Paging the Atkinisti - re food labels.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 08:00:52 -0000, "Cane"

I was taught putting a slice of bread in helped.

 

Maybe not - but you are claiming that I'm not allowed to use science on
the basis that I believe in God..

Which is rubbish. Just ask people like Newton, Faraday, Darwin...

No - I can be convinced by a valid arguement. Which no-one has yet
presented.

Phil

 

Well - if there were any copies of Q extant it might be worth
considering. The fact that there are none (and that other non-canonical
works have survived) inclines me to think that it is an invalid
concept. And the similarities between the Gospels are there for a
reason - they were written (either from first-hand like John or
second-hand like Luke) from observation.[1]

It's probably too passe these days. And would involve them knowing
something about the subject beyond the labels..

Phil.

[1] And by inspiration..

 

All praise the Holy Genesis! For lo! the Prophets of Prog are many and
their Word is Law.

Phil

 

If Q existed in the most basic imaginable form, simply as a list of
quotations, it's not hard to imagine that the gospels would have easily
replaced it, simply because they told a story and provided context to the
quotations.

But John's gospel is very different to the synoptic gospels and has clearly
been extended since it was originally written, since chapter 20 was
obviously intended to be the end of the book.

So is there not a case for John to be an original work and the other 3 to
make use a common source?

My thoughts were that they had a focus group somewhere telling them, "If you
say 'god' you sound like a strong moral leader; if you say 'Jesus' you sound
like a Texan red-neck who spots UFOs on a regular basis".

As for knowing the subject, I wonder if Bush and Blair have special advisors
to brief them on Christianity, just so they don't get caught out paying
lip-service to it.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Indeed. You would (however) expect at least a fragment of the original
to survive in the way that other non-canonical books have. And in the
absense of any trace of it one is forced to either of 2 conclusions:

a) It didn't exist at all which is why no trace exists
b) It was destroyed later - either deliberately or because it had been
superceded. And any other documents that might refer to it by name
were destroyed as well.

I favour option a.

All the gospels are different - and that is because they all have a
different purpose or a different role of Jesus to focus on.

With 21 as a post-script perhaps..

Well - Luke is obviously written later - the first couple of verses
give that away:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have
been fulfilled[1] among us, just as they were handed down to us by
those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word"

... not only written later but from a compilation of eyewitness
reports..

So yes - it is conceivable.

I wonder how many reports on UFO abductions (signed in a very shaky hand)
are from a certain GW Bush?

Phil.

 

AndrewR wrote

They don't need it. Questioning their loyalty to any higher moral
purpose is considered an automatic guilty plea to a charge of treason.
and if it ain't they will make their law say it does.

 

And lo we shall get the unbelievers stoned.

 

It depends whether you believe in the source of the Bible being God..
If (like me) you do believe in inspiration then it's no biggie - the
Gospels are as they are because he wanted them that way..

Even if you don't believe in the direct inspiration then it's not
inconceivable that there was some collusion between the Gospel writers
(after all - they probably knew each other quite well).

Um.. I think you need to read it again.. I quote:

"20:Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his
disciples, which are not recorded in this book." (NIV) or

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written in this book" 20 - KJV)

Which *doesn't say quite what you were implying - it says that "Jesus
did lots of other stuff that we don't record here" and then goes on to
explain *why* they did record the ones they did.

And note - it's not talking about sightings of Jesus but miraculous
signs.

At least it would be an easy combat - even the US army couldn't screw
an unopposed landing up *too* badly.

Phil

 

Why should they get all the weed? Unless of course I'm at the gig as
well..

Phil

 

Well I disagree with you on this one, because the close of chapter 20 is a
much more natural conclusion to the book.

Chapter 21 (Which the NJ bible has the decency to head as "Appendix" with a
footnote reading "added either by the evangelist or a disciple of his") is
weak by comparison and says nothing that couldn't have been inserted between
20:29 and 20:30, leaving the big finish intact.

Well that depends if GWB believes that the landing would be unopposed, he
believed that Iraq had WMD, he could just as easily believe that Mars has
LGM.

The other thing is that recent news on Mars has been full of growing
evidence for ancient seas and rivers, which may have supported simple life
millions of years ago. If George knows nothing else (which is possible) I'm
pretty sure he knows what dead creatures + time equals


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Maggots?

 

"The maggots of Mars", hmmm, it's got a certain ring to it.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Well-hung steaks?

 

Yes, but why did you call me "Steaks"?


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

You are Leslie Nielsen, AICMFF low-quality innuendos.

 

Unlike "The Putrescent Pleseosaurs of Pluto", which is just a mouthful.

 

"The necrotizing night-crawlers of Northern Neptune".


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.