Averykrouse (talk | contribs) Talk: Jesus seems to be rectified |
Proabivouac (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
Well, apparantly, Steadman Averted. I think the people working on [[Jesus]] can get back to work now. Thanks for the thanks. =) --[[User:Averykrouse|Avery W. Krouse]] 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
Well, apparantly, Steadman Averted. I think the people working on [[Jesus]] can get back to work now. Thanks for the thanks. =) --[[User:Averykrouse|Avery W. Krouse]] 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Stuff== |
|||
Sophia, one must not consider "negative evidence." Anyone can choose to say something he/she wouldn't "normally say." It's refraining from reflexively sounding like oneself when one isn't thinking about it which is difficult.[[User:Proabivouac|Proabivouac]] 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:15, 13 August 2007
- Archive 1 From 6th Jan 2006 to 6th March 2006
- Archive 2 From 6th March 2006 to 15th April 2006
- Archive 3 From 16th April 2006 to 6th July 2006
- Archive 4 From 6th July 2006 to 8th October 2006
- Archive 5 From 8th October 2006 to 14th June 2007
Thanks
Thanks for the nice smiley a day or so back. I might have said this before, but I wanted to just repeat it!--Filll
I agree with you about the established stability of G2V stars. I have seen only one paper about a G2V dimming - it was caused by the perturbations of a companion. But, the compilation of historical accounts by David Le Conte (1998), promulgated by the MrEclipse.com web site indicates there may have been additional solar blackouts. The practice of neglecting the length of darkness to assign an event to the nearest calculated total solar eclipse may be obscurring a significant trend in photopheric dynamics. I am referring to:
- October 29, 878 AD: A hour long solar blackout had been attributed to a total solar eclipse. According to Espenak, 879 AD was void of total solar eclipses.
- August 2, 1133: A half-hour solar blackout was accompanied with a great and loud earthquake. Many stars became visible after the Sun had suddenly lost its light. Le Conte cited the accounts from England, Augsburg, Heilsbronn, and Salzburg.
- April 11, 1176: A two-hour solar blackout. The stars were visible and the Moon was seen near to the Sun. Livestock and people were disturbed by the darkening.
- June 3, 1239: The cities of Toledo, Arezzo, Cesena, Coimbra, Florence, Siena, Split, and Montipellier recorded a three-hour blackout. Livestock and wild animals were very disturbed by this event. Birds and beasts were caught with ease. Writers recorded the visibility of the stars, the planet Mercury, and the Moon. People in Coimbra, Portugal, rushed to their church.
Note (1.) that several cities cited the phenomena. And, (2.) associated phenomena were symptomatic of heliophysical effects. The above historical accounts share several characteristics with the crucifixion eclipse. Subsequently, such documents deserve additional validation research. Tcisco 15:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I did cite the 7 min. 31 sec. theoretical maximum for total solar eclipses in the article. I will have to check to see if someone had deleted it. Also, I made a mistake about the paper on the dimming of a G2V star. The journal was about a G7III perturbed by a companion. Skepticism, not scorn, should be applied to determining the validity of historical accounts. Matthew's record is not easy to dismiss. Comparative analyses of the Magdalen papyrus and fragments from Qumran (58 AD), the Herculaneum ((79 AD), Masada (73-74 AD), and the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus (65-66 AD) that were conducted with an epiflurescent confocal laser scanning microscope indicates the Gospel of Matthew was completed before 62 AD. That fact implies Matthew's sources were first hand accounts. Associated phenomena of the crucifixion blackout and others cited above, such as earthquakes and disoriented animals, are symptomatic of intense magnetic fluctuations. Heliophysical aspects give the unusual accounts additional credence. A global sunspot storm was suggested with understandable skepticism. Large starspots have been studied, but none of them, to my knowledge, have caused a severe drop in luminosity like the ones depicted in the literature. Primary and teriary sources have reported solar blackouts. Their veracity needs further testing. Tcisco 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your question was 'why should we try to scientifically explain the crucifixion eclipse.' The answer is that it will increase our understanding and the solar blackout will happen again, more dramatically. Revelation 6:12-17 makes since astrophysically. Use an open mind to perform a thought experiment. Assume the photosphere will suffer an intense global sunspot that greatly diminishes the emission of visible light. The surges in the interplanetary magnetic field would trigger earthquakes. Subsequent "solar wind" storms would cause the Moon to luminesce in red ligth, the auroral displays in the night sky would become intense and deadly. Avionics, aircrews, and passengers on commercial aircraft would become severly impaired. And, people would hide beneath cliffs and in dens (prepared underground shelters). We may never know how God triggers it, but the subsequent heliophysical effects will cause global migrations to shelters. Revelation 6:12-17 is just a global, physical sign that ushers in a horrible period. Revelation 6:12-17 is not the end, but a sign for the beginning of a very horrible period. For example, the first half of Revelation 8:8 was depicted well in the motion picture Deep Impact. That prediction was treated as nonsense in the 17th and 18th century. During the close of the 20th century, that scripture was included with other scientific arguments demanding the creation of programs to save humanity from future devastating meteroid impacts.
- I did cite the 7 min. 31 sec. theoretical maximum for total solar eclipses in the article. I will have to check to see if someone had deleted it. Also, I made a mistake about the paper on the dimming of a G2V star. The journal was about a G7III perturbed by a companion. Skepticism, not scorn, should be applied to determining the validity of historical accounts. Matthew's record is not easy to dismiss. Comparative analyses of the Magdalen papyrus and fragments from Qumran (58 AD), the Herculaneum ((79 AD), Masada (73-74 AD), and the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus (65-66 AD) that were conducted with an epiflurescent confocal laser scanning microscope indicates the Gospel of Matthew was completed before 62 AD. That fact implies Matthew's sources were first hand accounts. Associated phenomena of the crucifixion blackout and others cited above, such as earthquakes and disoriented animals, are symptomatic of intense magnetic fluctuations. Heliophysical aspects give the unusual accounts additional credence. A global sunspot storm was suggested with understandable skepticism. Large starspots have been studied, but none of them, to my knowledge, have caused a severe drop in luminosity like the ones depicted in the literature. Primary and teriary sources have reported solar blackouts. Their veracity needs further testing. Tcisco 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I will have to dig up the reference that describe the activities of the people who left their graves to witness in Jerusalem. There are other writings that support Matthew's account. Tcisco 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Abortion article
There's some discussion here about the accuracy of the first paragraph of the abortion article, and you're invited to participate.Ferrylodge 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Historicity of Jesus: Jesus as myth section
Hi Sophia. I'm very puzzled by your assertion that 'all but one are priests'. To my knowledge very few are 'priests'. I grant JD Crossan is a 'de-frocked' (well nearly, read his account in 'The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue' (2006)) priest but I'm not sure that counts. Similarly I think Géza Vermes would be rather astonished by your classification! The following are all academics and are not and never were (as far as I can ascertain) ordained Paula Fredriksen, WR Herzog II, Daniel Wallace, FF Bruce etc. I am also posting an edited version of this on the discussion page. Mercury543210 13:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Zeitgeist, the movie
Possibly because of the easy available of computerized production tools, and the availability of the internet as a distribution channel has created more and more conspiracy theories. One recent example is Zeitgeist, the movie. I just finished watching it. I have to admit, it is pretty amazing. Some elements of truth are in it, but there are some bits of pure nonsense. Presenting in a compelling way, for sure. Contains some material relevant to Jesus myth hypothesis. --Filll 15:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Jesus myth in lead of Jesus
I know you participated in the construction of the 2nd paragraph at Jesus, and there is a proposal to remove the sentence that previously had consensus (and the proposal also compares Jesus mythers to Nazi sympathizers). Just thought that you may be interested in the discussion. -Andrew c [talk] 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Killer rabbit
Thanks for the cookies! I love the killer rabbits on your user page (where is the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch when you need it?) The comment about the tomato is memorable, too. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Glad to see you back
I may be a bit late for this, but I've watched your editing to Flute for a while and wondered why you didn't have a user page until I looked in the history. :) There's something on the article I found rather strange, by the way, and I've left a comment at Talk:Flute if you want to look at it. — $PЯINGrαgђ 15:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note [1] ? aNubiSIII (T / C) 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Cheers!
Is this standard practice?
Hi, I left a couple of comments recently on the historicity of Jesus talk page (I signed with IP). I'm new, but now I'm registered here. I was wondering, is it normal what I see [here] and then [here]? This section is that one that is really fighting with my logic. I explain why so in the talk section. By the same token, I might become an historian and say: The theory of relativity was common knowledge decades before Einstein. The proof is that Einstein talks about the theory of relativity, and many physicists have described it after that. Am I missing something? Is it possible that no scholar has pointed out this obvious fallacy? I think that there should be external resources that are not cited. Of course it may very well be true that these ancient creeds were established (of course that they prove the historicity of Jesus is another more difficult question). However, the argument in their favor must have been misrepresented in the article. As it is now described I would have refuted it in primary school. --Gibbzmann 17:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
You're a very decent person. Just wanted to say that. I was going through Category:Requests for unblock, and came across User talk:Jamiepgs, but would never have been interested enough to do the research that you did. :-) ElinorD (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: that image
My opinion on that image is that putting it through IfD is the best solution. There are people contesting the speedy deletion in good faith, and their argument against deletion is well structured, so I think IfD is the best solution, here. I'm not enough of an expert on United States copyright law to be able to tell you definitively whether it is legitimate fair use or not. --Deskana (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Self revert
Sorry, I decline - I think it is self-evident. Not everything is spelled out in good fiction, and this one is not a stretch. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but nor am I going to self-revert, because I believe the original text that I reverted to was correct. You do whatever you think best. Tvoz |talk 09:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Since you refuse the sysop bit ...
... maybe you'd be willing to help with further cleanup, cut down and referenced expansion at early Christianity instead? :oD Vassyana 01:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Anon vs. Andrew c
I was never informed that Andrew wanted me to stop posting. Further, I was only posting in response to his own posts on my page. Andrew has been warned and dealt with. Please do not attempt to warn me without proper cause, especially since you responded well after the situation was dealt with.24.20.48.231 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just wanted to drop a note to say that I wasn't asking the anon not to post on my talk page, but instead to "STOP TOP POSTING". Top posting is when you place your reply content at the top of a page. Wikipedia's standard practice is to bottom post (thus when you hit the plus sign tab to "Start a new section on this discussion page", the new post automatically starts at the bottom of the talk page). I appreciate you keeping an eye on things, but I hope you understand that I have restored the post at the bottom of the page, and added a signature. -Andrew c [talk] 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Help with Article
There is an extremely biased article on a news event posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_vs._Buckle It seems that there have been some biased (ie sensationalistic) news articles in some mainstream press agencies however whoever wrote the article is in fact slandering the victim of an assault by using another biased source. Reading over some of your comments elsewhere I find you to be very fair. Could you please look into this. Thank you. Anti Anti Anti 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Talk: Jesus seems to be rectified
Well, apparantly, Steadman Averted. I think the people working on Jesus can get back to work now. Thanks for the thanks. =) --Avery W. Krouse 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Stuff
Sophia, one must not consider "negative evidence." Anyone can choose to say something he/she wouldn't "normally say." It's refraining from reflexively sounding like oneself when one isn't thinking about it which is difficult.Proabivouac 11:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)