Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

I guess the move to Arrakis was early in 10,151 and the Battle of Arrakeen was late in 10,153 making it a little less than three years.

It depends on when Paul's birthday was on whether he was 17 or 18, i've just always rounded it up.

Redstar wrote:lawsuit-mongers

Yeah, I hate it when rape victims try to get some kind of compensation for being victims.

Nekhrun wrote:

Redstar wrote:lawsuit-mongers

Yeah, I hate it when rape victims try to get some kind of compensation for being victims.

I was talking about the "victims" who weren't actually victims. Several cases did, in the end, turn out to be baseless. People only care about the initial controversy, and don't even bother to look into how it ended. Or they just ignore it.

The RCC is bad news, end of story. The go out of their way to cover up child molestation (yes yes, per capita maybe fewer priests are abusers than the average person thinks - that's not the issue. The issue is that the Church actively creates a safe environment for them to continue being abusers - and there are PLENTY of abusers in their ranks), they follow around the people in Africa trying to fight AIDS and teaching people to use condoms telling the people that if they use condoms they'll burn in hell (so right there they're murding thousands and eventually millions of people), they plate everything they own in gold and jewles and tell their subjects that their tithes go to the poor.

If the vatican and every single RCC church on the planet burned down with it's priests inside the world would be a better place. Sad to wish that on anyone, but it's true.

Heh. I've always been a fan of Eastern Orthodox anyways.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:The RCC is bad news, end of story. The go out of their way to cover up child molestation (yes yes, per capita maybe fewer priests are abusers than the average person thinks - that's not the issue. The issue is that the Church actively creates a safe environment for them to continue being abusers - and there are PLENTY of abusers in their ranks), they follow around the people in Africa trying to fight AIDS and teaching people to use condoms telling the people that if they use condoms they'll burn in hell (so right there they're murding thousands and eventually millions of people), they plate everything they own in gold and jewles and tell their subjects that their tithes go to the poor.

If the vatican and every single RCC church on the planet burned down with it's priests inside the world would be a better place. Sad to wish that on anyone, but it's true.

QFT

Not too mention the damn crusades bastards should be paying me reparations for that

Freakzilla wrote:

SandChigger wrote:

RedHeadKevin wrote:Historical accounts even put the Virgin Mary at around age 12 or 13 when Jesus was born.

That sentence is a thing of beauty.

(Hey, I just figured it out: the Herberts must be Muslims! They're all about profit-worship, too! )

There are historical accounts of Jesus? HOLY SHIT!

Yes. Most historians agree that a man called Jesus lived and preached in Gallilee from around 0 to 33 AD. It would stand to reason that he had a mother, traditionally named Mary, and called The Virgin Mary by most people in 2009. It's historically accurate that most virgins who were betrothed to be married in 0 AD were around 12-16 years old. So rather than having to go through an entire explanation, and saying "Historical Accounts even put the Possibly-fictional mother of the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth, who is commonly referred to as the VIrgin Mary, around 12 or 13, the normal age for a betrothed Jewish girl around 0AD, although it was more likely around 5-4BC, in the Middle East, when she gave birth to her son, who is now commonly known as Jesus of Nazareth" I was being concise.

RedHeadKevin wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

SandChigger wrote:

RedHeadKevin wrote:Historical accounts even put the Virgin Mary at around age 12 or 13 when Jesus was born.

That sentence is a thing of beauty.

(Hey, I just figured it out: the Herberts must be Muslims! They're all about profit-worship, too! )

There are historical accounts of Jesus? HOLY SHIT!

Yes. Most historians agree that a man called Jesus lived and preached in Gallilee from around 0 to 33 AD. It would stand to reason that he had a mother, traditionally named Mary, and called The Virgin Mary by most people in 2009. It's historically accurate that most virgins who were betrothed to be married in 0 AD were around 12-16 years old. So rather than having to go through an entire explanation, and saying "Historical Accounts even put the Possibly-fictional mother of the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth, who is commonly referred to as the VIrgin Mary, around 12 or 13, the normal age for a betrothed Jewish girl around 0AD, although it was more likely around 5-4BC, in the Middle East, when she gave birth to her son, who is now commonly known as Jesus of Nazareth" I was being concise.

There are no historical accounts of Jesus.

Freakzilla wrote:

RedHeadKevin wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

SandChigger wrote:

RedHeadKevin wrote:Historical accounts even put the Virgin Mary at around age 12 or 13 when Jesus was born.

That sentence is a thing of beauty.

(Hey, I just figured it out: the Herberts must be Muslims! They're all about profit-worship, too! )

There are historical accounts of Jesus? HOLY SHIT!

Yes. Most historians agree that a man called Jesus lived and preached in Gallilee from around 0 to 33 AD. It would stand to reason that he had a mother, traditionally named Mary, and called The Virgin Mary by most people in 2009. It's historically accurate that most virgins who were betrothed to be married in 0 AD were around 12-16 years old. So rather than having to go through an entire explanation, and saying "Historical Accounts even put the Possibly-fictional mother of the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth, who is commonly referred to as the VIrgin Mary, around 12 or 13, the normal age for a betrothed Jewish girl around 0AD, although it was more likely around 5-4BC, in the Middle East, when she gave birth to her son, who is now commonly known as Jesus of Nazareth" I was being concise.

There are no historical accounts of Jesus.

That's right. Many historians agree that he probably was a real person, but outside of what later Christians wrote down there are no records of him whatsoever. It's based purely on hunch and probability, no evidence outside the NT.

RedHeadKevin wrote:

Freakzilla wrote: There are historical accounts of Jesus? HOLY SHIT!

Yes. Most historians agree that a man called Jesus lived and preached in Gallilee from around 0 to 33 AD.

That does not make him a historical person/truth. Come with one original source and we can discuss it further.

I fixed your quote. -FZ

Uhm even if the person often associated with THE Jesus Christ were real, his name certainly would not be Jesus. That in itself proves that there is no historical record. No Jew ever by the name of Jesus preached anywhere ever 2000 years ago.

Jesus is just the English version of the Greek version (Iêsous) of what was no doubt some variant of the Hebrew name Yehoshua (Eng. Joshua) "Yahweh is salvation", "Yahweh rescues" or "Yahweh delivers (but only until 10:30 on weeknights so order early!)", according to WP. (The delivery service is why the children's blessing ends, "And we thank Him for our food. Ashes, ashes, our sackcloth's down!")

I've read that there were almost as many "Jesuses" there then as you find now in Mexico.

As far as non-biblical corroboration, some people point to passages in Josephus and Suetonius, etc., but none are conclusive.

My Roman history/Bible historicity is a bit lax at the moment, but I think Tacitus, in his Annals, mentioned Jesus. Or, at least, within the work, he attributed the name "Christians" to "Christus," stating the this was a man who was executed under Pontius Pilate (and I think this is the only mention of Pilate in Roman histories).

Slugger wrote:My Roman history/Bible historicity is a bit lax at the moment, but I think Tacitus, in his Annals, mentioned Jesus. Or, at least, within the work, he attributed the name "Christians" to "Christus," stating the this was a man who was executed under Pontius Pilate (and I think this is the only mention of Pilate in Roman histories).

That would be a reference to Christians then, not Jesus, as the term "Christian" didn't come up until quite a long time after Jesus was dead, they were originally called followers of the way.

So anything that refers to them as Xians is probably not from the period of Jesus and is not a historical record of him, and the reference to Pilate could simply be Tacitus working backwards from his current time to figure out who would have been in charge around the time of Jesus's death.

I'm really not all that up on the specifics of the history myself, but every experienced (and trustworthy) Christian scholar I've ever heard talk about the subject has said clearly that Jesus is not a historical person, end of story. And these are people who would be looking as hard as possible for evidence, not nay-sayers like me.


I'll concede that Jesus almost certainly did exist, but the concensus of academia is that there is no verified record of him by the Romans or anyone else on the planet.

SandChigger wrote:Jesus is just the English version of the Greek version (Iêsous) of what was no doubt some variant of the Hebrew name Yehoshua (Eng. Joshua) "Yahweh is salvation", "Yahweh rescues" or "Yahweh delivers (but only until 10:30 on weeknights so order early!)", according to WP. (The delivery service is why the children's blessing ends, "And we thank Him for our food. Ashes, ashes, our sackcloth's down!")

I've read that there were almost as many "Jesuses" there then as you find now in Mexico.

As far as non-biblical corroboration, some people point to passages in Josephus and Suetonius, etc., but none are conclusive.

That is a bit of a stretch. For one, there is no "J" sound in Hebrew, or Greek, or old English for that matter. Most likely his name would have been Yeshua, or some variant of that and translated to Greek as Iêsous, like you said, and then translated to Iesus in Latin. Somewhere along the way, us English folk decided that a J was much sexier than an I.

Okee-dokey. I gotta ask before we begin ... would you like some lube?

Idahopotato wrote:That is a bit of a stretch. For one, there is no "J" sound in Hebrew, or Greek, or old English for that matter.

True, true, and not quite: the "J" sound (affricate combination of D+ZH) did occur in Old English, usually written "cg" or with "g" in certain positions/combinations.

Most likely his name would have been Yeshua, or some variant of that and translated to Greek as Iêsous, like you said, and then translated to Iesus in Latin.

I don't have my copy of the Vulgata here, but IIRC Jerome usually spelled it "Iesu" in Latin. (In the nominative. I forget which declension it gets ... one of the odder ones, tho.)

Somewhere along the way, us English folk decided that a J was much sexier than an I.

Actually it was an Italian in the 16th century.

The Romans used "I" for both the I-vowel and the Y-sound. (Just like they used "V" for "U" and "W". As in Ivlivs Caesar. )

(Hmm ... turned out it wasn't as rough a ride as I first thought. )

I forget which declension it gets

.

4th

Omphalos wrote:

I forget which declension it gets

.

4th

Ecce iurista, ostentationis otiosusque!

Did you just call me charming and chatty? Not sure what that last word means.

Omphalos wrote:Did you just call me charming and chatty?

Not in this universe.

I tell you, Marcus Tullius is probably just rolling over in his grave.


Which is REALLY disturbing when you think about it, considering his head no longer moves with the rest of him.

(The hands are missing, too, I hear ...)

SandChigger wrote:

Omphalos wrote:Did you just call me charming and chatty?

Not in this universe.

I tell you, Marcus Tullius is probably just rolling over in his grave.


Which is REALLY disturbing when you think about it, considering his head no longer moves with the rest of him.

That doesn't say anything about a charming lawyer?

Omphalos wrote:That doesn't say anything about a charming lawyer?

I'm not saying, of course, that you don't (probably) have your charming moments now and then, but no, it's not in the Latin.

SandChigger wrote:

Okee-dokey. I gotta ask before we begin ... would you like some lube?

Idahopotato wrote:That is a bit of a stretch. For one, there is no "J" sound in Hebrew, or Greek, or old English for that matter.

True, true, and not quite: the "J" sound (affricate combination of D+ZH) did occur in Old English, usually written "cg" or with "g" in certain positions/combinations.

Most likely his name would have been Yeshua, or some variant of that and translated to Greek as Iêsous, like you said, and then translated to Iesus in Latin.

I don't have my copy of the Vulgata here, but IIRC Jerome usually spelled it "Iesu" in Latin. (In the nominative. I forget which declension it gets ... one of the odder ones, tho.)

Somewhere along the way, us English folk decided that a J was much sexier than an I.

Actually it was an Italian in the 16th century.

The Romans used "I" for both the I-vowel and the Y-sound. (Just like they used "V" for "U" and "W". As in Ivlivs Caesar. )

(Hmm ... turned out it wasn't as rough a ride as I first thought. )

Yes, I stand corrected about a "J (D=ZH)" sound, but not arriving from that letter. In old English, The J and I were interchangeable. Usually the J was used to start a word or name, which is why I used the sexy remark. I believe the original Y was a "TH" sound, so that wouldn't have worked with the translation. I don't really know anything about the etymology of Italian words.

The whole point is that even if that skinny, long bearded white guy we all see hanging on the cross really ever existed, he certainly wouldn't have responded to the name Jesus Christ.

Idahopotato wrote:The whole point is that even if that skinny, long bearded white guy we all see hanging on the cross really ever existed, he certainly wouldn't have responded to the name Jesus Christ.

No? Wouldn't he have been able to speak/respond to all languages, and know he was the one being referred to, even in a language that wouldn't exist for almost a thousand years?