Friends of Jesus, where are they when you need them?


I am not sure if this should be classified under entertainment. Here, is a man, who has gone to the Hague based court of Justice to have the court overturn the supposed ruling by one Pontius Pilate against one Jeebus, a man whose existence is a question of debate in the intellectual circles.

This person, really qualifies to be called silly person!

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

182 thoughts on “Friends of Jesus, where are they when you need them?

  1. Mordanicus says:

    First, I want to express my gratitude for honouring the village where I have been born, by mentioning it on your blog.

    Yes, but I agree with you, this is quite silly. Also he has no case, since only states can bring cases to the ICJ, and only disputes with other states. Individual citizens cannot bring cases forward to it, and neither Italy or Israel would be interested.

    The International Court of Justice has been created to resolve international disputes peacefully, not to overrule criminal convictions.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      You are most welcome my good friend. You know, the two clowns heading our government each have a date with the court for crimes against humanity.

      I don’t understand why every time Ark says they are silly, those visitors of his blog throw tantrums!

      Like

  2. Arkenaten says:

    LOL….You go boy.
    Smack that Pontius. Naughty Romans.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      How do you tell such a person he is delusional in a language that he could understand?

      Like

      • Arkenaten says:

        No, I think it is a wonderful initiative. Imagine them trying to defend Pilate’s decision. It would be the re-trial of human history.
        Imagine if it was shown on TV.
        Come on ,Mak. use your imagination it would be amazing!
        I say his church should sponsor him! Maybe ask the Pope for a donation? Or the Arch Bishop of Canterbury.
        How about getting a shilling or two from William Lane Craig?

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          I could be a friend of the court if I can make some money laughing off christians :-P. John has also proposed the same thing, to have the trial broadcast all over the world, maybe we have Ratzi as witness on the side of Jesus now that he is pope emeritus.

          Like

          • Arkenaten says:

            It would be the best reality TV EVER.
            I get dibs on marketing rights.
            John can have the exclusive rights on Cold Drinks.

            Like

          • Mordanicus says:

            Yes, indeed it would. Even better than the upcoming show about the battle who will die on Mars first.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            It surely would be a great reality TV show. As for those rights and ads, we should just work out a marketing strategy that ensures we will be smiling all the way to the bank.

            Like

  3. john zande says:

    Oh spank me. Is there no end to the craziness???

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Far from it! You will get spanked so many times you’d wish you asked for something different like offertory :-P.
      And no, there is no end to craziness as long as there are religious people around.

      Like

      • john zande says:

        I’m of the opinion we should encourage these nutters. Let him have his day in court, and let it be broadcast around the world. Let us hear the evidence, and let us hear the counter arguments. These fools will do more to destroy their religion than a million educated secularists. It’s like in late 1943 when the British cancelled all plans to assassinate Hitler; they realised he was far more destructive to Germany alive than dead.

        Like

  4. archaeopteryx1 says:

    First, for any court to take this case seriously, one would need official documentation from the original court in question, and since the Bible is a series of personal observations, some made a hundred or so years after the observer died, it would not serve as proof that such a trial and conviction actually took place, particularly since no other corroborating evidence has ever been found.

    Secondly, from a religious standpoint, if Yeshua’s (his real name) conviction were overturned, wouldn’t that undo the supposed salvation for which he allegedly died, making his death, for the religious at least, pointless?

    Comedian Rikki Gervaise, in a moment of seriousness, once said that fame has become so important to so many of us, that some people would do bad things to become famous, rather than accept life as a typical, unacknowledged person – I can’t help wondering if perhaps that is what this gentleman is doing.

    Like

    • Mordanicus says:

      The second point, actually demonstrates the lack of sense, among the religious.

      Like

    • makagutu says:

      I do think this gentleman want to be famous and he has found the easiest way to the limelight.

      Overturning the ruling on Jeebus, would undermine the salvation story. Besides who are will be standing in for the Roman officials long dead? Or is it going to be a trial like one held by one pope many years ago who had his successor exhumed, tried, found guilty, excommunicated and buried in a different grave?

      Like

  5. Ishaiya says:

    It’s like watching a Monty Python sketch, ridiculous! Do some people really have nothing better to do with their time? Man alive, if this what democracy brings, get rid of it!

    Like

    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      It’s true, Ishaiya, that democracy allows us to as act as stupidly as we please, but it also allows us to act as nobly as we please, as well.

      Have you considered what you would put in its place?

      Like

      • Ishaiya says:

        There is nothing to put in its place that doesn’t already exist. Democracy is a fantasy. What people ought to consider is what actually exists and stop having pie in the sky ideas about what could be, the dreaming and imagining is the impetus for change, rarely the result. Think about it some more. Democracy is an ideal not a reality. Say it over a few times until its meaning unpacks itself in your mind. Then get back to me.

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I’m baaack – Democracy, like perfection, is an ideal to be striven for, the actual achievement of which, diminishes its value.

          Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Ok axe-wielding Johnny… yes it’s an ideal, but not the reality like I said. You got it….
            Exactly democracy is only valid as an ideal and serves as the impetus, but we must not divorce ourselves from the reality that we do indeed actually create, and that is something that is far from democratic. In actual fact if you think about it true democracy, in that if you accord every human with the rights they deserve would actually be tantamount to anarchy… not too far from what actually exists now. As far as I’m concerned everybody responsible for the choices they make in life whether they believe it is their choice to make or not. You cannot escape the fact that everything you perceive and experience in life is of your own choosing. We all exercise personal agency in every aspect of who we are, no-one else controls your thought processes do they… or do they…? No they don’t, not even God.
            Perhaps it is the definition of democracy that needs redressing, rationally and with a keen eye.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Axe-wielding? Moi?

            RE: “…if you think about it true democracy, in that if you accord every human with the rights they deserve would actually be tantamount to anarchy” – I find this exTREMely difficult to agree with, unless you are defining some of your terms differently than I would, and I simply don’t understand you. Could you elaborate, to make sure our definitions are the same. For example, how would granting people basic rights be, in your eyes, tantamount to anarchy?

            And I’d still like to hear with what you would prefer to replace democracy.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Yep you’re just not getting me at all. It’s probably because you just don’t see things the way I do, obviously not. In fact not even close. I feel like we’re in parallel universes and where the word Thursday comes across instead as Thirsty. It would seem that you do not believe that you have any rights that aren’t first given to you, is that what you’re saying?

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            We are born individuals, but except for the occasional hermit, who might choose a solitary existence in a cave, the rest of us have chosen to live in some form of society. The members of each society decide among themselves what they will, and what they will not tolerate, in terms of behavior within the construct of that society, and so, they compose rules of behavior, as well, in a democratic society, as setting aside certain rights as being exempt from societal control – in essence, inalienable.

            The interesting thing about societies, if you don’t like the rights/rules of one, there’s generally another, entirely different, just across the next geographical boundary. You’ will will find totalitarian societies, where you do as you are told with no guarantee that anything will ever change, to theocracies, which follow the rules of a religious book, written by men dead for thousands of years. It’s really a kind of, “hunt, til you find what you’re looking for” kind of world.

            I’m glad you mentioned it’s Thursday, that reminds me, I could really go for a Pepsi!

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            That’s nice, thank you for delineating your model of reality for me, and all else reading. I’m glad you’ve given the matter of your existence so much thought. Now go and have your Pepsi and think some more, come back to me in a few lifetimes when what I’ve said to you makes perfect sense. It will some day [cheeky wink]

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Though I shall find it difficult to absent myself from your loveliness for veritable lifetimes, if it must be, it must be.
            (Even cheekier wink!)

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Thank you for the evening’s entertainment 😉

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            The pleasure was all mine. I also do a great soft-shoe, but we can save that for another time —

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Just one last thought before I sign off for the night: subjectivity of its very nature is anarchic. Think about what the word means, let me help you… ‘without outside control’ which is generally classed as objective right? Good, getting somewhere, so privately we are all anarchists because our experience is purely subjective from any angle. Think about it… you will have an epiphany if you let yourself… In terms of social interaction and conforming to societal structures we become oligarchic. Following so far… democracy therefore is the brain-child of an over-idealistic release of mythical, mystical, methanical gas, that in its purest of forms is subjective and thus anarchic, therefore cancelling itself. Clear now? If not, as before, come back in a few lifetimes fizzy pop drinker.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            I’ll be back when I’m Thursday.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “As far as I’m concerned everybody responsible for the choices they make in life whether they believe it is their choice to make or not.” – here, Ishaiya, I find myself unable to agree with you. I’m also not diametrically in opposition with you either. Before you count me among the wishy-washy and indecisive, bear in mind that I can wire a sapling a certain way, and it will grow that way indefinitely – I have done work with bonsai, and I know that to be true – here, the tree has no choice. But you might well say that trees do not have free will, but that humans do – however, there are many in research involving the psychology of the human mind, who say that free will, for humans, is an illusion.

            That could be, and has been, argued indefinitely, so set them aside for the moment, and examine your own life – your parents instilled within you, during your formative years, a particular concept of reality, which may be like, or totally different from, the concepts of reality of others. Yet if you are capable of exercising free will, you are doing so, using your own personal concept of reality. So while, on the one hand, as you say, “everything you perceive and experience in life is of your own choosing,” you are choosing from the palette of colors given you in childhood, so one must ask how much of your decision is truly yours, and how much do you share with your early caregivers, who gave you the perceptions through which you choose.

            BTW – stalked you a little, and read your, “Wax On, Wax Off” – I found it very visceral. I won’t say I liked it, because, though it did have an effect, I personally believe that anyone who said they “liked” it, didn’t get it. You write well.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Your point of view is one of many and perfectly attuned to who you are based on your personal experiences of what reality means to you. You cannot apply that thinking to someone else and expect it to stick. Everybody else’s experience will always be greatly different to your own.
            You should check out my main blog
            http://ishaiyafreshlysqueezed.com and read the stuff on perception, and my beliefs. Do not be so quick to judge and dismiss when you know nothing of how I reach my conclusions.
            I was merely playing with you, if you took it to heart, which I really don’t think you did then of course that’s for you to resolve. I’m not going to apologise for something that you clearly do not comprehend, that would be foolhardy on my part because I do understand it and it makes perfect sense to me, and what’s more, it works for me and that is all that matters from my point of view.
            Maybe your view, and Noel’s view (yes my friend even you) is a little more rigid than you believe. I exercise no restrictions on my beliefs, because any limitation is just that, a truncation of possibility. You cannot experience anything new if you are not willing to push the boundaries of your current thinking.
            It’s nice you work with trees, therapeutic.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “I’m not going to apologise for something that you clearly do not comprehend” – wow, where did that come from? I’ve been commenting for a number of years now, on many sites, and I don’t recall ever asking ANYone to apologize (that’s how we spell it on this side of the pond), I was having fun too, and suddenly, you’re getting serious and refusing to apologize, even though you haven’t been expected to do so. It has to be late in England, get some sleep, you’ll feel better in the morning.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            No it was in response to Noel (Mak). I wasn’t really being defensive, just decisive and trying to cut to the chase. Words are words, intent is something entirely different. I’ve woken up this morning to a double whammy from you guys [laughing]. I rarely take things too seriously, but I am also in a minority as far as what I believe. Usually I sit comfortably on the fence, pretending to look like an atheist, but I’m really not… not by a long stretch. My bark is definitely worse than my bite, I’m a pussy cat really [grin]. Thing is, any submission is an apology, so perhaps I should have said, I respect your view, but I am not conceding mine.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “I respect your view, but I am not conceding mine.” – I wouldn’t have it any other way. I never get more than semi-serious, myself.

            RE: “Usually I sit comfortably on the fence, pretending to look like an atheist, but I’m really not… not by a long stretch.” – I picked up on that very quickly, while reading your blog, too many, “Thank God’s.” I think you have a keen intellect, and your theistic orientation is irrelevant.

            BTW – fence-sitting can be hazardous to your health, especially if it’s a picket —

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Yeah the pointy bits are a bit worrisome, especially if you nod off half way through a debate – not unheard of! hehe
            You can never have too many “thank gods” [tut, shaking head]

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            I will defend to the death, your right to be as misguided as you like, as long as it’s not contagious.

            Our boardmate above, niquesdawson, might well be persuaded by logic to take another look at his religion, possibly to consider it from another point of view. But you, ah, you are too much like me, too intelligent and too hard-headed to ever allow anyone to persuade you of anything, so I won’t even try. But you’re fun to argue with.

            Got to see to the cows – ‘Nite —

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            [laughing]… nite nite, to you and the clever cows…

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Fair enough my friend. I think we share a lot in common, I believe life is too interesting to take anything too seriously, I mean we die at the end of it 😛

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            We die and then do it all over again 🙂

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I thought that life starts when we die except we are not there to experience it 😛

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            I don’t know, I have memories of before I was born this time around, truly bizarre experience that was, done under hypnosis. Who am I to say it wasn’t a real memory, when memories are so vague and transient anyway?

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Maybe, if I sleep soundly enough, I would be able to dream of the time before I was =P

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Interestingly, I once regressed a girl I had hypnotized (who says I don’t know how to get girls?!), and she claimed to have channeled her dead grandfather, whom she had never met – his name was Alby. Fascinating experience.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Have you had any such experiences yourself?

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            It would seem I’m not a good candidate for hypnosis, I’ve had people try, with no success. I suspect that, like Yogi, you have to be smarter than the average bear, or some such qualifier —

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            you were up late weren’t you? Tired… much?

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “Tired… much?” – only when I futz the night away, discoursing with an insomniac who appears not to require sleep —

            Sorry, my last comment, with all the links in it for you, appears to be held up, awaiting moderation. I don’t believe this is Mak’s doing, I suspect the WordPress software sidelined it because all of the URLs sent up red flags, as in, “Spammer Alert!”

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            I think you are the insomniac here, up ’til 5am your time. It’s now 9:30pm where I am. You didn’t respond to my comments on my blog, purposeful or didn’t you get them?

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            I’ve not been notified of any – on Mak’s WordPress site, I get emails of new comments, as I’m sure you do, and since your site is WordaPress as well, I just assumed comments from there would come to my email also. Any idea what I need to do, to make that happen? I’d be all day, trying to find your comments from scratch.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “We die and then do it all over again :)” – yes, our atoms do indeed recycle, separately.

            Oh, but then you mean in the,”Where or When” fashion:

            “It seems we stood and talked like this before,
            We looked at each other in the same way then,
            But I can’t remember where or when –”
            — “On a Clear Day, You Can See Forever” —

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            I’m talking about consciousness.

            “It seems we stood and talked like this before,
            We looked at each other in the same way then,
            But I can’t remember where or when –”
            – “On a Clear Day, You Can See Forever” –

            …what are you blathering about? Did I catch you off-guard before?

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “…what are you blathering about?” – You’d be surprised at how often people ask me that. Clearly (no pun intended), you haven’t seen the play, or the movie, “On a Clear Day,” or ever heard the song. rather effectively closing that subject for discussion.

            You might check into it though, you could find it entertaining.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            send me a link

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “Send me the link.” – the “please” was implied, I got that —

            I have several links for you, none of which will please you completely, and I’m sure you know by now how important that is to me.

            1. Link for the YouTube movie, which, unlike all of the other full-length movies I watched that were uploaded to YouTube, this one seems to be broken down into 17 parts, I have no idea why. The link is as follows:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpeQBP6NbM4 – the bad news, is that I haven’t been able to get it to work for me.

            2. Link to Paramount, where the movie can be purchased for $2.99: http://www.youtube.com/movie/on-a-clear-day-you-can-see-forever

            3. Link to the song, “Where or When,” in this instance, sung by one of my favorite song stylists, Diane Krall. I was, however wro – not entirely correct – in that this number is not from “On a Clear Day,” but rather another play, “Babe’s in Arms”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGszsPhkrdo

            4: And lastly, a link to a free month’s trial with NetFlix, where you can not only watch that movie online, but many, many others at no cost to you: https://signup.netflix.com/?ca_source=gaw&ca_nw=g&ca_dev=c&ca_pl=&ca_pos=1t1&ca_cid=12623861&ca_agid=4352458404&ca_caid=92587884&ca_adid=27976635084&ca_chid=2001704&mqso=80033270&awmatchtype=e&awnetwork=g&awcreative=27976635084&awkeyword=netflix&awposition=1t1&awexpid=&gclid=CO-dnvb617gCFUkV7Aod_QsAXg

            Your obedient serpent —

            Mak, if you get tired of us hijacking your thread, just throw us off! Her first!

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            None of you is about to be thrown out just yet!

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Hmm, it seems my last comment is being moderated —

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Anyway maybe you should leave Noel alone and pop over to my blog if you want to keep yarning….

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Yours is so all over the place, I wouldn’t know where to start, besides, until I learn why your site isn’t notifying me of your comments, how would I know when you’ve responded. I have a better idea – check your email in 5 —

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            I got your e-mail thanks. If you go to my blog:

            http://ishaiyafreshlysqueezed.com/2013/07/30/if-you-want-to/

            Look on the right hand menu bar, you should see the option to follow which will subscribe you to my blog via e-mail.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            My reply to one of your comments:

            http://wp.me/p1T8nQ-fg

            You’ll have to scroll down of course.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            My bad, most comments with links await approval. I should change that setting

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Am open to persuasion, always open to persuasion otherwise I would still be saying the rosary and waiting for the second coming or is it the third coming of god :-P. Just show me the new edge, and you may find I have pushed it further!

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            It’s there if you want to see it, unless you have seen it already and are way beyond me, in which case I have a lot of catching up to do… 🙂

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            You say

            You cannot escape the fact that everything you perceive and experience in life is of your own choosing. We all exercise personal agency in every aspect of who we are, no-one else controls your thought processes do they… or do they…?

            and I disagree. Take for example, that you are walking on the street and you see hungry kid on the street or anything that attracts you even for a micro-second, how can you then say you chose to perceive it? No one controls your thought processes neither do you, you are disposed in a certain manner based on your temperament, training and environment that wires to see things in a certain specific way.

            And as archy says, the question of free will has been discussed for ages, and is not about to end soon.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            We disagree here Noel. I believe we create our own realities literally. You have no more proof that what you believe is any more correct than what I believe. It is just what you believe, and what currently works for you. You have read my work, you know therefore where I stand with this, and I am not about to give in to popular opinion. I believe what I do for very good reason, and not because I am deluded.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            The key word here is believe, and we are in agreement, a person believes as they do and not otherwise. I am not asking that you give in to popular opinion, not in the least. And for the record, I don’t think you are deluded.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            🙂 thank you for the belief in me my good friend.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Also so what if the discussion about free will has been discussed for ages and not about to end any time soon? And it shouldn’t, but neither should you be so quick to jump to conclusions just because its comfortable. The moment any belief begins to take shape then it is already limiting, it stops serving a purpose in terms of progress, and achieving a better understanding. There is no ceiling limit here where the possibilities run out, yet both you and Arch seem to be quite ready to put a lid on things and say, “that’s that!”. Why? What purpose does it serve you both to be so limited in your thinking? Answer that, rather than standing on your soap boxes and justifying your beliefs by telling me that I cannot possibly be right?
            I’ve challenged you both because, obvious to me at least that is what you both want. You both want to assert your positions because you feel that what I’ve said has undermined that to an extent, but you have to be willing to consider what I’m putting forward without jumping to further defence. Otherwise you continue to do what it is you have already done, and that is limit your potential to develop your awareness, and why would you do that?

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Ishaiya, RE: “both you and Arch seem to be quite ready to put a lid on things and say, ‘that’s that!’.” – I can’t speak for Mak, I only said that you and I disagreed, which we appear to do – at no point, did I say that you were wrong and I was right, just that we disagreed.

            You stated, “You cannot escape the fact that everything you perceive and experience in life is of your own choosing.” – that sounds very much as though you were quite ready to put a lid on things and say, “that’s that!” On the other hand, I maintained that the caregivers of each child instill a version of reality into that child that differs, at least in some respects, to realities of every other person in the world. Therefore, when a person makes choices, he/she does so, based on their own version of reality, which may or may not agree with yours, thus by your standards, his choices may seem bizarre, whereas to him/her, they seem perfectly rational, based on that individual’s perception of reality.

            Of the two of us, which has the more rigid point of view?

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            I did have a nice reply lined up for you, but then WP did it’s annoying thing by mysteriously deleting it!
            There is no rigidity in either view, it’s an illusion. As I said intent behind the words is what counts and should be focussed on here. Linguistic expression alone is very rigid, thus misunderstandings are inevitable.
            We could battle it out until the cows come home when it comes to words, but unless you enjoy that… and I do actually… then this is a pointless exercise.
            Any if you’re interested, this is what I’m about:
            http://wp.me/p1T8nQ-fg

            Have a great day!
            Ish

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Ah yes, the WP works in mysterious ways —

            RE: “We could battle it out until the cows come home” – actually, I think I just heard my cows come in, they know they have a curfew, and there WILL be repercussions in the morning! I hope they remembered to lock the barn door.

            Yes, I visited your site earlier – as I mentioned, I stalked you for an hour or so, in order to find out who was giving me such a hard time.

            I’m at http://in-his-own-image.com/2010/01/24/-in-his-own-image-.aspx

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Good old cows, clever buggers when left to their own devices!

            I’m honoured to have been stalked by such a worthy opponent. I realised from the off that I might have been a little hard hitting, not usually my style, a knee jerk reaction if you like, but I do tend to adapt myself very quickly to whomever I happen to be connecting with (I would say talking to, but it’s a bit moot, allegorical at best). I think I read you correctly.

            Anyway, I shall return the favour and stalk you too.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Don’t expect anything nearly so philosophical and/or esoteric as your own site, I just perform a little service on my site, of enlightenment, in the form of information. Dedicated to freedom of thought, I examine the Judaeo-Christian Bible, upon which the religious principles of Judaism, Christianity and Islam were founded, questioning all that is neither logical, plausible, physically possible, scientifically established, technologically practical, nor consistent with archaeological facts — along the way, we try to have some fun!

            And given an option, I would really rather you didn’t think of me as an opponent, merely as one who doesn’t share your every thought, but then, who does? And when you think about it, wouldn’t that get a little annoying?

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            I’m an archaeologist too, but don’t let that deter you. Archaeology as I keep finding myself saying quite a lot of late is just a better guess than hearsay, but actually is not really any more conclusive.
            I’m there on your site now. Not sure I appreciate being called esoteric, but there you are cant please everybody can we, not even myself it would seem [grin]. I like the way you say you are dedicated to freedom of thought, as long as it can be tested – not very accepting really then?
            You Sir are a miss-matcher, upon which I would expect no other reply than something thoroughly contradictory…”no I’m not!”… go on prove me right 🙂
            Anyway, I created you [laughing a lot now] for my own entertainment obviously, and to illustrate how creative I can be. Good ay?

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “I created you [laughing a lot now] for my own entertainment obviously, and to illustrate how creative I can be.” – indeed you did, you created an illusion, a phantasm, if you will, that embodies the qualities you believe me to have – close, but no cigar.

            RE: “I like the way you say you are dedicated to freedom of thought, as long as it can be tested – not very accepting really then?” – Of things not grounded in what the majority of us accept as reality? No, I suppose not, I’m funny that way.

            RE: “You Sir are a miss-matcher, upon which I would expect no other reply than something thoroughly contradictory…”no I’m not!”… go on prove me right :)” – (what to do, what to do? Do I prove her right, or fall for her ploy of reverse psychology and agree with her, thereby proving how gullible and manipulatable I can be –) You are correct in one respect, my socks don’t match – however I’m pleased to inform you that I have another pair just like them at home!

            (Mak, sorry for using your thread for this nonsense, but it’s the only playground available!)

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            You obviously enjoy entertaining nonsense. Good for you. If you want to have a more adult conversation you know where to find me. But I guess you haven’t got time for esoteric flim-flam. Bully for you.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “You obviously enjoy entertaining nonsense.” – as I see it, you stay a little crazy all of the time, or risk going entirely crazy all at once. I’m still trying to decide which way I’d rather go.

            RE: “But I guess you haven’t got time for esoteric flim-flam.” – I said esoteric, YOU said, “flim-flam,” not I! Besides, I AM perusing your site, it’s just slow going – after all, you kept me up til 5 this morning!

            That could probably be taken two ways, couldn’t it? She’s in England, people, and I’m not, in case anyone’s listening! Reading?

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Nice to know you’re a fan. Like I said, if you have something more interesting and adult to say that I will grace you with same.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “Like I said, if you have something more interesting and adult to say that I will grace you with same.” – translate this sentence, please —

            RE: “more interesting and adult to say” – no, that’s about as good as it gets.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            It means if you are willing to have an open conversation with me, rather than debating thickness of arms, then I am more than willing to engage you. Otherwise, the nonsense has no sense.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “rather than debating thickness of arms” – I’m thinking the translation needs a translation – could you say it in ‘Merican?

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            This refers to a past comment thread started on JZ’s blog ages ago. I also wrote a post about it, on my other blog called “How thick is my arm?”. It implies arguing for the sake of it but not really getting anywhere useful, other than serving the purpose of skinning hairs and splitting cats… semantics… savvy?

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Now that I understand the circuitous route it traversed to become lodged in your arsenal, yes.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            No problem, I used to enjoy watching wrestling matches, as long as no one got hurt 😛

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            I can assure you Mak, no blood will be drawn, unless it’s mine, and I brought extra. Besides, we’re just playing. At least I am.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Well, archy, I think that is all I said, that I disagreed with her position, whether am right and she is not is a matter to be settled later.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            There are questions, several questions that I suspend judgement and there are those I will work with a working conclusion until am convinced sufficiently that am wrong. You can embrace a skepticism of Berkeley on every issue, if it works for you and you realize I haven’t put a ceiling. I said, the discussion on free will has gone on for long and isn’t about to end, how that is a ceiling is quite beyond me.

            On the contrary, am not trying to be defensive, I don’t think archy is either, but I would so like to understand in a more precise manner, if you can call it that, how as you say we are responsible for our own realities. As a worst case scenario, I don’t know if you have watched the movie God on Trial where they are having the discussion on free will and one of the inmates is asking what free will did they have when they were being gassed? Is it them or their captors who had free will. What reality would have they created given the circumstances they were in?

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            I can answer that, but I can assure you, according to how you say you perceive things you will most likely see it as controversial. I will get back to you on that, when I can think a little more clearly (it’s dinner time and the kids are being loud 🙂 )

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Good appetite to you all, my friend!

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Thank you! 🙂

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “Is it them or their captors who had free will.” – actually, both. They could have resisted, fought, and been shot, but they chose hope, the hope that the Nazi’s were telling the truth, that they really were going to have a shower. Some psychologists (don’t ask for names, I’ll be all afternoon hunting for them) determined some years ago, that in a situation, in which a victim is about to be killed – whether or not the event actually takes place – up to the last minute, the victim believes in his/her heart that something will happen to intervene.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            To the extent that each group had two ways of acting open to them we are in agreement. The captors could let them go or hold them and they could stay put or risk a run and either manage to escape or get killed. What am not sure of is if they could have acted other than they did? Depending on the greater motive for each person, could they have acted other than they did?

            Don’t go looking for the psychologists now, I will probably ask you at a later date.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “Don’t go looking for the psychologists now, I will probably ask you at a later date.” – at which time, I will probably pretend I don’t know you. Better yet, I’ll turn the task over to my research staff, which consists of my Cocker Spaniel.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Consciousness exists irrespective of physicality. Thus in human terms where linear time is the modus operandi, consciousness would precede thought, and thought would precede physical manifestation, i.e., the human body and the physical environment. Although to all intents and purposes they are a simultaneous gestalt, as time is a construct of human perception and does not exist outside of it — very difficult to prove. As Einstein said, “The illusion of time is a convenient excuse”. So, taking this into consideration, it naturally changes the parameters of the significance of birth and death, because the physical body then becomes a manifestation of conscious intent. Probable outcomes are neither good or bad in this context, they are just outcomes of which there are an infinite number. Experience then, is measured in terms of subjective experience, if this were not the case then we would all either be in agreement or disagreement, but consensus would exist nonetheless. Free will exists as the impetus, the consciousness that creates, or drives the human experience, that follows complex patterns based on intent created at a number of different levels of consciousness in relation to both the human individual and en masse.
            The human experience then is a facet of consciousness that is exploring its own potential in that form, so all variants of that experience are possible and probable. As there are patterns of weather so there are patterns of human consciousness that respond to certain conditions with the aim of experiencing itself as fully as possible. Both birth and death then, become shifts in conscious focus at the human level to put it simply. The tragedy that we may feel at the level of human conscious awareness at someone’s passing is as a result of being so immersed in this state that anything that may lay beyond it seems fallacious and fantastical. It is difficult to comprehend what we do not perceive at this highly focussed level of perception, through the physical senses. Like looking down the lens of a microscope, you only see what is on the slide, not the world around the instrument, even though you may have an awareness of its existence.
            Our beliefs then at this level of awareness and conscious focus are like filters, and shape the way we perceive our world accordingly. Those beliefs are a product of our thought patterns, and the patterns of consciousness within which we operate. Nothing is rigid, nothing is fixed, so we have choice at all times, because time is merely a perceptive tool that provides reference and a sense of continuity and cohesion. We cannot help but think in linear terms within the physical frame of reference.
            The responsibility we have in controlling our decisions and choices lies in the recognition that we have free will because anything is possible within the scope of consciousness. Nothing therefore happens by accident, nothing is random, everything is perfectly synchronised. However, the scope of play from our human point of view would appear to be endless in that regard, and thus unpredictable. But as everything is a manifestation of the conscious intent that flows through us, then no-one can be a victim of the reality that they create, even if at the human conscious level awareness of such may either be zero, or limited. We each have at every opportunity the ability to access that information, to access other levels and states of conscious awareness, because it is part of who we are. It is who we are, in every sense.
            Basic intent then can be seen as fundamentally good in that consciousness is a creative endeavour, and being that generally speaking creativity is perceived as a positive force. It seeks to recreate itself in as many possible ways at this linear level, or that’s how it would appear to us at the human level.
            So when I say we create our own realities, this is what I am alluding to. This is what I have come to believe throughout the course of my life, and it makes crystal clear sense to me, so much so that I can sit here and rewrite this as many times as necessary.
            There you are my friend, in a concise nutshell 🙂

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Also this is no way implies that experience is not valuable, indeed it is, and violence is not ok because that is the belief structure that most of us at least, subscribe to. But the integrity of an individual human consciousness cannot be undermined in any way because it cannot be eradicated. It exists irrespective of the physical body.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            This is packed, I probably will have to revisit it later but I may not have to respond, I think that is fine with you?

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            You asked me, so I gave you my answer, and I mean that in the kindest way possible. I do not expect you to respond. It is merely my view of the world, and it works very well for me. Although of course feel free to contact me however you wish if you have any questions that might occur. Have a great day my friend 🙂

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            I knew we were going to have a head-to-head over this, when I first read it, but I decided possibly we each should have the benefit of a decent night’s sleep before we do – but seeing Mak back away in deference (below), too polite to respond, leads me to believe that it’s a dirty job, but somebody’s gotta do it.

            RE: “Consciousness exists irrespective of physicality.” – so, in essence Ishaiya, are you saying that brain damage has no negative effect on consciousness?

            RE: “…time is a construct of human perception and does not exist outside of it….” – now here, I’m not clear if you’re saying that this statement is true, or if you’re simply speculating as to whether it might be. The linear fossil record, and for that matter, the stratification of the soil even prior to fossils, demonstrate that time moved in a linear direction LONG before the first Human ancestor ever climbed down out of a tree.

            I’ll reserve judgment on the rest of your comment, or mark it down to opinion, to which each of us is entitled, as these two points ought to keep you occupied, chomping at my head, for quite some time.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Nope, said my piece. Work the rest out for yourself. If it doesn’t make sense to you now, unlikely it ever will this time around.
            It’s actually akin to Buddhist belief in many ways, just less passive.
            Anyway this ought to give you a lot to think about, without me having to explain what I think is perfectly clear. Any judgements you make here on out are yours alone, and for you to deal with and overcome.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Well, I think that clarifies everything nicely —

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            You would do a greater service to yourself by working it out. But that may take some time. It is not up to me to clarify something that is the colour of mud to you right now. If you wish to argue and debate with me then do it on my blog, not on Noel’s precious time.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            I have, and I shall, but this was an issue you addressed, not to me personally, but to the board in general, and I felt that any response should take place here.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            I’m not sure I could have expressed myself any clearer, what more could I possibly add other than to justify your lack of understanding?

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            You say, “lack of understanding.” I say, “lack of agreement” – on a globe, you can never get more than half a world apart,

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Incidentally as this was addressed to me by Noel, then I await his response not yours. However, as he has chosen not to respond then this matter, if you so wish to pursue it further can be resumed on my blog where my lengthy response appears as the post for today.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            I’ll rush right over, as soon as I finish my breakfast chili – nothing like jalapenos to jump-start your morning!

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Enjoy your breakfast my friend

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            archy, I have responded to the comment, I think it must be in your mail now.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            @Mak – yes, saw it – I’ve been fighting a Prof. Robert fire on TA this morning, so I haven’t had time to respond.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I just checked in TA and he is no longer prof but just Bob. I have doubts of his scholarship from the first time I read his comments

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            No, no – I don’t know anyone who actually doubts his credentials. But some of us were telling him that we thought it a bit pretentious to go by the name of “Professor Robert,” so he decided to change it to become more “one of us,” you know, the same reason Romney rolls his shirtsleeves up —

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Ah, I see. He is an interesting fellow anyways. Chooses what questions to answer and which not to

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            He has been accused of that so often, that he started that special discussion, specifically to answer questions, so if you have any for him, you’ll never have a better chance.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I guess in the 17 pages of comments, as at my last visit, the questions could have been asked in some way, maybe not in the way I would have asked.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Is there a consciousness that exists out of the mind of a sentient being disposed in a certain way? Do I get you correctly? Time and space exist out of human consciousness, unless you are implying that if there is no one to perceive time, it wouldn’t exist?

            Death and birth of an individual represents, in my view, the beginning and end for specific individual disposed in a certain away. So that my death, though, results in the end of my consciousness as far as I can tell, the atoms of my body begin a new life in a different form, as food for maggots and so on. If you mean, that I was conscious before I was, that would require a long stretch of imagination.

            You write

            The tragedy that we may feel at the level of human conscious awareness at someone’s passing is as a result of being so immersed in this state that anything that may lay beyond it seems fallacious and fantastical.

            which I think is the same thinking that led the early man to posit gods, phantoms and ghosts to be responsible for what he didn’t know. Every time, man quits to base his knowledge on experience, or things of possible experience, there is no end to the possibilities. The only limit would be how far you can imagine. We can’t, I think, feel except as humans for that is what we are.

            You write also

            The responsibility we have in controlling our decisions and choices lies in the recognition that we have free will because anything is possible within the scope of consciousness. Nothing therefore happens by accident, nothing is random, everything is perfectly synchronised.

            which, whereas I agree nothing happens by accident or random which makes your claim of free will contradictory, I don’t think we have a control of our thought processes. Our minds are affected by experience, training, and temperament. So which is your stand, nothing is an accident, which means there are preceding causes or things are random, that is, they happen without prior causes?

            In conclusion, I think, each person is disposed in certain way and will act in a certain manner in any given circumstance. And, I believe, to claim, this is not the case, is to make a claim that can’t be supported by experience.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Sorry Noel, I mean no disrespect but I don’t wish to answer you questions at this point. Not because I can’t, but because doing so would serve very little purpose for either of us.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            In the relatively early years of Christianity, there arose a group known as the Gnostics, who believed that they were possessed of special knowledge of the secrets of Christianity, and that no one else was. They were extremely difficult for the proto-orthodox officials of the early church to “weed out,” as they sat on the same benches, listened to the same sermons, and sang the same songs as all the other Christians, except they attached their own code to what they read, heard and sang, a code that was secret and apart from that which was meant in the sermons and songs, much like some children will make up a language that adults don’t understand..

            I believe that much like the Gnostics, Ishaiya believes that she is possessed of a special knowledge, Mak, that you and I don’t possess, and in her opinion, because we don’t immediately see, grasp, and agree with what she is saying, then we are not ready to receive it, and thus, explaining it to us would only be a waste of her time and ours.

            Let me be quick to say that I don’t believe that she means any malevolence or intends any disrespect by this – she’s not saying that we’re stupid – well, not YOU anyway – just that we’re not yet ready to understand.

            The only problem I have with that, is that it leaves no room for disagreement, for any possibility that she could be wrong. If anyone does not agree, then they simply aren’t ready. I, personally, am never so sure of myself, that I believe I can’t be wrong, but that’s just me.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Have you considered that your thinking may be flawed? It is irrelevant what I think, or what you think I think. You don’t know because you are too busy listening to the sound of your own voice, and I’m guessing you do that a lot. When did you last listen to someone else’s opinion without burning in down in flames because it was different to your own? And yes there are many things that I know that you don’t, and many things that I can do that you can’t. But I can tell you that I believe you lack the emotional maturity to understand anything that I have said to you because you are behaving like a child. At every opportunity you have seen fit to point out that I am the idiot that you believe I am referring to you as. I have merely mirrored you, and your behaviour. That’s what I do best. You have sought to call me a manipulator and to belittle and condemn everything I have had to say. When you stop behaving like a child I will stop treating you like one.
            I am more than prepared to have an adult conversation with you if you want, I have said this already. But you refuse to step on my territory because you know that no one else will be watching the show. You are a coward, and an imbecile.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “But you refuse to step on my territory because you know that no one else will be watching the show. You are a coward, and an imbecile.”

            Well, THAT’s certainly an enticement, if I ever heard one! Wild horses couldn’t stop me now!

            I have no idea, other than out of thin air, where you’re getting some of the things you’re saying. In my message to Mak, the very one to which you’re responding, I clearly stated that you had no malevolent intent, nor ill will, yet you accuse me of calling you manipulative and of belittling and condemning anything you’ve said, which I haven’t done. You made a long statement – I disagreed with two of the points you made, and acknowledged that the remainder of the statement fell under the auspices of personal opinion, to which everyone is entitled, and was therefore unassailable, and yet somehow you have concluded that in that, I have accused you of manipulation, and have belittled and condemned you – I have not.

            I would have been at your site much earlier today, but a brush fire erupted on the site I recommended to you, TA, and I felt I needed to help deal with it. Also, I can pop into TA, dispense my 2 cents worth, and pop back out, but in the case of responding to you, I prefer to take more time and provide a well-thought out, rather than hastily-constructed response, call that imbecilic, if you like. As a consequence, i tend to save more important matters until last, so i can take more time and devote more thought to my response.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I entertain the possibility that I could be wrong, even when I am fairly certain am not.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Personally I believe that it takes a lot of emotional maturity to begin to understand some of the concepts that I’ve put forward. Logic will not suffice. But as I cannot put into words adequately what that feels like, both you and Arch will have to just experience it for yourselves, in your own time and in your own way if that is beneficial to you both. I have no need to clarify what to me is already clear. If you do not wish to accept that, then there is little I can do except to say, it’s been interesting but exhausting, and take my leave. Again I leave you both with much to think about.
            Not everything in life can be dissected and examined like a piece of flesh under a microscope. The best gift I can give you Noel as a friend is space and time to examine your conclusions if that is what you wish without further interference from me, and to allow you to decide on an outcome.
            From my point of view you both created this scenario for whatever reasons necessary to encourage growth within yourselves, and before you take too much umbrage to what I’m telling you, ask yourselves why it bothers you so much, and whether maybe that is an issue you both individually need to deal with as the emotionally mature adults that you are.
            Change is not loss and I have lost nothing here.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I believe it takes courage and an open mind to entertain the possibility that I could be wrong. You, my friend, is convinced that we have made conclusions and that can’t see things your way. Now, that, in itself would be ambitious, for the simple reason that arch or me are not you. I agree, as you said before, that responding is not going to get us anywhere, I grant you your leave but implore you to keep an open mind.

            Whilst everything can’t be dissected under a microscope, most can be and this is one of those that can be examined.

            From my point of view, you have created a reality for yourself where you feel safe and one that you are not willing to examine, one that you are not willing to test and so that when it is questioned, you become quite defensive. Nothing bothers me, as it is, and if there is the one thing I have learnt to do is to put my beliefs to test, call it skepticism, call it doubt, if you will, but I think doubt as they say is the beginning of learning.

            Keep well my friend.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            You make assumptions based on my unwillingness to discuss this any further. But this discussion here is not a fair appraisal of anyones beliefs, for Arch it is a witch-hunt and desire to get one over me, regardless of what you think you believe my friend. It is not a fair situation in which I will be seen as anything but lacking. Call it self-preservation. Whether I have an open mind or not is irrelevant here. But when faced by the Inquisition, I choose not to be the scape-goat. My not answering does not justify anything, and if you think it does then perhaps it is you that needs to re-evaluate how you pursue understanding.

            You keep well too.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “for Arch it is a witch-hunt and desire to get one over me”
            Paranoid, much?

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Well it is now isn’t it, as you can’t seem to leave me be and point out how vitriolic and rude I am. Like I said I am just mirroring you. But this is a pointless exercise. I don’t have to talk to you at all. Your paraphrasing I’m sure it wll please you to know is really quite irritating, and I think an excuse not to say anything valid on your part. So if you wish to keep talking to me, please rephrase things in your own words. My blog my rules.

            Like

          • RE: “you can’t seem to leave me be” – allow me to show you just how mistaken you can be.

            Like

          • All you ever had to do, was ask – pax vobiscum.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            You’re a funny man. Thank you for making me smile.

            Like

          • It’s what I live for – you have my email address, should you desire further correspondence.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            You have mine too.

            Like

          • Combined with such enticing invitations as I’ve thus far received, how could I resist? And yet, I’ll try.

            I WILL continue to read your blog, I like your work.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Thank you for your kindness, I shall look forward to receiving you.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            No no, I didn’t make an assumption. I said it was fine with me if you felt there was no need to continue the discussion. I don’t know why you think it isn’t a fair appraisal of anyone’s beliefs. I have stated in no uncertain terms that I think free will is an illusion, that we are not responsible for our thoughts and that I have no belief in things supernatural. If that is not a fair appraisal, you my friend, should show me what is. I have no recollection of saying you are lacking, I think, in all fairness, I have only said I disagree with some of what you write about your view of reality and why. And am not, or I don’t think arch, is part of the Inquisition, last I checked they were mainly Spanish :-P, and no I don’t want you to be a scape-goat.

            So again, my good friend, am ok with you not answering and I don’t make a judgement of what you haven’t done. We have been at this for some time now, I know where you stand and you know where I stand. There is no hidden intent in what I write.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            You know then that I respond to energy or intent rather than words. You also know that I don’t say things without good reason, however my words may come across initially. My intent is always positive, with a view to progress things. By the looks of it, it worked my friend. But this is of course a two way interaction always. Any exchange of words is a tactical affair in any debate. I know what you mean because I can feel it, you know that too, and I am very accepting of all that comes my way and make no judgements 🙂 You are right, there is no hidden intent, not for me, not for you either.
            Stay well.

            Like

    • makagutu says:

      If this guy were going to the ICJ to sue the colonialist/missionaries for leading to demise of the gods of his grandfathers and so on, he could have done something good with his time. But to go to court over a Hebrew story sold to him while he was still ignorant and now believes it to be a fact is beyong comprehension. Mark Twain would have called him, rightly, an idiot of the first degree!

      Like

  6. niquesdawson says:

    No, Jesus’ existence is no debate bro. I think even the most of atheist can confirm at least Jesus walked the face of the earth. What is the contention then? – was he the messiah? The Son of God? The Saviour? Was he crusified, died for three days, risen, ascend to Heaven? Is he sitting at the right hand side of God, in the throne? or was Jesus a mare mortal…………….?

    Sent from Windows Mail

    Like

    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      There’s simply no evidence Niques, that Yeshua (his real name – “Jesus” was merely the Greek translation of Yeshua) ever existed. Even the earliest person to write about him, did so 40 years after his alleged death. Who waits 40 years, upon seeing a man die and be brought back to life, then fly up into the air and disappear, to write about it?

      Like

      • niquesdawson says:

        I don’t know. But at least we can agree that Yeshua! existed……..?

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Let me repeat my first sentence, Niques: “There’s simply no evidence…that Yeshua ever existed.”

          If you have some evidence to this effect, many of us would like to see it

          Like

          • niquesdawson says:

            Ok. Lemmie also say this. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
            You like reading about philosophical people of long ago, eg Plato, Socrates, Aristotle etc. they lived before Jesus did, and all their works are based on history passed down to us. You base some of your theories of truth, realism and idealism on their works and that’s OK.

            But, Did they exist?
            Can you prove that?

            A simple internet search on all this pple reaveal one thing. They existed, N like I earlier stated, we may disagree on their works and missions in life. That’s all….

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Niques, you made the assertion that Yeshua existed, if you want to convince anyone else, it’s your obligation to provide evidence.

            Let’s imagine that we, you and I, were in court, and the purpose was to convince a judge, based on the evidence, that Yeshua existed – what evidence would you put on before the judge?

            Like

        • makagutu says:

          No, we can’t agree on this, unfortunately

          Like

    • makagutu says:

      Hey Nick, apart from the bible stories, there is little or no extra-biblical mention of the Jesus guy. The guys in this list have been said to have written about Jesus, look at the table carefully and ask yourself if they should be taken seriously!

      Which Jesus? Atheists are agreed on one thing only, they lack a belief in the existence of gods. Beyond that, there are different roads and as such there are those who think of Jesus as being an ordinary fellah, others who may think he was a charlatan or sorcerer and well still others like me who think he is all myth.

      Like

    • pinkagendist says:

      Look up Richard Carrier on the historicity of Jesus. He analyzes the matter extraordinarily well.
      In this particular case the absence of evidence is extremely important. It’s simply unreasonable to believe that anyone with the alleged characteristics of Jeebus existed and that there is Z-E-R-O contemporary evidence.

      Like

      • Mordanicus says:

        For example, there’s the issue of the star of Bethlehem. It’s very unlikely that only three people would have observed this one, especially since they had to travel for days, which indicates that the star was visible over a few hundred miles. Therefore it’s unlikely such astronomical event would be left unnoticed, especially given the fact that in those days people were very into astrology, and so such extra-ordinary happening would be very important. However, the only evidence for this event is one passage in the NT.

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          How many people saw what would have been a supernova is interesting to speculate, but of greater interest is the fact that there is no evidence for the alleged census that was concocted by Gospel authors to bring Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem in the first place.

          Why Bethlehem? Simple, because that’s where it was prophesied by Isiah that the Messiah would be born, and the facts had to be warped and twisted until they fit Isiah’s prophecy, no matter how much of a stretch it may have been to believe that the Romans were going to cause every Jewish citizen (males, at least), to disrupt their businesses, close up their shops, leave their herds and/or their crops, and travel possibly hundreds of miles for the census, when without any disruption of commerce, the census-taker could go to them. Add to that the fact that there is no Roman record of any such census.

          But the reason Bethlehem was so important, was because of the Migdal (from which we get, “Mary, the Migdalene” – “Magdalene” being a corruption of the original) was because Migdal Edar, a tower on the outskirts of Bethlethem, was the birthplace of the sacrificial lambs that would later be slaughtered and sacrificed to old Yahweh, and thus, had to be perfect in every regard, which explains why they were born in a special place, cared for by special priests, specialists in getting such lambs from the birth canal to the sacrificial altar without a scratch.

             The flocks in Bethlehem were raised for very special purposes.  The shepherds that cared for these flocks would have been specially trained for their job, as a special flock of sheep were raised by rabbinical shepherds from Jerusalem. These shepherds were very knowledgeable of the ceremonial laws of cleanliness and took very seriously their job that the sheep were to be protected from harm or injury of any kind.

              Bethlehem was the birthplace of these lambs and since their final destination involved being offered as a religious sacrifice in the temple at Jerusalem, special care had to be taken that they were not blemished.  Only a perfect lamb would be acceptable. These people’s god wasn’t satisfied with factory seconds. Regarding his human creations, he admits he made junk, but he expects only perfection in return.

              Migdal Edar was a two-story tower that was covered to protect the watchman who looked over the horizon to be on guard of any impending danger from both human and animal enemies. The lower level of the tower was specifically used as the place where the lambs from the flock were born. It was ceremoniously clean and orderly.

              According to historic writings, underneath the watch tower itself was a cave-like lower portion.  This is where the ewes would be taken to be protected and cared for while they delivered their newborn lambs. Temple ritual would have required that the birthing place for these lambs be ceremonially clean, so a lamb used for sacrifice would likely not be born in a dirty environment as we would think of a stable in our Western mindset.

              When a lamb was born, it was immediately wrapped in swaddling clothes (described historically as strips of cloth) to keep it from injuring or otherwise blemishing itself and placed in a small stall or manger, where it could temporarily recuperate until it gained strength. This was done so the lambs would be protected from harming themselves on their unstable legs. Then, at some point, they would be examined by a priest to ensure they were fit for use as a sacrifice. This was the only function of the lower level of the Migdal Eder.

              The flock of sheep was kept outside 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This was a holy place, set apart for the sole purpose of birthing the temple sacrificial lambs.

              It’s easy to see how the legend of the birth of Yeshua (Jesus) would have been crafted to comply with the requirements of these ancient rituals, even to the point of inventing a non-existent Roman census, in order to facilitate his birth in Bethlehem, traditional birthplace of sacrificial lambs.

          Sorry to take up so much of your space, Mak, but it seemed this information was needed, to clarify.

          Like

          • makagutu says:

            No need to apologise, I don’t think anyone would complain about this clarification from where all of them I guess get to learn something.

            Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          Speaking of astrology, Mordanicus, there is a theory that the entire Yeshua (Jesus) myth is based on astrology, involving the sun, rather than anyone’s son.

          At the Winter Solstice, represented by the December 25th birthdate of Yeshuah, the sun is at its furthest south, in the vicinity of the Southern Constellation known as the Southern Cross. Over the coming year, it will pass through the constellations represented by the 12 signs of the Zodiac, that, for subscribers to this theory, represent the 12 apostles.

          At least, food for thought.

          Like

          • makagutu says:

            To stretch the story farther, it has been suggested that the depiction of Jesus with a crown that appears to have arrows reflects the sun’s rays. I can’t remember the book I read it from, though I can search it in my small collection, that the Jesus worshipers worship the sun, except they don’t know.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Apparently according to one source Christ would have been born in July. The Sumerians believed that each successive King would be born around that time, and has roots in ancient Egypt too. Links with the Sphinx and the celestial body of Leo, to which Christ is obviously linked. Obvious, because if you know anything about AE, which I know you do Arch, then you know that Christianity has it’s own roots there.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Those Sumerians had a MOST impressive society, didn’t they? 4000 uninterrupted years of civilization – when comes such another?

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            Apparently the before lost civilisation of the Hatushite Empire, contemporaneous and related with/to the Ancient Egyptians c.5000 was a force to be reckoned with. It’s language pre-dates Latin. It was discovered just a few years ago in middle Asia. Saw a documentary about it recently. Very interesting stuff. Seems they were extremely clever engineers, and are very likely the antecedents to the Greeks and the Romans.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Uhhhhnnnggg – is it morning yet? @Ishaiya, you wouldn’t happen to have a link to that Hatushite Empire, would you? I found a reference to it on John Zandt’s site, but no actual information.

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            It’s John Zande man. There is nothing on the net to be linked to I’ve checked. I’m guessing there must be a publication about it somewhere as it was part of a series of T.V. documentaries about lost civilisations being discovered. But it was fairly recent so it may have fallen under the radar. I shall have to see if I can do some more digging. But don’t expect anything too soon.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            RE: “It’s John Zande man.” – why so it is! Sorry, John Zande man. Damn the horse, my kingdom for a cup of coffee!

            Like

          • Ishaiya says:

            I am now done on this particular thread, if that’s ok with you. Like I said you know where to find me if you feel you must.

            Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            How could I possibly resist such a gracious invitation?

            Like

  7. I read in the paper this morning that the pope had blessed a child that had been born without a brain. He seemed to think this was a great statement against abortion: to have a child born into this world with no imaginable future of any kind, no means of communicating with the outside world. But then I realised not having a brain at all is only relative when so many of us who have been born with more potential are using it for the silliest things, like you’ve demonstrated here. 🙂
    Thank you for posting this, Mak.

    Like

    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      He may have a point – here in the US, we just finished with such a person as President for eight years, prior to Mr. Obama.

      Like

    • makagutu says:

      I have my small bro who says many people live like the brutes. They are hardly thinking beings and this group of people, who maybe educated in some field, show that when it comes to religion, they abandon reason at the gate. For how does one expect to proceed with this case, that is, even if they were to find a judge to listen to them.

      Will that baby be able to leave the hospital in such a state and what life if any will that child have? But besides that, how does the body functions coordinate?

      Like

    • Mordanicus says:

      Well, a human being without a brain cannot be considered as a persons, at least under modern theories about personhood, which require a functioning brain as necessary condition. This why brain-death is nowadays considered as the true moment of death.

      Like

  8. aguywithoutboxers says:

    Great post, my Nairobi brother. This absurd suit is typical of those self-serving individuals who will do anything for 15 seconds of fame. What is truly amazing? That someone actually allowed this legal action to proceed thus far! Much love and naked hugs!

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      What is surprising for me, is, some people believe he is doing a good thing! Many hugs my friend. When is the trip to Athens? Will you go to mount Olympus where the gods reside? Should you get there, pass my greetings to Jupiter and to Prometheus, who you should thank for giving man fire :-D.

      Like

  9. […] July 31, 2013 My good friend Noel a.k.a. Makagutu asked me during an interesting debate yesterday over on his blog if I would elaborate on what I […]

    Like

  10. Claudia Mazzucco says:

    Put together the intelectuall people who actually question the existence of Jesus. You won’t make a circle. No serious scholar, no serious intellectual would enter into such a hopeless enterprise, that is easily dismissed with many historical evidences.

    Like

    • Wow, Claudia, that’s quite a claim – I’ve spent years studying the subject, and I’ve yet to find any evidence he ever existed, and that goes for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel and Moses, as well.

      And among my friends alone, we’re capable of constructing a rather large circle. I would love to see your evidence.

      Like

    • makagutu says:

      So, Claudia, which Jesus? Do you mean to say the one described in the bible, as son of god and a virgin or an ordinary preacher or do you mean just any personage by the name Jesus?

      We already make quite a big circle, so don’t worry about circles 😛

      Like

  11. Sonel says:

    I am just speechless. LOL!

    Like

  12. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Mak – possibly you didn’t see, when I was trying to give little, lovely, Nigerian Ujuh some information about her religion that she’d never get in church, that in the process, I actually put Pontius Pilate on trial – it went like this:

    The Bible’s New Testament begins with the four “Gospels,” in the order in which they were written, “Mark,” Matthew,” Luke” and “John.”

    Up to now, it’s been kinda dull – cut and dry history – but now we’re going to have some fun, we’re going to try Pontius Pilate for murder – that’s gotta be more interesting!

    Let’s imagine for a moment that we are sitting in the courtroom of a murder trial – Pontius Pilate (an actual real, verified, historical person) is on trial for the murder of Jesus, and using courtroom rules of evidence, it will be necessary to decide his guilt or innocence.

    Let’s also imagine that the Prosecution has four witnesses, a Mark, a Matthew, a Luke and a John. Unfortunately (for them) all four witnesses died before the trial began, but earlier, in pre-trial Discovery, each gave sworn depositions, telling their story and swearing an oath that it was true, and courts can accept such depositions in place of actual testimony, but they are subject to more rigid scrutiny, since the defense doesn’t have the option of cross-examining the witnesses, due to their somewhat, shall we say, decomposed condition.

    Just for the hell of it, I’ll play the attorney for the Defense.

    Get ready, set, pretend!

    BAILIFF: Comes before this court the case of the murder of one Jesus of Nazareth, by one Pontius Pilate!

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: Objection, your Honor!

    JUDGE: How can you have an objection before I even call the case to order?

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: It’s an issue of accuracy, Your Honor – “Jesus” was not the alleged victim’s name.

    JUDGE: Is that right, Mr. Prosecutor?

    PROSECUTOR: Well actually, yes – his real name was Yeshua, but when the story was written in Greek, the Greek name for Yeshua was “Jesus,” and he’s been called that ever since. When the preacher is calling converts to the altar, it’s much more dramatic if he can scream, “Jeeeee- sus!”

    JUDGE: Yes, well, we’re not interested in calling converts here, this is a court of law – henceforth, the victim’s name shall be known as Yeshua.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: “ALLEGED” victim, your Honor – it has yet to be proven that a murder has been committed.

    JUDGE: I stand corrected, “Alleged” victim. Are you happy now Mr. Archaeopteryx?

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: Ecstatic, Your Honor – I may have peed my pants.

    JUDGE: So relieved to hear it, let us proceed: This court is now called to order, you may present your opening statements.

    The attorneys both make their opening statements which, in the interest of brevity and because they are boring, I shall not present here.

    JUDGE (to the Prosecution): You may call your first witness.

    PROSECUTOR: Your honor, the Prosecution calls to the stand, the witness Mark – under special circumstances, Your Honor, of which the court and the Defense are aware, the witness, Mark, died nearly two thousand years ago, but the good news is (see how I worked that in there?), is that he left a deposition, which he swears is the Gospel truth, of what transpired in the case of Jes – er, ah, Yeshua. I will be reading the deposition of Mark, in his exact words.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: Your Honor, I have a right to question the witness, which in this case is the Prosecutor —

    PROSECUTOR: Objection, Your honor, the Defense agreed to accept the deposition of my witness —

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: Yes, I did, Your Honor, under certain conditions, which include establishment of the actual identity of the witness, and a clear picture of exactly what the witness, indeed, witnessed.

    JUDGE: Sustained. Proceed, Mr. Archaeopteryx.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: Could I first ask, Mr. Prosecutor, if “Mark” is the witnesses’ real name?

    PROSECUTOR (embarrassed): Well, we don’t actually know his name – whoever it was, he wrote his Gospel anonymously – it was decided by church officials, in the second century CE, that it may have been Mark.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: So when exactly did “Mark” write his Gospel?

    PROSECUTOR (still embarrassed): Sometime after 72 CE.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: So, nearly 45 years after Yeshua allegedly died. What took him so long to report the crime?

    PROSECUTOR: He couldn’t find a pencil?

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: Your Honor, here we have a witness, who couldn’t possibly have witnessed the events that the prosecution claims that he witnessed – I would like to petition the court that this witness be excused.

    JUDGE: So ordered, next witness.

    PROSECUTOR: My next witness, Your Honor, is Matthew, which is the Greek name for Levi, the tax collector, well established in the New Testament as an apostle of Je– Yeshua.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: Your Honor, I have read the Gospel of Matthew, it is an exact copy of the Gospel of “Mark,” even to the point of quoting “Mark,” word for word, with a few embellishments. If the author, “Matthew” were the real Levi, wouldn’t he have had his own story to tell, instead of simply copying “Mark”? Mr. Prosecutor, exactly when did the author, “Matthew” write his Gospel?

    PROSECUTOR: Er, ah, about five years after Mark wrote his.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: So this “Matthew” not only wrote his deposition nearly forty-five years after Yeshua allegedly died, but he didn’t witness anything, he merely copied Mark’s Gospel and added to it? Your Honor, I would like this witness excused, as well.

    JUDGE: So ordered, next witness.

    PROSECUTOR: Your Honor, this witness is Luke, a physician, who accompanied St. Paul on a number of his journeys, and recorded his mission.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: Is the Gospel According to Luke written by the actual Luke?

    PROSECUTOR: Well, we don’t really know for sure. The Gospel of Luke, like the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew, were written anonymously – as I mentioned, church officials later gave names to these people.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: I notice that the Gospels are very much alike – isn’t that why they’re called the “Synoptic Gospels”? Because they sound alike?

    PROSECUTOR: Yeah, well, Matthew copied from Mark and Luke did as well.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: When did “Luke” actually write his Gospel?

    PROSECUTOR: Originally, we thought it was ten or so years after Matthew – about 55 years after Yeshua died, but “Luke” also wrote “The Acts of the Apostles,” and for a long time, even though the Gospel of Luke copied Mark, much as Matthew did, in the Acts, he seemed to corroborate the later epistles of Paul, and lend authenticity to them.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: Your Honor, we don’t even know the name of “Luke,” as whoever he was, he wrote his Gospel anonymously as well. Further, “Luke” wrote “The Acts of the Apostles,” which appeared to follow the mission of Paul, and corroborate everything Paul said, but recently (2000 – 2011), the Westar Institute initiated a seminar, that concluded that whoever “Luke” was, he wrote his “Acts” in the first century (after 100 CE),and in fact, used the letters of Paul to write his book, thereby, not corroborating anything that Paul wrote. If it please the court, Your Honor, I must ask that “Luke” – whomever he may have been – be dismissed as well.

    JUDGE: So ordered, next witness.

    PROSECUTOR: Your honor, our last witness is John, the brother of James, both of whom were the sons of Zebedee, the fisherman. James was there, during the life of Jesu- Yeshua, and can tell us exactly what happened – his story is by no means, “synoptic” – clearly, he didn’t copy anyone, Your Honor.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: So this “John” was a fisherman, the brother of James and the son of the fisherman, Zebedee. He must have been one of those about whom Yeshua said, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

    PROSECUTOR (uncomfortable): Well, no, not exactly. Actually, John said he met Jeshua while he was following John the Baptist, and saw Yeshua walking on the other bank of the Jordan River, and waded over to talk to him. Yeshua asked him to spend the night, and the next morning, he went back and recruited his brother, James, as well as Simon (Peter) and his brother, Andrew, who were also following John the B.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: Wow! That story is so different from the others, it almost sounds sincere – did John really write it?

    PROSECUTOR: Well, we don’t really know for sure – this author too, was anonymous- church officials, once again,decided what name to give him.

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: So when did pseudo-John write it?

    PROSECUTOR (winces): Sometime after 100 CE – copies don’t show up until after 150 – does that mean he’s off the witness list as well?

    JUDGE: What do you think?

    ARCHAEOPTERYX: Your Honor, in view of a lack of credible witnesses, the defense moves for immediate dismissal of all charges.

    JUDGE: I tend to agree, case dismissed! This court is adjourned.

    Pontius Pilate may or may not have been guilty of murder, but we will never know, because there were no witnesses to anything he may have done in relation to anyone mentioned in the Bible.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      This I did see. And we have been talking with Ujuh.
      I thought you said you would write some more, this was actually very interesting

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        I DID say I would write some more, but she stopped coming around or responding to my email, so I assumed that with the information I had already given her, her head had exploded, spraying cognitive dissonance everywhere. So you’ve been in contact? Good!

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          She did mention a problem with her ISP. She should be able to respond soon I hope. Well in a sense, there was information overload and she must be trying to make sense of it all.

          Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s