Faith Freedom International :: View topic - why Don't you try to love God!!!!!!!!!!!

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

why Don't you try to love God!!!!!!!!!!!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 61, 62, 63 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> God

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

chiplee

Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 405

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:20 am Post subject:

Fathom wrote:

You have the burden of proof because you are making a positive claim that it is false.

See it would have taken a grand total of about 1 childish comment like that and I'd have been gone from this discussion if I'd been involved like Rad is.

Fathom you should be honored and humbled by his continued presence in this thread. you do not deserve it.
_________________
"[The Bible] has noble poetry in it... and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies." Mark Twain

"I still say a church steeple with a lightening rod on top shows a lack of confidence."
-- Doug McLeod

chiplee

Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Posts: 405

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:22 am Post subject:

Fathom wrote:

chiplee wrote:

Fathom wrote:

And you want to talk to me about evidence? How about talking about the lack of evidence the naysayers have, if you want to be honest?

In a court of law, the opinions of the naysayers would be rejected due to the lack of supporting evidence. You just can't barge in and make outrageous claims with no tangible evidence to back it up.

I'll be honest with you. I have no idea what that TF thing is. It doesn't matter much though because what I do know is that a thing called into question by a court of law is assumed false until proven true.

People are assumed innocent until proven guilty. You don't discount naysayers because you don't hear them. Their stance is a given because you don't have to prove a negative. If you want to establish a thing as true then the burden of establishing or providing that proof falls on your shoulders.

When evidence is self-evident, and someone makes a claim it is false, then the burden of proof is theirs.

Can you prove the chair you are sitting upon does not exist? This is my point. The TF exists, just like your chair does.

Should someone come along and tell you that you have a false chair? If they did, what would you say to them? Would you say something like, "It seems like a true chair to me, what makes you think it's false?"

They have made an accusation against your chair, claiming it to be false. So who has the burden of proof? Who made the accusation?

Whoever makes the accusation has the burden of proof. In the case of the TF, the naysayers are accusing it as being false, therefore, the burden of proof lies with them.

Period.

yeah they're accusing it of being false. They're not accusing it of not existing. your chair analogy sucks. If I had asserted that my chair tells me bedtime stories and someone came along and asserted that it did not then would you still claim that the burden of proof was on the naysayer? are you retarded? are you seriously comparing its existence to its truth? are you saying that because it IS, then it is also true? is this the twilight zone?
_________________
"[The Bible] has noble poetry in it... and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies." Mark Twain

"I still say a church steeple with a lightening rod on top shows a lack of confidence."
-- Doug McLeod

Last edited by chiplee on Wed May 21, 2008 2:25 am; edited 1 time in total

Fathom

Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 4062

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:24 am Post subject:

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

I dont have to prove anything, since it exists. You have the burden of proof because you are making a positive claim that it is false.

That would be a "negative claim".

Fathom wrote:

It's very existence does not require anyone to make a positive claim due to the fact that it is self-evident.

It is self evident the the TF exists. It is not self-evident that the golden passage is true.

Fathom wrote:

Self evident facts require no further evidence.

Pity the golden passage isn't self-evidently true.

Can you prove any of your assertions above?

_________________
Team FFI - The Quest For The Historical Jesus.
Website: http://members.shaw.ca/TeamFFI
Forum: http://teamffi.myfreeforum.org/

Fathom

Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 4062

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:29 am Post subject:

chiplee wrote:

Fathom wrote:

chiplee wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Your argument is false, since you will find that cannot quote me as saying they are accusing it of not existing.

In regards to your chair, you made the positive claim, thus you have the burden of proof.

What I am saying is, because it is self evident just by its existence, any claims against its authenticity require evidence and assume the burden of proof.

All I am obligated to acknowledge in regards to the TF is that it exists. I make no claims either way.
_________________
Team FFI - The Quest For The Historical Jesus.
Website: http://members.shaw.ca/TeamFFI
Forum: http://teamffi.myfreeforum.org/

Last edited by Fathom on Wed May 21, 2008 2:30 am; edited 1 time in total

Radagast

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 5282
Location: aka Righteous

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:30 am Post subject:

Fathom wrote:

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

The evidence to support it exists.

You are twisting again. Didn't you say that the Talpiot tomb was only a belief?? But then you claimed that it was physical evidence of Jesus didn't you?

So, which is it?? Fact or belief?

You have no idea how easy it is for you to make a fool of yourself each and every time you attempt to misrepresent my arguments.

1. I believe the Talipot tomb is a credible last resting place of Jesus.

2. The evidence to support my belief in the Talipot tomb being a credible last resting place of Jesus are facts.

But you said that you only believed that the Talipiot tomb is the last resting place of Jesus. It is not a fact that the talpiot tomb is the last resting place of Jesus.

Fathom wrote:

My belief is based upon the facts.

No they aren't.

Fathom wrote:

Get it yet, genius? Or would you like to twist this all around again and make an even bigger fool of yourself?

The only fool here is you.... as evidenced by.... "Therefore, since "Christ the Messiah" was a Jew, Josephus would have no grounds to consider it heretical"

Fathom wrote:

Question: What difference would it make if the statistician had been asked to calculate the odds in regards to "THAT" Jesus, specifically? How would it at all impact the odds in any way, shape or form?

It makes it a whole lot of difference. What are the odds of a family having the name Elizabeth, William, Philip, and Harry? Let us call that X%.

Now, what are the odds of a list of name that is Elizabeth, William, Philip, and Harry, refers to the royal family of England? It is much much much much less than X%.

Fathom wrote:

Do you seriously think the odds would change? They wouldn't change one iota. It would make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

You don't understand statistics obviously.

Fathom wrote:

It is clear that among the Jewish Hebrew ossuary inscriptions, the use of the formal name YHWSF “Yehosef” (17x) by far predominates over the informal, familiar form Y(W)SH “Yoseh” (2x). However, this is to be expected in funerary inscriptions.

You didn't read the article did you. The ossuary found didn't use the formal YWHSF.

Here the same article showed how the filmakers hoodwinked the audience... including you.

Your article wrote:

The near exclusive use of the informal “IOSES” (Greek for “Yoseh”) among the Greek inscribed ossuaries.
One should be careful to note that among the Greek inscribed ossuaries, the familiar form “Ioses” is used nearly exclusively (5 occurrences over 4 ossuaries). The formal name IWSEPOS is found only once. This is a fact that was not brought to the attention of the audience by the filmmakers.

And you didn't bother to read this as well...
[quote="UHL']There are so many holes in the film there is no need to add this one to the list. [/quote]

Evidence anyone???

You basically brought up evidence to discount the Talpiot Tomb?

Next....
_________________
"You are, after all, an atheist. Religion is hardly your forte." Fathom 2008

"Therefore, since "Christ the Messiah" was a Jew, Josephus would have no grounds to consider it heretical" Fathom 2008.

Radagast

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 5282
Location: aka Righteous

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:33 am Post subject:

chiplee wrote:

yeah they're accusing it of being false. They're not accusing it of not existing.

Absolutely correct.
_________________
"You are, after all, an atheist. Religion is hardly your forte." Fathom 2008

"Therefore, since "Christ the Messiah" was a Jew, Josephus would have no grounds to consider it heretical" Fathom 2008.

Fathom

Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 4062

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:38 am Post subject:

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

The evidence to support it exists.

You are twisting again. Didn't you say that the Talpiot tomb was only a belief?? But then you claimed that it was physical evidence of Jesus didn't you?

So, which is it?? Fact or belief?

But you said that you only believed that the Talipiot tomb is the last resting place of Jesus. It is not a fact that the talpiot tomb is the last resting place of Jesus.

So? Your argument is just stupid. If it were a fact that the Talipot Tomb was the final resting place of Jesus, then it wouldn't be a belief, now would it?

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

My belief is based upon the facts.

No they aren't.

How aren't they?

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Get it yet, genius? Or would you like to twist this all around again and make an even bigger fool of yourself?

The only fool here is you.... as evidenced by.... "Therefore, since "Christ the Messiah" was a Jew, Josephus would have no grounds to consider it heretical"

Red herring ... as usual. Next?

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Prove it.

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Do you seriously think the odds would change? They wouldn't change one iota. It would make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

You don't understand statistics obviously.

Then prove your claim. Let's see the stats.

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

You didn't read the article did you. The ossuary found didn't use the formal YWHSF.

Here the same article showed how the filmakers hoodwinked the audience... including you.

I read the article in total. You are trying to avoid my point that the article affirms that both uses of the names were interchangeable. In case you don't know, since both names are interchangeable, it destroys your argument.

Radagast wrote:

Your article wrote:

Next....

How does that change the fact that you were proven wrong by the article because you didn't know that both the names are interchangeable, and used by the same person depending on the circumstances?

_________________
Team FFI - The Quest For The Historical Jesus.
Website: http://members.shaw.ca/TeamFFI
Forum: http://teamffi.myfreeforum.org/

Radagast

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 5282
Location: aka Righteous

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:28 am Post subject:

Fathom wrote:

So? Your argument is just stupid. If it were a fact that the Talipot Tomb was the final resting place of Jesus, then it wouldn't be a belief, now would it?

Then you admit it is no fact. QED.

Fathom wrote:

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

My belief is based upon the facts.

No they aren't.

How aren't they?

See above. You even admit it was mere belief. Fathom's infamous twisting again....

Fathom wrote:

Red herring ... as usual. Next?

No red herring. After all, you were talking about "fool" and there can be no bigger fool than him who said....
""Therefore, since "Christ the Messiah" was a Jew, Josephus would have no grounds to consider it heretical""

Fathom wrote:

Prove it.

It is simply statistics. The odds of an particular event is always less than general events. The odds that someone was called "Stephen Hawking" is much less than that of someone called "Stephen". And the odds of someone who is called "Stephen Hawking" who is THE cambridge professor is even less.

Fathom wrote:

Then prove your claim. Let's see the stats.

It is called basic statistics. But you betray your ignorance having to even ponder this question.

Fathom wrote:

Er no. It said that the formal name and the informal name is used interchangeably. Pity that YWSY is not a formal name, and neither is YWSH.

Fathom wrote:

Radagast wrote:

Your article wrote:

Next....

How does that change the fact that you were proven wrong by the article because you didn't know that both the names are interchangeable, and used by the same person depending on the circumstances?

Ha ha ha ha

Looks like you didn't understand what you purport to have read!

It is exactly as I have said... that the expected name would have been YWSY (ie. “IOSES”) or the formal one IWSEPOS. But what was found was different... ie. YWSH.

That is why the author also said ... "This is a fact that was not brought to the attention of the audience by the filmmakers."

Next...!!!!!

_________________
"You are, after all, an atheist. Religion is hardly your forte." Fathom 2008

"Therefore, since "Christ the Messiah" was a Jew, Josephus would have no grounds to consider it heretical" Fathom 2008.

Radagast

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 5282
Location: aka Righteous

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:36 am Post subject:

Fathom wrote:

All I am obligated to acknowledge in regards to the TF is that it exists. I make no claims either way.

BS. You said that it was evidence that Jesus is historically evidenced. ie. that the golden passage is true.

When will you stop your BS and twisting? Nobody is arguing that the TF or the golden passage exists. The contention is whether it is true or false.

Your position is that it is not an interpolation (ie. it is true) and I'm saying that it is an interpolation (ie. a false manuscript).
_________________
"You are, after all, an atheist. Religion is hardly your forte." Fathom 2008

"Therefore, since "Christ the Messiah" was a Jew, Josephus would have no grounds to consider it heretical" Fathom 2008.

Fathom

Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 4062

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:09 am Post subject:

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

So? Your argument is just stupid. If it were a fact that the Talipot Tomb was the final resting place of Jesus, then it wouldn't be a belief, now would it?

Then you admit it is no fact. QED.

Did I ever say it was a fact?

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

My belief is based upon the facts.

No they aren't.

How aren't they?

See above. You even admit it was mere belief. Fathom's infamous twisting again....

I looked above, and I do not see any facts represented. Do you? Your infamous trolling and twisting is becoming legendary, Rad. Please, look above, and show me where any facts are represented.

Can you handle that, Rad? Or would you rather continue being exposed for misrepresenting my position by attempting to make people believe that a belief I have is being presented as a fact?

You are so transparent that anyone can walk straight through you, let alone see straight through you.

But at least you are cheap entertainment.

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Red herring ... as usual. Next?

Red herring, for nothing addresses the point that was in question.

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Prove it.

I'm still waiting for you to prove the point in question. How do the stats change? How are the odds influenced? And don't you mean the odds would be greater as opposed to less?

Are you certain you know what you're talking about?

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Then prove your claim. Let's see the stats.

It is called basic statistics. But you betray your ignorance having to even ponder this question.

Red herring, because you have no evidence. Let's move along then, shall we?

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Er no. It said that the formal name and the informal name is used interchangeably. Pity that YWSY is not a formal name, and neither is YWSH.

Er, yes. Unfortunately, you failed to read the article, and of course you are again attempting to dodge the truth of the matter by misrepresenting the argument. Therefore, let us repost your argument and compare it to the article:

Radagast wrote:

Also, he was told by James Cameron's people that one of the names found was Joseph/Joses (ie. brother of Jesus). In fact, the name that was actually found was YWSH. This is pronounced in Hebrew as "Yosah", which is completely different to "Yosay" (ie. Joses). For that to happen, the name would need to have been YWSY.

UHL wrote:

1) Utilizing the best manuscripts of early Jewish sources written in Hebrew or Aramaic, the name applied to living individuals during the Second Temple Period was often YWSH

3) In most of the Tannaitic manuscripts, YWSY is simply a minority alternative spelling of YWSH, both pronounced the same. YWSH (pointed “Yoseh” in vocalized versions) is by far the predominant form of the word in the superior Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishna.

It is clear that among the Jewish Hebrew ossuary inscriptions, the use of the formal name YHWSF “Yehosef” (17x) by far predominates over the informal, familiar form Y(W)SH “Yoseh” (2x).

http://www.uhl.ac/blog/?p=448

The article refutes you on all points.

1. It clearly corrects you that both YWSY and YWSH are "both pronounced the same" and are both merely minority alternative spellings.

2. It clearly shows that Yehosef (Joseph) is the formal for Yoseh (Joses.)

Therefore, it is not completely different, pronounced any different, or actually different in any way that makes any difference at all.

The article refutes you, and also proves you didn't read it.

I think you're done here Rad. Stop torturing the readers any further with your trolling, okay?

_________________
Team FFI - The Quest For The Historical Jesus.
Website: http://members.shaw.ca/TeamFFI
Forum: http://teamffi.myfreeforum.org/

Fathom

Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 4062

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:17 am Post subject:

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

All I am obligated to acknowledge in regards to the TF is that it exists. I make no claims either way.

BS. You said that it was evidence that Jesus is historically evidenced. ie. that the golden passage is true.

Its existence is evidence of the existence of Jesus, and it would be evidence whether or not I said a single word. It doesn't require me to say anything.

Radagast wrote:

When will you stop your BS and twisting? Nobody is arguing that the TF or the golden passage exists. The contention is whether it is true or false.

Correct, and as it sits, no one can dispute it unless they assume a burden of proof.

Radagast wrote:

Your position is that it is not an interpolation (ie. it is true) and I'm saying that it is an interpolation (ie. a false manuscript).

Actually, my position is that there is no evidence to support interpolation. Since there is no evidence to support interpolation, then there is no evidence to support it as being a false manuscript.

There is no reason to claim it as being false, and therefore, no reason to believe that it is not the truth.
_________________
Team FFI - The Quest For The Historical Jesus.
Website: http://members.shaw.ca/TeamFFI
Forum: http://teamffi.myfreeforum.org/

Radagast

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 5282
Location: aka Righteous

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:46 am Post subject:

Fathom wrote:

Did I ever say it was a fact?

Yes... here it is...

you wrote:

My belief is based upon the facts.

Twister!!!!

Fathom wrote:

Can you handle that, Rad? Or would you rather continue being exposed for misrepresenting my position by attempting to make people believe that a belief I have is being presented as a fact?

All the misrepresenting is on your part. See above.

Fathom wrote:

Red herring, for nothing addresses the point that was in question.

It ain't a red herring because you said so.

Fathom wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to prove the point in question. How do the stats change? How are the odds influenced? And don't you mean the odds would be greater as opposed to less?

It is in the definitions of "probability". Check it out. There are more Stephens than there are Stephen Hawkings. And there are more Stephen Hawkings than there are the Prof. Stephen Hawking of Cambridge Uni.

Fathom wrote:

Are you certain you know what you're talking about?

Yes.

Fathom wrote:

Red herring, because you have no evidence. Let's move along then, shall we?

I have the evidence. Here it is: there are more Stephens than there are Stephen Hawkings. And there are more Stephen Hawkings than there are the Prof. Stephen Hawking of Cambridge Uni. And the definition of probability, is number of cases favourable divided by the total number of cases.

Since n(Stephens) > n(Stephen Hawking) > n(Prof Stephen Hawking), then
Prob(Stephens) > Prob (Stephen Hawking) > Prob (Prof Stephen Hawking).

QED.

Fathom wrote:

3) In most of the Tannaitic manuscripts, YWSY is simply a minority alternative spelling of YWSH, both pronounced the same. YWSH (pointed “Yoseh” in vocalized versions) is by far the predominant form of the word in the superior Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishna.

Sigh.... the Mishna ain't ossuary.

Fathom wrote:

1. It clearly corrects you that both YWSY and YWSH are "both pronounced the same" and are both merely minority alternative spellings.

No it doesn't. No ossuary are Tannatic manuscripts. That is the point when he said....

Article wrote:

Prof. Ilan (p. 157 note 3) infers that YWSH is the Palestinian form of the name since it is found in the Vienna manuscript of the Tosefta in place of YWSY (found in the Erfurt manuscript). Unfortunately, Ilan’s numerous examples of YWSY come primarily from the handy concordances of Kasowski, which have been the standard source for scholars up until only very recently. The manuscripts that formed the basis for Kasowski’s concordances of the Mishna, the Tosefta, the Mechilta, the Sifra and the Jerusalem Talmud, are today considered inferior and are currently being replaced by electronic concordances which rely upon better manuscripts (e.g., Accordance Bible software now provides the Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishnah)

ie. those three points were the claims made by Tal Ilan which the article debunks.

Fathom wrote:

Therefore, it is not completely different, pronounced any different, or actually different in any way that makes any difference at all.

Read the article carefully again. It disproves Ilan who said that YWSH is synonymous with YWSY.

Fathom wrote:

The article refutes you, and also proves you didn't read it.

I think you're done here Rad. Stop torturing the readers any further with your trolling, okay?

Ha ha ha

Here is the author of the article writing...

S.Pfann wrote:

Prof. Ilan (p. 157 note 3) infers that YWSH is the Palestinian form of the name since it is found in the Vienna manuscript of the Tosefta in place of YWSY (found in the Erfurt manuscript). Unfortunately, Ilan’s numerous examples of YWSY come primarily from the handy concordances of Kasowski which have been the standard source for scholars up until only very recently.The manuscripts that formed the basis for Kasowski’s concordances of the Mishna, the Tosefta, the Mechilta, the Sifra and the Jerusalem Talmud, are today considered inferior and are currently being replaced by electronic concordances which rely upon better manuscripts (e.g., Accordance Bible software now provides the Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishnah). According to Ilan (p. 159 note 96) YWSH is the predominant form used in Galileen synagogue inscriptions (10x) over against YWSF (1x) (cf. Naveh’s corpus in On Stone and Mosaic, p. 152).

Ie. the film's claim through Ilan has been debunked. It is not so much the pronunciation but the fact that Ilan's claim that YWSH is the Palestinian equivalent of YWSY is debunked.
_________________
"You are, after all, an atheist. Religion is hardly your forte." Fathom 2008

"Therefore, since "Christ the Messiah" was a Jew, Josephus would have no grounds to consider it heretical" Fathom 2008.

Fathom

Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 4062

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:25 am Post subject:

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Did I ever say it was a fact?

Yes... here it is...

you wrote:

My belief is based upon the facts.

Twister!!!!

You're just too funny, Rad. I removed your italics from around the word "was" and placed the italics around the word "it," so that my point is no longer misrepresented by you.

Your desperation screams for recognition, therefore a couple of colleagues of mine are currently in voice chat with me while reading this ... this ... well ... whatever this is.

I just wish they would stop laughing long enough to make an audible comment. Insofar, the only thing I have managed to understand them saying through their hysterics is something about hiring you for their next corporate benefit party.

Please list the name of your show business manager, and a means to get a hold of him/her.

You could make a killing doing this.
_________________
Team FFI - The Quest For The Historical Jesus.
Website: http://members.shaw.ca/TeamFFI
Forum: http://teamffi.myfreeforum.org/

Radagast

Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 5282
Location: aka Righteous

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:39 am Post subject:

Fathom wrote:

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Did I ever say it was a fact?

Yes... here it is...

you wrote:

My belief is based upon the facts.

Twister!!!!

You're just too funny, Rad. I removed your italics from around the word "was" and placed the italics around the word "it," so that my point is no longer misrepresented by you.

Heck... the italics over the word "was" are yours, buddy.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1100987#1100987

Playing with tense... is that all you have? Does that mean that your believes was not a fact but now is? So, what has changed in the last few days w.r.t to the Talpiot tomb to make it "was not a fact" but now "is"??? Ha ha ha

Fathom wrote:

Your desperation screams for recognition, therefore a couple of colleagues of mine are currently in voice chat with me while reading this ... this ... well ... whatever this is.

And you know what? It takes two to tango!

Fathom wrote:

I just wish they would stop laughing long enough to make an audible comment. Insofar, the only thing I have managed to understand them saying through their hysterics is something about hiring you for their next corporate benefit party.

Goodness gracious.... invisible support from your colleagues counts for exactly what? Like chiplee observed ... another childish comment from you.

Another nail in the Talpiot tomb "evidence" "belief" whatever!

UHL's Stephen Pfann wrote:

http://www.uhl.ac/MariameAndMartha/
MARY MAGDALENE IS NOW MISSING:

A CORRECTED READING OF OSSUARIES CJO 701 and CJO 108*

By Stephen J. Pfann, Ph.D.

....
CONCLUSION

The so-called "Mariamene" ossuary contained the names and remains of two distinct individuals. The first name on the ossuary, “MARIAME” was written in the common Greek documentary script of the period on the occasion of the interment of the bones of this woman. The second and third words “KAI MARA” were added sometime later by a second scribe, when the bones of the second woman Mara were added to the ossuary. This scribe's handwriting includes numerous cursive elements not exhibited by the first scribe who wrote “Mariame.” In view of the above, there is no longer any reason to be tempted to link this ossuary (nor the ambiguous traces of DNA inside) to Mary Magdalene or any other person in Biblical, non-Biblical or church tradition.

600:1 my foot!

Fathom

Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 4062

Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:34 am Post subject:

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Radagast wrote:

Fathom wrote:

Did I ever say it was a fact?

Yes... here it is...

you wrote:

My belief is based upon the facts.

Twister!!!!

You're just too funny, Rad. I removed your italics from around the word "was" and placed the italics around the word "it," so that my point is no longer misrepresented by you.

Heck... the italics over the word "was" are yours, buddy.

Fathom wrote:

Your desperation screams for recognition, therefore a couple of colleagues of mine are currently in voice chat with me while reading this ... this ... well ... whatever this is.

And you know what? It takes two to tango!

Fathom wrote:

UHL's Stephen Pfann wrote:

600:1 my foot!

Admit it Rad, you were trying to use the italics to misdirect the reader into believing your misrepresentation of my argument. It's quite clear to anyone who reads this that when they try to reference your misrepresentation of my argument with what I am noted as actually saying, that it leads absolutely no where with no supporting evidence.

In fact, all you are managing to do is confuse most people, but not us. We're just laughing.

In regards to the Marime paper, the problem is that there is no evidence of two people ever being in the ossuary, and DNA evidence only indicates one person. The paper also assumes the inscription in its entirety was done at different times, when there's no way at all of ever verifying that. Even if it was done by two different people, why couldn't it have been done at the same point in time, with one person starting it, and the other finishing it?

The paper assumes too much, and backs it up with nothing.

So much for that assertion.
_________________
Team FFI - The Quest For The Historical Jesus.
Website: http://members.shaw.ca/TeamFFI
Forum: http://teamffi.myfreeforum.org/

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> God	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 61, 62, 63 Next
Page 62 of 63

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum