You relate random facts without making any documented connections.
Will be glade to. Could you please post a list of all the destroyed documents by the Church and I will show you which ones on your list will most likely have the documentation you request.
Oh, goodness.
At first I thought @MikeYohe was making a joke. Then I realized he was being serious. (You are being serious, aren’t you, Mike.)
So… Mike: When @lausten refers to “documented connections,” he doesn’t mean “documented” as in documents, like the kinds that were destroyed.
He is asking YOU to prove your claims came from a legitimate source, like a scholar or historian, that documented this information… and not that you just made it up in your head.
For example, imagine this conversation:
LAUSTEN: Malaria is caused by the moon.
TEE: Lausten, no. Actually, malaria is caused by a parasite carried by mosquitos.
LAUSTEN: Malaria? Parasites? Mosquitos? That’s silly! I don’t believe you. Can you show me some documented evidence of a connection between mosquitos, parasites and malaria?
TEE: Sure! Here it is:
LAUSTEN: Ah! So malaria IS caused by a parasite that’s carried by mosquitos. Thank you for clarifying!
We know what sources are. Point being, when you offer an actual source, it’s horrible. You don’t even defend them, you just move on to the next crazy claim. I talk directly to people too, but I don’t expect you to believe everything I report. The things they say though are almost always backed with evidence that is available freely. You just have to know where and how to look for it and how to sort it out from the garbage.
Theodosius was very connected to Arianism. Three people are really one person. For some reason I just cannot force myself to spend any time trying to understand that logic. You no doubt know more on this subject than I ever care to.
Oh, come on now Lausten. Step out of the Christian bubble for a minute. The bone box is a good example. Declared a fake by every top religious scholar that looked into the box. The churches declared it a fake. The research of the box by the top religious scholars and experts ended up with 44 counts of forgery, fraud and deception. Including forgery of the inscription itself against Oded Golan.
What can we conclude from that?
Next we have the seven-year trial that the very top experts in religious artifacts in the world and the top religious scholars against one man who claimed he did not create a fake box.
Scholars and experts vs. tradesman
No doubt Mr. Golan was looking a long period of jail time.
James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici steps into the picture to do a Discovery Channel documentary on the bone box.
That changes the scale.
Scholars and experts vs. science
With the scale changed. Israel sues to confiscate the bone box because now it is to valuable and should be on display at a museum.
Thus, every one of the so-called experts and biblical scholars were bias and following a system and objective that had given them the title of experts. Point being. The whole religious field of scholars and experts is rotten to the core.
You’re in la la dreamland if you think that I am going to let you use these so-called experts to defend your side of any debate. Grow-up man. Show me the science and logic.
I remember your position on the bone boxes.
Who has the bone box today? Yea, Oded Golan. Please tell Mr. Golan that you are sorry.
Golan was found not guilty of having committed forgery.
That does not mean the “bone box” is real.
In his ruling Wednesday, the judge went out of his way to say that the fact Golan had been found not guilty did not mean the artifacts were real.
His decision to clear Golan of forging the inscription on the James ossuary, he wrote, “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago. This will continue to be studied by scientists and archaeologists, and time will tell.
“Moreover,” he wrote, “it was not proven in any way that the words ‘the brother of Jesus’ necessarily refer to the ‘Jesus’ who appears in Christian writings.”
…
In short, the case’s conclusion does not establish whether or not the James ossuary, the Jehoash tablet, or any of the artifacts in questions are historic discoveries or slick fakes.
(The above is an example of me documenting a source.)
James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici steps into the picture to do a Discovery Channel documentary on the bone box.
That changes the scale.
Scholars and experts vs. science
With the scale changed. Israel sues to confiscate the bone box because now it is to valuable and should be on display at a museum.
Thus, every one of the so-called experts and biblical scholars were bias and following a system and objective that had given them the title of experts. Point being. The whole religious field of scholars and experts is rotten to the core.
So, do have this right? You watched something on the Discovery Channel and decided all the previous science was wrong?
FYI, “Scholars and experts vs. science” is meaningless. If you aren’t using science, you aren’t an expert or a scholar.
You know, I joined CFI because I thought there would be intelligent debate here. But I don’t know what a few of these folks are even doing here.
I'd stay out of the religion section if you want intelligent debate. I have rarely found any. Unless you get people like Robert Price and Bart Ehrmann on one stage, there isn't much of a debate.
Well, I do like debating with regular people. Like several people here. But there are a handful of folks that I just can’t figure out why they came to CFI in particular.
Tee: Well, I do like debating with regular people.
I always think I like debating until I get into one. Then, since no one ever changes their mind, it gets frustrating. If both sides stay out of the gutter and don't get personal, then it's possible to spend time talking and putting ideas down, but that very rarely happens. Being part of a conversation like your theoretical one about malaria is about as likely as seeing an invisible pink unicorn.
If it’s a science topic, people ignore facts, and if it’s ethical topic, there’s no weight to anything either side says.
The whole religious field of scholars and experts is rotten to the core.
That may be true, but then how do YOU decide whom to believe?
Great question. I try and follow parameters and common factors. For example, there are books that talk about the Catholic Church’s involvement in the destroying of all new findings. They do this by controlling many archaeological colleges and buying any items found that are for sale in the market that may hurt their views of history. I have read this in many books. But the one that covers it the best for me is the book by three investigative reporters from the BBC - Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. It is called the Holly Blood, Holly Grail. You seem to be interested in religion, if you are not bias you need to check what they have to say about what is going on.
I’d stay out of the religion section if you want intelligent debate. I have rarely found any. Unless you get people like Robert Price and Bart Ehrmann on one stage, there isn’t much of a debate.
I like Bart Ehrmann, he is good. Mr. Ehrmann says - “The New Testament Gospels are not a reliable historical guide to the life, work, and teachings of Jesus.”
I don’t think that line of thinking will set well with people who are still in the Christian Bubble. I total agree with Mr. Ehrmann.
So, tell me. If you can’t use the NT. Where do you go for your information on Jesus?
I say Jesus was an Atheist. I get no response.
I ask if anyone even knows the name of Jesus’ Christian religion. I get no response.
What you want is an inside the Christian Bubble debate. I don’t think you are going to get that from Mr. Ehrmann.
FYI, “Scholars and experts vs. science” is meaningless. If you aren’t using science, you aren’t an expert or a scholar.
Good. We both agree. The first thing Jacobovici did was get science involved.
So, do have this right? You watched something on the Discovery Channel and decided all the previous science was wrong?
It was fake or wrong. Unless both sciences can be right at the same time. Which was not the case here. Jacobovici science was the real science here. The other was the twisting of science for religion reasons. Which is scary because this normally can’t happen unless there is a conspiracy going on or money changing hands under the table.
Notice how I provided the source of the quote, and that source includes sources and more quotes from Baigent himself stating that his theories have no proof. They are “just a hope” of his.
Where do I go for information on Jesus? I go to the only references we have, and those are not very good. It’s not just Ehrmann that says the Bible is not a guide to Jesus, that is the scholarly consensus. That includes believers, those “inside the bubble” as you say. We don’t have a way to reconstruct his life, which is why the case that he may have never existed is getting traction. BTW, I did respond to your “atheist” and “name the religion” questions. I didn’t say much, but there’s not much to say.
The only place you have to go is conspiracy theory, and you went there. At least you stated it yourself. So now we know that’s what we’re dealing with.
Sorry it took me a while to respond. I slapped my forehead so hard when I read your response that I passed out. I just came to.
It is called the Holly Blood, Holly Grail.
"Holly" is a plant. People hang it at Christmastime. I am assuming you mean "HOLY Blood, Holy Grail," first published in 1982.
(I can’t recall. Have I mentioned to you that I’ve been a journalist and author for 35 years? Just thought I’d toss that in…)
So… Mike, Mike, Mike.
Why, exactly, have you decided this is a good source of info?
Was your thinking “The Roman Catholic Church is powerful and has secrets” (which is true) … therefore a conspiracy theory about it being evil must be true?" (Which is silly.)
The problem with this work and all that it has spawned isn’t that it is anti-Catholic. The problem is that people who understand history, religion, science, etc. realize it’s false, for 10,000 reasons.
You seem to be interested in religion,
Wow, you are pretty observant.
＼(●o○;)ノ
if you are not bias*edyou need to check what they have to say about what is going on.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
<p style="padding-left: 40px;"></p>
A few things:
Is there any truth to the theories brought up in Holy Blood, Holy Grail?
Like most conspiracy theories, Holy Blood, Holy Grail is long on conspiracy and utterly lacking in evidence. Even non-Christian scholars, with no reason to defend the historical Christian viewpoint, have labeled Holy Blood, Holy Grail as a “pseudohistory,” and a baseless concoction of the authors.
Even one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail admitted that their goal was to present a “plausible hypothesis,” but that none of them actually believed it to be true.
The Priory of Sion myth has been exhaustively debunked by journalists and scholars as one of the greatest hoaxes of the 20th century.
The Secret of the Priory of Sion, ‘60 Minutes’, 30 April 2006
Historian Ken Mondschein ridiculed the idea of a Jesus bloodline, writing:
“The idea of keeping the family tree pruned to bonsai-like proportions is also completely fallacious. Infant mortality in pre-modern times was ridiculously high, and you’d only need one childhood accident or disease in 2000 years to wipe out the bloodline; if, however, even one extra sibling per generation survived to reproduce, the numbers of descendants would increase at an exponential rate; keep the children of Christ marrying each other, on the other hand, and eventually they’d be so inbred that the sons of God would have flippers for feet.
"There is something called historical evidence – there is something called the historical method ...– These ...books do appeal to an enormous audience who believe them to be 'history', but actually they aren't history, they are a kind of parody of history. Alas, though, I think that one has to say that this is the direction that history is going today."
The History of a Mystery. Timewatch. BBC Two. 17 September 1996
So Mike, I assume you are into the QAnon conspiracy? You know it’s all related, right?