was taught he discovered
America, but later changed. Why is that?

| Cleopatra? 

	Queen of Denial..... that could be you Andy....

| What do you know about any of these (and more) people except for what you read
| in history books (which were written by men)???

	Gee Andy, this would be a good thing for the Bible topics. Men wrote
the history books too.....

   Well, I believe the story, but I must tell you that modern scholars
   regard the Gospels as hearsay.

    Tom:
    
    Using man's common sense, the SC justice said he's rather take the eye
    witness accounts over those of scholars?(critics) over 1900 years.
    
    Now I don't know why you want to translate this over to the Abortion
    topic, but be my guest.
    

    
    RE: .38
    
    Dick,
    
     I agree...
    
     My entry was geared more to those who leap to conclusions...
    
    RE: .39
    
     Are those from "The Schoool of Snappy Comebacks" you found inside a
    matchbook cover??
    

    
    RE: .40
    
    "modern scholars" may be construed as being an oxymoron in some
    circles... 

| <<< Note 186.42 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| Are those from "The Schoool of Snappy Comebacks" you found inside a
| matchbook cover??

	Nah... just fighting fire with fire. BTW, I wasn't surprised that you
never addressed the part about making a good stand, using your own words, that
the Bible isn't the inerrant Word of God, but a mere history book, cause both
were written by men. 


Glen

    
    Wrong....
    
    I was using an example of your "logic"
    
    > just fighting fire with fire???
    
    
     Vapid at best....
    

| <<< Note 186.45 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Zebras should be seen and not herd" >>>


| I was using an example of your "logic"

	Hell, I knew that! But by using to prove that history isn't always true
because it was written by falable humans, you also proved the Bible is done the
same way. Thanks.

| > just fighting fire with fire???

| Vapid at best....

	Why thank you. Coming from you it means so much to me. God Bless!


Glen

	Andy, I'm quite visable! Someone just came into my office looking for
me and FOUND me! Amazing, huh? 

    visable - a person or object possessing the capability of being vised.  
    
    Or did you mean visible Glenn?  No need to thank.

	No thanks given.... :-)

    imho
    
    any ideology/religion that has as one of it's tenets to spread the
    "faith" is dodgy
    
    so Christianity and Islam are out
    
    i think on balance i'm a Darwinist

    
    RE: .48
    

    
>>    any ideology/religion that has as one of it's tenets to spread the
>>    "faith" is dodgy

	what's this??  a little insight in a 'box topic concerning
	religion??  unheard of.  ;>

	Andy, someday I will quit my day job, for another one. But until then,
I'll take your advice and keep noting here.

    .53
    
    sorry !
    
    i'm used to ef94 not this US-biased sopabox
    
    |-)

	.35

>Remember when we were taught that Columbus discovered America?
>Now just where did he end up????
    
    	Gee.  I thought he *did* end up in the Americas.  (I'm assuming
    	that by "end up" you are talking about where he hit land in
    	1492...)
    
    	Where did he end up if not in the Americas?

	Joe, just how did you get Americas from America?

 Add an "s"?

    .57
    
    even if he did end up in the americas, that doesn't mean he discovered
    them.  the vikings had been here 300 or 400 years earlier, the romans
    appear to have been here 1400 or 1500 years earlier and the phoenicians
    appear to have been here 3000 years earlier...  he was the latest in a
    long and honorable line, that's all.  and his "discovery" was perceived
    as a bad thing because it proved that you couldn't go west to get to
    the orient, so why give him credit for something he specifically didn't
    want?

	.60
        
>    even if he did end up in the americas, that doesn't mean he discovered
>    them.  
    
    	I don't disagree with your history.  Problem is that the question 
    	that raised was not "who discovered America", but "Where did
    	Columbus end up".
    
    	Glen, North America is America.  South America is America.  The
    	Caribbean is America.  All of them are the Americas.
    
    	Where did you think "America" was anyway?

| <<< Note 186.59 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| Add an "s"?


	<grin>

| <<< Note 186.61 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Plucky kind of a kid" >>>

| Glen, North America is America.  South America is America.  The
| Caribbean is America.  All of them are the Americas.
| Where did you think "America" was anyway?

	You simply amaze me Joe. All I can say is what a twist of logic. 

    	No twist at all.  
    
    	Where do you think "America" is?  What's so hard about that
    	question that you must evade it?
    
    	And where *did* Columbus end up if not America?

    
    Somebody needs a geography lesson...

    re: .60
    
    	What evidence is there of Roman or Phoenician exploration of the
    	Americas?
    
    			Robert.
    

    Romans founded Rome, NY. Phoenicians founded Phoenix, AZ.
    
    Is more proof needed?

    
    And then there's the misnamed "native Americans" - man is not
    indigenous here, so far as is known.  No bones older than 30K years
    like en Afrique.  But they cheated and walked here.
    
      bb

>    Romans founded Rome, NY. Phoenicians founded Phoenix, AZ.

Don't forget Babylon NY, and Ithaca NY.  Going back even further, there
are several towns named Eden.

    	...as well as Hell.

    .66
    
    coins believed to be roman have been found in the missabe range.  it is
    possible that the romans were there prospecting for iron.
    
    artifacts such as figurals believed to be phoenician have been found in
    atlantic coastal brazil.
    
    i do not state either of these possibilities as fact; i only report
    that they have been raised as legitimate archaeological questions to be
    answered.
    
    who is barry fell?

    	re .-1
    
    	Maybe other archaeologists dropped these collectibles, and then
    	the next group of archaeologists found them a year later...

    
    
    Have they found any bones from Toto around???
    

    they never made it to kansas.

    <back aways>
    
    Re the existance of historical figures such as Caesar, Cleopatra etc.
    
    Claims for their existance are not based solely on "history books written by
    men". Their contempories wrote about them, and, for example recorded
    their deeds, such as J.Caesar erecting triumphal arches to celebrate
    battles. These monuments can still be seen, complete with inscriptions.
    
    This is _physical_ evidence, not hearsay. The bible does not,
    unfortunately, present _physical_ evidence of Jesus' existance. A sad
    oversight on god's part.
     

    .76
    You don't call personal eye witness accounts from over 500 people as
    'physical evidence'?
    
    You belong on OJ's defense team!
    
    :-)

    re: .72
    
    	Barry Fell - One of the current crop (well, actually, he passed
    	away a few years ago) of folks pushing for lots of precolombian
    	contact - he seemed to think that every ancient old world culture
    	had a colony in the new world - phoenician, roman, egyptian,
    	celtic, you name it - they were here! He acted as if
    	every colonial root cellar in New England was an ancient temple
    	and that every plowmarked rock was an example of ogam script.
        He wrote several books on the subject, one which I read was
    	titled 'America B.C.' - it sucked.
    
    	I hadn't heard of the two cases you mentioned - where is the
    	Missabe range? 
    
    			Robert.
    

    <.77>
    No, I don't. Physical evidence means it has substance, can be seen, touched, it
    exists as an object.
    
    I was pointing out that to claim that we know of historical persons
    solely because of written (and thus possibly unreliable) records is not 
    true. J. Caesar existed not only because historians say so but because
    we can see and touch the things he had made, and which were well
    documented at the time.
    
    5 megabillion people saying something existed 2000 years ago is _not_ 
    physical evidence.  
    
    But, who are these 500 you refer to?
    
    martin

    Martin:
    
    I am not going to ignore your question since I'm leaving for a 9AM
    meeting.  I will say that it sounds like you have already made up your
    mind and therefore whatever I say wouldn't matter.
    
    Ron

RE:       <<< Note 186.76 by ANNECY::HUMAN "I came, I saw, I conked out" >>>
   
       
   > This is _physical_ evidence, not hearsay. The bible does not,
   > unfortunately, present _physical_ evidence of Jesus' existance. A sad
   > oversight on god's part.
    

    "...blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed" 

	Is Barry Fell related to Norman Fell????

    
    RE: .79
    
    >we can see and touch the things he had made...
    
    Julius Caesar was a stonemason????
    

    .76
    
    > J.Caesar erecting triumphal arches
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
    
    may i suggest you check your ancient history a little better?  gaius
    iulius caesar did not erect (ooh er), or have erected, any triumphal
    arches.  he did leave money for the construction of a new forum (an
    open area for the conducting of business and worship) on the campus
    martius, but that's rather a different thing.
    
    apparently, by your standards, physical monuments to an individual
    prove that individual's reality.  let us remember that caesar was
    deified by the romans after his assassination, and there are monuments
    to caesar divus (the divine caesar) - do we therefore suppose that he
    really became a god?

    .78
    
    missabe is near the great lakes.  good mining country, for decades the
    stomping grounds of the D. M. & I. R. (duluth, missabe, and iron range)
    Railroad.

    
    There are suspected Celtic runes in the White Mountains which are also
    suspected to predate Columbus.  As for the Americas argument, they
    encompassed the New World which basically stretched from Tierra del
    Fuego to Hudson Bay and the little bits in between.  

 Whatsa rune?






Jim

    >> Whatsa rune?
    
    
    rune: n. 1. one of the letters of an alphabet used by ancient germanic
    	       	people.  2. a magical charm.
    (according to the american heritiage dictionary)
    
    and fanuel hall has a kiosk that sells runes...they are kinda
    neat...each symbol means something about the person you are...
    
    
    
    
    	

    >and fanuel hall has a kiosk that sells runes...they are kinda
    >neat...each symbol means something about the person you are...
    
    ...really???  That sounds neat.
    
    
    
    	

    
    yep...it does...i believe there were actually rune earrings...but runes
    nonetheless...
    
    and you could be right about the correct spelling of the hall...i can
    never remember how to spell it correctly...so i usually just say
    quincy market...which, now that i think about it is more accurate...cuz
    f-hall is the building where they had all the meetings and quincy
    market is all the shops...right???
    
    

    re: .82
    
    	Who is Norman Fell?
    
    re: .85
    
    	Thanks. Do you know anything about the context of the find? Thats
    	pretty far from the coast...
    
    			Robert.

    RE: .91
    
    >Who is Norman Fell?
    
    An actor, sorta. Appeared on the TV program Three's Company, I think,
    as the landlord.

    
    <---  yep...played mr. roper...
    
    

    tiredly, for those with a very small capacity for comprehension...
    
    no, J. Caesar was not a stonemason. the words "he had made" are
    self-expanatory; "he had them made"
    
    re J.Caesar and triumphal arches. i am no history expert, perhaps it
    was Augustus, or some other historical figure. the fact that i may be
    incorrect in attributing them to the wrong person does not alter the
    fact that the monuments exist as a tribute to a physical person, paid
    for by that person and recorded as such at the time.
     
    they are _physical_, not some hearsay. that is what we were discussing.    
    

    Martin:
    
    With your definition, I could build a monument, call it "To the Great
    god Zephrex" and he would then be attributed as a real person.
    
    Anyone wanna guess who Zephrex is/was?

    
    Note 186.95

    >Anyone wanna guess who Zephrex is/was?
    
    Wasn't that a sinus medication?  :^)
    

    so, watcha gonna do? deny all monuments were ever built and thus
    handily deny the existance of those who built them?

    
    re, .94 - actually this is more of a problem than you think.
    Proving even the existence of historical figures is hard even
    when you dig up their reputed bones.  Written accounts often
    disagree, and so forth.  Since no time machines exist, how do
    you prove anything ?  Some German nuts actually deny the Holocaust,
    only 50 years later, with the corpses and photos in existence.
    
    There is good enough reason to believe there was a Jesus as there
    is that there was a Columbus or Genghis Khan.  You have to think
    people are more devious than they are not to believe history.
    
      bb

    not denying a historical Jesus, just the rest of the mumbo jumbo that
    clings to that figure......                             

    Solitary...

    

        SSSSS     NNN       NN        A        RRRRRRRR     FFFFFFFFFF   !!
      SS     SS   NNNN      NN       AAA       RR      RR   FF           !!
     SS           NN NN     NN      AA AA      RR       RR  FF           !!
      SS          NN  NN    NN     AA   AA     RR      RR   FF           !!
        SSSSS     NN   NN   NN    AA     AA    RRRRRRRR     FFFFFFF      !!
             SS   NN    NN  NN   AA       AA   RR    RR     FF           !!
              SS  NN     NN NN  AAAAAAAAAAAAA  RR     RR    FF
     SS      SS   NN      NNNN  AA         AA  RR      RR   FF           !!
       SSSSSS     NN       NNN  AA         AA  RR       RR  FF           !!

    
    RE: .94
    
    
     With that type of logic, I can verify the existence of Jesus by
    walking into any church...
    
     How about the stuff Michealangelo did? See? There's proof right
    there!!
    

    Martin:
    
    It appears you are doing one quick backflip from one frying pan into
    another.  Your analogy to monuments was immaterial enough, and my momma
    told me about arguing with brick walls.
    
    Have a Merry Christmas!
    
    Ron

    And oh, btw, Mr. Zephrex IS the sinus decongestant medicine, in no
    human form and even if we'd build a monument to it using Martin's
    logic, we'd never turn it into even an amoeba.

    Not being a biblical scholar, I have a question. I don't actually doubt
    that there was a person named Jesus, but regarding the Gospels, are these
    known to be the testimonies of eyewitnesses, known to be the testimonies of
    people who were not eyewitnesses, or is their status as eyewitnesses
    unknown?

    John

    
    Not according to "modern scholars"....
    

    Scholars believe Gospels written 40-70 years after death of Jesus.
    
    As to the "eyewitness" question -- who knows?  An enormous array of
    possibilities need to be weighed for this.
    
    I seem to remember that Covert gave a detailed answer to this very
    question in the prior box.
    
    
    

re .104

The following verses, written by John (who wrote the Gospel of John,
indicate that he was there)




1John 1:1  That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we 
have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have 
handled, of the Word of life; 
  2  (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and 
shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested 
unto us;) 
  3  That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may 
have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with 
his Son Jesus Christ. 
  4  And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. 
  5  This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto 
you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 




John 21:24  This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote 
these things: and we know that his testimony is true. 

    .107
    
    but most modern scholars do not think that john actually wrote down his
    gospel; rather, it was committed to paper by one of his disciples, who
    was not an eyewitness.

    Mark was probably not even born when Jesus was crucified...or he was
    very young.  The gospels were written some 50 years after the
    crucifiction.  Therefore, the argument about Johns authenticity doesn't
    really matter.
    
    I believe it was written by John because his epistles are the same
    style!
    
    -Jack

>    Mark was probably not even born when Jesus was crucified...or he was
>    very young.

Mark was probably the young man mentioned in Mark 14:51-52, the son of Mary,
a well-to-do widow who owned the Garden of Gethsemane and in whose house the
disciples gathered (Acts 12:12), the same house as the Cenacle, where the
Last Supper was celebrated on Holy Thursday.

The Gospel of Mark was certainly written before 70AD, and possibly as early
as 60AD, but most likely between 64-67.

/john

The Faculty of Theology of the University of Navarre believes that
good scholarship assigns the following dates to the composition of
the Gospels:

[EAM]	50-55		[Early Aramaic version of Matthew]
Mark	64-67
Luke	67-70
Matthew	68-70
John	98-100

/john

RE:              <<< Note 186.108 by SMURF::BINDER "vitam gustare" >>>

   > .107
    
   > but most modern scholars do not think that john actually wrote down his
   > gospel; rather, it was committed to paper by one of his disciples, who
   > was not an eyewitness.


      We could probably spend the rest of our lives battling over "most" and
      "modern scholars" and who they are, etc...I chose to accept it the way
      it was written, tyvm.  We were asked for eyewitness, we have the writings
      of one who was an eyewitness, to the life,death and resurrection of
      Jesus Christ..I have no reason to not believe him.



    Jim

    You believe Him because He's what's making your life work. I for one
    understand that completely.
    
    Glenn

    
    Can someone enlighten us on the early convents then ?
    
    I think it was the convent of Nic�a (German spelling) around 400 AD
    that saw some historical decisionsm but I don't know which.
    
    
    As for Julius Caesar, in contrast to Jesus of Nazareth, we have
    	+ coins with his face
    	+ his very own (not eyewitness) report on the Bellum Gallicum
    	  incl. his description of building a bridge across the river
    	  Rhine
    	+ relics of that bridge
    
    Heiko

    Precisely Heiko, that's what I was trying to get at........thanks.
    
    martin

    .114
    
    > (not eyewitness)
    
    wrong.  roman generals LED their troops, they did not send them off to
    die the way modern generals do.  caesar was PERSONALLY involved in
    several of the campaigns and battles he describes in de bello gallico;
    one that i can think of immediately is the stratagem by which he
    destroyed ambiorix' army that had been besieging quintus cicero in
    winter quarters.

    I ment to express that it was written by JC and not by someone else,
    who was an eyewitness of JCs campaign.

>    Can someone enlighten us on the early convents then ?
>    
>    I think it was the convent of Nic�a (German spelling) around 400 AD
>    that saw some historical decisionsm but I don't know which.

Konzil = council.

Councils were called when various heresies began to be taught; they met
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and issued binding statements of
what the true teaching of Christ and his Apostles was.  The first four
councils of the early undivided Church, Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381),
Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) are considered by most Christians to
be as authoritative as scripture; the Reformation claimed, in many cases,
to be calling the Church back to a more faithful adherence to the definitions
of the councils.

These first four councils dealt in detail with the nature of God.

At Nicaea the doctrine of the Trinity was determined to be the true teaching
of the Apostles, over and above the Arian heresy.

A recently published book, "The Cruelty of Heresy", by the Rt. Rev. C.
FitzSimons Allison is an excellent discussion of the importance of the
controversies and the decisions of the early councils.  (Bishop Allison's
godson, C. FitzSimons, IV, was one of my college roommates.)

/john

    .0 is as applicable today as it was 11 months ago or 2000 years ago.
    
    Not Roger

    Yes, I agree, the same yesterday, today, and forever.
    
    Shalom

    ^.0 is as applicable today as it was 11 months ago or 2000 years ago.
    
    Except for the errors of course.

    give it up Tom, yer soundin' like the Prince of Darkness.
    
    Not Roger

    Could I be Saaaaatan!?!?! :)

    More like Mr. Lucas of the famed british automotive electrics concern. 

    RE: .124
    
    I'll have to plead ignorance on this one.  :(

    NOEL
        Noel
    
               NOEL
                   Noel
    
    Born is the King Of Israel!

    What child is this?

Hark, it's Harold

    As in the Harold Angel?

    
    Harold Angel, and his Oriental companion, Sing.

    His light still shines in a world of Darjness!
    

    sorry, my emulator doesn't allow me for corrections...

You must be using one of those MS bundled emulators. Get ahold of a copy
of VTSTAR.

    Thank you Jack, I am using the Windows VT102 emulator.  About how much
    does VTSTAR go for?

I don't know whether we sell it or not yet. You should be able to find a copy
on a VAX Cluster near you. There's also a conference somewhere that points to
it. Check note #2 in TURRIS::EASYNET_CONFERENCES.

Or, place a query in ASKENET.

    with my limited knowledge, how do I access ASKENET?

Er, actually, that part of the suggestion was a joke, son.

    u can tell what a yunster i am can't ya, Jack!

 Darn, I was gonna log into ASKENET and watch the fireworks..