Jeanne dArc Posted July 4, 2016 Author #926 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Mr Walker said: Actually evidences can be correct because evidence is, or a t least can be, countable and used as I used it. There appears to be some divergence, both across languages and across scientific/technical, versus pure English usage, but one can certainly use phrases like "the cave contained evidences of past occupation") deliberately used to indicate more than one form or variety of evidence. Or "The evidences for his guilt gradually compounded to become compelling.' I was taught good grammar by experts when grammar (and latin) were still taught explicitly in schools This idea that evidence is not countable seems to be somewhat of a modern trend. plural evidences Learner's definition of EVIDENCE 1 a [noncount] : something which shows that something else exists or is true There is no evidence that these devices actually work. He has been unable to find evidence to support his theory. She first showed/gave evidence of her abilities [=she first showed her abilities] at an early age. [+] more examples b [count] chiefly US, somewhat formal : a visible sign of something — usually plural They found many evidences of neglect. http://learnersdictionary.com/definition/evidence Here are numerous examples of the use of "evidences" Part of the problem i think is that many people think that unfamiliar usage is incorrect usage, and that, hence, only modern and familiar usage can be correct usage. Many past rules of grammar are now almost totally ignored, such as ending a sentence with a preposition . http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/evidences What "plural forms of evidence" are you suggesting here? Because literally the one material in evidence is the text of the gospels. Or are you (as I've suspected) simply pluralizing your claimed "evidences" to make it sound like you have more than you do? Quote As to the rest it remains your opinion and not one widely supported by experts. You seem to think that in this field an argument from popularity and/or authority is some kind of knockdown argument. You know, if the experts you're citing are simply giving their opinions (which happen to agree with yours), what exactly have you got? Not evidence. I've given plain examples and analysis. Quote The issue is of course about the mores of the time compared to/with christs own expressed ethical and moral standards You dont accpet tha t his views wee socially liberal or revolutionary . I've never said Christ isn't liberal in the gospels; he verges on Marxism not infrequently. He was not groundbreaking, nor even as far left as the Pharisees much of the time (he preaches ethno-political exclusionism repeatedly; i.e., his message is expressly intended for Hebrew ears only). Quote Imagine tha t you went bak to tha t time and palce and took your current moral standards and beliefs about women with you. You might, just possibly, get away with treating women with respect dignity and some equality, although even this would be dangerous and hard to achieve, given the way women were integrated into overall society. for example you might find it quite difficult just to get to talk to a woman, let alone have the opportunity to treat her as you would want to . I'd have no trouble whatsoever talking to my underprivileged ancestors, thanks. It'd be the males I'd have to worry about if I were going back in time, lol Quote However you could never suggest that it was wrong to kill a woman for adultery and survive, because adultery tore at the total fabric of society. A woman HAD to be trusted to be faithful, in order to ensure that all children were her husbands and that thus inheritance was passed to a blood descendant . it was more complex and powerfully integrated than just that, of course. It involved the economic and social roles and priorities of women in such societies, and the way a family formed the basic structure for all things, from education upbringing of the next generation of citizens, to the economy Being unfaithful was logically a crime against the society, which might well deserve death, due to the potentially serious outcomes if it was allowed to proliferate. (given that so many " lesser" crimes also were punishable by death. I'm well aware. If Jesus were as "revolutionary" as you say, and truly believed in women's equality, then he could say whatever he pleased. It doesn't matter if it would have landed or not, or even if he'd be in mortal peril as a result (i.e., as per the gospels, his ministry is a suicide mission anyway). This is a person who apparently had no difficulty persuading people that the end of the world was soon at hand. Think about that for a moment. Think about what cults who buy that sort of stuff, and follow those sorts of preachers, do. Why exactly is it more difficult for him to say "women are people too" (a shocking statement that would have rallied women to his side in absolute droves, as well as any men who agreed but felt powerless to do anything about it) than for him to say "pretty soon, the world will be obliterated and replaced with a totally awesome new one"? A "revolutionary" ought to be capable of starting a revolution: a suffrage-labor-poverty-religious platform would be a pretty hot ticket. At about the same time, Herodias (a high-profile figure in the area) had infamously divorced her husband and married his cousin, Antipas, the dude who was still presiding over much of the region. It was a scandal. But according to the gospels, John the Baptist and Jesus roundly opposed the woman's right to divorce her husband; not unusual for the time, but naturally sexist today. Certainly not "revolutionary". If anything, Jesus preserves the status quo remarkably well. He tows the party-line almost without exception: upholding the Law whilst giving considerable wiggle room in its interpretation; telling slaves to obey their masters, irrespective of treatment; telling Jews to pay their taxes to Rome, no matter how outrageous; keeping women in their place: in the kitchen, on their knees, or in the distant background; etc., etc. That's no "revolutionary". Quote It would be like someone from 1000 years in the future coming back and lecturing you, because you ate meat, played/attended gladiatorial forms of sport like football, or because you still raised and educated your own children by hand, and your women still carried a child in their womb and gave birth to it, rather than raising it invitro. . So inconceivable and totally unacceptable to that future person, and yet so much a part of your life that you cant imagine it being seen as barbaric. Odd analogy (and examples), lol Again, I'm not trying to force my ideals on an ancient society. I'm saying that your claim that Jesus was somehow revolutionary or enlightened for the time is simply factually untrue. By comparison to other men of the time, Jesus is either quite average or worse when it comes to social matters. As I've said: the norm was intense sexism and misogyny. Jesus doesn't break from that mold whatsoever, except to say and do a few things that even the most conservative Jew of that period would have considered excessive (like disrespecting his own mother; yet another crime punishable by death). Edited July 4, 2016 by Jeanne dArc 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted July 4, 2016 #927 Share Posted July 4, 2016 On June 16, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Jeanne dArc said: Yeah, I have a feeling most women today wouldn't go for Jesus if they met him in person. He strikes me as the sort of guy who'd probably just smoke weed, watch Pat Robertson unironically, stand on a street corner with a cardboard sign that says "free Reiki", and hang around with his buddies in bars 24/7 blathering on about "love, man". I know guys like that, but I'm certainly not intimate with them, and I take everything they say with more grains of salt than my mashed potatoes, lmao Although frankly I might like a gay Jesus better: I'd try to help him come out, settle his mommy issues, and finally hook up with flaming "Recline-in-thy-Bosom" Lazarus, lol Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted July 4, 2016 #928 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Jeanne dArc said: What "plural forms of evidence" are you suggesting here? Because literally the one material in evidence is the text of the gospels. Or are you (as I've suspected) simply pluralizing your claimed "evidences" to make it sound like you have more than you do? You seem to think that in this field an argument from popularity and/or authority is some kind of knockdown argument. You know, if the experts you're citing are simply giving their opinions (which happen to agree with yours), what exactly have you got? Not evidence. I've given plain examples and analysis. I've never said Christ isn't liberal in the gospels; he verges on Marxism not infrequently. He was not groundbreaking, nor even as far left as the Pharisees much of the time (he preaches ethno-political exclusionism repeatedly; i.e., his message is expressly intended for Hebrew ears only). I'd have no trouble whatsoever talking to my underprivileged ancestors, thanks. It'd be the males I'd have to worry about if I were going back in time, lol I'm well aware. If Jesus were as "revolutionary" as you say, and truly believed in women's equality, then he could say whatever he pleased. It doesn't matter if it would have landed or not, or even if he'd be in mortal peril as a result (i.e., as per the gospels, his ministry is a suicide mission anyway). This is a person who apparently had no difficulty persuading people that the end of the world was soon at hand. Think about that for a moment. Think about what cults who buy that sort of stuff, and follow those sorts of preachers, do. Why exactly is it more difficult for him to say "women are people too" (a shocking statement that would have rallied women to his side in absolute droves, as well as any men who agreed but felt powerless to do anything about it) than for him to say "pretty soon, the world will be obliterated and replaced with a totally awesome new one"? A "revolutionary" ought to be capable of starting a revolution: a suffrage-labor-poverty-religious platform would be a pretty hot ticket. At about the same time, Herodias (a high-profile figure in the area) had infamously divorced her husband and married his cousin, Antipas, the dude who was still presiding over much of the region. It was a scandal. But according to the gospels, John the Baptist and Jesus roundly opposed the woman's right to divorce her husband; not unusual for the time, but naturally sexist today. Certainly not "revolutionary". If anything, Jesus preserves the status quo remarkably well. He tows the party-line almost without exception: upholding the Law whilst giving considerable wiggle room in its interpretation; telling slaves to obey their masters, irrespective of treatment; telling Jews to pay their taxes to Rome, no matter how outrageous; keeping women in their place: in the kitchen, on their knees, or in the distant background; etc., etc. That's no "revolutionary". Odd analogy (and examples), lol Again, I'm not trying to force my ideals on an ancient society. I'm saying that your claim that Jesus was somehow revolutionary or enlightened for the time is simply factually untrue. By comparison to other men of the time, Jesus is either quite average or worse when it comes to social matters. As I've said: the norm was intense sexism and misogyny. Jesus doesn't break from that mold whatsoever, except to say and do a few things that even the most conservative Jew of that period would have considered excessive (like disrespecting his own mother; yet another crime punishable by death). I too understand that "evidences" is an iffy word and rarely used nowadays. On personal opinion, for me, Jesus is about the last person I would think of as supporting women's rights or a revolutionary and I think you have made a great case about Jesus thoroughly because the time period simply did not support women's rights, and we are still ironing out the details in 2016. Fantastic posts Jeanne and 8 bits! Edited July 4, 2016 by Sherapy 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted July 7, 2016 #929 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Jeanne As the thread winds down, where are you going from here? There was something about a book in the works? You've written some of this for the stage? What is the state of the mythicist movement or perspective at this time, as you see it? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeanne dArc Posted July 7, 2016 Author #930 Share Posted July 7, 2016 12 hours ago, eight bits said: Jeanne As the thread winds down, where are you going from here? There was something about a book in the works? You've written some of this for the stage? What is the state of the mythicist movement or perspective at this time, as you see it? I was just about to make a wind-down post; you beat me to it, haha Yeah, I'm working on a book (not exclusively about mythicism, but it deals with it rather extensively), and my stage show is already finished and will start production very soon (also not really about mythicism, per se; I refer to mythicist arguments two or three times in it). Not sure when the book will be done: it's a new translation and commentary on the entire Bible, Deuterocanon, some Apocrypha, etc. It's of course going to take a heck of a long time to complete (especially since I only occasionally have time to work on it between other projects, work, research, life, etc.), but I'm making steady progress. Finished most of 1 Samuel 18 just in the past few days; I tend to do it all in spurts (and of course backtrack to make corrections, additions, elucidations, etc.). The state of the mythicist movement I think is fairly expansive. It might take a few more years before it starts to get heftier traction (judging from the lethargic pace at which biblical studies in general seems to move, lol); but it's on an upward curve at the moment, a substantial one. My main hope is for the field to at least revise its methodology and hopefully come to a place of uncertainty about a historical Jesus. I'd be ecstatic if we could get more scholars to at least be somewhere in the vicinity of the fence, like yourself I guess what it comes down to is I'd like to cut down on those annoying outfielders, trying their damnedest to fling fallacies and irrational absolutes at any sign of skepticism about Jesus, lol. The typical "consensus trumps all", "evidence is overwhelming", "nobody questions it" crowd, haha I'll probably start up another thread before too long: any suggestions about other interesting biblical subjects? Anybody? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted July 7, 2016 #931 Share Posted July 7, 2016 How about something involving : The Apocryphal Books Of The King James 1611 Version or other Apocryphal And Lost Books ? scriptural-truth com link Robert Ferrel Bio link 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeanne dArc Posted July 8, 2016 Author #932 Share Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, third_eye said: How about something involving : The Apocryphal Books Of The King James 1611 Version or other Apocryphal And Lost Books ? scriptural-truth com link Robert Ferrel Bio link That could be quite interesting My main thoughts were either Revelation or the books of Samuel, but the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, etc. might well be good thread material also. Edited July 8, 2016 by Jeanne dArc 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted July 9, 2016 #933 Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) On 04/07/2016 at 9:50 PM, Jeanne dArc said: What "plural forms of evidence" are you suggesting here? Because literally the one material in evidence is the text of the gospels. Or are you (as I've suspected) simply pluralizing your claimed "evidences" to make it sound like you have more than you do? You seem to think that in this field an argument from popularity and/or authority is some kind of knockdown argument. You know, if the experts you're citing are simply giving their opinions (which happen to agree with yours), what exactly have you got? Not evidence. I've given plain examples and analysis. I've never said Christ isn't liberal in the gospels; he verges on Marxism not infrequently. He was not groundbreaking, nor even as far left as the Pharisees much of the time (he preaches ethno-political exclusionism repeatedly; i.e., his message is expressly intended for Hebrew ears only). I'd have no trouble whatsoever talking to my underprivileged ancestors, thanks. It'd be the males I'd have to worry about if I were going back in time, lol I'm well aware. If Jesus were as "revolutionary" as you say, and truly believed in women's equality, then he could say whatever he pleased. It doesn't matter if it would have landed or not, or even if he'd be in mortal peril as a result (i.e., as per the gospels, his ministry is a suicide mission anyway). This is a person who apparently had no difficulty persuading people that the end of the world was soon at hand. Think about that for a moment. Think about what cults who buy that sort of stuff, and follow those sorts of preachers, do. Why exactly is it more difficult for him to say "women are people too" (a shocking statement that would have rallied women to his side in absolute droves, as well as any men who agreed but felt powerless to do anything about it) than for him to say "pretty soon, the world will be obliterated and replaced with a totally awesome new one"? A "revolutionary" ought to be capable of starting a revolution: a suffrage-labor-poverty-religious platform would be a pretty hot ticket. At about the same time, Herodias (a high-profile figure in the area) had infamously divorced her husband and married his cousin, Antipas, the dude who was still presiding over much of the region. It was a scandal. But according to the gospels, John the Baptist and Jesus roundly opposed the woman's right to divorce her husband; not unusual for the time, but naturally sexist today. Certainly not "revolutionary". If anything, Jesus preserves the status quo remarkably well. He tows the party-line almost without exception: upholding the Law whilst giving considerable wiggle room in its interpretation; telling slaves to obey their masters, irrespective of treatment; telling Jews to pay their taxes to Rome, no matter how outrageous; keeping women in their place: in the kitchen, on their knees, or in the distant background; etc., etc. That's no "revolutionary". Odd analogy (and examples), lol Again, I'm not trying to force my ideals on an ancient society. I'm saying that your claim that Jesus was somehow revolutionary or enlightened for the time is simply factually untrue. By comparison to other men of the time, Jesus is either quite average or worse when it comes to social matters. As I've said: the norm was intense sexism and misogyny. Jesus doesn't break from that mold whatsoever, except to say and do a few things that even the most conservative Jew of that period would have considered excessive (like disrespecting his own mother; yet another crime punishable by death). My point basically was that christ could not urge changes which simply were structurally impossible inside a society. There would be no point His gospels were revolutionary and even today inspire women around the world .Admittedly around 300- 500 AD an increasingly misogynistic and hierarchical catholic church began undoing a lot of the equalities introduced by early Christianity (Originally there were women priests and male priests were allowed to be married and have children) The illustrations i gave were deigned to show how /why we have difficulty seeing how our own ethics and moralities may be judged by people from a future time For christ to say for example that woman should have the right o go out and get a job and become financially independent so they were not dependent on a man would have been as pointless as him saying " Why don't you drive a motor car to work " Its like that future woman questioning present day people as to why why women are still having and raising children via ther own bodies, rather than using invitro cultivation and robotic nurturing. Imagine the cultural chnages in a society where a woman never has to physically bear or raise a child But to apply the life responsibilities, freedoms prestige, equality of a woman from that time and expect it to work for a woman from our time is just silly. So is it sully to expect anyone to recommend changes which just were impossible in the socio economic realities of a past time. For most of the past women began having children in their mid teens (puberty was usually reached much later than with modern children perhaps about aged 14 or 15,) and continued to be child bearing or raising until they died in their thirties or forties. The age of onset of biological adulthood continues to plunge. Consider the statistics provided by German researchers. They found that in 1860, the average age of the onset of puberty in girls was 16.6 years. In 1920, it was 14.6; in 1950, 13.1; 1980, 12.5; and in 2010, it had dropped to 10.5. Similar sets of figures have been reported for boys, albeit with a delay of around a year. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/21/puberty-adolescence-childhood-onset 14 or 15 births was not uncommon and 10 was quite normal. About half of all women survived the consequences of childbirth Despite this huge birth rate, mortality rates meant tha t populations grew only slowly and sometimes even declined in times of plague or famine/war etc There were not any realistic alternatives for a woman And this is why so many laws regarding sex and family were so strongly enforced. With only one or two historical exceptions for example no woman in the world could legally refuse a husbands request for sex at any time and the concept of rape in marriage simply did not exist until the later half of the twentieth century Anyone trying to introduce the idea that a woman had a legal or moral right to refuse sex from a husband would have been considered almost insane, it was so culturally and conceptually unthought of. Edited July 9, 2016 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeanne dArc Posted July 9, 2016 Author #934 Share Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Mr Walker said: My point basically was that christ could not urge changes which simply were structurally impossible inside a society. What barriers exactly do you imagine there were? I grant it would have been radical: but you're suggesting Jesus was "revolutionary", that's radical practically by definition. The society was being torn to shreds anyway: the temple cult was in shambles (and was soon to be destroyed altogether), people were contradicting prevailing social norms all the time. What you're (again) suggesting is that Jesus wanted to liberate women, but never really gave it a try because he figured nobody would go along with it. Yet they had no trouble going along with the other wacky anti-establishment things he's supposed to have said. You can't have it both ways, hon. He cannot have simultaneously been a women-liberating radical and a sexist-status-quo-heeding conservative. Sexism and racism were once the social norms in Western civilization too: but revolutionaries who disagreed with those conventions set change in motion. Jesus never says or does a single thing to so much as set in motion a societal change towards women's rights. He preserves the misogynist status quo of the time without exception. Quote There would be no point His gospels were revolutionary and even today inspire women around the world .Admittedly around 300- 500 AD an increasingly misogynistic and hierarchical catholic church began undoing a lot of the equalities introduced by early Christianity (Originally there were women priests and male priests were allowed to be married and have children) Women priests pre-300CE?? Lol Yes, the men were allowed to be married; they were encouraged to be celibate, just like all Christians. Mystery cults tended to treat their women quite well; so while women being "sisters" in Christianity might be slightly odd for Jews, for the Gentiles that was par for the course. If anything I guess you could say early Chistians treated their women better than mainstream Judaism (i.e., still not great; relegated to the background and told not to speak), but not one word of Christ led to that. Edited July 9, 2016 by Jeanne dArc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeanne dArc Posted July 9, 2016 Author #935 Share Posted July 9, 2016 Original post got cut off again: 2 hours ago, Mr Walker said: The illustrations i gave were deigned to show how /why we have difficulty seeing how our own ethics and moralities may be judged by people from a future time For christ to say for example that woman should have the right o go out and get a job and become financially independent so they were not dependent on a man would have been as pointless as him saying " Why don't you drive a motor car to work " Its like that future woman questioning present day people as to why why women are still having and raising children via ther own bodies, rather than using invitro cultivation and robotic nurturing. I've never said (for the fourth time) that 1st Century CE Judea should have lived up to modern notions of women's rights. It's you who seems to think Jesus exceeded the sexist norms of the era. 2 hours ago, Mr Walker said: Imagine the cultural chnages in a society where a woman never has to physically bear or raise a child But to apply the life responsibilities, freedoms prestige, equality of a woman from that time and expect it to work for a woman from our time is just silly. So is it sully to expect anyone to recommend changes which just were impossible in the socio economic realities of a past time. For most of the past women began having children in their mid teens (puberty was usually reached much later than with modern children perhaps about aged 14 or 15,) and continued to be child bearing or raising until they died in their thirties or forties. The age of onset of biological adulthood continues to plunge. Consider the statistics provided by German researchers. They found that in 1860, the average age of the onset of puberty in girls was 16.6 years. In 1920, it was 14.6; in 1950, 13.1; 1980, 12.5; and in 2010, it had dropped to 10.5. Similar sets of figures have been reported for boys, albeit with a delay of around a year. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/oct/21/puberty-adolescence-childhood-onset 14 or 15 births was not uncommon and 10 was quite normal. About half of all women survived the consequences of childbirth Despite this huge birth rate, mortality rates meant tha t populations grew only slowly and sometimes even declined in times of plague or famine/war etc Well, I think it's a bit premature to say that our studies of recent pubescence in females can be applied to past millennia. I'm of the opinion that the Industrial Revolution slowed averages for a long time, but we are now fluctuating back closer to pre-industrial averages. For example, Muhammed consummated his marriage with Aisha at the onset of her menarche: when she was about nine years old. There also appear to be ethnic factors you've omitted (e.g., black women uniformly reach puberty earlier than white women). I'm a Jewish woman, and I was a very late bloomer by Western standards: I began puberty first at about eleven or twelve, but I didn't really develop in earnest until my mid-to-late teens. Conversely, I have an Israeli friend who didn't hit puberty until she was seventeen. Not that any of that really matters, lol 2 hours ago, Mr Walker said: There were not any realistic alternatives for a woman And this is why so many laws regarding sex and family were so strongly enforced. With only one or two historical exceptions for example no woman in the world could legally refuse a husbands request for sex at any time and the concept of rape in marriage simply did not exist until the later half of the twentieth century Anyone trying to introduce the idea that a woman had a legal or moral right to refuse sex from a husband would have been considered almost insane, it was so culturally and conceptually unthought of. The few depictions we have of women or married life in early Christianity (besides being mostly apocryphal) portray women as celibate. Which is reasonable in a doomsday cult that expects the end of the world any day. Who needs to bother with all that wife-and-mother business when Jesus could show up at any time? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeanne dArc Posted July 10, 2016 Author #936 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Not super relevant, but I thought some here might find it interesting: I did a reconstruction a while back of what Paul might have looked like (aged about 45-50; and based on the assumption that he was indeed Herodian; which seems to match the common description of him in early apocryphal writings as being ruddy-complexioned) using reconstructive techniques with the help of my geneticist and forensic analyst friends Just to give a potential approximated face to the name. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted July 10, 2016 #937 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Quote At this time, an old woman approached the crowd, but was pushed back. Then Issa said, "Reverence Woman, mother of the universe,' in her lies the truth of creation. She is the foundation of all that is good and beautiful. She is the source of life and death. Upon her depends the existence of man, because she is the sustenance of his labors. She gives birth to you in travail, she watches over your growth. Bless her. Honor her. Defend her. Love your wives and honor them, because tomorrow they shall be mothers, and later-progenitors of a whole race. Their love ennobles man, soothes the embittered heart and tames the beast. Wife and mother-they are the adornments of the universe." "As light divides itself from darkness, so does woman possess the gift to divide in man good intent from the thought of evil. Your best thoughts must belong to woman. Gather from them your moral strength, which you must possess to sustain your near ones. Do not humiliate her, for therein you will humiliate yourselves. And all which you will do to mother, to wife, to widow or to another woman in sorrow-that shall you also do for the Spirit." http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted July 10, 2016 #938 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Quote Sorry guys but I just lost my husband this week of 48 years, and I know this is what Jesus (Issa )would have said about women:( 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted July 10, 2016 #939 Share Posted July 10, 2016 docyabut Condolences; I was saddened to read of your loss. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted July 10, 2016 #940 Share Posted July 10, 2016 Docy, so sorry to hear about that. Please take care. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted July 11, 2016 #941 Share Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) On July 9, 2016 at 8:42 PM, docyabut2 said: Omg! Sorry for your incredible loss, it's just so sad. God bless. Edited July 11, 2016 by Sherapy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted July 11, 2016 #942 Share Posted July 11, 2016 I've refrained fro commenting in this thread, but I will break my rule to join the others in expressing my sorrow. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeanne dArc Posted July 11, 2016 Author #943 Share Posted July 11, 2016 So sorry to hear of your loss, docyabut2. My deepest sympathies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted July 11, 2016 #944 Share Posted July 11, 2016 On July 9, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Jeanne dArc said: Not super relevant, but I thought some here might find it interesting: I did a reconstruction a while back of what Paul might have looked like (aged about 45-50; and based on the assumption that he was indeed Herodian; which seems to match the common description of him in early apocryphal writings as being ruddy-complexioned) using reconstructive techniques with the help of my geneticist and forensic analyst friends Just to give a potential approximated face to the name. Very cool! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted July 12, 2016 #945 Share Posted July 12, 2016 21 hours ago, Jeanne dArc said: So sorry to hear of your loss, docyabut2. My deepest sympathies. Thank you all its been a hard week and where faith comes in. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted July 12, 2016 #946 Share Posted July 12, 2016 1 hour ago, docyabut2 said: Thank you all its been a hard week and where faith comes in. Wow, I can't imagine how hard this week has been for you. We love you Docy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted July 12, 2016 #947 Share Posted July 12, 2016 23 hours ago, Frank Merton said: I've refrained fro commenting in this thread, but I will break my rule to join the others in expressing my sorrow. I know this is hard for you Frank, extending hugs to you my dear friend. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted July 15, 2016 #948 Share Posted July 15, 2016 On 7/10/2016 at 1:42 PM, docyabut2 said: So sorry to hear that, gosh that must be rough. My deepest condolences. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhurfjooydig Posted January 7, 2017 #949 Share Posted January 7, 2017 I'll put my money on 'Jesus' as a symbol and a literary device in an ancient pre-religious cultural astronomy narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now