ChristianForums banned Christ.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Mustard Seed
New member
godrulz said:
If I'm drunk then that was some wacked out hot chocolate and popcorn. And to think it didn't even have that fizzy fermented flavor I've happened upon in my yogurt at times.
I left out, in my fatigue, and haste, and slovenly posting habits, a few commas in that last post. My apologies.
Sarcastikus
New member
godrulz said:
I wasn't going for a detailed description, but it's obvious there was a great deal of literature for the early Church to work with and not all sects agreed on what texts were canonical. Some included the Shepherd of Hermas and The Epistle of Barnabas, while others rejected some of the epistles now found in the Bible. At the time Bishop Eusebius wrote The History of the Church (in the late 3rd century) 2 and 3 John, and Revelation were still disputed texts. Ethiopian Christians had an expanded canon that included 1 Enoch and Jubilees in the Old Testament and several additional books in the New Testament.
Based on I've read it appears that politics played a major role in early Christianity and in the formation of the New Testament canon. A variety of groups were vying for power and the proto-orthodox faction won, which resulted in the destruction of a great deal of literature, though there probably would have been similar loses no matter who had won the power struggle(s).
Apparently many people/factions thought their particular piece of the puzzle was the entire puzzle, much like today.
oftenbuzzard
New member
Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses)
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed."[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed."[/font]
HerodionRomulus
New member
Urizen said:
Really? Who else besides OSC?
HerodionRomulus
New member
Mustard Seed said:
First ruler? According to scholastic sources, http://www.ancient-egypt.org/
Menes is the first ruler of the united kingdoms but with this caveat
"As none of the sources from the Early Dynastic Period mention his name and as none of the deeds credited to him can be associated with any of the archaeologically attested kings, the identification of this Menes, however, is problematic."
Further, I made no mention of the various dynasties but that does not mean I was forgetful. You are putting words in my mouth--don't!
Just so you know, one of my degrees is history and this is an area of particular interest to me, though it has been years since I studied the period; I have moved on to other areas of interest such as Hispano-Islamic culture.
Mustard Seed
New member
Urizen said:
What's more interesting to me is the fact that seemingly the second most disproportional group was the Jewish category.
Mustard Seed
New member
HerodionRomulus said:
Curious. Do you hold that language was the result of massive evolutionary jumps, as is the take most comonly taken in current views of the advent of the written word?
Also have you read much of the common storys and accounts surrounding the initial discovery and founding of Egypt? How familiar are you with available accounts as to the begining of Egypt as a land?
HerodionRomulus
New member
Mustard Seed said:
Language development? Not something I have ever devoted much consideration to.
See my last paragraph for the answer to your last paragraph.
Mustard Seed
New member
HerodionRomulus said:
Language development is rather fascinating from the bit I've read about it. The earliest forms they have of it has it appearing at a level of complexity that would be far removed from even early attempts at evolving a language. It's also interesting that the bulk of the earliest writtings they've found seem to be almost solely focused on religion. An evolutionary view on humans would seemingly demand an evolutionary view of writting. Yet, as is the same with revelations on metallurgy, it seems to have appeared on the seen as a fully developed, complex system of communication. No centuries worth of scriblings and attempts at making and refining the system. It just appears on the scene, ready to go.
With regard to the second question I was hoping for actual references to primary sources you were aware of touching the topic. I was quite aware of your last paragraph, that was the reasoning for seeking a deeper awareness as to what you'd become privy to.
Are you familiar with the likes of Hermann Junker or Sethe and Spielberg? What's your knowledge of the Leyden Book of Breathings? How familiar are you with the indications in ancient texts to a woman coming to Egypt and establishing her son on the throne? Sethe would place such an event a thousand years before Menes. As the book I'm reading on the subject puts it the arrival of this woman to Egypt, and the yearly observance of a kind of "founders day" that was utterly detatched from the worship or Re and Osiris or any other mystical, abstract or symbolic content so as to leave a certainty that it had some solid connection to an actual event. It apparently even had a place. Now I'm not going to claim to have personaly studied all these documents but I'm curious as to how you would respond to these things.
HerodionRomulus
New member
Mustard Seed said:
Unlike biological evolution which is trial and error and takes many generations for a trait to become fixed, language would seem to be immediate because it's utility is so apparent. Written language was such a "duh" kind of thing that it's adoption seems instantaneous. Think of the printing press. It caused an overnight explosion of books and other publications because it's utility was immediately apparent. Perhaps the same with spoken languages.
As to sources, sorry should have cited: http://www.ancient-egypt.org/
Dr Halsell has an excellent website for sourcebooks, not just for egypt but for various historical links and primary sources.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook04.html
http://www.etana.org/abzu/
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/
Not specifically familiar with the authors you mentioned. As I said, this was an area of interest in the past but it's been years since I devoted much attention to it. Still, I may get interested again when they digup the Abydos Stargate. :jump:
Mustard Seed
New member
HerodionRomulus said:
The adoption is not the issue, it's the developement I'm referencing. In biology changes are immediately applied when it's made. What I'm wondering is why writting leaves no remnants of any level of developmental simplicity? I'm not asking the why of language, rather the how. How did it just poof into existance? Can you tell us how simple it would be to create a written language if you had nothing previously from which to work?
Thanks for the links.
HerodionRomulus
New member
lack of evidence of incremental development doesn't mean it isn't there. Time, erosion, not looking in the right places etc etc.
And written language did develop from simple symbols to complex to a rough alphabet to more sophisticated ones.
And written language did develop from simple symbols to complex to a rough alphabet to more sophisticated ones.
Mustard Seed
New member
How do you account for the following factors related to the advent of writing?
1- Massive gap created by the absence of transitional documents which, according to theory, should be in abundance? Why a complete lack of such?
2- The sudden emergence of the first hieroglyphic language, followed quickly by the first Semitic alphabet, both in their developed forms? Why still assume that the absence of any developmental, experimental, writings outside the theory itself is a tenable aspect?
3- The fact that both the earliest writings, and the earliest accounts of the origins of the written word occur simultaneously?
4- Why are the ancients unanimous in attributing the written word to heavenly origins?
5- Why are the earliest writings found in temples and why are the dealing with religious matters?
6- Why the unfailing initial connections between early writing and divination/ interpretation of the heavenly will?
7- If the potentials, and wonderful nature, and the captivating of the imaginative mind aspect, of writing are so plainly evident, as HerodianRomulus says, then why were they initially, and for so long, claimed to have been only the domain of the mundane and trivial tasks of the humdrum of daily life?
These are a few modified points from a list from that book I was referencing earlier. I was wondering what your thoughts and commentary on such would be, if you have any. Anyone?
1- Massive gap created by the absence of transitional documents which, according to theory, should be in abundance? Why a complete lack of such?
2- The sudden emergence of the first hieroglyphic language, followed quickly by the first Semitic alphabet, both in their developed forms? Why still assume that the absence of any developmental, experimental, writings outside the theory itself is a tenable aspect?
3- The fact that both the earliest writings, and the earliest accounts of the origins of the written word occur simultaneously?
4- Why are the ancients unanimous in attributing the written word to heavenly origins?
5- Why are the earliest writings found in temples and why are the dealing with religious matters?
6- Why the unfailing initial connections between early writing and divination/ interpretation of the heavenly will?
7- If the potentials, and wonderful nature, and the captivating of the imaginative mind aspect, of writing are so plainly evident, as HerodianRomulus says, then why were they initially, and for so long, claimed to have been only the domain of the mundane and trivial tasks of the humdrum of daily life?
These are a few modified points from a list from that book I was referencing earlier. I was wondering what your thoughts and commentary on such would be, if you have any. Anyone?
Banned...again.
Banned...again.
Yep, I've just been banned a third time from christianforums.com because of my stance on accepting the word of God for what it says.
Actually, the last time I was banned was because of something I stated about Fritz in a PM to another member, who I know didn't turn me in. This means that he watches even people's PM's. That sounds amazingly similar to KGB tactics. It must be terrible being so insecure and wrapped up in one's self that spying becomes necessary to make him feel more safe in his little world.
BTW
Banned...again.
Yep, I've just been banned a third time from christianforums.com because of my stance on accepting the word of God for what it says.
Actually, the last time I was banned was because of something I stated about Fritz in a PM to another member, who I know didn't turn me in. This means that he watches even people's PM's. That sounds amazingly similar to KGB tactics. It must be terrible being so insecure and wrapped up in one's self that spying becomes necessary to make him feel more safe in his little world.
BTW
You have been watching that for hours haven't you?Mr. 5020 said:
- Status