Why I Support President Bush and the ZOT!

[thousand dollar hamburger]

I think he has a sincere desire to help everyone. he has even gone out of his way to embrace people like Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. He does not hold grudges as shown by his willingness to bend over backwards to allow terrorist supporting nations to operate our ports. We need this type of benevolent leader.

Our President is not a cheapskate, as he has opened up our budget to give to anyone who might need anything.

Aliens from all nations are welcomed into our great country without having to deal with mundane bureaucratic State approval. Cutting government red tape -- that's the Bush way!

Yes, our Prseident even realizes that occupying as many countries around the world as possible is the best way to spread American ideals.

We are truly lucky to have this great man. I suggest that at 10:00 AM EST, we all stand up in unison and shout -- HOORAY FOR BUSH!!!

[NicknamedBob]

Yeah, watch out around Stonehenge. We set boobytraps.

[TASMANIANRED]

Too sweet looking.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

:)

[Monkey Face]

I believe that the events as compiled in the Bible are as accurate as they can be, given the many translations and revisions, so when I hear someone presenting "theories" about the death and resurrection of Jesus, I have to say that that person or group of people, is trying to fill up the time with something that sounds "good" so he can feel justified in his "research."

The truth may be just barely there, and they may present it, at the beginning, but by the time the film is finished, it is unrecognizable as "truth."

Usually, when people were crucified, the position they were hanging in caused pressure on their disphram, which in turn, caused them to suffocate.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

I was thinking Newgrange!

[Monkey Face]

So Happy Easter from me and the rest of the Undead Thread!

Good to see you again, Chode!

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Stonehenge Bah!

Avebury, now there is a circle.

[Monkey Face]

Happy Easter, Girl!

I bought raspberry sherbet yesterday, and some chocolate syrup, so my Easter is just fine!

Did you get sunshine today?

[NicknamedBob]

"I was thinking Newgrange!"

Hey, Irish! Show 'em how to move the stone. It's appropriate today!

[Monkey Face]

Thank you, Bob.

You were so circumspect that I had no clue, and I was the subject. *sigh*
(I think this has really not been a good day for me, and I'm quite surprised I'm making any sense at all. If I am, that is...)

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Beyond my capabilities...

[Das Outsider]

...If you've made it to this point, keep reading. You've seen The Passion of the Christ, right? It is accurate in portraying the kind of physical torture and suffering that would have been inflicted on Jesus. What most people remember is all the blood. Funny thing: I mentioned the fact of dehydration earlier. The body loses 1,450 to 2,800 mL of water each day for bodily processes, but it only requires one pint to maintain the bare minimum on a relatively short-term basis.

What that calculation doesn't take into consideration is massive blood loss, not only from the standpoint of its effect on dehydration, but blood pressure, electrolyte balance, and the like. The physical abuse, such as repeated beating didn't help, either. One thing that many who would defend the real suffering and death of Jesus seem to miss is sweat.

Jerusalem this time of year is usually warm. Not hot, mind you, but between 65 and 85 degrees in the daytime. Any labor, such as carrying a cross--or hanging on it, would have probably produced additional excretion in sweat, even on a late morning in the 70s.

Yet another thing to take into consideration is the fact that the Romans were executioners, par excellence. They had squads assigned solely for the purpose of making sure that the bodies hung on the makeshift crosses were dead. John's account is an example of that. The point of crucifixion was not to inflict the most pain and suffering on a victim, but to make them a spectacle and a warning to the people: don't mess with the Roman Empire or this will be you!

To suggest that Jesus was not dead yet taken off the cross is to ignore what was a common practice by the Romans. If St. John just made the incident with the spear up, but somehow retained the facts everything pertaining to the crucifixion prior to that, in some crazy Damocletian way to show that Jesus was truly dead, then how do you explain everything else?

[NicknamedBob]

"Beyond my capabilities..."

How do you suppose it got there?

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Hitachi? Hymac? JCB?

[Das Outsider]

I believe that the events as compiled in the Bible are as accurate as they can be, given the many translations and revisions, so when I hear someone presenting "theories" about the death and resurrection of Jesus, I have to say that that person or group of people, is trying to fill up the time with something that sounds "good" so he can feel justified in his "research."

There are currently 5,664 Greek witnesses and manuscript fragments of the New Testament--though I've heard that recently the number has been revised to over 5,700. The earliest one dates from around 125 A.D. (p52 in the Rylands Library)and it is a fragment of the Gospel of John. There are many more Latin, Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts as well, but the Greek ones are the earliest. Overall, the documents span over 1,000 years of transmission and copying.

When you want to determine the accuracy of transmission with regard to a text, what do you do? Compare the manuscripts. Scholars in the 17th century, like the editors of the King James Bible, had very few Greek manuscripts to work with. As I mentioned earlier, today we have more than 5,000 of them.

In comparing these documents, it has been shown that the New Testament has a variation rate of .5 percent. What that means in practical terms is that there are no changes beyond spelling errors or omissions of a line here or there in the copies. Because the copies are so close to each other, we can reconstruct the originals, since we only have copies and not the autographs.

In other words, we are not dealing with a copy of a copy of a copy. The fidelity in transmission of the New Testament is unlike that of any other ancient document.

[Monkey Face]

At the risk of sounding sacrilegious, no, I did not see The Passion of Christ, though I saw trailers, and read up on it.

And before you cast aspersions on my lack of attendance, (and therefore, my educated comments,) let me say that I have to be very careful what I watch, because I physically feel the blows and the pain.

It doesn't sound like much when I write it down, but let me assure you: I cannot endure to see someone else suffering. I was not too keen on throwing up in public, or becoming ill to the point that I couldn't move, so I stayed home, and have not watched it, even here.

[Das Outsider]

At the risk of sounding sacrilegious, no, I did not see The Passion of Christ, though I saw trailers, and read up on it.

It's ok. I hear the book's better, anyway. ;)

[NicknamedBob]

"Hitachi? Hymac? JCB?"

More likely a larger version of "the Spanish Windlass."

[Monkey Face]

Yes, the Book is extremely good! ;o]
(When I finish it, I go back to the Beginning.)

[Irish_Thatcherite]

A child's swing?