Internet Revisionists Beware: Real Facts Being Released to Public!

I wasn't being gracious I was being honest.

This is itself a way of calling someone a liar.

In as much as I was the only one actually supplying quotes (or who could)to back up what I was saying in this little name calling contest Erasmus and I just engaged in (the only one where the word "liar" was mentioned btw) I really don't see any other way to take what you said.

 

Yes.

Read them. Yes?

Dont agree with that but still dont see where you think I denied Gnostics existed. They certainly did although most evidence of them comes in second century but anyways..

This is not my stance. Still have no idea why you keep saying so.
I guess you just have it in your head that either I accept Gnosticism as THE predominant order - or - I must 'somehow' be insisting they did not exist.
This makes you what we call a 'Retard'.

Look Naykid... I realise you were busted on denying crap earlier on (and wierdly you just REPOST the thing again in this thread)
However..
Im not going to 'pretend' like I need to get into this since clearly I never once denied the existance of Gnostics.
This is a fact.
I cant even imagine how I would have just gotten self-confused and accidently mis-spoke on such a thing.
Im well aware of who the Gnostics were.

At this point you are just being stupid and trying to derail the thread into a fake 'you did say' routine.

 

understood them? No.

I've already shown you this several times. I've even tryed to translate it into moron for you.

Don't know what else I can do.

Another example of 2+2=22. At least you're consistant.

We, of course, being you and all the voices in your head.

Newsflash genius; accusing someone of something and "busting" them on it hasn't been synonomous since the Inquisitions, and I would say now you're just reminising except that I remember you don't believe the Inquisitions happened either.

Lack of imagination has never been your problem.

Well, I guess this is about as close to a retraction as anyone could expect from you.

Congratulations on your attempt to be slightly less dishonest.

Nah at this point I'm going to respect your right to be an idiot and let you have your little thread. I'm not going to spend my Saturday night trying to "teach a pig to speak Latin".

Have a good night Man.

 

In case you didnt hear about the latest discovery...


This one was neat because it was actually discovered by a Prisoner (I bet he didnt expect to be famous for going to prison for two years ehe).

Its figured to be one of the earliest Churches and the beautiful mosaics on the floor (all thats really left) also hold the phrase "To the God Jesus'.

Thats interesting.

What is currently being researched is the date.
At first its believed to be dated before Christianity is legalised.
Decades before Constantine.

Either way its a fantastic find and once again puts Christianity 'As we know it now' further and further back to the times of Christ through external evidence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/07/wchur07.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/07/ixportal.html

Check it out

 

I got a letter from Santa when I was 4. Still got it. PROOF SANTA EXISTS!

Please. I don't care how many artifacts and manuscripts you dig up, manipulate, interpret, or bring to the table--the fact is that NONE OF THAT proves the existence of a supernatural (also unproven), invisible, intangible, Sky Daddy. NONE. ZERO.

So, stop wasting your breath, Erasmus and provide REASONABLE EVIDENCE for such an entity. Something that will lead us to believe that there is more reason to believe in "God" than not to.

Books, old walls, old gates, all that shit proves nothing. Sure Hebrews existed. Sure they had a wall and a city--BIG FUCKING DEAL! The Romans were real too. They had big buildings in their city--doesn't prove ANY of their "gods" existed. Egyptians...Sumerians...etc..etc. Archaeology and literature prove the existence of civilizations and cultures and, perhaps, historical events. It is not proof for SKY DADDY.

 

In fact, that is evidence that could show that the concept of a Santa sending letters was popular at that time.
Thats what we could start establishing with that evidence.

Congrats on stating the obvious even though its clear to everyone on the planet that the best you can ever ask for in this or any other situation is evidence to convince a person beyond a reasonable doubt.

You yourself follow that standard every day and would insist and be thankful for this standard if you were on trial.

In the simplest example - You will walk into a room and sit down on a chair, even though you supplied NO PROOF that chair is meant to handle your body wieght.

Nonsense,, almost everything we do and everyone we 'prove' innocent or guilty and almost every historical figure we assume lived is based on 'Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Try and read Topic Headers and notice what the intention of the topic is next time. Right now, we are concerned with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is more reason to believe First Century Christians were (in their minds) following classic Christianity as we find it after Nicene and with the completed 'Canon'.
More historical evidence than say.. something else like saying they were actually Gnostics first and then changed later.

You can take that up with Archaeologists and historians the next time your at a conference. Im sure they would be 'fascinated' with this theory of yours and throw out all refences to Caesar Augustus and actualy - by your logic just about every historical figure in history.

Again, its plenty of very overwhelming evidence - enough to convince a logical minded person, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Romans themselves seemed pretty convinced Diana was a real entity.
Its not 'proof' but its far more likely they (in their minds) believed that than to say otherwise.
Just refering to Diana as SKY MOMMY is not going to change that.

Again - try looking at the topic and also try not being a flaming hypocrite who holds different standards depending on what suits your own 'feelings' about a case.

 

jabber jabber jabber...

Give me evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT then, Erasmus.

Shit, how much EASIER can I possibly fucking make it for your ass?

Speaking of Hypochristian, er hypocrite- you're the dictionary definition.

 

Bravo!

 

The sure sign of an intellectual pussy is that you cant get off your lazy arse to do your own work.
Intellectual laziness of the 'Atheist': 'Show Me, satisfy me, bring it to me..'

 

More again on external historic evidence that the Gospels are refering to real places, real names and real people.
Again, its one thing to mention general names and places but its another when specific public people place these in specfic time frames.

You gotta remember.. whenever they mention these things they are tracing their steps whether they know it or not.
More about why that is actually very important (and would be highly effective) way of catching out either false witnesses OR someone 'retro-fitting' or 'rewriting' the stories>


Was There Ever a Guy Named Lysanias?
Although Luke mentions this leader in Luke 3:1, for years the only Lysanias known to ancient historians was a man who was killed in 36 B.C. Many critics again chose to doubt that Luke was either accurate or telling the truth. But in recent years, an inscription was found near

 

Here is another specific place name which is mentioned in the Gospels but was actually destroyed shortly thereafter (the place itself I mean)
'The Pavement'.
Now.. again this isnt just a simple case of saying 'so what.. its a place?'
There is much more that could be caught out here.
If the Gospels were written after the events by some mysterious 'Pauline anti-gnostics' or some nefarious sneaks - then its pretty freaking wierd they knew about 'The Pavement' since it was long buried under rubble for centuries by their time?
The most likely explanation is that John is describing a real place in a real time period in which he lives.
It IS demonstrating that the writers are once again writing about real names, people, places and times and doing so accurately.

What About “The Pavement” (Gabbatha)


<FONT color=#f5f5f5 size=4><FONT color=black size=2>Taking a short detour from Luke, the Gospel of John does mention a court called “the Pavement” (or “Gabbatha”) in John

 

Ok.. something funny with code up there so again:

FOR CENTURIES THERE WAS NO RECORD OF THE COURT CALLED "THE
PAVEMENT" OR "GABBATHA"...
1. This caused many to say "It's a myth"
2. And, "See, it (the Bible) is not historical"

B. BUT WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT IN "THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PALESTINE" SHOWS
OTHERWISE...
1. This court was the court of the Tower of Antonia
2. The court was destroyed in 66-70 A.D. during the siege of
Jerusalem
3. It was left buried when the city was rebuilt in the time of
Hadrian
4. And was not discovered until recently!

 

Was Iconium a City in Phyrigia?

In Acts 14:6, this city is said to exist in Phyrigia, but for many years archeologists believed that Luke was mistaken. They found no evidence of the city at all. They believed that Lystra and Derbe were in Phyrigia, but had concluded that Iconium was not based on the writings of Romans such as Cicero who indicated that Iconium was in Lycaonia. But in 1910, Sir William Ramsay found a monument which showed that Iconium was indeed a Phrygian city, and later discoveries continued to confirm this.

Once again, its not just that a place name is used but its a specific place name and in this case one that was not very well known.
This is something we just found out recently through external historical investigation.
Again, a fiction or a rewrite would be pretty ballsy to start putting in overly specific place names which really narrow the author down to details.
You would expect this from someone who lives in the area at that time who is writing about real events to include these specific details though.

 

.

Right, and Santa sends his letters from The North Pole. That place exists too! People take expiditions there all the time. That still doesn't make Santas letter a real artifact.

Hmm, maybe my parents should have addressed Santas letters from The Pavement*
. . . *Cool band btw, if you ever get a chance to listen to them
.

 

If Letters are found claiming to be from Santa and have a return address to the North Pole then its extremely helpful in determining if Santa is a real and authentic person or not.
In this case, you could then go dig for evidence of a residence at that address.
Instead you might find a Royal Canadian Post Office.
Further investigation might reveal that there was records of real people in a real time who returned letters to children 'as if' they were speaking for a character called 'Santa'.

So yes.. most definately finding letters from a Santa which are addressed to or from 'The North Pole' is very helpful in determining not only Santa...


But..


(and this is more to the point)

This would begin to Confirm Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that most children certainly did believe (in their minds) there was a Santa who lived at the North Pole in 1980.

This would argue very strongly against the suggestion that children in 1980 were actually Gnostic Santaclausians who did not believe in a 'physical santa' - and not until 2000 did George Bush ban that belief, destroy all previous evidence and then replace it with the 'new belief' that Santa lives in the NOrth Pole.
Libertines letters alone would pretty much confirm that but yours - along with the archaeologic digs at the North Pole would settle it 'beyond a reasonable doubt' Id say.

 

.

1) Even if there were a man named Santa with a house at the north pole, that still doesn't mean that HE is the one who actually sent the letters to me. Anybody can write in any return address they want.

2) The Gnostics did exist. What are you thinking? There are still Gnostics in Iraq if we haven't blown them all away.
See: The Other Bible (Amazon.com link)

.

 

Nope. It doesnt 'mean' anything is proven.
As a rational jury member I want to know why children and parents and employees at Canada Poste seem to keep believing that Santas address is the North Pole.
Even if the return address is a fraudulent one - that just tells me that the fraudster themselves seems to believe that children themselves think Santa is from the NOrth Pole.. enough that he is putting that on his letters!?

Again.. not even worried about determining if there really is a Santa who can fly around the planet.
No.
I am determining that Children were writing these letters. They believed Santa should be in the North Pole and consequently that Children in 1980 did not seem to believe otherwise.
.. and thats actually giving me 'some reason' to believe there might be a real Santa and some basis for believing he would indeed give toys - even though that is really beyond the point here.

WTF is wrong with you?
Seriously.. you and NaykidApe need to go and find a book called 'Logic' then instead of reading it - punch yourselves in the face repeatedly with the book until you can get this through your fucking thick skulls:
I DO NOT DENY GNOSTICS EXISTED YOU MORON
I DENY JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES WERE GNOSTICS OR THAT GNOSTICS WERE ONE AND THE SAME WITH THE EARLY CHURCH AS OPPOSED TO SOME ALLEGED 'PAULINE' CHRISTIANITY.. or whatever stupid made-up conspiracy 'theory' idiots on the internet and attending Davinci Code Seminars are shitting people about.

How hard can that be to understand or even just barely grasp?

Lets try again.

Erasmus: No, I dont think Scotty Bowman Coached the Montreal Canadiens to the 1946 Stanley Cup Championship and I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt Dick Irvin did....

Idiots: What?.. Erasmus, you dont believe Scotty Bowman existed!?

 

Already showed you where you did.

Nobody said they were.

Once again you're lumping everyone who doesn't beleive exactly what you believe into one catogory with one predetermined, unanaymous set of beliefs.(which is exactly what you're accusing everyone else of doing to you).

It's extremely hard to grasp where you're coming from when you keep changing your story

Lets.

Show me one example where anyone has done this to you and I'll show you a half dozen examples--with quotes--where you've done this to someone else.

 

Naykidape.. please stop with this pretending game.
I dont mind your stupid opinions but this little 'skit' you are doing is not just silly but its getting weird.
I know its fun to pretend and all but.

 

So basically your whole case is "t'aint so".

(Lol!)
Lawyer: "So your honor, my client would like to enter a plea of "t'aint so".

Judge: "Doe's the prosecution have anything to say?"

DA: "We give up your honor. All we have is overwhelming evidence, eye witness testimony, and a confession in the defendant's own hand.
How could we hope that any of that would stand up against the "t'aint so" defence".

(you said you like skits, there ya go).



Ya know, I offered to leave this thread alone, in fact I had. but I figure if you're going to keep mentioning me in your posts in this thread, that's more or less an invitation to a response.

I saw my leaving this thread as an act of mercy, you saw it as an oppurtunity to make accusations behind my back.