Conference back40::soapbox

    Yawn.

    
    Actually, you should change the topic title to "Jesus Christ:  Savior,
    Liar, or Lunatic," and then you can go for the whole C.S. Lewis
    experience.  ;-)
    
    
    Rob
    

    Or....very naughty boy ?

    <----- excuse me, are you a virgin?
    

    who is jesus christ? was he a member of the sex pistols?

>>>    who is jesus christ?

Jesus (pronounced hey-zeus) Christ,
short-stop from the Dominican Republic.

    
    
    
      How about that "thumper index"!!!!! Huh????
    

    How about:
    
    "Jesus Christ: Savior, Lunatic, or just another human being?"

    Sorry, I just can't resist.
    
    Jesus Christ, perhaps the most powerful moral savant of Western
    Civilization, an uneducated, hallucinating, illiterate. Yet, this man has
    held moral sway over the western civilization for a hundred generations,
    right up to this day. If he did any good at all it was that he
    undermined the parasitical powers of the time. His name, exploited by
    the power grabbing church authorities of about 100BC, is now synonymous
    with mystical control of human beings in the western world.
    
    ...Tom

    
      Um, 100 BC ?  That's a trick, Purina.  Or didja mean the prophets ?
    
      bb

    Assuming he ever existed at all outside of stories, I'll bet he was a 
    normal guy with some unusual (for the time) political convictions, 
    a rebel against authority, and extremely charismatic.
    
    Other than that, I'll bet most of the stories about his life and deeds
    were either magnified or concocted by well-meaning (or sometimes 
    otherwise) people who knew that with a little reality and a lot of myth
    you can create a powerful influence over people.

    
    
    Sorta like a Hitler... huh??
    

    .12
    
    > Assuming he ever existed at all outside of stories...
    
    Flavius Josephus, a Roman citizen and a Jew with NOTHING to gain from
    Jesus' existence, reported that Jesus was real and that he was the
    object of a new cult.
    
    > with some unusual (for the time) political convictions
    
    No, ackshully, he was one of a long line of zealots preaching the same
    sort of thing, both politically and spiritually.  The apparent
    difference is that he claimed to be God, which means - as C. S. Lewis
    has pointed out - that he was God , or a maniac, or a despicable liar.

    >Or didja mean the prophets
    
    No, I ment what I said.
    
    >His name, exploited by the power grabbing church authorities of about 
    >100BC
    
    There is no trick to it. People, for their own benefit, frequently 
    exploit past figures. It happens in politics all of the time, related
    to the founding fathers and the like. It even happens in the box.
    
    ...Tom

    
     Tom, in 100 BC, Jesus had not been born.  B.C. is "Before Christ"
    
     bb

    
    
    RE:  .16
    
    Sorry.....AD, brain skip!!
    
    ...Tom

    I think that he really means CE (Common Era).
    
    AD means the "year of our Lord".
    
    
    M

    I mean about 1895 years ago..  :)
    
    

groan...... not Martha Stewart...... :-)

    
    i confess... i "like" martha stuart in all manners in which
    one could like someone, including, but not limited to, manners
    involving the excitement of certain anatomical members which
    it is my misfortune to be associated with.

    -b

    Does that make Martha Stewart the Anti-Christ???!!!   :)

  .24  aaagagagag.  "low sugar" - very funny. ;>

Di, shouldn't the title of this topic be changed to include Martha?
How about "Is Martha Stewart the Second Coming?"

    
    Maybe I should change the topic to:
    
    "Martha Stewart : Happy Homemaker or Sadistic Anti-Christ"
    
    	"She dries flowers with her breath, and really like to jam (oops,
         make jam. But who is she, really ?"

    
    Is Martha Stewart now more popular than Jesus Christ?
    

	or "Jesus Christ, saviour old credit cards"

    
    Could Jesus go 15 rounds with Tyson?  Could Martha?
    

    "Jesus is coming - look busy"
    
    Shamelessly taken from Cartalk - who got it off AOL

    I can see it now.  Martha achieves saint hood.  Nuns everywhere start
    wearing fashion habits and changing their names to Sister Mary Martha
    Stewart.  

    I'm convinced, forget Jesus, Martha Stewart for Messiah!!

    Too late, try to keep up, she IS!
    
    And boy is she pissed!!
    

    
    Hmmm, youse guise don't seem to have much in the way of thought on this
    Jesus Christ.
    
    In fact, just based on the responses, nary one of you will attack him
    directly, aside from "yawn".
    
    Figures.  You'll sideline the guy, blaming it on his apostles, or the
    church, or some centuries-old conspiracy.
    
    As many facts as some of you spew forth, you couldn't render any facts
    toward debasing JC DIRECTLY.

    In the Immortal words of Zaphod Beeblebrux, "He's just this guy..."
    
    But seriously folks, Where did the base noter get an association of JC
    and Lunacy. I don't recall any reference in the scriptures of him doing
    any weird things, except maybe that bit in the dessert?

    I'd say he was more of a magician.
    That turning water into wine was quite a trick!

    Two more buckets of water for table nine.   :^)

    hey it got me drunk {hic!}

    
    ALL YOU PEOPLE LEAVE MY MARTHA STEWART ALONE!!!!
    
    As I previously reported in The Confessional (501.5,) I am in love
    with Martha and intend to ask her to marry me.  Unless Anna Nicole
    Smith asks me first, that is.  Or possibly, all three of us could
    do something together...hmmmmm...
    
    Oh, sorry, woolgathering there for a second.  As I was saying, 
    Martha is mine.  Don't try to break up our happy home, or I'll 
    sic Mike Tyson and Peter McNeeley on you!
    
    
    
    Rob
    

    Rob, have a talk with her ex-husband first just to make sure she
    doesn't have a wierd sexual appetite or is that what you're looking
    for? :-)

    Hope yer not recommending Rob have a chat with ANS's ex-husband... 
    Though there ARE them who would envy the probable reason he's her ex-,
    folks participating in that type of ex-hood often find it rawther
    difficult to keep up their side of even a casual conversation.
    
    hth.
    

    
    I'm open to conversations with any and all ex-partners...although
    I suspect I would have to yell REAL LOUD for Anna's ex to hear me.
    
    
    
    Rob
    

    Iz there an echo in here?
    

    
    Iz there an echo in here?

    Not only that, is it me or is it just that there are acoustically
    reflective surfaces in this vicinity??
    

    
    Dr. Dan,
    
    It's you.  Seek treatment immediately.
    
    
    Praying for your recovery,
    
    
    Rob
    

    RE: .43 and .44,
    
    Just give the si'kick friends a call.  Dionne will fix you right up
    with a hot line to heaven.  
    
    

    Re .48 -- Thanks for the tip.  I'll take it under advisement. :-)
    

| <<< Note 523.38 by TROOA::BUTKOVICH "blink and I'm gone" >>>

| I'd say he was more of a magician.
| That turning water into wine was quite a trick!

	No trick at all. Reunite does it all the time!

    It's Riunite, and they turn wine into water. /hth

    >Hmmm, youse guise don't seem to have much in the way of thought on this
    >Jesus Christ.
    
    You mean some guy who may or may not have existed, who was turned into
    a myth? That Jesus Christ?
    
    >In fact, just based on the responses, nary one of you will attack
    >him directly, aside from "yawn".
    
    No need to attack, or was that the reason for this topic?
    
    >Figures.  You'll sideline the guy, blaming it on his apostles, or
    >the church, or some centuries-old conspiracy.
    
    And this is a problem because...??
    
    >As many facts as some of you spew forth, you couldn't render any
    >facts toward debasing JC DIRECTLY.
    
    No need to. It isn't JC's fault that 2000 years later people worship
    him. 
    

Yabbut I heard they actually DRANK it at that wedding.

    .55
    
    There are other ways to do the trick - I gave you the simplest one. 
    Changing water into wine was a common trick of "magicians" in Jesus'
    time.

 .55  that reminds me of Gilbert Godfried's routine, where he wonders
      why, at the "Last Supper", no-one sat on the other side of the table.

      pretty funny, i thought.

re .57:

Di, you've never been to a wedding where the photographer goes around to
each table and has everybody pose for a picture?

    So, it was the photographer's fault??  :)

No, silly.  'Twas the painter.

    .37
    
    >But seriously folks, Where did the base noter get an association of JC
    >and Lunacy [?]
    
    As earlier stated by other noters, C.S. Lewis essays.

    >But seriously folks, Where did the base noter get an association of JC
    >and Lunacy [?]
    
    From the number of lunatics who claim they have close association with
    JC, perhaps?

    .61
    
    Not Narnia.  JC is not mentioned therein, I believe.  The idea comes
    from Lewis' essay "The Case for Christianity" which is contained in a
    collection of his writings titled _Mere Christianity._
    
    The premise is that JC claimed to be God.  If a person claims to be
    something, there are three possibilities:
    
    1.  He is that something.
    
    2.  He is a liar.
    
    3.  He is demented.
    
    Lewis expounds the consideration that most nonChristians consider Jesus
    to have been a good man, probably a wise teacher, possibly a prophet. 
    But if he was a liar, then he was wicked, not good, and should be
    rejected.  If he was demented, he should similarly be rejected - and
    pitied as well.  Therefore, if you believe him to have been good, the
    inevitable conclusion must be that his claim of Godhood is valid.
    
    Lewis makes the argument far more cogently than I; it's been 15 or 20
    years since I last read that essay.

    Isn't there a 4th possibility?
    
    4.  He is mistaken.
    
    -Stephen

    .63
    
    < Narnia?>
    
    Twas just a joke on my behalf.  Have the essay. Read it many times.

    .64
    
    Your No. 4 falls under the purview of my No. 3.

    
>>    Your No. 4 falls under the purview of my No. 3.

	you can be mistaken without being demented though.

    Seems to me that if someone has a strong but mistaken belief, they are
    not necessarily crazy.  
    
    I admit I know very little a bout theology.  Is Jesus not supposed to
    have been fully human, therefore to have known doubt, etc, so would his
    belief in his nature & role not have depended ultimately on faith?  
    
    Might Jesus not have been a remarkably gifted member of a highly creative 
    culture in considerable turmoil, whose understanding of the world was 
    articulated in religious terms, who drew conclusions about himself and his 
    society that made considerable sense in local context, but not in mid-20th-
    century English? 
    
    -Stephen

    .68
    
    Jesus' contention that he was God didn't make sense to the locals in
    his own time; they expected the God-sent saviour to be a man, not God,
    and to be a military leader who would drive out the Roman invader.

Wot happened to yer .69 with the typo I was about to correct?

    .67
    
    > you can be mistaken without being demented though.
    
    Not in the case at hand, you can't.  To be demented is to suffer from
    dementia, which is a deterioration of mental faculties including, but
    not limited to, judgment.  If you think you're God but you're not, your
    judgment, at the very least, is not up to snuff.

>>    Not in the case at hand, you can't.

	You said, "If a person claims to be something" then there are
	three possibilities, not just if a person claims to be God.

>>   To be demented is to suffer from dementia,

	But to be mistaken is not necessarily to suffer from dementia.

                    <<< Note 523.68 by CTHU26::S_BURRIDGE >>>
                       -< no offence intende to anyone >-

>    I admit I know very little a bout theology.  Is Jesus not supposed to
>    have been fully human, therefore to have known doubt, etc, so would his
>    belief in his nature & role not have depended ultimately on faith?  

No.
   
>    Might Jesus not have been a remarkably gifted member of a highly creative 
>    culture in considerable turmoil, whose understanding of the world was 
>    articulated in religious terms, who drew conclusions about himself and his 
>    society that made considerable sense in local context, but not in mid-20th-
>    century English? 

No.

No offense taken.

Tom

    
    > Might Jesus not have been a remarkably gifted member of a highly creative 
    > culture in considerable turmoil,.....
    
    This make Jesus Christ sound like an alien !
    

    .72
    
    To be mistaken is to suffer from a failure of mental faculties; if your
    mental faculties were perfect, you would be able to perceive your
    mistake, analyze why it was an error, and rectify your beliefs.

  .75  so everyone who is mistaken is demented?  i don't think so.
       but i could be demented.

              <<< Note 523.76 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


>  .75  so everyone who is mistaken is demented?  i don't think so.
>       but i could be demented.

You? Demented? Never, m'lady. Never! You must be mistaken.

Tom

    >> To be mistaken is to suffer from a failure of mental faculties; if your
    >> mental faculties were perfect, you would be able to perceive your
    >> mistake, analyze why it was an error, and rectify your beliefs.
    
    Sounds like Kirk convincing Nomad to "sterilize" himself.  :-)
    
    Chris

	So who has more power? JC or Martha Stewart?


Glen

From the Coals-to-Newcastle department of transportation...

In defense of Herr Binder, Di:

There is mistaken, as in "I coulda sworn pi was 3.1412"

There is MISTAKEN, as in "The only way to stop the slide of society into the 
bottomless gutter is to eliminate premarital sex. and make everyone pack a 
gun."

And then there's *MISTAKEN*, as in "I am God! Whosoever believes in me 
will no perish, but have everlasting life!"

Everyone on the planet, with the possible exception of Mr. Binder himself and 
perhaps Mr. Topaz, have been guilty of the first from time to time. If this 
warrants admission to an asylum, than we're all already there, so why bother?

Every 'boxer who ever braved from the shadows is guilty of the second. Many
in the rest of society might suggest that we belong in the loony bin, but
as long as we control the talk radio airwaves, we're probably safe. 

The third is most definitely a call to the white-coats. Unless...

Tom

    .76
    
    > but i could be demented.
    
    Naw, you're the exception that every rule must have.

  .81 I know that.  In .63, Herr Binder said this:

>    ...If a person claims to be
>    something, there are three possibilities:
>    1.  He is that something.
>    2.  He is a liar.
>    3.  He is demented.

      I agree with Mr. Burridge that there is another possibility.
      That he is mistaken.  

      Please note that Herr Binder subsequently began trying to convince
      me that being mistaken falls under the category of dementia _outside_
      the context of the particular case at hand.

    Hare Binder.
    
    nnttm, hth, kfc etc... {hop} {hop}

    re:  <<< Note 523.81 by SHRCTR::DAVIS >>>
    
    ** There is mistaken, as in "I coulda sworn pi was 3.1412"
    ** There is MISTAKEN, as in "The only way to stop the slide of society
       into the bottomless gutter is to eliminate premarital sex. and make 
       everyone pack a gun."
    ** And then there's *MISTAKEN*, as in "I am God! Whosoever believes in me
       will no perish, but have everlasting life!"
    
    Should also be added: 
    
    There is the MISTAKEN as in - "The world is not the center of the
    universe!"  when Copernicus said it.
    
    

              <<< Note 523.83 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

You're way ahead of me - as always. :'} (What's the net shorthand for 
admiration, anyway?)

                       <<< Note 523.85 by PATE::CLAPP >>>
                          -< another type of mistake >-

>    ** There is mistaken, as in "I coulda sworn pi was 3.1412"
>    ** There is MISTAKEN, as in "The only way to stop the slide of society
>       into the bottomless gutter is to eliminate premarital sex. and make 
>       everyone pack a gun."
>    ** And then there's *MISTAKEN*, as in "I am God! Whosoever believes in me
>       will no perish, but have everlasting life!"
>    
>    Should also be added: 
>    
>    There is the MISTAKEN as in - "The world is not the center of the
>    universe!"  when Copernicus said it.

Nope, that's definitely falls within the second. Ask Haag, Mr. Bill, etc.

Tom    
    

    .74
    
    >>This make Jesus Christ sound like an alien !<<
    
    Well let's look at this more closely.  
    
    Bright lights in the sky when he was born, decends from clouds, appears
    and disappears, rises from the dead.  Sounds like something right out 
    of "Sightings" to me.   
    

    .89
    
    Other references:
    
    John 4:7 et seq., 10:30 et seq., 12:44,45, 14:10 et seq.
    
    These are all I could think of on a the spur of the moment.  In John
    12:45 and 45, Jesus says pretty clearly that he is God.

    
    <---- That was a typo.  He meant to say that He is *Rod*.
    
          Rodney Christ.
          

    
    
    Will all these be added to the thumper index to thump some more on the
    box thumpers????

    don't have any references to sprout but there was the Trilogy -
     Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
    was this acclaimed to JC or in interpretation by the churches.
    

    
    Heaven knows we need thumpthing to thump them with.
    

    
    
    THCRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMM!!!
    

| <<< Note 523.91 by TROOA::COLLINS "Haven't you always wanted a monkey?" >>>


| <---- That was a typo.  He meant to say that He is *Rod*.
| Rodney Christ.

	Joan.... r u sure you didn't mean Rodney King?

    
    So...Steve.  Is `snarfing' a lunatic behaviour?   ----------->
    

    We will never know

    I think John 8:58 and the confession during the trial before Pilate are
    the most convincing.
    
    Mike

  ZZ     don't have any references to sprout but there was the Trilogy -
  ZZ       Father, Son, Holy Ghost.
    
    For the last time, Trilogy is Emerson, Lake, and Palmer.
    
    TRINITY.
    
    There are actually other places where Jesus affirms his position.  Just
    the fact that he was forgiving sins caused a complete uproar with the
    Religious leaders, i.e. "...Why do you blaspheme?  Who can forgive sin
    other than God??"  
    
    Yes, the pharisees knew exactly what Jesus was claiming to be.
    
    -Jack

    
    > "...Why do you blaspheme?  Who can forgive sin other than God??"  
    
    WOW....an early mr bill!
    

    .102
    
    No the trilogy had something to do with the middle world and Hobbits
    
    Whoops, don't read it, it is full of multiculturalism.
    
    

    Star Wars was a trilogy.  BTW, isn't there supposed to be another Star
    Wars movie coming out soon? 

    
    Kenneth Branagh (sp?) turned down the role of young Obi-Wan.
    

    
    > Star Wars was a trilogy.  BTW, isn't there supposed to be another Star
    > Wars movie coming out soon? 
    
    Well they better hurry up before all the stars die of old age !

Actually, Star Wars was to be a trilogy of trilogies.  We only got the middle
three; there was a concept for three earlier and three later shows.

    > We only got the middle three; there was a concept for three earlier
    > and three later shows.
    
    Rumor has it that Lucas is working on the earliest set; how the Emperor
    crushed the Senate, how Anikin Skywalker was seduced to the Dark Side
    of the Force and betrayed the Jedi Knights, what were the Clone Wars, 
    all of that good stuff.
    
    DougO

    Rumor has it further that Lucas intends to rerelease the original
    three, with spiffed-up '90s-quality FX.

    That's nice and all, but we already know how the story turns out.  8^) 
    Not that it wouldn't be a great addition to my home theater collection. 
    Hope they spiff-up the audio quality, as well.

>It could be an accurate statement, depending on ones belief system.

All unwanted people must die is an accurate statement in a Nazi belief system.
That doesn't make it true.

/john

    -< There is but one Truth >-
    
    I'd have to answer the title question with lunatic, seein' as how his
    followers get so inspired as to spout such gems.
    
    DougO

| <<< Note 523.115 by ONOFRE::SKELLY_JO >>>

| Interesting comment, but what's it got to do with the price of peaches in
| Portugal? 

	Hey... that's my homeland!!!  So how much ARE the peaches over there?

| I don't recall asserting that just because somebody believes something, it's 
| true. 

	I think John would agree with you that one can believe something, and
have it be wrong. Well, except for when his own faith comes into play.... just
other people's....

| >    There is but one Truth

| Nice bumper sticker. What exactly does it mean?

	That would depend on who made up the sticker. It could mean just about
anything. From a religious standpoint it could mean that the only true Truth,
is God Himself. Any human couldn't come close to perfection.



Glen

    "-< There is but one Truth >-"
    
    There's yer problem right there in a nutshell /\/\/\/john.
    
    Just imagine, just a moment of suction thru a skull trephination, and
    you'd actually be more normal of a human bean.  Problem is, of course,
    to find just the right set of synapses that are so grievously defective.
    
    jmo, of course... :-)
    
    |-{:-)
    

    
    Dr. Dan,
    
    I actually went to the trouble of looking up trephination, because
    I was certain you meant to say trepanation, only to find that 
    they are one and the same.  Learn something new every day, I guess.
    
    Now I feel trepidation at telling the tales of my tribulations...
    
    
    
    Rob
    

                         "My Sugar Is So Trephined..."

    .112
    
    John 8:58 points back to Exodus 3:14, which is why they picked up
    stones to throw at Jesus. Upon Moses's question "Now they (the
    Israelites) may say to me, 'What is his name?' What shall I say to
    them?".  God's response in 3:14 is "...Thus you shall say to the sons
    of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you."
    
    The translation "I AM" is "YAHWEH", derived from the Hebrew root verb
    "HAYAH", which means "to be". Using "YAHWEH", or "YHWH" since the 
    pronunciation is suspect, is in effect to claim, "I exist outside
    of the normal physical constraint of time", therfore implying eternal
    existence.
    
    How much clearer could it be.  Jesus was claiming that he was in
    existence before Abraham.

    FWIW, there can only be one truth.  John never stated he was sole
    arbiter or holder of said truth, so I fail to see why he is being taken
    to task for his statement.
    
    For some reason, if truth is proclaimed to be anything other than a
    wishy-washy variable these days, folks have a conniption fit. 
    
    
    -steve

    > FWIW, there can only be one truth.
    
    Well it sure ain't that statement

    By somewhat agreeing with the fact that there is a truth, you
    contradict your own statement.
    
    -steve

    How can anyone somewhat agree that there is truth or a truth?

    Beliefs define truth for us and a search for truth defines beliefs.
    It's a vicious circle, a catch 22, a conundrum, the tail wagging the
    dog. My brain hurts.

    I require a liter of my I.P.A. 8^p

    re: .124
    
    I was being nice and not saying that he agreed wholeheartedly, since
    his words only implied that there was another truth.  Since another
    truth was implied, it actually backed up my statement that there is
    one truth.  This is somewhat of an infinite logical loop, which is a
    great headache inducer.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

    > This is somewhat of an infinite logical loop, which is a
    > great headache inducer.  8^)
    
    So is endless thumping, especially to those who DGAAC.
    
    -b

What is Truth?

What is the the meaning of life?

    The answer is 42.

    >So is endless thumping, especially to those who DGAAC.
    
    Who's thumping?  I agreed with John that there is one truth that none
    of us has the copyright on.  I made no other inferences on where said
    truth can be found, now did I?  If I had qualified it with "Bible" or
    somesuch, then you can accuse me of thumping.
    
    In any case, this IS a thumper topic, so if I wuz thumpin I wuz dooin
    eet in zee rit plase.
    
    Do you think that truth is a variable (situation), or are there
    universal absolutes?  From this point on, we DO get into thumping, as
    the ultimate truth can only be defined by the Creator who knows all.
    If there is no Creator, then truth is indeed optional or relational,
    relative to one's frame of mind.
    
    
    -steve

    re:.132
    
    but what is the correct question for the answer?

I'll have to think about it.

    .128
    
    > when God says it, He says "I AM".  Christ just
    > says "I am"...
    > even if the phrases were identical in the original text.
    
    There there is no question of the phrases' being identical in the
    original texts, because one was written in Hebrew and the other in
    Greek.  The reason, however, that the Old Testament version is written
    as "I AM" is that HEBREW DOESN'T HAVE LOWERCASE LETTERS.  Greek does. 
    Any use of upper or lowercase in translating Hebrew is strictly at the
    discretion of the translator(s).
    
    But exegetically speaking, the "I AM" of YHWH is semantically the same
    as the "I am" of Jesus, namely the FIRST PERSON PRESENT INDICATIVE.
    Jesus did not say, "Before Abraham, I was."  He said, "I am" in order
    to indicate the continuity of his existence outside the bounds of time
    - an attribute possessed only by God himself.  It was an unequivocal
    statement: "I am God."

Boring as Beckett.

    >What is Truth?
    
    Truth is a mushy, hydra-headed word. Everyone disputes its meaning.
    Truth denotes a static assertion that changes from person to person,
    opinion to opinion, culture to culture. Thus, truth is a hollow
    manipulative word promulgated by many to gain credibility for
    deception. Discard the word truth and insert the word honesty! See
    where it leads.

        > In any case, this IS a thumper topic, so if I wuz thumpin I wuz dooin
    > eet in zee rit plase.

    Close but no cigar. Thumper notes are like a self-fulfilling
    prophecy. Any reference to Truth/God/Jesus/Elvis/Satan/Evyl/
    Sex/EvylSex/AnyKindOfSex/GayPeopleBetterNotHaveSex/IReally
    WantToHaveSexButAmHopelesslyRepressed/WhatIsSexLikeAnyway?
    get turned into a chance to render the masses unconscious with
    riveting tales of Biblical Bilge. While this note presently
    sucks itself down the rathole known as "Truth", there is
    still ample opportunity for mounting the pulpit for a go.
    Consider my complaint a pre-emptive strike.

    >Do you think that truth is a variable (situation), or are there
    >universal absolutes?  From this point on, we DO get into thumping, as
    >the ultimate truth can only be defined by the Creator who knows all.
    >If there is no Creator, then truth is indeed optional or relational,
    >relative to one's frame of mind.

    I'm not preoccupied with truth. The computer scientist's view
    of "truth" is adequate for my needs. A statement is either provably
    true, provably false or no proof has been discovered. It doesn't
    bother me that for most statements, a proof has not been
    discovered. We'll probably knock off a good part of that list
    given another billion years or so. I haven't thrown my hat in
    with anything that requires a logical result of 1 to give my
    life meaning, and I don't intend to.

    -b

    
    How do we know that Jesus didn't say "I Yam". Maybe he was
    a vegetarian. :-)

    -b

    Funny thing about the Vogons. They don't really deserve it but yet
    there there are, cavorting throughout the cosmos, reeking havoc (or
    just plain reeking) doing as they please and screwing up pivotal
    universal experiments whose sole purpose is to actually confuse things
    more than they are already and cause the intergalactic stock markets to
    fluctuate wildly resulting in euphoria or suicide as the case my be.


    OMIGAWD! I need a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster straight away!

    >    How do we know that Jesus didn't say "I Yam". Maybe he was
    >    a vegetarian. :-)
    
    Wouldn't that mean he was a vegetable?

    .141
    
    You have misinterpretad my use of uppercase letters as shouting.  I was
    merely impressing on your brain the effect of Hebrew, which lacks lower
    case and so, then, by your lights, must be nothing but shouting.
    
    Don't go yet, you haven't been sufficiently thumped.  :-)

| <<< Note 523.142 by MPGS::MARKEY "Look at the BONES!" >>>


| How do we know that Jesus didn't say "I Yam". Maybe he was a vegetarian. :-)

	Just like Popeye? :-)

| <<< Note 523.145 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>


| Don't go yet, you haven't been sufficiently thumped.  :-)

	Now Dick..... that's a loaded statement if I ever heard one. :-)

    
    re: .127
    
    >So is endless thumping, especially to those who DGAAC.
    
    So Bri...
    
    Do a dir 523/all and see who the majority of the "thumpers" are...
    
    When I saw all the inane replies... I was one of those who "DGAAC"
    
    YMMV...
    

>                    <<< Note 523.112 by ONOFRE::SKELLY_JO >>>
>
>    John 8:58 is very interesting. I, too, would tend to interpret it as a
>    self-identification with the deity, but then again, it could mean only that
>    he felt he had been planned for since the beginning and what God plans, for
>    all intents and purposes, exists always. Perhaps he even felt he had
>    existed since the beginning, but maybe only as an eternal creation of God,
>    not God Himself. 
    
    The reaction of the Pharisees says how it was meant.
    
    Mike

>                    <<< Note 523.128 by ONOFRE::SKELLY_JO >>>
>
>    Perhaps this is clearer in the original language. In my translation, the
>    New American Standard Bible, when God says it, He says "I AM". Christ just
>    says "I am". I would infer that the translators recognized a difference,
>    even if the phrases were identical in the original text.
    
    Congrats on your choice of an excellent study Bible.  I use the same
    version.  Please keep in mind though that the O.T. was written in
    Hebrew and the N.T. in Greek.  If you want to compare apples, look to
    the Greek word used in John 8:58 and in the Septuagint (Greek
    translation of the O.T. completed ~300 B.C.) for Exodus 3:14.
    
>    Not being a scholar, I can't quibble about it. Still, since you ask, it
>    could be clearer. Christ could have just said, "I am God".

    John, I think He did.
    
    Mike

    
    It's easier to empty the ocean into a hole in the sand than it is to
    explain the mystery of the Trinity.
    
    

re .152

Well, he was actually quoting the Psalmist, in a wonderful psalm (22)
which begins with the very human feeling of helplessness that God felt
upon the Cross and ends with the praise of God who "hears them when
they cry to him."

/john

    This requires an understanding of the triune nature of God, which
    involves a synthesis of several passages using the entire Bible for
    context.  Right off the bat, most agree that the Holy Spirit is God so
    you immediately have more than 1 member of the Godhead.
    
    If you're really interested in this, I have a 500-line report that I
    think summarizes it very well.  Let me know if you want to see it.
    
    Mike

    .155
    
    >>Well, he was actually quoting the Psalmist, in a wonderful psalm (22)
    
    >So He wasn't really crying out to God, but sort of waxing philosphical with
    >a little poetry for the benefit of His audience? Is that what you
    >mean?
    
    He was fulfilling a prophecy made about him.
    

    >                    -< One of, I believe, 437 prophecies. >-
    
    Actually there are 332 Messianic prophecies in the O.T., all fulfilled
    by Jesus Christ.
    
    Mike

    
    .158
    
    Mike,
    
    I distinctly remember there being more.  I'll look it up.  437 is stuck
    on the brain, but perhaps you are right.
    
    8*P (tongue hung out from working, large eyes, bozo nose, etc.)

    I think the 400+ number relates to total number of prophecies fulfilled
    from the O.T.  That number sounds familiar to me as well.
    
    Mike

    .161
    
    Lest you forget in your enthusiasm, Jesus is represented in the NT as
    being skilled in exegesis - i.e., he knew how to draw meanings from the
    Hebrew scriptures.  (At the age of 12, we are told, he was amazing the
    rabbis of the Temple with his brilliance.)  Any such person, once he
    discovered that he satisfied the small number of prophecies dealing
    with the birth of the Messiah, could very well design his own path to
    ensure that he satisfied the rest.  Were he a competent conjuror with a
    few accomplices with the same political goals, he could accomplish the
    apparent miracles as well - and his accomplices would ensure that the
    deired "truth" about him was passed down.  Hell, Senator Peckerweed
    came close, he just didn't think far enough ahead to lie to his diaries
    the way Nicole Hollander has described on many occasions.
    
    In terms of fulfilling prophecies, it is POSSIBLE that Jesus was a fake.
    For verification that he was who he claimed to be, one must needs look
    further.  Which is why C. S. Lewis wrote "The Case for Christianity."

    
    Criminy Binder... if you're going to keep fixing and reposting
    your notes, _at least_ fix the "one must needs" in the second
    to last line. Otherwise, you won't appear perfect. :-) :-)
    
    -b

    	And the "deired truth" thingy.

    .163
    
    > "one must needs"
    
    May I respectfully suggest you investigate that phrase more closely. 
    Should you deign to do so, you will find that it is, although an
    archaic usage, entirely valid and correct English.
    
    .164
    
    > deired
    
    No, I think I'll leave that, it's a typo, not a misuse, and it were
    better that you have at least a tiny sign of my imperfection lest you
    begin to worship me.
    
    (Oh, yes, Bri, "it were better" is also correct English.  It's a
    subjunctive verb form.)

    
    Seemed redundant to me, Hare Binder. Either:

    "One must look no further"

     or

    "One needs look no further"

    are sufficient. IMHO, and notwithstanding the English grammar
    lesson I'm about to receive... :-)

    -b

    .166
    
    "one must needs do..." when it was current, meant "one must, being
    compelled by necessity, do..."
    
    The juxtaposition of "must" and "needs" is an emphatic construction.

    	Well it sounds like a 4-year-old made up that construction.
    
    	The English language ain't always purty.

     <<< Note 523.167 by SMURF::BINDER "Night's candles are burnt out." >>>

Sorry, Richardo, but Bri's right. No matter how you slice it, it's 
overkill/excess/bad form. I must needs assume you are artfully wiggling out 
of being caught with your linguistic pants down.

Tom :')

    I will side with Hare Binder's slice at language.

    .169
    
    Well, shoot, if you're gonna make me look it up for you...
    
    W9NCD lists "needs" as "of necessity," indicating that the usage is
    archaic.  Which sort of thing, damme, I enjoy.

    Binder is correct in his usage (the 'must needs' thing).  Old, but
    correct.  What do you expect from a curmudgeon?  8^)

    
    
    Yes, but he spouts about how language is/should be dynamic and always
    changing, and there he goes, being archaic all the time...
    

    He's such a funny bunny that Hare Binder.

    .174
    
    So you got a problem if I want to inject a little dynamism into
    20th-century language by throwing in something most of my readers
    aren't familiar with?  Hey, I'd say it's better this than that I
    attempt to spark a revival of bell-bottoms and platform shoes, nyet?

    
    > attempt to spark a revival of bell-bottoms and platform shoes,
    
    Now that's a scary vision!!!
    
    Dick Binder.... in bell-bottoms and platform shoes, with beads around
    his neck and granny glasses on the end of his nose, spouting about
    "what needs be"!!!!
    

>    rabbis of the Temple with his brilliance.)  Any such person, once he
>    discovered that he satisfied the small number of prophecies dealing
>    with the birth of the Messiah, could very well design his own path to
>    ensure that he satisfied the rest.  Were he a competent conjuror with a
>    few accomplices with the same political goals, he could accomplish the
>    apparent miracles as well - and his accomplices would ensure that the
>    deired "truth" about him was passed down.  Hell, Senator Peckerweed
    
    Dick, you of course neglect the many fulfillments that were made while
    He was completely "out of the loop" and the fact that the conspirators
    all went to their graves to make sure nobody blew "the plan."
    
    Senator Peckerweed just didn't draft the right people.
    
    Mike

    So. A lunatic, then.