Search results

not me personally, i was more gbh, upstarts, rejects back in the day

this is a previous incarnation

it could well be art and you've chose to go that way as its your disposition to think that way but unless we have the authors intention and we have no prior or subsequent work to go by we have to go with what is written

always found flux a hard listen do do like tube disasters

you can read into it however you want and its entirely up to you but its what was luke's intention when he wrote it is what counts, but as we don't have explanation from him/her then we have to go with what is wrote

no art as the quote says And he said, “All these I have kept from my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” But when he heard these things, he became...

A reasonable interpretation nonetheless

he didn't like greedy rich people don't forget ;-)

the consistency i'll maintain is that they are basing their versions(matthew luke and john) on mark albeit mark has no nativity nor resurection/ascension, so its obvious that the basic components are similar, thats no biggie in my eyes

nor what they actually contain, albeit it would a be fool to say there wouldn't be a resemblance, the question is how much, being in mind the first complete copy is a 4th century version, so bascially a 300 yr black hole

how much pious fraud are we attributing to the new testament in amongst all the scribal errors? as we know around 7 of pauls letters are forgeries

love zoundz ,the most melodic of the anarcho bands linked with crass

same as tacitus but he's reliable but not justus hmmm(you don't say it but certainly intimate it)

you are right he is, born nearly 25 years after jesus alleged death though, so could only reliably writing after the first gospel was written. the mere fact he hardly writes anything at all apart from his one remark is strange not totally dismissing it but he could and should written more if...

funny that justus of tiberias the jewish historian of the time has literally nothing to say about him, not one single jot and wrote a history of the area from around jesus alleged lifetime and is not mentioned once alarm bells have to be ringing and the reason we know this is phiotus makes a...

yep i know

as octavian already agrees it is made up , where we differ is to what extent

yet not one bit of written evidence by the romans(who wrote everything down) that this ever happened that in itself is very curious that doesn't mean a lay preacher named jesus was around but possibly never crucified

if you say the bible is a bad source, well i can't disagree you there i will change my tack slightly to appease you, there is a possibility he didn't exist, that is whether you or bart like it or not, for you to say its not true when you actually don't know for sure is a bit disingenuous and...