Login

Gregg · 03-25-2004, 05:08 PM

For those interested in a return to a sane dating system, this is the year 2756 A.U.C. 
 
Oh, and I hope the Ides passed uneventfully for everyone... 
 
Gregg

03-25-2004, 07:14 PM

He's not the Messiah - he's a very naughty boy!

Vincula · 03-25-2004, 11:24 PM

Just to clarify the C.E./B.C.E. thing ... 
The abbreviation is not to "Christian Era" but to "Common Era". 
On the United Nations website, Kofi Annan says: "There is so much interaction between people of different faiths and cultures - different civilizations, if you like - that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era." 
Of course it's a cop-out, simply replacing A.D. with C.E., but radical alternatives like the French Revolutionary calendar are simply unworkable. Everybody knows that 2004 means A.D. 2004.

03-26-2004, 05:11 PM

I know it's meant to be 'Common era', but I'll fix those sods by referring to it as 'Christian era' whenever I can. When exactly does Kofi end his term? Was he ever elected? He seems to have been there forever. 
 
Conn

Crispvs · 03-26-2004, 06:33 PM

Of course, Kofi is entitled to his opinion, but 'CE' is by definition the Christian Era, whatever else it might be to other people. As for it being 'common' to the different nations of the world, is it? Do the Chinese use the BC/AD system? I don't know. Anyway, I'm with Conn on this one. 
 
Crispvs

Frank Miranda · 03-30-2004, 04:28 AM

Quote:<hr>When exactly does Kofi end his term? Was he ever elected? He seems to have been there forever.<hr> 
 
He is currently in his second term which ends on December 31st, 2006. He was initially elected by the UN General Assembly in 1997 to replace the Egyptian, Boutros-Boutros Ghali and serve out Africa's second term of office (traditionally, the SG serves two terms and each continent or region gets a crack at those two terms). His second term is technically a third consecutive term for Africa, but was recommended by the Security Council. The General Assembly approved it by acclamation. 
 
And, yes, he does seem to have been there forever. 
 
Quote:<hr>He's not the Messiah - he's a very naughty boy!<hr> 
 
There's no Messiah here- there's a mess alright, but no Messiah! 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=frankmiranda>Frank Miranda</A> at: 3/30/04 6:31 am

03-30-2004, 01:26 PM

Thanks for that, Frank. I was beginning to wonder if he was elected at all. 
 
As for the Messiah comment, I was interested to note Psalm XXII, that begins 'My god, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" 
 
(Unlike Mel, I can't manage Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic.) 
 
For most of my childhood, I never realised Jesus was actually quoting this psalm on the cross. It was represented to me as a cry of despair. 
 
The reason for mentioning it in this context is that the psalm is one of the places in the old testament where predictions concerning the messiah are listed. A psalm of David, it mentions "I am poured out like water and my bones are out of joint", "They pierced my hands and my feet", "I may tell all my bones", and "They part my garments among them, and cast lots on my vesture". 
 
Now I know the cynics will say those introductory words were put in Jesus' mouth later on, providing a circular proof, but if he said that, he must have believed he was the messiah. Interesting, yes? 
 
Conn

NightHunter24 · 03-30-2004, 02:30 PM

iggulden quoted:

Quote:The reason for mentioning it in this context is that the psalm is one of the places in the old testament where predictions concerning the messiah are listed. A psalm of David, it mentions "I am poured out like water and my bones are out of joint", "They pierced my hands and my feet", "I may tell all my bones", and "They part my garments among them, and cast lots on my vesture".

Funny you should mention that because I had seen a program once or read in a book ( my memory fails me at the moment ) where it stated that since Jesus is totally absent from the bible between the ages 13 and 26 that there might have been a possibility that he might have studies with the Esins (correct my spelling if I'm wrong), a sect suppossedly linked to the Dead Sea Scrolls. I believe the Esins were a messiahnic sect of some sort. 
 
Now my point is that since they were probably well versed in all aspects of their religious studies that this might have had a profound effect on Jesus. Therefore Jesus might have found a sense of purpose with this newfound knowledge and throughout his ministry might have constantly quoted from everything he might have learned there. Just an opinion though.

03-30-2004, 08:42 PM

I hadn't heard the Essin theory (and I can't be certain of the spelling either.) I thought no one knew where Jesus was in those years, which led to the romantic (but surely flawed) idea that he came to England. 
 
And did those feet in ancient times, walk upon England's pastures green? (Blake) 
 
I seem to recall an old legend that Jesus could have been travelling under the name Joseph of Arimathea, but I'm really scraping the barrel of memory now. 
 
Of course, as we all know, God is an Englishman, so perhaps Jesus did come to see the old place. 
 
Conn

NightHunter24 · 03-31-2004, 02:14 AM

About Jesus lost years with the Essin sect.....well it's just one of a bunch of theories and it's not proven, but a plausible one nonetheless. 
 
And about God being an Englishman? Aye lad, he can be anything that brings happiness and joy to your life.

Vincula · 03-31-2004, 09:01 AM

Jesus wasn't the only one who believed he was the messiah. 
Eusebius tells the story of King Abgarus of Edessa (reigned AD 9-46), who requested a visit from Jesus to ask for a miracle healing. He obviously believed, though he had not seen.

03-31-2004, 06:49 PM

If a number of Jews hadn't accepted Jesus as the messiah they had been waiting for, the new testament could never have been added to the old. This may well be a gross oversimplification, but as I understand it, modern Jews are still waiting for the messiah, though I freely confess ignorance as to what exactly is meant by the term. In a sense, Christianity is a schism in Judaism between those who said 'He's the one' and those who said 'No, we're still waiting.' - hence such terms as Judeo-Christian and the endless mentions of I-is-ra-el in English hymns. (Always four syllables for some reason) 
 
I haven't thought about this sort of thing for years, so thank you for helping me dredge it up. I'll try to see this film tomorrow or the day after. 
 
Conn

03-31-2004, 06:51 PM

I liked that bit with 'Aye, lad' - very much. Good man. 
 
Conn

Nathan Ross · 03-31-2004, 08:28 PM

Quote:<hr>Jesus could have been travelling under the name Joseph of Arimathea<hr> 
 
That sounds rather like an ancient Interpol memorandum (Interfrumentarii?) - or something from Crimewatch! 
 
As for Blake, I'm sure criticising his historical accuracy is taking things a bit far! Visionaries never let the facts of history get in their way, after all (one of the few things that William Blake and Mel Gibson have in common, I suspect)... 
 
Re. Jesus and the Essenes - I think that theory's quite popular with those who like to see Jesus as a two-fisted revolutionary type, agitating against Roman rule - not a completely barmy idea (Judas Iscariot might have been a firebrand of sorts - Iscariot meaning, I believe, sicarii, and therefore connoting one of the radical 'political assassin' sort of zealots). The trouble with the Essenes is that almost all we have to go on regarding them is Josephus and the collection of texts found at Qumran. Josephus portrays them, rather eye-rollingly, as an extreme ascetic sect with strict rules of membership and a dislike of (ahem!) going to the bathroom in public. The Qumran texts are more bellicose, and provide most of the armoury for those who want to make the Essenes into 1st-century Jewish freedom fighters. If Jesus was an Essene, he would have been an outcast and heretic one - they weren't supposed to leave their proto-monastic communities. 
 
A bit more convincing is the idea that Jesus was actually a Pharisee - the Pharisees being the Jewish equivilant, I believe, of lay preachers, as opposed to the Sadducees, who were the traditionalist temple hierarchy. The Pharisees provided the basis for the modern Rabbinical tradition - they knew the Law backwards and tended towards an academic interpretation, but had plenty of radical offshoots. Jesus obviously knew Jewish Law very well, and it would make sense for him to have been a rebel Pharisee - all his fulminations against them could therefore be seen as a sort of family row about the interpretation of the Word of God - rather like Luther's disagreement with the Catholic church much later. 
 
It's a big and murky subject, but fascinating nonetheless!

04-01-2004, 02:03 AM

Honest question -- what's the documentation or reasoning behind the statement that the Jerusalem Garrison would have been composed of Auxiliaries, and not Legionnaires? Is it not likely that the Procurator would have had a personal guard of authentic Italic Legionaires instead of auxiliaries, no matter what the overall garrison was composed of? 
 
Also, I believe you promised us a review? 
 
regards, 
 
Rich

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	"Spear of Christ" on History Channel (US)	A_Volpe	8	2,284	01-02-2007, 01:56 PM Last Post: MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS