Forensic Scientists reveal what Jesus may have looked like as a 12-year old

Catholic News Agency ^ | February 12, 2005

[kosta50]

The difference is between reverent remembrance and a sacrifice.

Whatever. It's worship. It's the way early Christians thought it was right. You weren't there. It is interesting how you can use denial when it suits you, but when someone uses denial against you you say "this is the truth." Amazing.

[kosta50]

The OT is part of Christian canon

Yes, and no. Without NT there is no Christianity. Without OT you still have Christianity. You still have references to the OT.

The Jews did not have a uniform canon until after Jamnia. I am sorry you don't agree. Septuagint was a Jewish canon too. But it does not correspond to the Masoretic one. The Ethiopian canon correpsonds to the Septuagint. Which aprt do you have problems with?

[kosta50]

You are good at two things Rokke: one is forgetting your own mistakes and omissions and, two, distorting other people's statements. You keep rubbing 390 AD in my face. I was too lazy and busy to look up the exact date of the council of Carthage, so I wrote 390 instead 390's. My fault, but for you to be hung on this is petty, very petty.

Then you make a comment that Carthage was not a major council. Not it wasn't. So what. Every encyclopedia will tell you that the Christian Canon -- the 27 Books of the New Testament -- were adopted and fixed at that time and that hasn't changed since then. That means it is closed to anyone but you.

Then you quote Athanasius, without realizing he was referring to Arians ang Gnostics who used their own "Gospels," and interpret that he must be talking about orthodox Christians who used the Apocrypha rejected at Jamnia and that he is referring to those same Christians, whose champion he was, as "heretics!"

You completely neglect the fact that the undivided Church was then, as it is now in the West and in the East, based on ecclesiastic authority and Holy Tradition passed on through Aposotlic succession, and that the Bible is an equal or central part but not the sole element of the Church life and worship, and that if the Church has reason to believe a text was inspired it could use it. Thus 1 and 2 Clement were appended by the scribe who thought these epistles were inspired.

Encyclopedias will tell you that the Jewish canon was not uniform and not closed until after Jamnia. And they will tell you that the Christian Canon was closed at 27 books, which it carries to this date, at the synod of Carthage in the 390's AD. Encyclopedias will tell you that the Septuagint was considered Scripture by the Alexandrian Jews and that the Jewish canon not only took different forms (as in the case of the Palestinian canon as a good example) but that it evolved over centuries from 600 BC to 100+ AD.

I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that will support your statement that the Bible is a "remarkably accurate" historical document -- better yet, to provide specific answers to my specific historic questions and arugments with regard to specific quotes and events, mentioned in it.

I still don't know what you are doing other than you must have a lot of time, no life, and love to distort what other people say. This is indeed a strange bunch I must admit, rebels without a cause, self-styled popes who are in opposition to everything even the basic encyclopedias seem to agree on. One thing is for sure -- there is no shortage of scorn for anything Catholic, whether Roman or Orthodox. One would believe, listening to you and some others, that the Church was run by a bunch of incompetent half wits who didn't know Scriptures and got it all wrong and for very sinister motives.

[Havoc]

It's the way early Christians thought it was right.

No, it's how some people a long time ago claiming to be christian said they did it. Whether they were Christian or not is an unknown. Whether it was early or not is not known and largely irrelevant. Whether they were right or not can be known by examining scripture. But to say it's right because some say a long time ago is just plain begging.

[Havoc]

The Jews did not have a uniform canon until after Jamnia. I am sorry you don't agree.

Nothing to agree with. You posit it with no historical data to support the claim. There has to be something there of note to base agreement upon. As is, you just keep claiming it's so.. might as well just keep on with your prior statement of 'a long time ago in a galaxy far far away...' because that's what it's worth.

Septuagint was a Jewish canon too.

Which Septuigent. Given that the Jews state tha Apocrypha was never canon, it would have to be a Septuigent we've never seen. Calling something the "Septuigent" that includes works that the Jews never canonized is simply fraud. So, you're repeated calls to authority based on that are still as useful as your claim in regard to Jamnia.

. But it does not correspond to the Masoretic one. What you have now claiming to be the Septuigent may not match the Masoretic, that doesn't mean the original didn't. Again, you're hoping people lose site of the facts when playing your shell game.

The Ethiopian canon correpsonds to the Septuagint. Which aprt do you have problems with?

Which Septuigent, the original, or the fraud being passed off today?

[kosta50]

Havoc, you are precious. You tell me that the Scripture is true because you say so and you rub in my face lack of historical data for "my" claims. My claims can be found in any reputable book of knowledge on the subject -- try something as simple as encyclopedias that don't have a conflict of interest.

As you too just keep claiming that your opinion is right because you say so. To this date you have not provided one shred of evidence to show that the Jewish canon was closed, by whom and when, and by what council or document. That was my original question to you and you wiggled out of it.

Palestinian canon has two books. Many Jewish sects had different canons. Who owns Judaism? Obviously, today it is the Masoretic, rabbinical Judaism that most Jews subscribe too. But what about Ethiopian Jews? Are they any less Jewish? Probably in some people's eyes they are not even Jewish.

Septuagint was in wide use among Greek speaking Jews in the 200 or so years before Christ, and during His life and apparently afterwords too. You seem to consider that either a lie behind some "Catholic" conspiracy or that the Alexandrian Jews and Christians simply did not know what they were doing.

The Jewish canon was not uniform until after Jamnia. That is a verifiable fact in a variety of sources. This is disputed, predictably so, by Jewish sources. They must be right, of course. Everyone else is wrong.

[kosta50]

They where there when it happened and immediately afterwords. The first bishops were taught by the Apostles in person. And they left documents to these teachings in a steady and unbroken succession. You were not there. So why should I believe you as opposed to people who were living witnesses? You can believe what you want. There were always rebels without a cause. They adorn periphery of every society.

[Havoc]

My claims can be found in any reputable book of knowledge on the subject

I'm precious, well thank you. I know I am; but, what's that to do with you repeating baseless claims and pretending they're true when the authority on the subject, the Jews, state you're not only wrong; but, so wrong as to be of shock value. I don't care how many or what type of books your claims are published in. There's a little fat man out there making "reputable" movies about President Bush that are nothing but lies with no basis in fact save what appearances can be constructed by manipulating the facts. You can see that; but, you can't see it when you're the one doing it apparently.

You can beg the Etheopian Jews if you wish. If you're that ignorant of proper methodology that you have to beg something that rediculous in order to prop up your little baseless claim, that's your problem. Do us a favor and shave before your next film promo. But don't insult our intelligence further.

Do you even have the first clue as to the content of the discussion of Jamnia?! I'd bet you've never bothered to read beyond your propaganda sheets. Jamnia was discussing whether Ecclesiastes should be distributable - not whether it should be canon. And I'm sure you haven't the first clue what that even means. You've admitted you can't prove anything about the Septuagint; but, you keep using it for support as though it means something. The Jews never canonized the Apocrypha. Thus, the Septuagint, to the extent that it was used, would have excluded it. By adding the Apocrypha to it, it no longer is the Septuagint but is fraudulently using that name to beg authority. I know you don't care; but, that's the point everyone needs to get here. If you're that careless in showing authority, it extends to your care for the souls of others because that authority determines the guidance that informs those souls.

[Havoc]

And they left documents to these teachings in a steady and unbroken succession.

Or so you say.

[Havoc]

You missed the fact that I read the passages in Hebrew

No, I didn't. I remarked on it which tells me you didn't read what I said either. I don't care what language you read it in. The Jews comment on this sort of thing regularly. And had you bothered to look, you'd have known you were wrong even before mistating the case. Chronicles does not say what you pretended it to say. End of statement. And you have a link to Jewish authority on the subject to make that clear. I also noted that I don't care what word was used in Psalm, it's meaning is what's at issue, and the Jews commented on it. Maybe you need to take a language class where you can learn that because a word can have several meanings, those meanings are not inherent or always expressed. Circumstance determines proper understanding. And no, I'm not wasting your time. You've wasted all of ours in your pretense.

[Rokke]

"I wrote 390 instead 390's"

You've missed my point. I don't care whether it was 390, or 100 years in either direction. Carthage did not Canonize anything. And by your own definitions of what is required for canonization, the Christian Canon (The Christian Bible) has still not been closed because it has yet to achieve consensus. You must ignore the very criteria you use to declare that the Hebrew Canon remained open (until after Jamnia), to declare the Christan Canon was closed as of the 4 century. Remember, "no consensus, no canonization".

"Then you quote Athanasius"

Kosta, I quoted Athanasius because you specifically asked me which books he called Apocryphal. You see, when you ask me something I provide whatever factual data I can find to answer your question. That is common courtesy.

"Thus 1 and 2 Clement were appended by the scribe who thought these epistles were inspired."

Incredible. Just two paragraphs before you said the NT books "were adopted and fixed at that time and that hasn't changed since then." Err, I guess until the 5 Century. I'm not asking for you to prove anything really. I'm justing asking you to be consistent. "No consensus, no canon." And why do you keep telling me what Encyclopedias say? Earlier you chastised me for looking things up. If there are no facts to support a statement, I don't care whether it is from an Encyclopedia or written on a subway wall.

"I am still waiting for you to provideevidence that will support your statement that the Bible is a "remarkably accurate" historical document"

Here's a suggestion. Do a Google search on "Bible, historical accuracy". As we continue to make archaeological discoveries, the single historical artifact whose accuracy is proven time and again is the Bible. Discussing its accuracy would be a great topic. I would love to do that. Maybe we can start another thread to do just that (although I imagine there are already several threads on exactly that subject). But the topic at hand is Biblical Canonization, and since we can't seem to resolve anything on that, perhaps it is premature to dive into the next subject. But let me offer you this single quote from an acknowledged expert on Palestinian archeology.
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries."
Dr. Nelson Glueck, The Renowned Jewish Archaeologist.

"you must have a lot of time, no life, and love to distort what other people say."

First, I've distorted nothing you've said. That seems to be a right you reserve for yourself (remember the whole Mormon comment). Second, studying Scripture and church history does not imply one has no life. In fact, I would say it suggests just the opposite. It is through that study that I have discovered the Orthodox church is an amazing resource on church history, and that the Catholic church is absolutely not. I have never said anything to disparage the Orthodox church. Just the opposite in fact. You can either learn to discuss things using the facts of history and a little consistency, or live a life of frustration when people don't automatically bend over to absorb whatever points you are trying to make.

[Havoc]

Neither does Psalm 97, then. So much for your argument; you shot it down yourself.

Do yourself a favor, take a language class.

[traumer]

and his apostoles.........

[Havoc]

Hey, just making a recommendation, I'm done talking to you. You don't know what you're talking about and will not bother with people who do. Why should I waste my time on you?

[SunkenCiv]

Did boy Jesus look like this? Forensic experts use computer images from Shroud
WorldNetDaily.com | Friday, December 24, 2004
Posted on 12/24/2004 12:18:11 AM PST by JohnHuang2
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1307798/posts

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Note: this topic is from February 12, 2005. Blast from the Past. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[janious]

I HAVE THIS PICTURE WITH COPYRIGHT CIRCLE AND A SIGNITURE THAT I CAN NOT MAKE OUT...........IT DOES SAY JESUS ON IT.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THIS PAINTING IS WORTH? IT IS NOT A PRINT AND VERY OLD...........IT IS A PICTURE OF THE CHILD WITH A HALO.................
JANIOUS