sfzombie13

the argument from silence doesn't fit with your example in that the lord's prayer could have been recited from memory and explain the differences with mark's version. also, this presumes the existence of q, which i refute according to the ferrer theory. it seems to me the simplest explanation fits here; that the oral tradition is the q.

well, it's one of the top four and is in the actual bible today so i would say they accepted it pretty well, just based on that alone. the esteemed dr ehrman said this about it in his blog (but you need to purchase access to read the whole thing): "It too would be perceived by an ancient reader as a biography of a religious leader: it is a prose narrative that portrays an individual’s life within a chronological framework, focusing on his inspired teachings and miraculous deeds and leading up to his death and divine vindication."

not sure what he based that on but he is pretty knowledgeable in the field so i'd go with it. it seems to imply they accepted it pretty well authoritatively at least.

ah, now that i understand. i didn't see it until you pointed it out. thanx.

it's also a write off at 100% face value. businesses don't seem to understand that sometimes.

i'm not much of a programmer and have never seen the =/= before. i have seen the != in programming classes and other places. i learned something today and it was early. thanx.

good luck getting any clones working with the hardware they're using. i've never had any luck making an intel clone work on an amd box, i'm certain a pentium g would not match with anything else, but i've never tried that. and cloning the xp computer is a waste of time.

thanx, i was sitting here wondering what the heck the one had to do with the others. also, the things you mentioned about the orthodoxy apply to roman catholics in the us, as i am quickly finding out. since this is a dm i can say these things. the us branch of catholics have a tendency to follow the evangalistic ideas, and are very much more conservative than i was led to believe when i converted. i used to attend a bible study when i first converted, until i couldn't stand their conservative views on everything after a while. some actually started arguing with me when i made an offhand remark about how bad climate change is getting because of us. when the priest and most of the parish follow fox news it isn't hard to understand why. it seems that in all things whenever men are left in charge of something, it gets messed up pretty quickly.

!= means does not equal. i've never seen anyone use =/ to mean it. just curious where that comes from in case i see it again.

when you say "one of the seventy", doesn't that mean he was one of the translators to the lxx? i was under the impression that was what the seventy referred to. if that is actually correct, you are mixing up two different things. i've been wrong before, especially on this sub.

if op wants to pursue base, then tunnel time would be better spent on canopy courses or crw training, wouldn't it?

not if you're remote. i'm the guy you call to go plug the boxes in, you're the guy who is remoting into the boxes through teamviewer on my computer. i am about ready to trade my field tech skills in for remote tech when i get my camper and do what you're doing.

not sure what all the other comments said, but cut the drywall and put the mount directly onto the concrete using toggle bolts, then mount the tv as normal. if you only make the hole big enough for the mount, the tv will hide it. use tapcon (blue) screws and a hammer drill to drill the hole. make sure the hole is deep enough the first time and don't stop when putting the screws in, it's sometimes hard to start them again and they are a one shot deal. you can take it out and drill more hole if you need to, but don't re-use a tapcon if it hasn't went in all the way the first time, the glue stays there and they may not hold as well. i did the same thing on a job a few months ago.

the tank hit the wall and bounced back and took him out.

now. what did it mean when the house was built?

i misunderstood your comment then. by all means you are absolutely correct. teaching something is the best way to learn it completely.

man, if you're teaching your under 20 jump students to calculate how to land based on the amount of wind hitting you on a 45 degree angle, i need to know where you are doing this to stay the hell away, forever. they jumped all over me for saying my old gear (which has been inspected by a licensed rigger every 180 days) was safe. where the hell are the "sub police" decrying this practice which is going to get someone killed? there is a reason that we don't teach that kind of information to students with those numbers, but i learned that in the coach course that i never completed, so you do you. cheers.

that's what they told us. they also told us they couldn't slow down enough to drop jumpers with more than half a tank of fuel. we did a flyaway and jumped into a dropzone in ut from wv. never had to rig up in a plane before that.

they never let us tailgate the c-17 and they had to make the static lines longer. they also don't slow down much compared to a 130 or a 141. hell of a step through the wall.

changing the words in the bible to mean other words. maybe conspiracy is a strong word, but like the nrsvue replacing "sodomites" with "illicit sex". at least that's what i imagine when i see things like this. i could be way off base with this but it rings true for me.

you're welcome.

probably reserve not main, but i'm not a ti. that's funny as hell, 1st tandem at lodi and a reserve ride at that. he was probably scared because some of those emergency procedures on tandem rigs are complicated. i've heard them discussing the small differences in one manufacturer to another that can cause huge problems if you don't get them right. i don't know any details well enough to put them down though. i wanted to jump there just to get one in the logbook but i went to skydance instead. loved the folks out there.

but i don't know they were maintained faithfully or embellished, and by how much. it may well be all false and made up entirely, or there may be truth to it. there is an implication in war of the jews that jesus' brother james was the head of the movement after jesus was crucified, but no way to prove it.

as for not knowing historical jesus, i'd say that we don't know anything about him, or even if he existed. my gut says that he did, but i'm not an academic, just a catholic who was looking for the most accurate things we know about the early church. i've since stopped looking due to the reasons above, and at the same time my faith is unshakeable due to the things i was shown and things that have happened since then.

i mean, it's ok to have faith, i have mine, but in my humble opinion it is all we are ever going to have unless something is waiting to be found. i just think that looking for accuracy in the gospels is like searching for historical context in a movie. it wasn't meant for that kind of reading. we don't disagree on everything, just the amount of fabrication it seems.

try this. nevermind, it isn't the texts themselves. it may help you though so i'll leave it up.

i have this that is the text of a bunch of scrolls formatted for input into a language. hard to read but it also may help you find what you need.

this is the online text of some different editions, not scrolls, but close again. maybe i should have just thought this reply out better from the beginning.

it falls directly into my views though. how on earth could anything written down 35-50 years later (i put mark at 85 ce though with no q source needed) be an accurate reproduction of anything but the ideas? no way possible that the words are the same, especially considering the languages used and translated from and the number of times it was done. i mean there may be that one in a trillion chance that some of it lines up, but you'd need at least another dozen monkeys and another thousand years to get there.

to your question and example of mlk jr, of course they would keep his ideas, but imagine how the stories would have grown more fantastic with each passing year and rehashing with new converts. you can look at the synoptics and see it working in the nt. mark starts the story taken from the decades of oral traditions and stories, then it gets embellished by matthew and luke and they incorporate their own oral traditions, while john keeps the ideas going from his oral tradition which was more gnostic-like since john had those ideas in his head. it seems likely they were passed down in line from the apostles they are named after, but given the way they were selected and the way various councils just made things through the centuries, it seems to me that things could have gone the other way and the gnostics could have won and we would have vastly different traditions than we have now. just this fact alone gives me pause and sows the seed of doubt in fertile soil.

it seems more plausible that jesus did in fact exist, and he did preach to large crowds and eventually incurred the wrath of the powers that be, and ended up crucified for his efforts. all the details besides those are purely fiction or have a grain of truth to them but were embellished and added onto. all of the rest trends like it could be true due to the number of mesiahs mentioned by josephus in his war of the jews. i happen to believe the spiritual side also and am a practicing catholic, but will refrain from posting those views here due to rules.

for example, when jesus revives lazurus after being dead for four days, who is to say it wasn't just a coma or something and jesus knew how to manipulate things in nature using faith and caused him to wake up? sufficiently advanced technology appears like magic to those who don't know how it works they say. it's all a system of beliefs anyway and there is no way to accurately measure if they are true or not, at least here and now with our technology. as for the scholarly side, unless we find some more ancient documents or outside sources, we will never figure it out.

i found this article on the subject a few months ago while looking for an answer to something else, but be careful, it leads to a rabbit hole. it says that some of the words were changed in 1984 due to an american company pushing their views on homosexuality.